Ultimate Enlightenment = Not Good For You?

[Veggies]

Why to enlighten at all?

 

 

I see the benefits of it to some extent. However, turning your cheek after you're being slapped, like Jesus recommmends, is not solving the problem I believe. Or in a way it is but not really.

 

Discuss about the cons of enlightenment.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Veggies

[TJ Reeves]

On June 12, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Veggies said:

Why to enlighten at all?

I see the benefits of it to some extent.

You might think you see the benefits to "some extent", but this post (especially the title) strongly indicates that you have absolutely no fucking idea how unaware you are of a) what enlightenment is b) the system we live in and c) what this work entails. 

Even beginning to set up a pro-con like this whatsoever is absurd and saddening.

It's like you're drowning in a giant maelstrom of suffering, having someone throw you a rope to get you out and then asking "but what are the cons of using this rope?"

Only someone who's life has gotten so used to drowning would ask something like this -- from the other side, it's a sick joke. 

A. What Enlightenment is

There's a reason why once you taste enlightenment, there's no turning back -- it's so goddamn amazing that it can replace all of your addictions by 100,000x and literally make you say "goddamn, I could die right now" both in one's first enlightened experience and eventually through every moment of every day.

In fact, your addictions -- all of them, including money, sex, sports, fame, social approval, TV, drugs, the internet, knowledge, alcohol, work, and morality to say the least -- are weak, uninformed attempts to reach an enlightened state. It is for this reason that meditation and enlightenment practices are recommended to end addictions of all sorts .

There are two views of enlightenment, the first is the meditative form. The second refers to understanding the Truth. They are two sides of the same coin, ultimately. 

Lets address the first view of enlightenment as a meditative state by looking at the different levels of awareness poured onto experience:

step 1. Dharana - "holding" - means taking an object and concentrating on the object such that you hold it in your focus - here we take notice of the object's features and details - think of wine tasting or paying attention to music well enough that you notice new notes in the song - at this stage, we count "reps" by recognizing we've broken focus and going back to the object of our choosing

step 2. Dhyana - here attention steadily pours out, gently resting on the objects of our choosing. It's like pouring a thick stream of oil upon on object, without any gaps or breaks in the stream - smooth, continuous focus. Later we begin to apply that focus to other things or activities. For example, while eating, you note every flavor and texture in the food - then when a friend says some thing to you at the table, you give all of your attention to their words - when they're done, you go back to the food. In between, there are little to no unrelated mental images getting in the way.

step 3. Samadhi - becoming the object - all attention flows onto the object of your choosing, with none placed on unrelated mental talk or images. initially this happens for seconds, but eventually it can be maintained for minutes, hours, and even days. There are two kinds of samadhi:

• 3 a - Samadhi with a seed - all sense of self disappears and only the object of concentration remains, shining in consciousness. the remaining object serves as the "seed." This begins to resemble the flow state discussed by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, wherein people are up to 4x more efficient in their thinking and work
• 3 b - Samadhi without a seed - awareness flows so completely onto the object of concentration that there is no time to fixate that object as something rigid, opaque, and extended in time and space. The object ceases to be a "something" because observer and observed both disappear (we will discuss this later!). This is a full on flow state.

From Shinzen Young's Science of Enlightenment: "If a person enters samadhi without a seed while performing some art, they are, strictly speaking, no longer performing. The universe itself is manifesting through their art. If they're able to replicate that state in daily life, then their sport or art can be legitimately described as a path to enlightenment." 

This is Steph Curry when he's hot as fuck except applied to everyday life, including cooking, making love, and generating business decisions.

"We progress from simply focus exercises (dharana), to states of continuous  concentration (dhyana), and finally to oneness with the unborn source (seedless samadhi). If you can consciously taste moments of seedless samadhi in daily life, we'll say you attained the initial stage of enlightenment."

You asking "what are the cons" is like what are the cons of Stephen Curry getting hot for the entirety of his career.

