A Lot Of Confusion

[Travis]

I'm completely confused about the benefits regarding enlightenment, and I don't know if it's a worthwhile goal, especially in light of the self-actualization goal. 

Self-actualization has a clear goal, and you can live a fulfilling life always improving and being deeply satisfied with the progress. 

Enlightenment is about truth. I thought that that's what I valued most in life until I delved deeper into enlightenment work, and came away with the impression that truth really isn't all that great from the human standpoint. As McKenna says, "enlightenment is a booby prize," "I wouldn't recommend enlightenment to anyone," etc. Steven Norquist and UG Krishnamurti say the same thing. And these three seem to be the most convincing when it comes to what enlightenment is and isn't. They speak with such authority; the kind that I don't see from anyone else. And yet, they extol its awesomeness. WTF? 

I don't understand the dissonance. Why talk people out of enlightenment if it's the most amazing thing that a human being can know? (Which, by the way, I don't doubt that there's a perfectly sound reason to account for the dissonance; I'm just really confused why the chasm seems so large).

I understand there are many many others who promote enlightenment completely, but I wonder if these people really haven't 'seen' the Truth. It makes sense to me, since that's how it is with most things. Most people aren't weapons experts, and will tell you all the right ways to handle firearms, but when you receive training by a bonafide professional, you're 'awake' and understand that so much of what you were taught by others and have grown up around is complete bullshit, and you 'get it.' I'm wondering if since the cases against enlightenment are so few, that they're the "real deal" so to speak.

Maybe humans really shouldn't 'see' enlightenment. Especially when Norquist, McKenna, and UG all say that we're all already enlightened and no one is enlightened. Their experience is the exact same as ours. It seems that they're just aware of how unnecessary and pointless it is for humans to become aware of Truth. 

For me it seems to come down to maximizing my fulfillment in life, and I don't know whether self-actualization or enlightenment is the better prize. I might lean towards enlightenment being the better prize if it weren't for these enlightened people saying that no one really wants enlightenment. Granted, Norquist and McKenna both value their enlightenment more than they could possibly value anything else, but why the reluctance to recommend that everyone take the journey? They say if you have a loving family, friends, and a good life, then stay away from enlightenment. If enlightenment is, to paraphrase Norquist, the most important thing a human being can ever know, and I wouldn't trade it for anything in this life or the next, then why the fuck do they discourage enlightenment so much?

I'm just frustrated with the many different accounts of enlightenment, and why there isn't a clear consensus. If it's Truth, and Truth is awesome, then every Truth-embodying individual should be singing the same song. If Truth is not-so-awesome then I can see why there's the disparity. 

I get the whole wanting Truth for Truth's sake thing. I thought so too. I thought I wanted Truth. But coming to realize what Truth could potentially mean to me as an organism, 'I' don't really want that, and that's why the 3 guys I mentioned said the same thing. No one would want it, according to them. You die if you get it. A trade that no one in their right mind would ever make.

I admit, I over-intellectualize the shit out of damn near everything that I come across (neurosis), and I don't doubt that that is a factor in the possibility of me not seeing things more clearly, but damn. There seems to be a clear line drawn in the sand regarding the 'experts' on enlightenment, and one side might have it more right than the other. 

What do you all think?

 

[Flicker_boy]

do you wanna be a hero? to be meaningful and to make a difference in the grand scheme? do you try to somehow think your way into greatness? to justify your actions so as to make you relevant in any way?

enlightenment will make all of those invalid, thats the hard part

the good part is: you get something better (and not nearly as cheesy)

and you get it forever

best of luck on your search

Edited July 25, 2016 by Lorenzo Engel

[Ayla]

@Travis , what comes up here is that every human being is here to somehow grow and expand. Once you have grown to a level of personal development that suits you, for SOME, it becomes obvious that that's not what their being was calling upon. (deep unshaken happiness). For those, Truth becomes the only way to still grow and expand.  For others, that is largely enough to be happy and fulfilled. In that sense, enlightenment is not for everyone. If you start doing enlightenment work when you are not ready for it, it tends to disturb all the layers of your life and get you so low and discouraged, that you are most likely to give it up exactly when you're supposed to push through.

Searching for Truth isn't a mental agenda. It is a deep inner calling similar to thirst. Nothing else will satisfy you.

So, take things slowly. Let yourself be guided towards whatever best suits you at this time. 

 

[Travis]

@Lorenzo Engel @Ayla

Thanks for your words  

[Brian Greendahl]

My hunch is that many of us, including some "experts," aren't as far along as we like to think we are. Discernment and clarity can be tricky.

[Travis]

If I've come to know anything in my life, it's that I'm not going to be content with anything that I don't feel is 'the end' of seeking. I guess it comes down to being patient and living life with both eyes open and being open to the next step, whatever that may be.

[Telepresent]

@Travis This is something that has run me around in circles a lot as well, and it seems to me the problem comes down to what your idea of 'you' is.  You know people say there's no such thing as an 'enlightened person'?  It seems that's because the 'person' is the thought-construct, the collection of ideas, impressions, etc., that you mentally carry around with you and designate "I".  So when you say "I like this, I don't like that, I want this, I don't want that", it's actually coming from this collection of thoughts, ideas, worries, desires, etc.

That's the I, the person, the ego.

Then there's enlightenment, which is (broadly and roughly speaking) transcending that / not believing in it any more.  I'm starting to see glimpses of this: how a lot of the time when my mind talks about "I, I want, I like, I need..." it's little more than a thought, and doesn't have any real substance.  Which taken to an extreme suggests the whole person has no substance.  Doesn't exist.  So how can that collection of ideas - that person - want to not be believed in any more?  To not exist?

And to top it off, a great deal of our emotional attachments - whether goals, or relationships, or whatever - are directly tethered to that idea of 'I'.  So once it's surpassed, how can you guarantee the things you like/want/need now, will remain that way?

So I think that's the issue: they're literally talking about two different beings.  The one that can never be enlightened, which cannot want what enlightenment really is.  And if you're more or less content in your emotionally-attached life, why should you want to mess with that?  You're going to die anyway, right?  It's not going to last forever.  So why not enjoy it while it's here?  All of it, all of experience, the ups and the downs?  It's a privilege to have them.

The other being, the one that is enlightened - which is not the you who is translating and interpreting these words - well, that's a whole different state of affairs.  But it seems like it can never believe in the trials and tribulations of 'normal' life ever again.  And maybe, despite whatever goodies enlightenment may bring, that might also seem like a bit of a wasted opportunity? 

All of this is supposition, of course, but that's the sense I've managed to make of it!

Edited July 25, 2016 by Telepresent

[Ayla]

Imagine that you go to the cinema and pick a movie. If the movie is cute and pleasant and you love it, you stay until the end. Then you go home. If movie gets too heavy, violent, aggressive, etc, you CAN decide to leave, knowing that it is only a movie. 

Which of these two is better? None. It is like it is.