Why become enlightened?

Golden Rule


Brave New World or 1984 are basically stories concerning an imprisonment in the human condition - being unable to transcend the human condition - each human standing guard over his neighbour, watching, listening for clues, ears peeled for a give away phrase which betrays an unfaithfulness to the human condition as being the be all and end all reality.

Have you ever thought about O'Brien being Winston's spiritual teacher?

Some people are eager to embrace a negative view of human nature as justification for their own cowardice. Indeed, some people hope to find themselves in a survival situation where people must kill or be killed. They turn to evil not so much as a way to survive as must as a way to thrive. I think we could say that O'Brien is one such example, but what of Winston? He does not end up saving the day, like a hero would. He actually succumbed to the evil power. In looking at the fatalistic Winston Smith we can see what he is not, and this reveals the qualities we need to develop in ourselves.

The effort Winston puts into achieving freedom and independence ultimately underscores the Party's power. By the end of the novel, through numerous physical and psychological torture procedures, Winston is transformed into a loyal subject of Big Brother. I believe that the Orwell wanted to create an anti-hero in order to help the reader fully understand the evil of Total Government, and to inspire readers to become those heroes the world needs. Perhaps not everyone is cut out to be hero, but we do need them. We need them to oppose the dark forces before it is too late, before we all end up like Winston.

While the fictional O'Brien is an extreme example (albeit one we can't ignore), I think we all have had difficult people in our lives who make us feel like Winston. Every difficult person that comes into our life is a reminder to follow the Golden Rule. If there is a consistent theme in the kinds of difficult people who come into your life, they may be reminding you of the inner work that you need to do.

There is a good article on how to deal with difficult people.
www.raptitude.com...

Imagine all the people in your world are completely enlightened and aware of what they’re doing to you, and they’re doing it only to teach you something valuable. Your task is to figure out what.

A true master won’t simply tell you what he thinks you should know. He’s too wise to say, “Always be patient,” and expect that it will make you a patient person. Instead, he’ll create a lesson that challenges you. He will push a button of yours, and see if you know what to do.

If you knew you were being tested on purpose, what would you do?

reply to post by wasaka


Thanks wasaka. That certainly is a worthwhile attitude to adopt - I mean, reversing the gestalt of the subject of wisdom.

"the universe is conspiring to enlighten you".

It says so much.

reply to post by Golden Rule

If some people become misguided or confused and seek a state of "enlightenment" in an effort to increase their sense of self esteem, or to gain respect or praise from others or even as an attempt to acquire personal power, would that be so strange? This is what all creatures are pursuing in some way or another.

No I do not think that is strange at all. But what I do find strange is that this is rarely admitted. These desires are disguised as selflessness, when the process of becoming, as you say, is entirely selfish.

reply to post by Aphorism


It is not strange indeed; However those things do not matter as they are seen for what they are, once self is realized.

Not all pursuits are selfish. A Bodhisattva comes to mind.

Wasaka did an excellent job of articulating how a sage comes to behave by coming to be aware of self and human conditions. Indeed, once enlightened, a sage no longer leans on spiritual 'beliefs' or scripture, for he has become a source of such things through experience and realization. And truth is illuminated in scripture, one understands where all the sages of different religions are coming from, what they are trying to tell. And chuckle at all the misunderstandings, shake head at all the suffering arising from those misunderstandings.

Guru, from darkness to light, in order for something to transition, it must have always existed. Indeed, all are 'enlightened' so to speak, just not aware of it; and in not being aware, mind runs rampant, mind filters will and so are born behaviors, desires, aversions. This is what it is to be caught in delusion. To identify with mind and all its wants. To say I am this, or I am that, when this or that is phenomena that arises and falls.

Not have enough of suffering? Keep doing what you do. Have enough of suffering? Seek to realize self so as not to be deluded. It is not a right thing or a wrong thing to wake up from the dream. The dream is a dream, it is a reality, it is whatever you want to call it, it just is. Here we are, together, apart, however you want to see it my friend. I say, do you what brings you happiness, and by you, I mean YOU, us. Happiness to 'all'.

Also, one does not seek to 'transform' others. What are you transforming? lol it will transform on its own. No... what a guru does, is sits on a rock and meditates so to speak, and those who are seeking guidance will find him, it is the nature of humanity to find each other, because everything is connected, and the beckoning is heard not by ears but by our very connectedness itself. If you build it, they will come sort of attitude.