Understand that when one is in such a complete state of sensory experience, it is impossible to not be happy. 

"Any ordinary sensory event, when experienced completely, becomes extraordinary and paradoxical: its richness is maximal but its somethingness is minimal. A complete experience of pleasure delivers pure satisfaction but has little substance (you don't need anything). A complete experience of pain is deeply poignant but not problematic. A complete experience of desire is desire-less. A complete experience of mental confusion nurtures intuitive wisdom. A complete experience of self convinces you there never was a self."

---- This is a good segway into enlightenment as an intuitive form of grasping existential truth of who you truly are and what you're here to do -- 

Have you ever really not at least wondered wtf is going on with this whole consciousness thing? Haven't you ever questioned god, the universe, and everything? I mean, how could you not?

It's part of the human condition to do so.

And the answers we arrive at determine our mental conditions.

The truth of enlightenment that I'm talking about isn't something that's put into language, but instead something that's sensed.

Without this sense, we inevitably suffer because there is no narrative or greater meaning to our lives. The depressed person sees no meaning in life largely because the small box of their linguistic thinking limits their view of what life is. The anxious person fears self-destruction largely because their linguistic understanding of identity is confining. Most people are easily perturbed in this way. I'd describe this as totally fuckwithable.

Finding this sense and becoming "one" with it restores meaning to our lives as we proceed from day-to-day. 

Inherent to the connection to the truth is that you let the truth/god work through you. You recognize yourself as and give into being a vessel for the universe to play itself out, whatever way it deems necessary. From there you can tackle problems you never thought you could tackle before.

People think that because of enlightenment, one would stop solving the problems of life because they realize "there are no problems." This is a huge misunderstanding. It's more like the problems become no big deal because you see the game for what it is. There's still stuff to-do, but you don't get all in an anxious huff about it.

When you become enlightened, all of the bullshit you have to go through in life becomes totally and absolutely worth it. Life goes from this never-ending, set of shitty disconnected problems that seem not worth solving to a never-ending, set of awesome forever-connected problems worth solving. 

This is how you create revolutions, spark changes, and make a huge impact on the world. 

So overall then, what is enlightenment

a - to experience a continuous deep flow state during every moment of the game of life

b - to connect to a deeper sense of truth, giving you the total unfuckwithable-ness necessary to do huge things in the world while enjoying it. 

B. The System we live in 

The ecological system we live in requires the above two characteristics for a functioning human being. Anything else is a suffering human.

And a suffering human = a dysfunctional human = a human with unconscious, self-defeating, world-defeating actions.

See, it used to be that humans got things done in a direct manner with the concentration, equanimity, and greater connection characteristic of enlightenment. In this way, humans did not have to acquire more stuff than they needed. Humans lived in a great balance with nature and did not cause too much damage. 

Indigenous people do not have a word for enlightenment. To them, every day life = enlightenment. To them, every day is lived in balance, hence them not facing obesity or killing the environment like we do.

There are so many psychedelic plants because it was to the benefit of the plants/earth/god itself to talk to humans and say "hey, you stupid-super-chimps - there's more going on here than just you, so don't over-do it with your intellectual capabilities."

In any balanced system, if one side of the competition eliminates the other side, then the 'winner' is allowed to overrun and create a form of systemic cancer that kills the whole system.

We think of previous peoples as stupid cavemen who sat around grunting and living weak lives. We couldn't be further from the truth. They were far more in balance with themselves and nature and art.

We are the idiots. Not them. We disrupted the harmony. Not them. We have gotten away from the connection to greater consciousness, begun to acquire more and more shit, and as such have disrupted the earthly balance, hence the problems we face. Not them.

If Trump, global warming, economic collapses, and rising depression rates haven't been enough of a clue, then here it is: the world will fucking die if you don't become enlightened. 

You.

Yes. You reading this. 

The world will die if you don't become enlightened.

