Was Maslow Enlightened?

[How to be wise]

I was watching the episode about maslow's hierarchy and was wondering that since he made the self transcendence pyramid was he enlightened. What about Ouspensky? 

[Flicker_boy]

no

Edited August 18, 2016 by InsidesOut

[Leo Gura]

No, Maslow was not enlightened. He merely studied people who had peak mystical experiences.

It's one thing to talk about the transcendence of self, it's another thing entirely to actually transcend one's self.

[Matthew Lamot]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, Maslow was not enlightened. He merely studied people who had peak mystical experiences.

It's one thing to talk about the transcendence of self, it's another thing entirely to actually transcend one's self.

Yeah, and I think if he was actually Self realized he would have seen the absurdity of the self actualization model he brought to the world - fucking childs play ! 

[Matthew Lamot]

4 hours ago, InsidesOut said:

no

LOL why did you edit it?  it was funnier that you said yes with such earth shattering conviction and then leo rocks up and says no 

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Yeah, and I think if he was actually Self realized he would have seen the absurdity of the self actualization model he brought to the world - fucking childs play ! 

What's so absurd about it?

The self-actualized individual Maslow describes is simply an emotionally and cognitively mature human being who is growing himself. Usually not enlightened, but far beyond what most people do in life.

[Matthew Lamot]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

What's so absurd about it?

The self-actualized individual Maslow describes is simply an emotionally and cognitively mature human being who is growing himself. Usually not enlightened, but far beyond what most people do in life.

This indicates how much you don't know about enlightenment.  There is no need to change the person into something other than he is via an emotional maturation process.

Enlightenment is all that is needed, real enlightenment as understanding, and not the enlightenment you are coaching people on as state experiences or realizations of the Absolute.

Like I said, once you yourself understand what enlightenment really is, and that there is no need to change the Jiva into a modified Jiva, you will see the absurdity of Self-Actualization.

Find out for yourself.  Click on the link in my signature.  

[Pav]

It seems strange how some people seem so certain about the enlightenment status of another's mind. How can you tell?

One would think that after studying many mystics you would investigate it for your self. 

Of cause, if he were enlightened he wouldn't have mentioned it in his books, since they were reports of his scientific studies. 

[Leo Gura]

@Matthew Lamot There is much more to this than mere enlightenment. Enlightenment is really the easy part. The hard part it then dissembling all the structures of the ego-mind to live in a liberated way. Becoming conscious of all the tricky ways in which the ego operates.

[Matthew Lamot]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

@Matthew Lamot There is much more to this than mere enlightenment. Enlightenment is really the easy part. The hard part it then dissembling all the structures of the ego-mind to live in a liberated way. Becoming conscious of all the tricky ways in which the ego operates.

Well, that depends on where you get your information on "enlightenment" from.  Because if it is done properly, there is only one Self "experience" and from then on it's permanent.

So, where you get your idea that the ego gets involved again is a New Age myth, because there is no ego when the Self is revealed. Only Vasana, and even then if there is aly left, they are rendered non binding.

Enlightenment is about the way you think, and when ignorance is gone, it's gone for good.  There is no stages to enlightenment.  That's like saying a woman who is pregnant is a little bit pregnant.

What you are refering to is the bastardized teachings of westernized yoga, which get you to try to have an experience of the Self, and then work hard for the rest of your life replicating that Self experience, which was only ever ego anyway.

I recommend James Swartz for further reading.

It could be life changing!

 

 

Edited August 21, 2016 by Matthew Lamot

[Leo Gura]

@Matthew Lamot Man... You got a lot to learn. Some humility would do you good.

[Flicker_boy]

@Leo Gura *drops the mic*

Edited August 21, 2016 by InsidesOut

[Flicker_boy]

@Matthew Lamot when someone points out your bs system protection/ reality denial mechanism. AUCH! better distract them with more bs

Edited August 21, 2016 by InsidesOut

[Matthew Lamot]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

@Matthew Lamot Man... You got a lot to learn. Some humility would do you good.

Thanks again, for yet another personal feedback from you and your mignons.  Not my style, i play the ball not the person.

But, how have I got something to learn?  This suggests you are the gatekeeper to truth with your Ralston and Adyashanti rip offs.  What makes you so sure you know what you are talking about?  

[Matthew Lamot]

4 hours ago, InsidesOut said:

@Matthew Lamot when someone points out your bs system protection/ reality denial mechanism. AUCH! better distract them with more bs

Thanks for the therapy session.  Do you take visa?  How am I in denial?  Maybe it's you whos in denial?  How do you know for sure?

[Matthew Lamot]

5 hours ago, InsidesOut said:

@Matthew Lamot when someone points out your bs system protection/ reality denial mechanism. AUCH! better distract them with more bs

Plus you told someone maslow was enlightened, then changed it because Leo said so.  What is that all about? Are you just another one throwing around information that you dont really know anything about, to look profound?

I wouldnt learn from someone who A) isnt enlightened B) doesnt have a teaching C) teaches open mindedness yet wont read a simple 9 page pdf and have a discussion about it civily, yet throws around personal comments.

Is this community a cult?  Because nobody here seems open to ideas beyond what Leo is suggesting, and if he is questioned all you get is rigid defensiveness and comments about denial and shit.