But then again, it is up to the person isnt it? In first awakening, one might want to shout it from the tops of the mountains, HOW GREAT IT ALL REALLY IS! Come and see for yourself... why do you cry humanity, why do you suffer so? Come... see the eternal spring. You see though, that it is foolish to think in such a way, because the nature of existence in this realm is suffering. There ceases to be a 'should' be, and is more or less replaced by an acceptance of what is. So we're here, what do we do from HERE.

Humanity might fall, might disappear, but life in this form or another will arise. Nothing is forgotten, but nothing is held on to. This is eternity and the way of the master, god, you, true self, cosmic consciousness.

A shadow can be used to define the object it is being cast from. But the shadow will never be the object. The mind can think and reflect on what being and self is (enlightenment), but the mind and thought will never become it. You already are it, and you are not your mind. But it is very hard to be liberated from the 5 aggregates and 5 skhandhas. They are like a roaring waterfall falling on your head without letup. Self is like a small serene inner stream. Can you see how hard it is to move awareness from one to the other? To come to know this inner stream. This is an analogy, dont take it too literal.

Cant think your way out of this one Im afraid.

thanks everyone for starting and sharing wisdoms, etc on this thread.

feel peaceful after reading everything you post here.

really appreciate it!

peace.

Aphorism
Why become enlightened?

Enlightenment is not 'becoming'.

reply to post by preludefanguy


All pursuits are selfish. Each pursuit is fulfilling a personal desire or motivation.

A sage, the Buddha, a guru, a bodhisattva—all names for humans who think a little differently, but humans who think nonetheless.

Sure, adopt an Eastern philosophical language to describe things. I must admit it all sounds very romantic, and if that's the sort of vibe one wishes to give off then please go nuts; but using sanskrit to describe nature when it is not one's actual language, conjuring imagery of men sitting on rocks meditating in peace—what use does this serve? It's Buddhism. It's Brahminism. It's employing systems, stories and imagery invented by men to place where one's own could be.

Buddhism began and died with the Buddha. Christianity began and died with the Christ. Why only do what they say and not as they do? Why not start one's own system of spirituality and thought? All their followers are merely advocates of other men.

Cant think your way out of this one Im afraid.

I simply posed a question. It is not me thinking my way out of it.

Aphorism
These desires are disguised as selflessness, when the process of becoming, as you say, is entirely selfish.

The wish to 'become' is self seeking. The self seeks itself in time, 'becoming' needs time.
Enlightenment is the realization of timeless being.

reply to post by Aphorism

All pursuits are selfish.

What about the pursuit to be selfless, to help others, self sacrifice (there are many news stories of people who lose their lives for the sake of saving a stranger)

Each pursuit is fulfilling a personal desire or motivation.

WHat about the pursuit to no longer have any personal desires or motivations?

conjuring imagery of men sitting on rocks meditating in peace—what use does this serve?

What use do you serve? What is your system of thought, of problems solving, of bettering the world. So far, you have yet to produce a better alternative, other than a bunch of man-made opinions.

Buddhism began and died with the Buddha. Christianity began and died with the Christ. Why only do what they say and not as they do? Why not start one's own system of spirituality and thought? All their followers are merely advocates of other men.

So too, your system dies with you, by that logic. By the way, what is the alternative?

reply to post by March of the Fire Ants


Someone that is enlightened has the cloak of humility (which is the most powerful armor of all) on which means they have NO DESIRE, NEED, OR WANT to elevate themselves over ANYBODY. The self proclaimed one's have succumbed to PRIDE which destroys their ascension process and they are ruled by a high level demon that is hard to see. They are disillusioned...

Most people get hit with pride once they become successful in some part of their life. At this point they become their own god. Notice they can't be in the same room with other people whose egos have also become their own god. As soon as someone becomes their own god, they no longer really help people like they used to, and when they do, it's always for their own credit or glory.

11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 ...and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder

Someone that is enlightened has the cloak of humility (which is the most powerful armor of all) on which means they have NO DESIRE, NEED, OR WANT to elevate themselves over ANYBODY. The self proclaimed one's have succumbed to PRIDE which destroys their ascension process and they are ruled by a high level demon that is hard to see. They are disillusioned...