Consider the enlightenment as flow state + connection definition I gave earlier. How the fuck do you think we will solve the problems we face if you aren't constantly flowing  and connected?

It will take the level of concentration and connection characteristic of enlightenment to solve the types of monumental issues we face. We have to be Steph Curry in a flow state from now to the end of the human game. And it has to come from our hearts, not from our pockets.

The economic system we have does not properly incentivize people to be their best. It awards selfishness, competition, and greed when what we need is selflessness, creativity, and pure giving. 

We have people sitting around questioning whether they should even practice basketball because they' want to know what the cons might be of getting into a flow state and whether they will get paid for practicing. 

We're fucking toast. 

C. What this work entails

Remember earlier when I mentioned that its like you're drowning in a maelstrom? 

A more appropriate metaphor is that your ego is the maelstrom, a swirling hole in the sea. Consciousness itself is the sea - making up the fabric of all of reality.

You are not actually separate from the sea: you are the sea. But you act and think like one swirling whirlpool of egoic self-reflection, losing sight of your larger reality.

Once you recognize this, you can go from being a giant, swirling hole of ego, to a much calmer placid part of the ocean.  And as I just mentioned, right now, the world needs a calmer ocean.

So we see that Consciousness work is about:

a) developing the concentration to

b) recognize your true identity as the sea of consciousness itself instead of a whirlpool of chatter, so that

c) you/god/world that is you come back to balance. 

You won't understand how good it is to be a calmer part of the sea until you fucking settle down. 

But once you do, you will see that there basically no cons whatsoever to settling down your little maelstrom of ego. 

On June 12, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Veggies said:

However, turning your cheek after you're being slapped, like Jesus recommends, is not solving the problem I believe. Or in a way it is not but really.

The turning the cheek quote is about taking the time to understand why it is that you got slapped.

If you understand everything that went into the slap -- the environment, the person's upbringing, your personal responsibility in pissing them off, their mental issues that cause them to commit violence, and the nature of the universe itself -- then there is no way you can be pissed off enough to slap someone back.

Anger is not possible with understanding. And the enlightened person will probably have the mental clarity to take the time to have further understanding before choosing to slap back. 

That doesn't mean you'll turn into a giant pussy, either. You'll take a smarter action to prevent further slapping, or one that you know raises the overall awareness of society as a whole, unfazed by slaps.

Edited June 14, 2017 by TJ Reeves

[Paintballer]

Shouts out to monkey minds everywhere. Doing what they do best.

[WelcometoReality]

@Veggies Shinzen Young talk about some of the downsides here:

https://youtu.be/qoAbCgmhqdM

[Shin]

1 hour ago, Danielle said:

I think the  biggest con is that there won't be a "you" to experience enlightenment. 

But Danielle ...

 

 

@Danielle No, life is way more fun this way

Edited June 13, 2017 by Shin

[Prabhaker]

On 6/12/2017 at 10:16 PM, Veggies said:

I see the benefits of it to some extent. However, turning your cheek after you're being slapped, like Jesus recommmends, is not solving the problem I believe.

Turning your cheek after you're being slapped has nothing to do with enlightenment. It was the way of Jesus. Another enlightened man can behave differently. An enlightened person can't be predicted.

Osho ~ The other cheek: the masochist's slap-up feast

Jesus says, "If somebody hits you on one of your cheeks, turn the other cheek." I say, "Okay, turn his other cheek - and hit him harder. Give him a lesson! Make it clear to him that it is not so easy to hit somebody on the cheek - that it comes back, and comes back harder. And if you are capable, hit both his cheeks at the same time. Why give him the chance to turn the other cheek and become a saint? Hit him and tell him simultaneously, 'I do not believe in violence, hence I have to stop it at the first chance. And remember that you cannot just be violent without being prevented.'"

