In search of understanding...

[Anon]

Thank you for your responses Cal and Jhanananda. Let me explain my comment. I get the impression from the scattered information I've received about enlightenment that the enlightened person is supposed to be beyond social needs. I don't know a canonical source for this belief. I refrained from posting on this board because I thought doing so would be indulging my social desires, which is contrary to enlightenment. Yet, I still lurked on this board because I have social needs. I also doubted that Jhanananda was enlightened, or at least fully enlightened, because it seemed the board fulfilled a social need for him. This comment by Jhanananda also seems to imply he has social needs:

"...I greatly appreciate the company of fellow mystics, like you all, because otherwise I feel profoundly alienated by the rest of the world, with whom I can only have very superficial conversations with."

If someone can camp solo or live alienated for years without getting lonely, but later manifests social needs, he isn’t fully enlightened according to my assumption.

[Alexander]

I can relate to your principle of lurking, Anon, as I formerly was the same. It is also best for one's spiritual health to keep silent, and try to develop discrimination. That was how I got out of the jungle of wrong ideas that everyone else is trapped in. At the same time, there comes a day when those who seek find, and for those who knock the door is opened to them.

In regard to social needs, I found as the fetters diminished, one of the things I needed significantly less of was social interaction. The fulfillment I needed I found within myself. I found I could no longer experience anger, sadness, or loneliness anymore - at least not in the way I did before.

One paradox of the inner life is it is simultaneously solitary and social. Much of the work you are doing is by yourself. At the same time, being able to dialogue with others is extremely helpful. Other people can support you. For example, without them you might be stuck at one stage of the inner life for 10 or 20 years, whereas with them you can count on help to keep moving forward.

[Cal]

I understand, Anon. I also understood all that was behind the question when you asked it. Context is important and I may have missed a few steps in my earlier reply. The question that comes to mind now is "Do you want to learn why the question you asked is abstract?" As the answer to this could be quite in-depth. It would most certainly answer your underlining question.

Pain and doubt, searches, self-aware. If we get to the "root", we can unravel.

[Jhanananda]

If someone can camp solo or live alienated for years without getting lonely, but later manifests social needs, he isn’t fully enlightened according to my assumption.

Interesting hypothesis.  So, which "enlightened being" did not have "social needs?"  I would expect that any enlightened being, who did not have "social needs" would most likely have never been recorded in history.

Otherwise we go by Siddhartha Gautama's and Patanjali's definition of enlightenment, which is essentially being free of addictive behavior, and manifesting the superior fruit of the contemplative life.

I look forward to reading what the others have to say on this topic.

[rougeleader115]

I just want to say that I don't think we should see judging Jeffrey on his enlightenment based on his "need" for social interaction. If he fully lived his dissociation from society, we wouldn't even have this forum to ask questions, to find a way out ourselves. Social interaction would be necessary, enlightenened or not, as Jeffrey pointed out, to even "exist" in history. And in that social interaction, I doubt he has found many if any to truly express his depth, or even a fraction of it. And personally I think we all feel in certain ways the same. So enlightened or not, I think it is an extremely sad and depressing situation to be amongst billions of your own kind, yet finding simple communication or expression to be to ones own detriment.

Much love Jeffrey and all

[Sam Lim]

I tend to avoid all human contact if possible. That in itself is an impossibility. No one could disassociate from any human interaction, especially when one is living in a concrete jungle. Not every one can live in seclusion. I wish I could. People like us are very sensitive. I don't want to feel the anger, jealousy and etc of others. It makes me feel horrible. Even if we disassociate, how can we guide others? Even in the internet age of now, it is still interaction of the minds. We can't free ourselves from social needs even if we want to. Our basic needs of food and basic necessity have to be purchased which requires interaction. There is no escaping it.

[Jhanananda]

Thank-you, Sam, and rougeleader115, for expressing your points of view on this subject.  Sometimes I find it necessary to remind people that I was not born of a virgin, therefore I do not walk on water.

[Anon]

To be more explicit, when I wrote 'social needs' I didn't mean 'social needs as a means of attaining bodily requisites,' but 'social needs due to psychological or emotional reasons.' Not having social needs, in the sense I'm concerned with, doesn't entail not interacting socially. I could imagine an enlightened being with no social needs who teaches others and performs miracles because this is simply part of the nature of being enlightened. Though on my assumption that eliminating social needs is necessary for enlightenment, this being would never seek sympathy from others because he felt alienated, or want to pass on his knowledge out of a personal desire to benefit humanity.

If you could live in a place with no other people or nonhuman companions, but could otherwise have all your physical necessities, under the condition that you never had a thought about another person or organism, would you? This seems like one of the worst forms of torture imaginable.