This is something I had mentioned before, and personally succumbed to, dealt with, and transcended, which is Spiritual Pride versus True Enlightenment.

In Spiritual Pride, one is still wrapped in Ego and proclaims from a perspective of a higher position.

In true Enlightenment, one is permanently detached from ego/pride and knows/sees directly the Ego is not them, yet is still able to take part in discussion and share Enlightenment with others

dominicus
reply to post by StopThaZionistWorldOrder

 

Someone that is enlightened has the cloak of humility (which is the most powerful armor of all) on which means they have NO DESIRE, NEED, OR WANT to elevate themselves over ANYBODY. The self proclaimed one's have succumbed to PRIDE which destroys their ascension process and they are ruled by a high level demon that is hard to see. They are disillusioned...

This is something I had mentioned before, and personally succumbed to, dealt with, and transcended, which is Spiritual Pride versus True Enlightenment.

In Spiritual Pride, one is still wrapped in Ego and proclaims from a perspective of a higher position.

In true Enlightenment, one is permanently detached from ego/pride and knows/sees directly the Ego is not them, yet is still able to take part in discussion and share Enlightenment with others

Very well said...

We have gotten out of a lot of potentially lethal fights by letting people's insults just fly by. Once our ego is subdued, verbal attacks can't touch us. There's no need for defense, no need for fear. Most bullies feed off fear, but love frightens them because according to OSHO, "the ego can't love."

1. Becoming

There is no becoming, there is simply what is.

I agree that Enlightenment isn't becoming, it just happens.
However, it doesn't just happen for no reason. Siddhartha
struggled for years before it just happened. One day your
heart just opens up... but until then, there is work to do.

"Doing the work" means meditation, the practice of just
being silent, the practice of emptying one's self, it is being
in a state of not-knowing and allow the intelligence of the
universe to speak to you.

2. Pride vs Enlightenment.

I would say that most people who claim Enlightenment are
in fact self-deluded with Pride. They may make a great
pretense of love, but it is only the ego putting on a show.

While I don't rule out the possibility that Enlightenment can
just happen in an instant, I don't believe one should seek
that, or hope for it, or set it as their goal in life. If it
were to come, great, but in the mean time what does
one do? The answer is simple: do the work.

Here is what OSHO had to say:

Osho – The only problem is the ego, but it creates thousands of other problems; it is the root cause. And I am not interested in pruning the leaves and the branches — cut the root — because that is a futile effort, cutting leaves and branches; they will grow again. And all the religions have become too much concerned with the leaves and the branches, and by cutting them nothing is going to happen.

The problem with the roots is that they are always underground; you cannot see them. And that’s how ego is, it is always underground. You see greed, you see anger, you see sex, you see ambition; these are all above the ground. Jealousy, possessiveness, domination, they are all above the ground. But they are only symptoms. And never treat the symptoms — cut the root, go to the very root, and then in a single blow life can be transformed.

The ego is a false entity. It is an invented center which exists not. It is a cheap way to create some identity. To discover the real center needs courage, needs deep meditation, needs inner searching, a soul-searching. So people have found a short-cut: rather than finding the real center they create a plastic center. It is cheap, easy. That’s what ego is. Ego simply means you don’t know who you are, still you think you know.

This false knowing has to be dropped. It is better to accept that you don’t know; that is a first step towards truth. Dionysius calls it “agnosia”, a state of not-knowing. So these are the three states: ignorance…. In ignorance a person does not know but thinks he knows. The second is agnosia: a state of not-knowing. A person still does not know, but he knows that he does not know — and that is a tremendous growth. And the third is realization, enlightenment, awakening Buddhahood, when a person knows that he knows.

Millions are living in the first state. Sannyas means moving to the second. And then the third comes or its own, you need not do anything. You just remain in the second, watching so that the first does not come in from some back door. Remain in a state of not-knowing, remain innocent, childlike, wondering about it all but not creating false knowledge to hide your ignorance, and the ego disappears.

The moment the ego disappears your real being reveals itself. And then there is light and then there is abundant life and then there is an infinity of love overflowing. By going beyond the ego one goes beyond both time and space and enters into the ultimate. Less than that cannot satisfy, less that that is not worthwhile. This is the goal for a sannyasin — the ultimate realization of god or truth or nirvana.

oshoshqip.com...

