<So am I being asked to not reason with this set of propositions and to take it at face value? That really sounds like bad faith.>

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the reasonable and unreasonable are two pieces of the puzzle in understanding the whole overall. Its about figuring out how both work together to make life happen. I'm saying that the journey from one to many and back to one again involves truth and illusion. I'm saying that all life is giving and receiving and that understanding how the abandonment of reason fits into this holds the answer to how and why this is possible. It's also about understanding how you and the creative force behind everything are one and the same.

I can’t say I understand all of what is being said here, but I want to toss in a couple pennies about one claim that I found interesting.

Rekmel says:

<“Enlightenment is also understanding that how this is accomplished cannot be reasoned because the means of accomplishing this feat is to abandon reason.">

If I understand what Rekmel is saying, I think I agree

Justin says:

<”So am I being asked to not reason with this set of propositions and to take it at face value? That really sounds like bad faith. Or is this a take on 'Pascal's Wager' where the only reasonable or logical conclusion is that we must abandon reason and logic?”>

This question cuts to the heart of a tricky issue. I have a different answer than Rekmel gave. I’m just beginning to get a handle on what people mean by the term “enlightenment,.” or at least what Zen Buddhists mean when they speak of “kensho,” a word usually translated into English as “enlightenment.” As I understand it, kensho refers to a certain kind of mystical experience usually achieved after years of practice in meditation, where the meditator experiences a sense of “oneness with everything” or “expanded consciousness” or something like that, though I think it’s important to keep in mind that these are mere metaphors, and taking them too literally would be mistaking the map for the territory.

This isn’t the only way people use the term “enlightenment” but hey, at least I’m taking a stab at defining my terms!

The kensho experience is usually accompanied by senses of profound euphoria, insight, and tranquility that pique during the immediate experience and linger as a long term afterglow. People who become enlightened get stoked. They usually value it as one of the most significant events of their lives. We would all like to be stoked, so insofar as you believe such an experience is possible, you have a rational reason for wanting to pursue it. I suppose some of you might think that no such altered state of consciousness is possible, and the Buddhists (and all the non-Buddhists who claim to have had the experience) have perpetrated a hoax for the last 2500 years, but I find this conspiracy theory more difficult to believe than the neurological phenomenon it seeks to explain away.

On the scientific side, some great controlled studies on the effects meditation have come out in the last couple years. Though there is still a lot we don’t understand, it seems to have wide-ranging benefits to mental and physical health. Meditation reduces stress, activates brain areas associated with happiness, physically thickens the brain's cortex, helps immunize against depression, and a number of other measurable benefits. I can dig up some links if people are interested.

Anyway, reason can motivate you to get on the path, but once you are on the path, reason will be of little help. Achieving enlightenment is not like solving a math problem, evaluating an argument, or forming a “justified true belief.” These sorts of analytical activities are what people usually have in mind when they speak of “reason.” But so far as I can tell, when it comes to achieving enlightenment, this set of skills is about as useful as a football bat. Zen koans like "what is the sound of one hand?" and "what was your face before your parents were born?" are designed to "deconstruct" this reasoning process. They are not rational questions and they do not have rational answers.

Much of the training in meditation involves techniques to get the part of the brain that handles rational-linguistic processing to stop its frantic buzzing long enough for us to attend to anything sensory for more than a brief moment while sitting still. If you can’t stop reasoning (i.e. ruminating) while you do this, you won’t get anywhere. This can be particularly difficult for compulsive rationalists whose natural tendency is to reason about everything all the time. People can train themselves to control the habit of rumination, but it takes work.

When the session is over, you can go back to reasoning again. Meditation doesn’t take away your reason, it teaches you to turn it off temporarily so you can get in touch with other aspects of your experience. And I don't think enlightenment is supposed to permanently take away your reason either. Though perhaps it teaches reason to stay in it's place.

Speaking to Justin’s concern, I’m not asking anybody to take any of this on faith. Faith is a rationalization people use to believe propositions they cannot justify even to their own satisfaction.

I'm suggesting that there are pragmatic grounds, and grounds much firmer and more testable than those Pascal was willing to wager on.

That was well said Jacob..... that is a philosophy I definately live by.... be easy and just live... thats it ... simple as that.... a true philosopher indeed.

i will take the time to read through this thread later. for now all i can say is that any sort of 'enlightenment' we can talk about is based on ideas and concepts created by us. the tao that can be talked about is not the real tao - kind of thing here.... if i had to describe it however i would say that it is the self coming to conscious awareness of itself, as paradoxical as it sounds it's the best i can do.