You have to prevent violence if you respect life. And in another way too, it is respectful to hit the man, not to give him your other cheek, because that is very disrespectful. This may seem a little difficult for you: you hit me, and I don't hit you but show my other cheek to you, and say, "Please be kind enough to hit me." I am trying to be superhuman and reduce you below humanity.

 

Jesus said that if somebody hits you on one cheek, turn the other cheek. You are asking me what I have to say about it. This will be the attitude of a man who believes in the idea of non-violence, the philosopher of non-violence. But when you are hit by somebody and you give him the other cheek, you are encouraging violence in the world. It is not non-violence. And you are assuming something which is absolutely your imagination. If somebody hits me, according to Jesus I have to give him my other cheek. But his tastes may be different. He may have enjoyed the first hit, he may enjoy the second even more; he may be a sadist. Then you are encouraging a sadist to torture people; you are encouraging violence. Even to allow your own body to be tortured by somebody is to encourage violence.

 

Before Buddha and Mahavira, India was never invaded. There had never been any violence because people knew that to invade India was to just invite your death. But after Buddha and Mahavira's teachings people became just like butter - you just cut into them with your knife, and there would be no noise at all. And millions of people were killed, burned without any resistance, because resistance would be violence.

But you go on missing seeing the point that you are provoking the violence in the other person. Who is responsible for it? Now turning the other cheek means you are telling the other person, "Please hit me a little more, it is not enough; I am not satisfied. Hit me a little more so that I can become a little more saintly." And you have only two cheeks. What are you going to do when he has hit you on your second cheek? What Jesus is saying looks a beautiful statement but it is not at all practical, pragmatic, scientific.

Reverence for life approaches the whole problem from a different angle.

I will say respect life, yours included.

In fact, you are first to be respectful towards yourself, then only can you be respectful towards anybody else.

Be loving towards yourself, then you will be able to love others too.

Reverence for life will not allow any provocation to violence. It will not start violence, but if anybody starts it, it will stop it immediately.

[Real Eyes]

This "turn the other cheek" thing has always annoyed me.  There is a discussion of this idea in The Book of Mirdad, and like with Jesus, the moral is that you should just let people have their way with you.  It's in the context of Mirdad (the saintly fellow of the story) telling a prince that he should allow his kingdom to be invaded by belligerent neighbors, because to resist violence is bad.  

Personally I just can't get over it, but what do I know.  

 

[electroBeam]

@Veggies your desire to post this question, comes from a deep down desire to enlighten.

You don't have a choice, you want enlightenment whether you realize it or not, and its not up to you to decide how useful it is to you.

[Markus]

Cons of enlightenment? You'll no longer be the most special person on the planet. You can't reflect on how badass you are because you don't give a fuck about anything. Life will become extra ordinary. Duh it's not good for "you", because it'll erase you.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Markus

[Bob84]

On 6/12/2017 at 6:46 PM, Veggies said:

Why to enlighten at all?

 

 

I see the benefits of it to some extent. However, turning your cheek after you're being slapped, like Jesus recommmends, is not solving the problem I believe. Or in a way it is but not really.

 

Discuss about the cons of enlightenment.

There are no cons. You can however make up cons, but they will be a ilusion, like so much more  

[Prabhaker]

2 minutes ago, Snick said:

Because any violence is unconscious! But sometimes necessary! 

Violence is not unconscious in every situation. Sometimes we have to choose from greater evil and lesser evil.

The sin is not in occurrence of violence. The sin is in the act of committing violence. The occurrence of violence is impossible, but the act of violence is possible. Deep down what matters is how one feels, not what happens. Deep down the question is of the feeling, of what the person thinks, because a person lives surrounded in his thoughts. Events take place in reality but the person lives in his thoughts, in his feelings.

One who has a desire for violence, one who takes an interest in killing, one who feels happy killing other person, one who takes credit for killing someone - even though no one ever actually dies, the idea that he killed someone, his taking pleasure in killing, his mental belief that killing is possible - all of this is evil, sinful.