As for me, I don't seek the ultimate realization of god or truth.
I have come to believe such a thing can only produce Spiritual Pride
and it is therefore yet another form of delusion. Perhaps if one
were only got a glimmer the ultimate (like a '___' trip) that
would be enough... but I feel I've already done that.

Rather seek a "state of Enlightenment" I merely seek to be the
wise sage, to apply myself to life's challenges skillfully and with
awareness. In this I find the a measure of joy and happiness
(a measure of nirvana) and it is enough.

--
p.s. Anybody know why D M T is replace with '____'
is there a conspiracy going on here =)

reply to post by dominicus

What about the pursuit to be selfless, to help others, self sacrifice (there are many news stories of people who lose their lives for the sake of saving a stranger)

If no one desired or was motivated to help others, they wouldn't help others. Nonetheless, desire and motivation are selfish urges.

WHat about the pursuit to no longer have any personal desires or motivations?

One can desire to not desire. One can be motivated to not be motivated. Both are self-seeking in nature and selfish urges.

What use do you serve? What is your system of thought, of problems solving, of bettering the world. So far, you have yet to produce a better alternative, other than a bunch of man-made opinions.

I am bettering the world by bettering myself. I do not think I can better others. It is not my place to attempt to better anyone. I do not wish to provide any alternative, nor do I wish to impose it on anyone.

So too, your system dies with you, by that logic. By the way, what is the alternative?

As it should. My system is my system. It goes where I go. It is of my creation and of my destruction.

Alternative to what? Calling oneself enlightened? How about not calling oneself enlightened?

I noticed much talk of Osho in this thread. Is he enlightened? Out of curiosity, what do you see in him that makes him an authority to cite and to refer to? Are his thoughts better than yours?

As an aside, why would such an enlightened man, free from desire, free from ego, etc. be interested in selling his books?

reply to post by Aphorism

If no one desired or was motivated to help others, they wouldn't help others. Nonetheless, desire and motivation are selfish urges.

ˈselfiSH/
adjective
adjective: selfish

1.
(of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.

A person who is motivated and desire to help humanity (complete strangers) in their sufferings, is hardly selfish according to the definition.

One can desire to not desire. One can be motivated to not be motivated. Both are self-seeking in nature and selfish urges.

Then, once non-desire and non-motivation is reached, where is the self-seeking at the destination?

I am bettering the world by bettering myself. I do not think I can better others. It is not my place to attempt to better anyone. I do not wish to provide any alternative, nor do I wish to impose it on anyone.

So that is your alternative man-made system of thought, to better one's self (by the way, what system of thought will you use or are you using to better yourself????) Having the thought that you don't think you can help others, that you have no place to help others, will not provide alternatives....

Honestly, that sounds like a crap system. (opinion of course). Seems like a waste

As it should. My system is my system. It goes where I go. It is of my creation and of my destruction.

Your system is crap & you have provided thus far absolutely nothing of value except subjective criticism. This is exactly why Socrates, Buddha, Plato, Adi Shankara, Christ, Nisargadatta, and others like them are held in such high esteem, because they provided systems of living, enlightenment, thought that is perenially/timelessly universally better than the non-system you haven't provided.

Alternative to what? Calling oneself enlightened? How about not calling oneself enlightened?

Not too many people have a problem with others calling themselves "Enlightened." Your problem with this statement is of your own subjective and relative illusions.

If someone has Enlightenment, and there are people that do, they have the intrinsic human right to announce this as a fact. Does not matter if your annoyed.

You've never looked and never found to see if Enlightenment is real or not, so your opinion hold little weight on the matter other then simply have some sort of "issue".

I noticed much talk of Osho in this thread. Is he enlightened? Out of curiosity, what do you see in him that makes him an authority to cite and to refer to? Are his thoughts better than yours?

He no longer lives.

HE was an Authority on inner matters of consciousness, spending decades of practice to go within and find various truths, which you have not. That's why you don't have books on Enlightenment and are not an authority on it. An expert's thoughts on a matter of something they are an expert in, will be more valuable to some random joe on ats who is questioning everything, yet himself has not seen certain things to be true and is himself no expert on the matter.