"Do you want to learn why the question you asked is abstract?"

Yes, please go on Cal.

[bodhimind]

To be more explicit, when I wrote 'social needs' I didn't mean 'social needs as a means of attaining bodily requisites,' but 'social needs due to psychological or emotional reasons.' Not having social needs, in the sense I'm concerned with, doesn't entail not interacting socially. I could imagine an enlightened being with no social needs who teaches others and performs miracles because this is simply part of the nature of being enlightened. Though on my assumption that eliminating social needs is necessary for enlightenment, this being would never seek sympathy from others because he felt alienated, or want to pass on his knowledge out of a personal desire to benefit humanity.

If you could live in a place with no other people or nonhuman companions, but could otherwise have all your physical necessities, under the condition that you never had a thought about another person or organism, would you? This seems like one of the worst forms of torture imaginable.

One would certainly feel alienated in a sense if there was no one there to understand what you teach or experience. I cannot remember where I read it from, but it was from a yogi who said that as one reaches higher insights into nature, there tends to be fewer people at the peak of the mountain and one certainly starts to be more 'lonely'. Furthermore, the majority of people either do not take up any form of contemplative practice and do not experience it, and on top of that, carry out actions that actively marginalize the people who do so, such as the recent laws against the homeless. It is of no wonder to feel like the others do not understand and you find it difficult to teach.

I felt a frustration of a more minor scale when I was young (I'm not enlightened though)... I had an insight when I was a toddler (I was meditating for many hours on my own unknowingly) and I realized many people were like zombies controlled by their habits and afflictions. Being just a child, whenever I brought these things up, people around me would think that this child was simply weird. I certainly felt alienated in that way, because no one could understand what I said. My parents even thought I was abnormal.

I think we tend to project supernatural traits on enlightened people, but perhaps we have to remember that even the Buddha led a most ordinary lifestyle (apart from his siddhis of course), along with his sangha which he also felt saddened for, during the suicide of two of his eminent disciples. Of course, some might not recognize the Mahayana texts, but I really like the "Diamond Sutta" because the first text describes how the Buddha lives a perfectly ordinary and unspectacular life - Begging for alms, washing his feet, teaching, then meditating, etc. None of that 'fantastic' stuff.

I don't think being enlightened entails you to become a psychopath, where you are unable to feel empathy or emotions. Instead, it should make you more compassionate, since one would expect an enlightened being to be well-culminated in the four divine abodes as well. How can compassion arise if one does not feel anything? Perhaps we might need to explore that too... Also, we often see saints weeping from contact with the divine.

You mentioned psychological or emotional reasons - But I find that they might all be part of the same thing together with physical needs. They are all within the five aggregates. It is not that once you detach from the aggregate of form, the body ceases to exist... It is also not the case where if you detach from cognition, the thoughts cease to exist. So I think that it is the same for emotions.

In my imagination, they are like dominoes falling over and over, continuously, bringing about a chain of effects and causes. However, I think that it implies a form of mastery and the ability to be unattached to it (I might be wrong though, please correct me). So while you can see the dominoes falling over in a certain pattern, you can choose to not be attached to it and simply flow along with it, and if needed, the trajectory is changed. Because if it was any other case, I cannot see how a being will be able to continue even existing physically in the world... I'd love it if anyone more qualified could input on that too, since I certainly do not have high attainments.

[Cal]

... I may value the community of mystics on this forum more than anyone else here, because I learn a great deal from most of you, and I greatly appreciate the company of fellow mystics, like you all, because otherwise I feel profoundly alienated by the rest of the world, with whom I can only have very superficial conversations with.

Excuse me for dropping in. I've wanted to ask you this question for a while: Isn't an enlightened person supposed to be beyond social needs?

For one to understand there must first be a reflection of oneself in the words being received. If we look within the context of perception, admittedly, that your own assumption of one to be enlightened, is one absent of social need. I could refer back to Jhananada's correct definition of enlightenment, however, I think in doing so it does all of us here a great disservice. As if you wish to understand on a spiritual level, which enlightenment certainly is, then we must not talk at your "person", but to you. So quite simply, I will not attempt change your perception on Jhananada. That is something you must decide on your own. But I will extend my hand to you, and not speak at your person.

All I ask from you, is that you employ self-awareness.

