MetroStyles
Stylish Dinosaur
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Messages
- 14,586
- Reaction score
- 30
Nearly as far back as written history goes, examples of the "enlightened man" have existed across cultures and religions. The two most well-known are Jesus and Buddha, both of which managed to overcome their attachment to material goods, social comparison, and worldly outcomes. While western tradition has not focused on enlightenment, it's important that Christianity's figurehead was what would likely be considered an enlightened being by eastern standards.
In Asia, the concept of enlightenment through Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. has stayed strong. Parables of ancient monks who reached it and elusive masters who experienced satori, or a spiritual awakening, are plenty yet I have yet to come across one of these people in my own life. Modern quasi-celebrities from the villified/venerated such as Osho in the 1970s to the new-age opportunists (Eckhart Tolle) have kept this concept relevant to this day.
The idea of it rings true to me - after all, I've certainly been through the pleasure and pain cycle, the dependence and base emotions that all human beings go through. I know that pleasure exists as a counterpoint to misery, and as such cannot exist without its opposite. It seems that, barring enlightenment, we as humans are destined to bounce back between pleasure and misery as long as we go on living. And what the teachers say about this all rings true:
- That living in the past and future (through nostalgia, grudges, dreams, expectations, hopes, anxieties) is not living at all. Yesterday is the past, and today was once the future, but if you do not live in the moment you never live a moment at all.
- That meditation is the vehicle for freeing our minds of the endless inner chatter (the ego) that dominates our thoughts. This one is hard to argue with, as anyone that tries to stay aware of their thoughts for thirty seconds will realize the haphazard and often negative inner voice that won't shut up. True inner silence is hard to find without practice. To be enlightened is to be fully aware in the moment - to truly live without the mind being preoccupied in some other dimension.
- That happiness conditional on others (others' love, others' approval) and on materiality (money, possessions, objects) is happiness that can be taken away at any moment. This realization breeds anxiety, fear, and despair in the rich as well as the poor.
- That a resistance to whatever is is a recipe for suffering. Unless one can accept whatever happens and flow with it, one will be in despair unequivocally. This includes major life events such as divorce, infidelity, death, etc. To be enlightened, we are told, is to go with the flow.
As I said, all of these things genuinely make sense to me. But of course I have plenty of doubts. Why do these teachers rarely provide concrete exercises for reaching this inner peace? Why do they avoid the subject of how to operate within the confines of a materialistic society while living in an enlightened state? Why are their teachings always so metaphysical and hypothetical?
Why are there not more "enlightened people" in the world? Is it because transcendence of our base nature is really only possible in fleeting glimpses? Is it because as humans we are destined for a life of pleasure and misery, flickering from one to the other? Is it because our materialistic, "efficiency-obsessed" society has created a model in which this sort of higher thinking just doesn't work - and if so, does it matter whether it's society's fault or our nature? The end result may be the same - that the idea of enlightenment is an idealized dream that sounds nice and makes sense, but just doesn't work because of who we are.
Any thoughtful points of view?
In Asia, the concept of enlightenment through Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. has stayed strong. Parables of ancient monks who reached it and elusive masters who experienced satori, or a spiritual awakening, are plenty yet I have yet to come across one of these people in my own life. Modern quasi-celebrities from the villified/venerated such as Osho in the 1970s to the new-age opportunists (Eckhart Tolle) have kept this concept relevant to this day.
The idea of it rings true to me - after all, I've certainly been through the pleasure and pain cycle, the dependence and base emotions that all human beings go through. I know that pleasure exists as a counterpoint to misery, and as such cannot exist without its opposite. It seems that, barring enlightenment, we as humans are destined to bounce back between pleasure and misery as long as we go on living. And what the teachers say about this all rings true:
- That living in the past and future (through nostalgia, grudges, dreams, expectations, hopes, anxieties) is not living at all. Yesterday is the past, and today was once the future, but if you do not live in the moment you never live a moment at all.
- That meditation is the vehicle for freeing our minds of the endless inner chatter (the ego) that dominates our thoughts. This one is hard to argue with, as anyone that tries to stay aware of their thoughts for thirty seconds will realize the haphazard and often negative inner voice that won't shut up. True inner silence is hard to find without practice. To be enlightened is to be fully aware in the moment - to truly live without the mind being preoccupied in some other dimension.
- That happiness conditional on others (others' love, others' approval) and on materiality (money, possessions, objects) is happiness that can be taken away at any moment. This realization breeds anxiety, fear, and despair in the rich as well as the poor.
- That a resistance to whatever is is a recipe for suffering. Unless one can accept whatever happens and flow with it, one will be in despair unequivocally. This includes major life events such as divorce, infidelity, death, etc. To be enlightened, we are told, is to go with the flow.
As I said, all of these things genuinely make sense to me. But of course I have plenty of doubts. Why do these teachers rarely provide concrete exercises for reaching this inner peace? Why do they avoid the subject of how to operate within the confines of a materialistic society while living in an enlightened state? Why are their teachings always so metaphysical and hypothetical?
Why are there not more "enlightened people" in the world? Is it because transcendence of our base nature is really only possible in fleeting glimpses? Is it because as humans we are destined for a life of pleasure and misery, flickering from one to the other? Is it because our materialistic, "efficiency-obsessed" society has created a model in which this sort of higher thinking just doesn't work - and if so, does it matter whether it's society's fault or our nature? The end result may be the same - that the idea of enlightenment is an idealized dream that sounds nice and makes sense, but just doesn't work because of who we are.
Any thoughtful points of view?