"Therefore, enlightened people lead others by opening their minds, reinforcing their centres, relaxing their desires and strengthening their characters."

"Let the people always act without strategy or desire; let the clever not venture to act. Act without action and nothing is without order."

Enlightened people know that their attitudes have greater influence than their actions. They know that the things they respect and value soon become the motivating force behind their people. Therefore they openly value worthwhile qualities that others can achieve - integrity, flexibility, spontaneity.

They don't emphasise extraordinary achievements or impressive possessions because they know these things will undermine the harmony and accord among the people. Enlightened people bring peace and progress to their organization thru the force of correct attitude They practice non-interference and shape events with the power of their attitudes.

Osho

Osho is one of the best-known and most provocative spiritual teachers of the 20th century. Beginning in the 1970's he captured the attention of young people from the West who wanted to experience meditation and transformation. More than a decade after his death in 1990, the influence of his teachings continues to expand, reaching seekers of all ages in virtually every country of the world.

What is enlightenment?

Coming to understand, coming to realize that you're not the body. You're the light within, not the lamp, but the flame. You're neither body nor mind. Mind belongs to the body, mind isn't beyond body, it's part of the body. Minds is also atomic, as body is atomic.

You're neither body nor the mind - then you come to know who you are. And to know who you are is enlightenment.....

Enlightened means you have realized who you are.

"Truth is known in silence. And when truth is known through silence, it can be expressed only through silence."

Spiritual Enlightenment… in an age of scientific reasoning

Men have always sought spiritual enlightenment, some occasionally and others continually. For those who seek, many questions linger.

It’s always a matter of where to look and a concern over whether they'll ever find it. They may also wonder if there is more than one source or if a proper method to search exists. They should know however, it is to also recognize enlightenment if ever to find it.

So, what is enlightenment? Is spiritual enlightenment different? Well, since one shouldn't count merely 'good ideas', then all of enlightenment is spiritual. But, just because it's spiritual doesn't necessarily mean 'religious'... and it could pertain to justice issues as well. It could pertain to anything which might advance oneself or society as a whole.

Spiritual enlightenment, being an unknown quantity beforehand, for many people it's mystical knowledge. However, a person believing true enlightenment must be accompanied by a clap of thunder would never find it.

They shouldn’t expect angels to sing (or clouds to part) either although the process is amazing. Enlightenment is simply obtaining a greater understanding but, importantly, it's a matter of degree. Most often it's a profound realization or it borders on profoundness. In short, to receive spiritual enlightenment is a step forward on an elevated path. It's part of our learning process except it comes spiritually, never from a classroom and rarely from a book.

Knowledge gained from a classroom or book isn’t considered enlightenment because, largely, it's already commonly known or expected to be known. Sometimes a rare book, perhaps one which hasn’t been widely circulated, could contain enlightenment if the information it contained was spiritually derived and unique.

Gaining unique knowledge doesn’t mean exclusive knowledge however; others would have it even if it didn't come from a book. Exclusive knowledge probably doesn't exist within men. Even if a few thousand people knew, it still would be relatively unique knowledge.

Usually however, it's ancient wisdom, known only by a few for millennia. So, to receive enlightenment isn’t really a magical process and the results, while perhaps startling, lack the dramatics. Even though it lacks the drama one might expect, the grand contentment from a greater understanding can still be expected. However, in an age of scientific reasoning, spiritual enlightenment is becoming rare.

It's becoming rare because men are tending more to believe the scientific community has all the answers, or will. Scientific inquiry, while extremely productive in most all areas, does have its limitations… therefore spiritual enlightenment is often needed. Much as the English language has difficulty describing sensory experiences, like the smell of a flower, science has difficulty with the metaphysical.

Some knowledge gained ages ago would have been considered enlightenment but today, for that knowledge which survived, it would be considered common knowledge and thus no longer ‘enlightening’.

Old hat does not qualify. Yet, strangely, it is often ancient wisdom which would. At any rate, enlightenment should be considered the cutting edge of knowledge since it's usually metaphysical in nature. No pun intended but it determines how we slice things.

Untaught enlightenment

Enlightenment is most often of a spiritual (metaphysical) nature mainly because that's where our knowledge falls short. It's also because that type of knowledge isn’t taught in a classroom, scientifically or otherwise.

