Is enlightenment enough? (ritual, Earth, tradition, choice, creation)

[doppelgänger]

By experiencing non-attachment/enlightenment/selflessness/crucifixtion of the flesh we find a Oneness with "God"/"other" and a profound truth that shatters the way we think about what it is to be. But is that enough? Or is that only half of the journey? We go from poetry to truth. Is the journey complete without going back from truth to poetry?

I have begun re-reading John S. Dunne’s The Way of All the Earth. This is the first in a new series of threads about questions raised in my mind by Dunne's writing. Unlike 1984, this series is not thought out much in advance. Like Dunne did when he wrote the book, I plan to drift wherever the questions lead me.

In the first chapter, Dunne talks about how we climb a mountain to find “God” only to find that “God” already climbed down to the valley below us where the war and love ("attachment", "the flesh", "the illusion", etc.) we sought to escape still rages on.

At the top of the mountain, as we have been describing it, there is a kind of madness — not the madness that consists in having lost one’s reason, but a madness that consists in having lost everything except one’s reason. The knowing of knowing, to be sure, seems worth of God and worthy of man. The only thing wrong is that man at the top of the mountain, by escaping from love and war will have lost everything else. He will have withdrawn into that element of his own nature which is most characteristic of him and sets him apart from other animals. It is the thing in him which is most human. Perhaps indeed he will never realize what it is to be human unless he does attempt this withdrawal. Even so, the realization that he has lost everything except his reason, that the has found pure humanity but not full humanity, changes his wisdom from a knowledge of knowledge into a knowledge of ignorance. He realizes that he has something yet to learn, something that he cannot learn at the top of the mountain but only at the bottom the valley.

Certainly, a trip to the mountain changes a person forever. Much like the man in Plato’s "Cave" can never see the shadows cast by the firelight on the wall as anything other than shadows, even if he can convince nobody else of that truth.

But the trip up the mountain is only the halfway point. It is the creation of a personal mythology. A real vision of the Oneness with God. To complete the journey is to take this knowing of knowing discovered on this lonely mountain that God has already abandoned, and follow God back down into the valley where war and love give life to that knowing.

[lunamoth]

Oh, I think this is good. And when we come back down the mountain, we may be transformed, but we will not be different (alienated).

[Sunstone]

Recall the Zen saying, "After enlightenment, the laundry!"

[Kay]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Certainly, a trip to the mountain changes a person forever. Much like the man in Plato’s "Cave" can never see the shadows cast by the firelight on the wall as anything other than shadows, even if he can convince nobody else of that truth.

Whoa. Deja vu.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Kay

Whoa. Deja vu.

I was thinking about writing a post on it when I took a break and checked out your blog, so I wrote there first. There's plenty more new stuff to come, though.

[Ozzie]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

By experiencing non-attachment/enlightenment/selflessness/crucifixtion of the flesh we find a Oneness with "God"/"other" and a profound truth that shatters the way we think about what it is to be. But is that enough? Or is that only half of the journey? We go from poetry to truth. Is the journey complete without going back from truth to poetry?

I have begun re-reading John S. Dunne’s The Way of All the Earth. This is the first in a new series of threads about questions raised in my mind by Dunne's writing. Unlike 1984, this series is not thought out much in advance. Like Dunne did when he wrote the book, I plan to drift wherever the questions lead me.

In the first chapter, Dunne talks about how we climb a mountain to find “God” only to find that “God” already climbed down to the valley below us where the war and love ("attachment", "the flesh", "the illusion", etc.) we sought to escape still rages on.


Certainly, a trip to the mountain changes a person forever. Much like the man in Plato’s "Cave" can never see the shadows cast by the firelight on the wall as anything other than shadows, even if he can convince nobody else of that truth.

But the trip up the mountain is only the halfway point. It is the creation of a personal mythology. A real vision of the Oneness with God. To complete the journey is to take this knowing of knowing discovered on this lonely mountain that God has already abandoned, and follow God back down into the valley where war and love give life to that knowing.

Where altitude is a metaphor for truth, there may be several different metaphorical mountains to climb and a choice thereof. I am curious as to how non-attachment/enlightenment/selflessness/crucifixtion can be grouped together as personal mythology when it could be argued that these are qualitatively different. An example of this grouping as error, might be Dunne's thinking that reason itself is left alone at the top of the mountain. Perhaps reason itself can be lost on another mountain without loosing ourselves. Another objection might be the idea of something uniquely human to be found.

With regard to the need to rejoin the world of human interaction to complete the journey, I agree this challenge of a return to vagaries of human communication and behaviour must be faced.

Another way of putting this challenge might be to return to a world of descriptive language from the undescribable. If myth is the undescribable by definition, then the grouping is justified on the grounds of being beyond description, not on grounds of qualitative similarity.

Climbing one mountain of choice might lead away from "truth" attained by climbing another.

Oz

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

I am curious as to how non-attachment/enlightenment/selflessness/crucifixtion can be grouped together as personal mythology when it could be argued that these are qualitatively different.

Certainly they can. And adherents to some of them as sacred I'm sure would argue about grouping them together. They are paths to the Divine in their respective traditions. They appear different in description and different in practice, but they are the same in destination. It's the latter that matters in this context.

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Another way of putting this challenge might be to return to a world of descriptive language from the undescribable. If myth is the undescribable by definition, then the grouping is justified on the grounds of being beyond description, not on grounds of qualitative similarity.

That's also true. They are similar in their destination both linguistically and spiritually, though quite different in their objective imagery and practice.

Originally Posted by Ozzie

Climbing one mountain of choice might lead away from "truth" attained by climbing another.

Oz

Maybe. But they all seem like different paths up the same mountain. Those four symbols are folk inflections of an elementary human idea.

[Ozzie]

[quote=doppelgänger]

Certainly they can. And adherents to some of them as sacred I'm sure would argue about grouping them together. They are paths to the Divine in their respective traditions. They appear different in description and different in practice, but they are the same in destination. It's the latter that matters in this context.

The practices and rituals are descriptively available. I suppose the discussion which interests me greatly will proceed under a caveat that it assumes the "destination" is the same not qualitatively different. In fact if the destination is the return, it is not.



That's also true.

They are similar in their destination both linguistically and spiritually, though quite different in their objective imagery and practice.

I cant say they are similar in their destination because I haven't been to all four. It would be nice to think that destinations are similar.

Maybe. But they all seem like different paths up the same mountain. Those four symbols are folk inflections of an elementary human idea.

The myth (indescribable) might be the impetus/imperative that drives a spiritual search, rather than the destination? Frubals for an excellent thread.