Is Enlightenment for everyone?

[MofO]

@egoless

Well. Everyone has enlightenments. Whether enlightenment is the ultimate realization or not is quite unrelevant. Everyone recieves the knowledge they need to tread further on the path which ever path. 

[Ayilton]

14 hours ago, Prabhaker said:

As the extrovert person moves on, he becomes one with the whole universe. As he advances, he reaches to a point beyond which nothing is left outside, he becomes identified with the outer world. The day this happens, nothing remains within or without. But by becoming one with the world outside, he finds himself and he finds the truth. Then he declares: ‘I am Brahman’. He becomes one with the entire universe. When he says: ‘I am the Whole’, he is indeed one with the Whole. Then he feels the moon and the stars are moving inside him. The introvert person while going deep within comes to a point where nothing is left to be seen, he becomes a void. Then he is able to say: ‘I am not’. Such as the flame of a lamp blows out and disappears -- everything disappears.

The extrovert is ultimately able to grasp the whole. The introvert is ultimately able to grasp the shunya, the void. And both, the void and the purna, the whole, mean the same thing. But the extrovert reaches by moving along the outer journey; the introvert reaches by moving along the inner journey.  At the end, the extrovert completely eliminates the inner world, nothing is left inside, only the outer world remains. The introvert goes on becoming oblivious of the outer world to such a point that nothing remains outside.

And the interesting thing is that both the inner and the outer prevail together. Of the two only one cannot remain. Hence, when one disappears the other disappears too. If only the outer were to exist and nothing remains inwardly, the outer too will be no more. Because how would you otherwise identify the outer?  In order for the outer to exist, the inner is necessary. It is only because there is the inner does the outer exist. If only the inner were to be left and nothing were to remain in the outer at all, how would you be able to call it the inner?  It exists only in comparison to something of the outer, it is inner relative to the outer.

For example, the pocket of your jacket -- its one part makes the inner side in which you put your hand, and the other is the visible part seen outside. Can you ever imagine a situation where only the inside of the pocket would remain without its outer part?

Or, take your home, for example, Can you ever think that only the inner section of the house should remain and not what is outside of it? If only the interior part were to exist but not the outer part, the inner too will cease to be. If only what is outside were to remain and nothing inside, that which is outside the house would also cease to exist. The inner and the outer are two sides of the same coin.

Hence, there are two ways to go about. Either drop the outer or drop the inner. With the falling of one, the other will also fall on its own accord. And then, that which would remain, which was present in the outer as well as in the inner -- in fact, it was always present even beyond the inner and the outer too. If our journey has been outward, then, that which would remain to exist we will call it the Brahman; if we have followed the inward journey, we will call it shunya, void, nirvana.

Those who have seen god as Whole, they have traveled through the outer journey. Those who have seen god as a Void, they have followed the inner journey. It is not that while following the spiritual discipline of yoga, or the outer path, some day you will have to start with the Sankhya -- there is no need for it. Yoga itself will help you to reach.

Let us look at it yet another way so that it becomes easier to understand. Let us assume a man is standing at the number ten and if he were to proceed from ten to number eleven and then twelve and so on, he would eventually reach to the infinite. A point will come where all numbers would vanish. If he were to come down from number ten to nine, eight, and thus move back, after reaching number one he would arrive at zero where all numbers are bound to disappear too. No matter from which end you begin your journey, the numbers will disappear. When this happens then it does not matter from where you started your search. That which will remain beyond the numbers will be the same. This can be understood in terms of Positive and Negative as well.

Some people like positive words; these are the same people who are extrovert. Some people like negative words; these are the people who are introvert -- such as, the Buddha. Buddha is very fond of negative terms. Even if God were to appear before him, He would appear in terms of “nothingness”, in terms of void. Hence the word Buddha chose for his 
moksha, for his liberation is -- nirvana. And nirvana means: blowing of the lamp. Such as a lamp blows out, similarly, the individual blows out. What remains after that, is nirvana.

