@YARNLADY @lazydaisy @ru2bz46
Those are all very good points. Thanks for helping me work this out. Your thoughts on the matter help me “see what sticks” with my writing. So…
It is always preferred to learn from observation. Especially observing the suffering of others… including nature and the animal kingdom. But I don’t equate learning with enlightenment. Learning is becoming aware of something. Enlightenment is coming into union with the essence of something.
I did not mean to suggest that the suffering necessarily had to be our own, but instead that suffering and pain can lead us to the path of enlightenment more efficiently than any other mechanism. It does not matter how the pain is experienced, as long as it is truly experienced, personally or vicariously through observing it somewhere else.
It is first a test of our empathy. Can I truly experience the suffering of another, becoming one with the essence of that suffering? I learn of the starving children around the world, made aware of it through the television. I learn they are suffering, yet I do not know their suffering. I am simply made aware of it. That awareness provides a framework to justify my actions within my own community.
I have justification for my thoughts and actions. But justification is a sad stepchild of justice. There is no justice to be found here for the one who suffers. There is only a small stanchion of justification that I will claim as a personal truth. A personal truth is actually a personal deception. Foolish of me to believe that I know something when I haven’t truly experienced it. Awareness has only validated my opinions. But awareness has not provided true enlightenment. It has not affected my core being. A massive amount of empathy must be present, and that can only take us so far.
Awareness is not equal to enlightenment.
My child walks toward the hot oven door. “Don’t touch that”! I tell him it is hot and he will get burned. He has observed my warning and is aware of the situation, yet he touches the door anyway (almost as if the awareness caused him to). As his hand meets the door, his smile races to frown. He turns his face to me and screams. He has become enlightened.
Of course I tried to stop him (with much more than warnings), but I could not get there in time. None of my warnings, and none of his awareness, could have enlightened him to the degree of experiential knowing. How did this lead to pleasure? Beyond the immediate Daddy cuddling and the tasty cookies behind the hot door, my son was affected to the core of his innermost being. He has touched the fire and NOW truly knows exactly where he stands in comparison to it. The old self has died, and a new self has developed through a most uncomfortable experience of enlightenment. He became one with the essence of fire. One with the essence of suffering and pain.
Currently he uses heat as a tool for his personal pleasure.
@ru2bz46
It was still suffering (not the mistakes) that allowed you to “grow”. Yes, it was not your suffering, but it was suffering nonetheless. If the mistakes had not held consequences, and those consequences had not been suffered through, then you would not have learned anything from them. Alas, though you learned from another, you do not share the enlightenment of that other. You can learn from their enlightenment, but you only learn. They are enlightened.
@YARNLADY
Observing nature is always encouraged. We both know the knowledge that can produce. But two different observers will author two different sets of data about those observations. There is no unified enlightenment until we both are in the air experiencing flight together, or both heading towards the fatal crash together.
Our suffering through the crash together has unified us with the painful essence of flight. Those who observe the aftermath can empathize with us, and use it as a catalyst to endure their own suffering through what went wrong, and suffering through the processes of making sure it does not happen again.
@lazydaisy
We have learned about “plenty of things”, but that is not the same as “knowing” the thing. We cannot know a thing until we have personally experienced that very thing itself. Upon that experience, we always relate and compare it to something else, starting with ourselves. That thing would not even exist to us unless we had a framework of existence to place it within. This dimension is limited to certain mechanistic processes.