Are you thoughts on Quantum Mechanics better than Stephen Hawkings thoughts? Why are you not a physicist then?

As an aside, why would such an enlightened man, free from desire, free from ego, etc. be interested in selling his books?

Why do car makers publish car manuals? Why do cooks publish cook books? Why do any experts publish books on their areas of expertise???

Do you think everyone who writes a book only does so to make money?

reply to post by Aphorism


I feel a crucial element in enlightenment is understanding that life is never as simple as being selfless or being selfish. A certain degree of both will always be necessary, so there's no need to vilify either of them. The act of vilifying either is akin to cutting the Gordian knot. In the absence of a comfortable solution, you decide to destroy the puzzle rather than solve it. That does not give you anything but the habit of destroying that which you do not understand.

So it's not about choosing between selfishness or selflessness. It's about learning how to balance between them.

reply to post by dominicus

A person who is motivated and desire to help humanity (complete strangers) in their sufferings, is hardly selfish according to the definition.

Is it not profitable to help humanity? Is it not in one's best interests to help people in their sufferings? Do you do it for absolutely no reason at all?

Then, once non-desire and non-motivation is reached, where is the self-seeking at the destination?

It is never reached. Do you not desire to defend enlightenment? Are you not motivated to reply to me?

So that is your alternative man-made system of thought, to better one's self (by the way, what system of thought will you use or are you using to better yourself????) Having the thought that you don't think you can help others, that you have no place to help others, will not provide alternatives....

Honestly, that sounds like a crap system. (opinion of course). Seems like a waste

Once again. I did not say anywhere that I do not help others. I am not sure where you are coming up with these assertions. Thin air I would imagine.

What is yours? To tell people how to live? To preach? Luckily, I do not value your opinion.

Your system is crap & you have provided thus far absolutely nothing of value except subjective criticism. This is exactly why Socrates, Buddha, Plato, Adi Shankara, Christ, Nisargadatta, and others like them are held in such high esteem, because they provided systems of living, enlightenment, thought that is perenially/timelessly universally better than the non-system you haven't provided.

All these men were critics of the highest quality.

Not too many people have a problem with others calling themselves "Enlightened." Your problem with this statement is of your own subjective and relative illusions.

Is that my problem? Or is that your assumption of what my problem is? That isn't my problem.

If someone has Enlightenment, and there are people that do, they have the intrinsic human right to announce this as a fact. Does not matter if your annoyed.

Am I annoyed? Or is it your assumption that I am annoyed. I am not annoyed.

You've never looked and never found to see if Enlightenment is real or not, so your opinion hold little weight on the matter other then simply have some sort of "issue".

Have I never looked? Or is it that your assumption? I am past looking and seeking.

HE was an Authority on inner matters of consciousness, spending decades of practice to go within and find various truths, which you have not. That's why you don't have books on Enlightenment and are not an authority on it. An expert's thoughts on a matter of something they are an expert in, will be more valuable to some random joe on ats who is questioning everything, yet himself has not seen certain things to be true and is himself no expert on the matter.

"Going within". Every person can think. What has he done outside of thinking? Sold books?

Do you think everyone who writes a book only does so to make money?

No. Everyone who sells a book does so to make money.

wasaka's quote from Osho really does explain very well the essential standpoint in regards to the O.P.'s question: "Why become enlightened?"

for example:

The ego is a false entity. It is an invented center which exists not. It is a cheap way to create some identity. To discover the real center needs courage, needs deep meditation, needs inner searching, a soul-searching. So people have found a short-cut: rather than finding the real center they create a plastic center. It is cheap, easy. That’s what ego is. Ego simply means you don’t know who you are, still you think you know.

This passage says so much. First of all it explains why so many people are sceptical about the existence of enlightened beings, NDE's, Jesus Christ, God or Gods, ET's or that consciousness does not exist outside of being a brain-produced phenomenon. And it is not only a matter of disbelief - there is also a kind of resentment evident in the way a sceptic, atheist deconstructs any argument in favour of the existence of enlightenment etc.

One collects scientific knowledge in order to create this false centre of ego - "I know, therefore I am...and the knowledge I possess is verifiable through 'respected peers' and their experiments."