Religions try to teach it but often without any factual basis... some religious teachings have a ring of truth but most don't. In short, spiritual enlightenment comes not from scientific circles, since they don't adequately address spiritual phenomena, nor does it usually come from religious circles, since they can't be objective. To most religions, to be objective is tantamount to heresy.

There's another thing about enlightenment one should consider… its value. It's one thing to feel enlightened, quite another if the knowledge holds no value. Enlightenment without value only feels like a step forward, but it's only a false step… imitating progress.

To realize something never considered before & feel enlightened may only represent a piece of the puzzle. While each piece is important, probably critically important, it may fall short in really serving us. It would only serve us if we’re later successful filling in the blanks.

While enlightenment is usually about the meaning of life, it could involve a few other subjects. It could pertain to certain aspects of life, like human nature for example. There's more to learn despite what the psychologists might think.

While human nature would be a piece of life’s puzzle, enlightenment about human nature could serve us in the meantime. The meaning of life must be shelved until one is completely enlightened.

Even if one was, hardly anyone would believe their grand announcements… besides, one prefers to discover these things on their own. Not only because believability is an issue, with charlatans abound, but one has a powerful inherent need for self-discovery.

Justice & enlightenment

Another form of enlightenment may come as it pertains to justice, much as it did with certain men of the 18th century in France & England, in a movement known as ‘The Enlightenment’.

Rousseau was seemingly the most enlightened but others seemingly were also, such as Voltaire… considered a genius. Outrageous that he was & a rascal, Voltaire contributed nonetheless. Justice isn't taught by science or religions so naturally any knowledge gained in this area is often enlightenment.

Civics teachers don’t really teach justice, just the framework of government & laws. Rarely are new concepts advocated or anything lacking pointed out.

One might think I’ve misconstrued that 18th century event by taking the meaning of ‘The Enlightenment’ literally. Some may believe the participants weren’t really enlightened but instead it was merely an intellectual group effort which furthered the cause of freedom.

In other words, believing there wasn’t really any ‘enlightenment’ involved. I'd disagree… these men were enlightened to the fact the process was necessary. They knew it wasn't only necessary because freedom is a good thing for the human race, but because it is a spiritual necessity.

In the grand scheme of things, metaphysically & even politically, freedom is absolutely necessary. Also see how men often perceive freedom today... you might be surprised.

As said earlier, enlightenment is often of a spiritual nature, so it might seem strange that justice often pops up… yet it should, especially since the spirit-world left justice unattended. Justice is solely mankind’s realm, apparently purposefully assigned to him since Mother Nature turns a blind eye to justice.

She doesn't practice justice nor do her animals… except while nurturing their young. It isn't justice to animals however, but the instinctual need to perpetuate the species. Since Mother Nature & mankind are quite apart on this issue, it seems to indicate we’re not of the same broth. See our article on Charles Darwin.

Curious however, young animals, unthreatened & in their comfort zone, often have a childlike (human) innocence about them & just as playful. They sooner learn the harsh realities however… & become more obedient to them.

While on the subject of justice, it's obvious enlightenment is still lacking as evidenced in Iraq, Afghanistan & Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Hazing &/or torturing prisoners, while important information may sometimes be extracted, sometimes life-saving, it creates a more determined enemy, increases their ranks & thus, multiplies the problem.

About this, although it should be common knowledge, the guilty authorities are w/out any enlightenment at all. Such tactics always backfire & the dire consequences are always vastly underestimated… a part of human nature misunderstood by these psychologically-trained authorities.

Close counts

Discovering the source & causes of metaphysical phenomena would also be enlightenment even if the processes aren’t fully understood. To attribute a phenomenon to a cause, even more accurately, would be enlightenment.

Besides, the spirit world doesn't exist in precise terms… see semantics. For that matter, there would be enlightenment available in most all scientific fields, even astronomy & geology, largely because they're associated with metaphysics. Actually, there isn’t much that isn’t associated which means a whole lot of learning is in store. There is, in effect, a classroom for this purpose but one quite different.

How to find Spiritual enlightenment

While this article has further characterized enlightenment to some degree, it hasn’t yet addressed the manner in which to obtain it. In classical times, it was believed oracles held such enlightening knowledge… those of Apollo at Delos & Delphi were the best known.