Someone asks Buddha, “ What will happen to you after nirvana?” And Buddha says: “What happens when the lamp blows out? It becomes one with the Void”. So Buddha’s emphasis is on the negative. It is an introvert’s emphasis. Whenever an introvert will speak he will use negative terms. He will say: “neti, neti”, neither this, nor that. One wants to reach a point where nothing is left. But when nothing is left, everything is found. Then there is language of the positive: this, and this, and this too. When everything comes together, then what exists that too is all that IS.

These are the only two ways. You can choose whichever kind of a journey you like. These two kinds appear very contradictory. They are contradictory as far as types are concerned, but as far as achievement is concerned there is no contradiction. One arrives through shunya, the void, as much as one arrives through the Whole. Some arrives by saying: neither this, nor that. Others arrive by seeing god in all -- they think and feel by realizing god in everything. The basic idea is one wants to reach at a point where duality exists no more.

Duality can dissolve into nothingness in two ways; it can become non-existent if either one accepts everything, or one denies everything. It can happen if either all bondages are dropped, or all bondages are identified with the atman, the spirit. Either there is no bondage any more; or, the bondage itself becomes everything, the atman -- it becomes the universal, then too it ceases to be bondage.

Neither the yogi needs to go into Sankhya, nor does the seeker of Sankhya need to go into Yoga. And yet, the point where both reach is the same. One does not have to make any changes. Both bring you to the same place.

Each individual has to look within to see what one’s interests are, what is his or her true identity, whether one’s leaning is toward the positive or the negative; toward the Whole or the Nothingness. It can also be seen this way: if a person is of emotional type, if he is filled with emotions, the language of Wholeness will be acceptable to him. And if the person is of a very intellectual type, the language and expression of denial, of the Negetive will be acceptable to him. Logic negates, it follows the process of elimination. It goes on saying: this is meaningless, that is meaningless, that too is meaningless -- it keeps discarding until nothing is left to throw away. When nothing is left to throw out, the logic too drops on its own accord.

BHAGAVADGEETA III - Karmayoga

Translated by Swami Satya Vedant

Discourses given by Osho at Cross Maidan, Bombay
28th December, 1970 - 7th January 1971

Great post... The two can go full circle  ! I loved this explanation  , still don't know if I more inclined to follow this path trough negative or positive analogyy  !  I guess it's kool to try both 

[Haumea]

Quote

That's actually interesting, cause you kinda need A LOT of time alone to introspect.

Perhaps extraverts are more inclined to practice some form of bhakti, or devotional sadhana as opposed to Self-Enquiry?

[petar8p]

On 07/03/2018 at 3:05 AM, D-tron said:

Here is a video by Shinzen Young where he talks about the topic. He used to feel uncomfortable around people but that changed once he became enlightened. 

There's still some work to do for him ?

 

[themovement]

This is really interesting point, dose anyone think that could could start to become slightly introved before enlightenment whilst doing lots of meditation and self inquiry in isolation ?

[Consilience]

On 3/6/2018 at 10:17 AM, Joseph Maynor said:

Enlightenment is like a religion for Philosophers.  That’s tongue in cheek haha.  However — Enlightenment does require the kind of probing and questioning that a lot of personalities would be averse to.  That might explain the INTP connection.  INTPs naturally do the work.  Enlightenment is more up their alley.  But that doesn’t mean that Enlightenment wouldn’t be good for other personalities.  They are just less inclined to naturally question everything under the Sun like INTPs do.

Ime as an INTJ and meeting/talking to other INTJs, this personalty type does a massive amount of questioning too.

[Blackness]

Enlightenment is realizing the boundary between the self and the world is a fiction, generated and maintained by the self. If your content of awareness is primarily focused on the external world (extroverts), it will probably be more difficult for you to break this boundary, as the need to seek comes from within, and that which generates the boundary (the self) is the only thing that can stop generating it.

The realization of the falsehood comes from probing what is within, not without. And truly probing what is within, tends to come after seeing the vacuity of material desires, and abandoning what the external world has to offer. Realization that there is actually no internal or external, only comes later.

In context of Jung and MBTI, I would speculate introverted perceivers - INTP, INFP, ISTP, ISFP - would have the highest chance of starting and ending the seeking, probably favoring the F's somewhat. And ESTJ and ESFJ would have the lowest chance.

Edited January 5 by Blackness