Not trying to be sarcastic or rebellious here. Having plain doubts that's all.
I come more from a PD perspective but I love spirituality as well.
But I have certain doubts about enlightenment and the general societal perception of it.
We realize that experiences and emotions are pretty subjective. And I also mean they are relative not absolute.
When you are having a non-dual experience, your experience of it is very subjective and should not be considered absolute. Its abstract right. So one person can say its good whereas another might not like it as much. (Hint: It seems like duality is being frowned upon.)
Also coming to enlightenment. Isn't Enlightenment very relative. It's like a label. What you call enlightenment, maybe I don't call it enlightenment. Does it mean that if a person is claiming to be enlightened, he is attained greatness and become morally and spiritually great ?
I am not trying to challenge but being analytical about it.
If a person is enlightened (as he/she or others claim), then I think of it as another perspective or way of looking at life, just another angle of looking at the same prism. Although this perspective (or way of living), could be considered unique and good, but once again another perspective and not an absolute one.
There can and should never be a consensus that this is greater than any subjective experience in the world. Nor can anyone prove for sure that enlightenment is equivalent to greatness as a human.
I have read about enlightened folks. And it doesn't seem there's a specific correlation between enlightenment and morality. Isn't it possible for an enlightened person to engage in crime and other nefarious activities for fulfillment of his pride or for power.
Osho was considered a great spiritual leader by some, but he was addicted to drugs.
So it means a person can be enlightened (or claim so) and yet he would still be just as capable of indulging in low conscious behaviors as other regular people. (Enlightenment cannot be a stamp of approval for greatness or high conscious behavior. )
If the above statement is true, then the logical inference you arrive at is the question, "What is the value or purpose of Enlightenment?"
It seems to me that the whole concept of Enlightenment is just that -a concept, and hence has very subjective connotations to it. One person could find meaning, value and purpose in pursuit of enlightenment whereas another might consider such a pursuit (or even the attainment of Enlightenment for that matter) as futile and meaningless.
It's not necessary or guaranteed that an enlightened person once having attained it, will immediately embark on a journey of performing great acts of kindness and compassion in the world. Although there is possibility that the pursuit of Enlightenment is beneficial to the individual in
So how are Enlightenment and non-dual experiences special if they help you to know yourself better ? It's a shift in paradigm and I realize that such a shift can be permanent, however it is just that - a shift in paradigm with added benefits to self-growth. One cannot see the need to idolize non-duality and enlightenment to the extent to which it is.
Such idolization might even border on egoic self-promotion, self-proclamation, superiority and hypocrisy.
As Leo states in a thread earlier, Osho died of kidney failure and Yogananda was fat, it seems there is no correlation between enlightenment and actualization. And as he says there's no seeking self benefit on this path. Which brings one back to the same question, " What is the value of Enlightenment?"
And for those who think it is not relative, it is likely for people to get very dogmatic about it. Enlightenment can itself turn into a cult.
What is Enlightenment for you may not be Enlightenment for me.
I might call a person enlightened even if he has not practiced meditation at all, and never followed any of the stated methods to achieve it, yet exhibits high level of consciousness and spirituality.
And as a contrast, another person who is enlightened(or claims so) might be sitting in a cave and that I would call a different existential experience, another unique experience, nothing more.
There is no way to proclaim that non-duality and enlightenment is absolute and absolutely the best out of all paths and experiences. Its highly subjective. You might enlightenment purposeful but another person might not and here we need clear boundaries. For another person, it might just be another perception of life and existence which may not or not be useful, and hence highly relative.
So in a nutshell why would enlightenment be special, what is the value of Enlightenment and do you think it is relative or not.