It also applies to those the O.P. accuses of not knowing and claiming to know - those who claim they have become enlightened but only through the creation of an invented centre - i.e. again through the collection of certain kinds of knowledge and practice.

This false knowing has to be dropped. It is better to accept that you don’t know; that is a first step towards truth. Dionysius calls it “agnosia”, a state of not-knowing. So these are the three states: ignorance…. In ignorance a person does not know but thinks he knows. The second is agnosia: a state of not-knowing. A person still does not know, but he knows that he does not know — and that is a tremendous growth. And the third is realization, enlightenment, awakening Buddhahood, when a person knows that he knows.

One could say that it is the middle state which possesses the most ideal conditions for transformation and understanding. But the problem is who wants to admit that they know nothing (except for Socrates and Manuel from Fawlty Towers)

When one asks: "Why become enlightened?" It is like someone jumping from stage 1 - not knowing, but thinking you know to stage 3 - knowing that you know. The question is questionable because stage 2 (knowing that you do not know) is not being acknowledged. We are skipping the middle stage and jumping too far.

The real magic is in the conditions that arrive to cause frustration and doubt in the false centre. The universe is conspiring...e-ventually.

reply to post by Aphorism

Is it not profitable to help humanity? Is it not in one's best interests to help people in their sufferings? Do you do it for absolutely no reason at all?

Remember, you said its all selfish:

Nonetheless, desire and motivation are selfish urges.

IF I help a stranger, in what way am I profiting? How is it my best interest to help others?

You know there are a lot of studies coming out on the top 1% of billionaires and those at the top of power structures that show they are sociopaths, with no empathy, which means they only care about themselves.

In psychology, to have no empathy, to be so into your self that you do not care about others, in considered a mental illness.

It is never reached.

How do you know? Seriously, prove it

Do you not desire to defend enlightenment? Are you not motivated to reply to me?

I seriously Love you, because i know from experience that within you is a soul, that we are One, that we are in this together, but that your view is skewed. So out of love, there is caring and lovingly sharing.

Enlightenment does not need to be defended, because if you have built up for yourself a bunch of illusions around it not existing, then for you, its not real. For those whoa re in it, they understand that until you drop all illusions, you can never uncover it in yourself until first admitting it may be possible.

What is yours? To tell people how to live? To preach? Luckily, I do not value your opinion.

I know for a fact, that the cause f all of the worlds ills, is the ego. ANd I know for a fact, that there is something called ego death and Enlightenment, which solve the problem of the ego. And so I share 100's of methods (none of which I invented but many which I have tested to be true) so that people can go and uncover Enlightenment within themselves.

So far, in person, I have about 5 individuals who have uncovered in themselves through my explanantion, and their lives are a million times better because of it. No $ to charge, no need to worship me, just a sharing with friends. Guess what, they've all said the same thing, "Wow, its like I've been unconsciously sleepwalking through life completely unaware of myself and reality!!!!."

Once again. I did not say anywhere that I do not help others. I am not sure where you are coming up with these assertions. Thin air I would imagine.

You said it here:

I do not think I can better others. It is not my place to attempt to better anyone. I do not wish to provide any alternative

Isn't bettering someone also helping them?

All these men were critics of the highest quality.

Nevertheless, they left behind systems of living life. methods, teachings.

Is that my problem? Or is that your assumption of what my problem is? That isn't my problem.

If this isn't your problem, why make this thread and argue counter to Enlightenment, if you have never checked to see if it exists? Behind the thread and arguing is a reason, motivation, belief system, structure.

Have I never looked? Or is it that your assumption? I am past looking and seeking.

If you looked in the right place, you would have found, if you would have found, you would never argue counter to the point nor have the need to start this thread.

"Going within". Every person can think. What has he done outside of thinking? Sold books?

Lol, you think thats all the human beings do, is "think?" What does thinking have to do with going within and exploring whats there?

No. Everyone who sells a book does so to make money.

I've written some fiction in the past that took me about a good 6 months to write. Am I not allowed to receive some sort of monetary exchange for the work I put in for the sake of furthering your entertainment (or if its non-fiction, for expanding your knowledge base?)

One time I wanted to learn how to make Sushi, so I bought a book with a DVD on how to do it. I never once thought, "This guy wrote this Sushi book just to make money off others, what a scam artist!!!!!"