Sometimes the source is called the ‘tree of knowledge’ or ‘fountain of knowledge’… as if a place. A burning bush might be sought or a tall, skinny, white-haired wizard.

First of all, the source wouldn’t be located exclusively in any one place lest deny a large portion of the population. Such enlightening knowledge, if sought, would be available to every living soul… & it is.

As to oracles & wizards, even though they discovered how to obtain enlightenment, unfortunately, they often selfishly kept their source a secret. There was a certain amount of prestige associated w/being an oracle or wizard & if they were to reveal their source, well…

Similarly, the American Indian ‘sweat houses’ are known as places to obtain enlightenment but that is commonly considered a private affair… nobody seems willing to talk about the experience or what they may have learned.

For several centuries however, bodhisattvas (a Buddhist term) are known for having obtained enlightenment thru nirvana & are, uncharacteristically, willing to share their knowledge. Their problem however & that of others, has been w/characterizing their discoveries (for a lack of descriptive terms).

While enlightenment can be passed on to others & may hold value, it's far better to have the goose than a few golden eggs. Besides, as said, most people will dismiss the findings of others.

Since neither an oracle nor wizard will tell you about their source of knowledge, perhaps not even an American Indian, then I will… their source is the Divine Intellect. It was first discovered (or first revealed) 1,800 years ago by Plotinus (205-270), the founder of Neoplatonism, although he called it the ‘nous’. Actually, I believe it's the same as nirvana… different cultures have different names.

Therefore, never again will you need consider trekking to Tasmania to seek out someone mysterious looking. You can forget about canoeing up the Amazon & your trip to Tibet can be cancelled… because, hallelujah, you have finally found it!

But hold on… it isn’t that easy. Such discoveries, according to many legends, always need keys to open them. The keeper of these particular keys is not the Cyclops, dragon or an Egyptian mummy however, but one’s very own subconscious mind.

This is starting to sound mysterious after all isn’t it? Well, it isn’t, I just decided to add a bit of mystery to it. Most people would feel cheated if enlightened w/out the mysterious element… as if mystery authenticated it. Authenticating it also would be a wizard that looked the part, not some teenager, stoic banker or old family farmer. Sadly, that is human nature.

Since I'm not a wizard, nor do I have a dim-lit hazy room w/purple lights, I won’t be taken seriously by most people, especially since I have no torches burning either. Since this is a modern-day website & since I was once a family farmer for 25 years, a sodbuster w/out a formal education (gasp!), none of what I say about metaphysical matters will be taken seriously by most people.

Well, that’s too bad…but it isn’t my loss. You disappointed people which expected a wizard can leave now.

For those of you who remain, let’s address those keys I mentioned. If you’re serious about becoming spiritually enlightened, you’ll have to pass some tests before you can open the door (the keys). No, we don’t provide the tests… your subconscious will conduct them. It will also take some work, extraordinary good habits &a whole lot of dedication. In short, you’ll have to prove yourself worthy of these keys. A good place to begin is to learn about the Divine Intellect & most of our articles would be very helpful.

And no, there's nothing to join, nothing to pay. So what’s in it for us? We simply have two fantastic books for sale (go to source site link provided at bottom of page)... if you’re interested. I really don’t need to add anymore, all the information you’ll need to begin is within my articles, within this website. Our books only help insure an adventure.

A.O. Kime

1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
2. Something given to help the needy; alms.
3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy.
4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity.
5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy.
6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love.

A person who makes elaborate, fraudulent & often voluble claims to skill or knowledge; a quack or fraud.

1. A favorable & especially unduly high opinion of one's own abilities or worth.
2. An ingenious or witty turn of phrase or thought.
3. 1. A fanciful poetic image, especially an elaborate or exaggerated comparison.
   2. A poem or passage consisting of such an image.
4. 1. The result of intellectual activity; a thought or an opinion.
   2. A fanciful thought or idea.
1. A fancy article; a knickknack.
2. An extravagant, fanciful, and elaborate construction or structure: “An eccentric addition to the lobby is a life-size wooden horse, a 19th century conceit” (Mimi Sheraton).

1. 1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
   2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience & not theory, especially in medicine. 

1. 1. An opinion or a doctrine at variance w/established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
   2. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.
1. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
2. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2. 1. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
   2. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3. 1. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment & due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
   2. Law. The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
5. Abbr. J. Law.
   1. A judge.
   2. A justice of the peace.

