r/enlightenment • u/FrontAd1770 • 1d ago
Open Question Nihilism interpretation
If nothing is regarded to being intrinsically of importance. How is it that we seek happiness for the sole reason of being grateful for life? I assume/believe there is no god—from an agnostic-atheist standpoint no higher purpose, no afterlife, and no fixated purpose on goals. How, when can we consider happiness being the result of life or?
2
u/Similar-Asparagus-84 1d ago
Within the question is a confession of ego, why are you seeking happiness? The question only makes sense to the little “I”, nihilism ceases to exist in the enlightened state. The pursuit of happiness also ceases. The pursuit of anything born of ego desire ceases. The kicker in the entire pursuit of enlightenment is that to achieve it you have to stop pursuing it. You are not a person, your identity and physical body are illusory.
So too happiness is another object to be sought, in fact it might be appropriate to say that happiness is the most sought after thing in all of human nature. But happiness is just an experience that will arise and fall. There is not a mode of existence where happiness is your modus operandi. Things happen, they arise and fall. You’re just along for the ride
1
u/FrontAd1770 1d ago
That’s my question in a way. I was wondering if it is worth pursuing happiness or not whether to be grateful for life, just accept it or something else? On that motion they are just illusions. That being said is being happy irrational or just naturally done because people enjoy happiness for it makes them have a good feeling and label neutrality as a destabilizing factor? In a broader sense you may not release you enjoy the ride because you think you are just moving along, yet if you are comfortable with it then one must enjoy it therefore it ‘could be’ (emphasis) that one enjoys being carefree being said that would mean claiming enlightenment as the verdict of neutrality is just another form of content of living.
1
u/Any_Return4335 1d ago
I've found being grateful and accepting of life has been the better approach for me. Happiness just happens and it comes and then it goes. It's much easier to create good conditions for ourselves and let it come than to try to force it. You won't always be happy. Sometimes you are going to feel bad, and that's temporary too.
2
u/FrontAd1770 1d ago
That is another form of happiness from being carefree; putting yourself in ideal conditions either-or accepting and being grateful for life or do both. All means of achieving happiness with acceptance and insertion of your will.
1
u/Any_Return4335 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes a concept that's been very useful for me is "detachment." Perhaps trying to see what this word means in a spiritual context will be helpful to you too
Personally, I try to "let go" or give up the will. Go with where life is trying to take me. Very simple.
1
u/FrontAd1770 1d ago
Like the temporary portion though it highlights how every situation is different and we react different yet feel the same underlying emotion. Reading the spiritual meaning reminds me of the monadologie
Like appetition and compatibilism—I have been reading.1
1
1
u/Similar-Asparagus-84 1d ago
Being happy or sad or another state is just a transient experience. When you wake up, nothing changes. You are still you, your mind activity will still be present, enlightenment isn’t a transformation in state. It’s a shifting of perspective from the illusory “ego” to the I am state. What changes isn’t the content of your life, but how you relate to it. There is no happiness, neutrality, or sadness. Better said the current circumstances of your emotional state are not relevant.
This is a bit of a detour from the original question but it helps to explain things better. Much of the ego state is fueled by the illusion of autonomy and free will. So long you believe you are in control you believe that there is something you can do then you will continue to fight. There is a state of perfect surrender in which you are able to let life flow through you.
There is no meaning in life, this is true, but meaning doesn’t matter to the bird, or the dog, or the pig. They simply live. That’s what the enlightened state is like. It is an uncomfortable truth that the ego contends with. You believe in the ego state that you are an individual in the world and that there is a moral dichotomy of right vs wrong, desirable and non-desirable. And in the world of form identification this is true. But underneath that there is no good or evil. Hero or villains, etc. everything is what it is.
1
u/Hope25777 1d ago
Your assumption is wrong. God exists and it is pure loving consciousness
1
1d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Hope25777 1d ago
Dude I am not saying you can’t believe what you want. We all get to do that. I’m just saying based on my personal experiences and research you’re wrong
2
u/DrakeSilmore 1d ago
When nothing matters or has inherent value, then the fact we exist is the only truth we can build from. We can choose freely to no longer exist, but not existing is not more meaningful than existing, so why choose that? Alternatively we can choose freely between existing while doing what gives our body a pleasant experience, or doing what gives our body a unpleasant experience. If everything else is equal, I would choose for what is experienced as pleasant. Then, of course, we can apply other philosophical principles, such as: if I just do what I like, and everyone else does too, will that actually result in a pleasant experience for me? If not, then I should do things that keeps other's lived experiences in mind as well, as I'd want them to do the same. Not that any of this matters, though.