CreativeInertia

@kurt ok, I understand, thanks

@kurt Then what does an enlightened person do? the personality stays, beliefs stay (otherwise you wouldn't be able to function). there is still "programming" - my uneducated guess is it's impossible to get rid of "values" - you still make decisions, regardless. you make these decisions based on something, right? If you aren't acting compassionately, than this is based on a set of beliefs. still! I am trying to figure out. Are you saying that enlightened people have no - beliefs, values, opinion, stored knowledge, interpretations? how do they choose what to eat? how do they choose where to work? every choice is based on something. We move our hands, we open our mouths, we talk to certain people, we do something because of beliefs, stored knowledge etc. We have to make decisions - whether it's action or inaction. I know I am not qualified to make these assertions, like you've already pointed out, but from what I know it seems pretty logical, right?

@kurt I think you misunderstood me. What I was trying to say is not to focus on compassion, but rather focus on practice. compassion can happen or not happen. then when you "become" enlightened, your arbitrary choice of being compassionate will not come from the ego Cultivating compassion pre-enlightenment can be egoic - I agree. but that's not what I've meant and not cultivating compassion and focusing on something else can also be egoic. it all the same

@kurt It seems very cold and calculated. and selfish (from the outside, i don't mean ego/no ego) Why do some enlightened people teach, act with compassion towards people, and others don't? I think it is arbitrary and depends mainly on the personality of the person - how he was raised. Did his parents teach him about doing good (which is arbitary, but so is not doing good or doing bad) . Leo is trying to teach us the values of compassion and contribution, because practically this will mean a better world (more teachers, compassion, less conflict, less suffering). if a 100 people get enlightened, and they were thought to do good, then it is better (== less suffering, more fullfillment) for society. If a 100 people get enlightened, and they don't teach, they offend people, harm people, become criminals, this will be worse for society (more collective suffering). It's all about the greater good. Yes, it's all arbitrary, neutral and unimportant. But the question is - why not? why do the opposite? why not do good? you have insights from your egoic past - references of pain, tragedy, toxicity. so why not help people? why not be an effective teacher (= sage) who changes the life of many people for the better? And why wouldn't you teach and help people and act with compassion? why would you be a criminal? Yes, reality is neutral, nothing is good or bad. but we have to make choices. and the choice depends on arbitrary values and beliefs from our raising and society (and genetics).

@kurt Ok thanks for the clarification!

@kurt I am just wondering what would you suggest for a person pursuing enlightenment? focus on the practice instead of the "ideal"? and let's say in one point or another I "reach" enlightenment? you suggest continuing with your ingrained habits and beliefs (which from what I understand still exist.. although not taken seriously) and letting things unfold? You still have to make choices (maybe you will say it's not you who is making them, but regardless) - be healthy/be unhealthy, stay in a certain career/find a new career, focus on improving the world/ focus on living your life without concern for the world and I also feel that although the sage is an ideal, it still makes the highest impact on people in terms of reducing suffering (that's what great teachers do, right?). You would probably say that people's suffering is an illusion. but let me assure you my suffering is very, very real for me. and for other people. couldn't you, as someone who've probably experienced tough times and suffering in his life emphathise with it? I am really confused about it and I feel this argument has no purpose whatsoever. Thanks

Hi Leo! Do you think it's possible to make spiritual progress without attending meditation retreats - by doing meditation, self-enquiry and self observation at home? I know that retreats tend to produce more peak experiences, but are they necessary? Thanks