1. (used with a sing. verb) Philosophy. The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind & matter, substance & attribute, fact & value.
2. (used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
3. (used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
4. (used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

1. often Nirvana
   1. Buddhism. The ineffable ultimate in which one has attained disinterested wisdom & compassion.
   2. Hinduism. Emancipation from ignorance & the extinction of all attachment.
2. An ideal condition of rest, harmony, stability, or joy.

It's ironic such an encompassing word had such a humble, unceremonious beginning. As should be noted, this isn't yet a branch of science but rather a branch of philosophy. In order to be a science, a beginning point is needed for which philosophers are trying to provide but as stated, so far unsuccessfully.

One particular word associated w/metaphysics & perhaps the only one coined w/the absolute assurance it is appropriate, is ‘metaphysical’, meaning… of, or related to metaphysics. There have been other terms applied, w/less assurance & we shall soon briefly investigate those.

Beginning w/the term ‘metaphysical’, obviously appropriate, has a very interesting history & remarkably, one of evolution. It wasn’t because its meaning was confusing but what it should encompass... what should be deemed ‘metaphysical’.

That changed over the centuries, w/the mental aspects of humans being attached & detached, likewise all questions concerning the Creator; whether or not metaphysics should be more about the laws of physics was often the question.

In effect, all things unknown & seemingly not within the capacity of humans to know, at least not in a normal scientific fashion, were subject to being deemed metaphysical. What should be, or should not be, declared metaphysical is still unclear today.

It all began, apparently, w/Aristotle. His views were considered to be ontology... actually meaning metaphysics but just another attempt to categorize the matter. It's probably a good term, however seemingly unnecessary, since it actually means the same thing… the nature of reality.

Immanuel Kant, the great 18th century German philosopher, thought metaphysics should be divided into 3 areas:

• the self (rational psychology)
• the world (cosmology)
• God (theology)

Later, apparently by consensus, theology was kicked out by the scientists & given back to the theologians. Metaphysics was then restructured but remained in 3 parts:

• keeping cosmology
• changing the name of rational psychology to speculative psychology
• adding ontology

However in the greater sense, it is still all one-in-the-same.

The bizarre concepts of metaphysics

Metaphysical things then began to include bizarre concepts, many of which call upon the use of ‘universals’ (external link). It was an attempt to separate what's real & what isn’t, largely involving concepts on permanent things vs. changing things.

Often it's the physical vs. concepts, as in eyeballs vs. sight. As another example, men are born, live & then die whereas the species of man persists & the arguments center on whether or not both are actually real. Are individual humans to be considered only an ‘instance’ within a timeless essence (the concept of the species) or are only the particulars (men) real & the concept not?

Or are only eyeballs real & sight not? Some believe both are real, others believe only the particulars are real. I think this begins to explain where the philosophy of metaphysics has gone… into the abyss of idiotic concepts.

It's inconceivable not to believe both are real or else it would follow such things as an orgasm isn’t… for which they could dispense with. Further, it should have dawned on them that if only physical things are real & mental processes aren't, why bother putting forth their thoughts on the matter?

This is very similar to the Dualism vs. Monism (materialism), Dualism recognizes two kinds of reality, which is matter & spirit, whereas Monism believes only in the reality of the physical & that nothing mental is real.

Then there is ‘idealism’ which is unworthy of comment. It gets worse… dozens of other concepts tinker w/the matter of reality in this manner, all of which have become increasingly bizarre such as epistemology.

The problem is, these philosophers are trying to describe true reality instead of discovering it first. Metaphysics won't be discovered thru analytical dissections but apparently they've long held that is the only way possible. In other words, they seem oblivious to, or discount, any other method.

It's not that I'm being overly critical, there's common agreement that metaphysical philosophy is in a mess & going around in circles. But should these philosophers be blamed for trying? They shouldn’t be blamed for trying but perhaps for how they try. They’ve selfishly guarded these questions for themselves, ignoring all other opinions outside their circles.

This is especially unfortunate since there are those who would know something about true reality. For reasons I’ll soon address, it could be a coal-miner from Kentucky or housewife in Liverpool, England. Perhaps it would be a peasant farmer in Mexico or a lumberjack in Russia. There wouldn’t be a lot of people who would know about true reality today however… not like they did some 3,000 years ago.