When I spoke of one ebbing and flowing I spoke of the spiritual and the man. They are separate, yet the same. One houses the spirit within the body. Emotions, they arise and fall away, impermanent, they ebb and flow. With constant self-awareness we can see this. Like an observer to the movie of life. There comes a point when a choice can be made, to grasp or relinquish. The emotions of a man, deep seated, are never removed. They simply arise and fall away. It is in this choice (to grasp or relinquish) that we are free of our suffering. The only concrete determination of this is made from within. Has one relinquished, or grasped? Is one aware, or un-aware of the emotion present. Does one act, or observe? One can choose to reflect upon, or one can choose to let them fall. This is what is written in the discourse. Now since we are "defining" enlightenment, let us first define the words I've written. "Choice" implies a selection of 2 or more. By "what" do we choose, is what I wish to define. By what does one choose to grasp or relinquish? In understanding of this, we can continue.

[Sam Lim]

I could imagine an enlightened being with no social needs who teaches others and performs miracles because this is simply part of the nature of being enlightened. Though on my assumption that eliminating social needs is necessary for enlightenment, this being would never seek sympathy from others because he felt alienated, or want to pass on his knowledge out of a personal desire to benefit humanity.

Speaking for myself, the Pali Canon have specifically state about the fetters. An enlightened being will not have any fetters, wherefore comes the attachment? Seeking sympathy from others, wanting others to acknowledge your very existence and etc is a form of desire. The 4 Noble Truth have a way out for that. An enlightened being have already figured out the 4 Noble Truth and have practiced it. I do not believed that there is any miracles in the biblical, Islamic and some stories told in some erroneous Buddhist literature. We need to employ our critical thinking and eliminate the nonsense.

If you could live in a place with no other people or nonhuman companions, but could otherwise have all your physical necessities, under the condition that you never had a thought about another person or organism, would you? This seems like one of the worst forms of torture imaginable.

That is virtually impossible because our body contains bacteria on the skin and in the gut. Without them death will follow. Give a realistic scenario. Torture or not, it depends on one's perception. One man's meat is another man's poison.

[Anon]

The scenario isn't supposed to be realistic. It's a thought experiment to determine if we do need others for more than bodily survival. I didn't say you can't have bacteria, or whatever other organism you need to live. I said you can't have 'nonhuman companions,' like a pet dog for instance. This is to eliminate any personal relationships. I said you can't think about other forms of life, because if you can't think about them this rules out any possible attachment to them. You can't reminisce about your family for example, or think of pleasant animals. However, maybe you'll need to think about plants, for instance, as you prepare your food and medicine. So that would be allowed. As I said before, you're granted everything you need for your body's survival, and you can meditate however you want and whenever you want. Suppose that God or the gods set this up for you, but then they too subsequently disappear so you can never have a relationship with them. Would anyone here immediately accept such an arrangement if it were possible?

[Jhanananda]

Anon, the senior members here: Sam, Michel, Cal, bodhimind, rougeleader115, Alexander, etc.; have all provided ample cogent, and logically true arguments that are supported by their personal experiences in deep meditation.  This entire forum is for those who have developed the art of deep meditation.

I do not market myself as a worshipful deity, nor do I market miracles; however, we all manifest one or more the superior fruit of the contemplative life, and we use them as both evidence for, and our vehicle to, liberation from neuroses, and enlightenment; nonetheless, we all have feet of clay.

Most of my life in the last 15 years has been in solitude, even if most of my life in the last 10 years has been within a small town.  I keep to myself; however, I do have some surplus or waste food, which I like to make available to wildlife, such as birds, squires, rabbits, javalina, coyotes, and various large cats.  Sometimes some of those animals take refuge with me, and even become friends, and companions.

I have been lucid 24-7 for over 40 year as a consequence of leading a fruitful contemplative life.  This means I traverse the various layers of the immaterial domains on a daily basis.  At no point in those travels out-of-body have I ever found a place in the universe that does not have beings.  While the physical universe has places that are too hostile to support life; nonetheless, I have found immaterial life wherever I go in the immaterial domains.

I do have one frustration.  Everywhere I look in this world I see suffering beings.  I have examined history and culture in depth and have found evidence of coruption in every civilization.  I have examined religion in depth, and found it to corrupted; and every religion has evidence of marginalizing its mystics.  I am encouraged when I meet people who have unpacked their belief systems enough to question mainstream religion, and take up a contemplative life; however, I am frustrated to find that of those who have taken up a contemplative life, few make the necessary effort to cultivate the superior fruit, and they all have an excuse for why.

So, Anon, if you are looking for miracles, or someone to worship, then you are in the wrong place.  However, if you are interested in developing a fruitful contemplative life, or at least support a community that is, then you are in the right place.

[Sam Lim]

Well, I think I will consider time well served if I attend to things that are possible then the impossible. Do not want to waste that time.

[Anon]

All right Jhanananda, I'm content to leave the discussion as it is.

By what does one choose to grasp or relinquish? In understanding of this, we can continue.

I can name it, but not tell you much more about it. I do meditate upon your question however.