[armitron]

The initial impetus is not really important. It may have been something as trivial as a book, or a friend, or somebody on TV. People start all sorts of pursuits for all sorts of silly reasons, and usually end up abandoning them for the next-best-thing to come along. Promises of a better life ("the end of suffering!") are tempting to the unfortunate and downtrodden.

A better question to ask is what _keeps_ people dedicated to this quest? And of course I mean the ones who end up fulfilling it or getting close.

Once you see you can't unsee. Once these practices (that are numerous and not constrained to the East) are followed, things happen. You catch glimpses of the absolute. Mystical experiences and synchronicities become common. The intuitive aspect of yourself comes to the foreground and it's the one that drives this process. One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge.

Once on that path, it's hard for someone to turn back. He'd have to delude himself by repeating lies often enough that he'd come to believe them (what are beliefs but thoughts you keep having?).

[ZenoArrow]

>"One gets all the validation one needs, not from teachers or gurus, but by direct experiential knowledge."

Sure, I have no problem with that. However, if you let your past experiences define who you are, it'll always limit you, even if your past experiences include 'glimpses of the absolute'.

Simply put, the most common mode of human existence is that of a storyteller. If you see connections between event A and event B you're telling a story. There's no harm in that, it's a natural part of who we are. Of course there are moments where the self fades and the story has less of a structured narrative, but we still find ways to tie it together.

I like to ask myself this, if someone achieves enlightenment, what do they do with the rest of their life? Are they going to spend their time maximising their new found connection to their senses? What gives pleasure to someone who minimises personal attachment?

[armitron]

I couldn't say since I'm not living with that realization.

Here are the words of someone who does: http://biroco.com/journal.htm

[ZenoArrow]

This is a goof example of what I was referring to...

>"Push the details of life back into the mist and just sit with knowing that 'I am'. Why's that of any great interest? I'll tell you why. Because I didn't know I was, and then I did, and that amazing fact is somewhat skirted over being concerned about anything else."

This is the storyteller considering that 'I am God' makes everything else seem trivial in comparison. Why would you do ordinary human things when you see yourself as a God?

Ultimately it just seems like a waste of time to me, to deny yourself the richness of external experience just to trip on the magnificence of your self-image.

[state_less]

Why bifurcate into the position, all things are god, or the converse position, no things are god, Storytelling, Truth, Falsity. Even after the most profound proof realized, you stop to get a drink of water.

[ZenoArrow]

My point is, so called enlightenment does not necessarily lead people to living a richer life. Paradoxically, even though enlightenment is meant to remove burdens, some "enlightened" people treat it as a burden in its own right, even though they wouldn't necessarily admit this.