When scientific thinking began to dominate around 500 B.C., the capability for true spiritual thought was being replaced to achieve material benefits. Unless a common practice, it's difficult for these two thought processes to coexist within the mind simultaneously.

In other words, modern man hasn't been conditioned to also think spiritually... not to the extent he should. Actually it's the other way around, he has been conditioned NOT to think spiritually. Spiritual thought has long been held as if another practice.

In that it may be unclear what these two thought processes are, they should be described. In the very beginning, the stone-age mentality was one of acquired knowledge thru experience but w/out scientific explanations.

As one example, they didn't think in terms of precise numbers but would judge instead if something was sufficient or insufficient. We often do the same today w/the use of the terms 'few', 'not many', 'several', 'too many' or 'too much'.

I brought that up to first demonstrate that one can effectively function w/out mathematics or having other scientific explanations, albeit limiting progress. While their mental processes can also be described as empirical & w/an awe of those things scientifically unexplained, the tendency was to think spiritually.

After all, it wasn't yet conceivable that things could be scientifically explained, therefore, to them, there was 'magic' attached to almost everything. On the other hand, scientific thought is how we think... that everything has a scientific explanation, thus the magic is gone. As an example, in observing a tree & w/our scientific knowledge how the tree is structured, there are no compelling reasons to otherwise wonder about it or think of it primarily as a living entity.

Metaphysical answers...

That fact remains, there's a way to find answers about metaphysics but not the way scientists & most philosophers are pursuing the matter. Plotinus (205-270), the founder of Neoplatonism, is the only one I’m aware of who was on track, who did it the right way.

There's only one way to determine the essence of metaphysics & that's the spiritual method. But not so fast… it isn’t that easy. This is all explained in many places within this website but more-so within our Divine Intellect page.

The Divine Intellect is also known as the ‘nous’, as Plotinus called it. It's the source of all metaphysical knowledge but only accessible to those worthy. And who determines one’s worthiness?

One’s very own subconscious mind does. It also isn’t easy because in may take many months, if not years, to make contact. It also isn’t easy because once that level of worthiness is achieved it'll have to be maintained for some time & if you screw-up you're disconnected (like me, often).

If you want answers, then that’s what it'll take. If you're not successful, that means you haven't gone far enough... & don't blame God for making it tough, blame your subconscious mind.

The realities within the spirit world are remarkably different, as should be imagined & I should explain some of these differences.

Almost everything considered important in our world has little or no meaning in the spirit world. The vast amount of knowledge mankind has amassed over the centuries wouldn’t be worthy of any thought.

Whether something was green or purple, whether 60 feet tall or 3 inches, or who was the 12th American president, is immaterial. And all spiritual entities have exactly the same amount of intelligence & acquire it instantly… without teachers or schools.

And importantly, it's to feel at home at last. Admittedly, this is just bits & pieces.

So, for the would-be philosophers, this is how it'll be done, how metaphysics will be understood. The problem is in relating these discoveries, aside from the difficulties in finding the appropriate words, hardly anyone will listen.

I believe this is because it was intended to be a private experience, or perhaps due to human nature, ‘expected’ to be private. It isn't within the normal mindset of today to comprehend metaphysics & there would be an overwhelming tendency to reject those truths without experiencing this phenomenon firsthand… thus making it a private experience.

As it should be perhaps, only those worthy capable of finding answers & appreciating the ultimate value... & how it can be applied. The Biblical passage ‘Seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened, ask and it shall be given’ is as if a law of the universe. I shouldn’t have to tell you what this all really means.

A.O. Kime

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3. 1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair¹.
   2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar.
   1. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
   2. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.

1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar.
   1. The objective case.
   2. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

1. Situated at, extending to, or coming from a great depth; deep.
2. Coming as if from the depths of one's being: profound contempt.
3. Thoroughgoing; far-reaching: profound social changes.
4. Penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious: a profound insight.
5. Unqualified; absolute: a profound silence.

1. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing & respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. 1. Leeway for variation from a standard.
   2. The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.
3. The capacity to endure hardship or pain.
4. Medicine.
   1. Physiological resistance to a poison.
   2. The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.
5. 1. Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.
   2. Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.
6. The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.