[Paul EMD]

5 hours ago, Matthew Lamot said:

Is this community a cult?  Because nobody here seems open to ideas beyond what Leo is suggesting, and if he is questioned all you get is rigid defensiveness and comments about denial and shit.

@Matthew Lamot 

Why so much tension and what seems to be anger? You don't have to prove that your way/method/philosophy is better than everyone else's. Trying to prove that other people's worldview are wrong doesn't add much value, it just make you sound so dogmatic and close minded. It really looks like how religions try to show how superior they are to others.  

The fact that we are not all trying to force our beliefs on others  doesn't make this community a cult, just a place of exchange. I mean, I don't agree with everything I read here, I don't agree with everything Leo says, but certainly I don't feel the need to go and try to convert everyone to my way to think. That would be useless and quite counterproductive. 

Can't we just share and learn in a civilized way? I mean, arguing, debating and fighting in such way around enlightenment makes no sense to me. There is nothing to prove. 

[Matthew Lamot]

1 hour ago, Paul EMD said:

@Matthew Lamot 

Why so much tension and what seems to be anger? You don't have to prove that your way/method/philosophy is better than everyone else's. Trying to prove that other people's worldview are wrong doesn't add much value, it just make you sound so dogmatic and close minded. It really looks like how religions try to show how superior they are to others.  

The fact that we are not all trying to force our beliefs on others  doesn't make this community a cult, just a place of exchange. I mean, I don't agree with everything I read here, I don't agree with everything Leo says, but certainly I don't feel the need to go and try to convert everyone to my way to think. That would be useless and quite counterproductive. 

Can't we just share and learn in a civilized way? I mean, arguing, debating and fighting in such way around enlightenment makes no sense to me. There is nothing to prove. 

There is a couple of problems with this.

A) You think I can switch off my programme willy nilly because you dont share the same vasana load.  Mistake number 1

B) I'm not trying to convert, I'm trying to show people who are genuinely interested in liberation, that what they are being taught in this western spiritual community is mostly innacurate. Mistake number 2

C) I'm not interested in the nay sayers, the nay sayers provide a perfect platform to come with a counter debate so I can show the interested people what I know.  I'm here with knowledge, back up evidence and my own personal experience.  You can use this for whatever you want, but dont make mistake number 3 that I'm interested in speaking to people who dont want to listen.  I'm not.

D) I have shared in a civil way, if you have a problem with srong language that is your problem.  If strong language were a universal problem then everyone would be offended.  As they are not, it's your problem.  I've been civil, I do not make personal comments, and when I do it is because I sense there is some insincerity behind the questioning.  You might mistake being on a path with being a placid person, this would be a misconception, the only thing im required to do is not seek, I'm not seeking or expecting, thats liberation and its very different to what is being taught here in the mainstream.

D) I don't care if you think I'm dogmatic ans closed minded, because your 5th mistake is assuming that my results belong to me.  Thats a delusion and another mistake, I put the info out there and the result belongs to the field.  This way I'm free of what is called the collective unconscious manipulation and control tactics of the ego, and what you call "open mindedness and results focused" I am path focused.  That means I dont give two hoots about your opinion.  This is about the knowledge, not your ego.  So, sorry that im not seduced by your social conditioning.

If you want to learn, then Im open to discussion, if you are here to push your ego and its preferences onto me I will tell you that I'm not prepared to deal with you.  I only deal with people who are interested in the information.

E) So this all bottlenecks into one gross misconception you have that I'm here to prove worldviews wrong.  If you can read, you will see that Im talking about spiritual path, not a worldview.  Your worldview is your business.

[Matthew Lamot]

4 hours ago, see_on_see said:

i still don't understand this point. if enlightenment means becoming disidentified from the ego, doesn't this work of seeing through and disassembling the ego structures (to become free from them) come _before_ enlightenment? isn't it the whole point of enlightenment and its benefits, and the reason why it takes so much work to attain it? 

or is enlightenment simply the mere realization that one is not the ego? if even after enlightenment the ego structures, person, behaviours etc. remain exactly the same, how do the enlightenment benefits listed in the video apply? aren't they really the benefits of a person who is enlightened and has also done the ego disassembling work? 

sorry if this sounds dumb or confusing, i still haven't figured out the big picture of this work and how the pieces fit together from the videos and the posts here. 

The reason it does not make sense, is because it does not make sense.  It is not taken from a reliable non dual path.  But its a  pick and mix of New Age theory.

A true traditional non dual path is 100% logical, consistent and will not leave you wondering and wasting time trying to figure it out.  Because a proper non dual teaching is an analysis of reality, and not a theory or philosophy.

[Paul EMD]

@Matthew Lamot

What I'm saying is that you don't have to be so intense in the way you share your knowledge. Discrediting other's ideas won't make you more right and won't lead to any constructive discussions.  When you tell someone that he is wrong, you are directly making sure that he won't listen to what you have to say. If you truly want to share your knowledge, don't tell people how wrong they are before saying how right you are. It serves no purpose.  That's the classical way people debate, it never leads to any of the side to change its mind. 

As I said, I'm always down to learn and see different points of views, schools of thoughts etc. but I have a hard time paying attention  to someone who loudly claims that his way is the only way. 

Moreover, isn't it so counter productive to be looking for so much certainty over a subject such as enlightenment?