Survey: Your Definition of Enlightenment

...

Okay - I'll go. My defininition of enlightenment (as opposed to awakening): A never-ending quest of the realization of all that one is capable of being.

NB: My personal definition of awakening is the completion, by whatever means, of the physio-energetic circuit comprised of (take your choice) kundalini, chi, life force, holy spirit, or what-have-you...thereby opening,completing and facilitating the flow of naturally occuring forces and knowledge that signal the end of suffering in sentient beings,

Oh, wait...did I type that out loud????

at this point:

The subjective experience of synchrony with nature undisturbed by mentality

To realize that "THIS IS IT". Without anything interpreting IT as something that IT is not thus warping IT and unnecessarily making IT into something IT never was in the first place. Oof!

All this, without hinderance, continuously. No more curtains of ignorance.

...

Isn't that kind of like asking what is your definition of "red"?

When I first started down this path, I thought that the e-word was accepted as meaning something. But now I see that it is vague to the point of not really being a useful word, as shown by your question. If my definition is different from your definition, what is the point? I don't think I will ever be enlightened. But I do hope to wake up.

Great answers so far, guys!

The answer I give to this questions has changed over time, and I imagine it will continue to do so.

At the present time, I'm taking the lead of Eihei Dogen and defining enlightenment (or as he puts it, "the buddha way") as "leaping clear of the many and the one." I appreciate the verbiage of this definition, as it is not "having leaped clear", but "leaping clear." I'm convince that awakening is a continuous unfolding that requires lifelong participation. As my friend Stuart so often tells me, "there really is not place to stop and plant your feet."

~Jackson

Think I'll go with T.S. Eliot's elegant and epigramatic : "A condition of complete simplicity, costing not less than everything."

I heard in a talk recently something to the effect of... "Enlightenment is the dissolving of the distinction between enlightenment and un-enlightenment." I don't know... But may we all find out in this lifetime...

"Isn't that kind of like asking what is your definition of "red"?

When I first started down this path, I thought that the e-word was accepted as meaning something. But now I see that it is vague to the point of not really being a useful word, as shown by your question. If my definition is different from your definition, what is the point? I don't think I will ever be enlightened. But I do hope to wake up."

palabra

The recogntion there is no one, and therefore no one to have a recognition. All defintions are a play and that of "Enlightenment" is ironic.

[edit] for clarity

understanding who is not a what

I'd say something like the realization of reality as it is, right here and now. Clearly seeing just this. Slightly more esoteric, and conceptually a little more concrete, the realization of the nature of mind.

-Adam.

From all the literature that I've read, I'd guess Yoga's Parana Samadhi aka Tibetan Rainbow Body aka Dogzen's Mahamudra. Whatever that is exactly.

Echoing Tom, any definition for a term ought to be well-defined. Well-defined means there are clear criteria for saying when the term applies and when it does not. Words are only useful to the extent that they are meaningful. Words are only meaningful to the extent that they convey a message. Messages are only conveyed to the extent that the listener knows what the message signifies and what it does not signify.

This is the clearest definition of enlightenment I have come across. Enlightenment is completion of 4th path. Completion of 4th path requires completion of 3rd path. 3rd path has been completed if one can access nirodha samapatti. So one is enlightened if

1. one can access nirodha samapatti
2. one has an enduring confidence that the work of insight meditation has been completed; "done is what needs to be done," feeling you are off the ride, etc.

There may be other phenomena worthy of the aura and ambiance we associate with the word "enlightenment", but I am not sure these phenomena can be well-defined. If they can't be well-defined, there is no point trying to define them.

In this world but not of it

being -- everywhere already awake
time -- waking up as each of us

each of us -- responsible only for letting this be so
in each moment of our fully lived lives, and for vigorously affirming this
in each relationship and each moment.
Will we ever be off the hook completely? Or might we just become very very careful to let this be so simple in each moment...

according to poet, Dane Cervine, "Enlightenment Is a B**ch"

At first it isn't so bad-- a taste of ecstasy,
the world covered in honey. Even snails
scrawl the names of buddhas with their silvery trails.

But then, too much. Pears become unbearable,
wet white flesh so tender one could perish
contemplating the first taste.

Meditation becomes oddly redundant,
attention now like water, absorbed in tree root,
plumbing, even fire hydrants with their red

stubby arms become mandalas, and, worse,
the police siren revving its wail behind
my slow-moving car sounds like a mantra.

Even my wife's complaints about me finally
sound true. I just bow. Kiss her slender hands.
Carry the garbage outside, but, damn! The moon!

Beautiful Roomy, thanks for posting that!

Ajahn Brahm has a good definition of enlightenment in in his parable "the wishing game," where the wish for enlightenment is a wish for contentment so complete one has no more wishes.

I really like Shinzen Young's definition: "Enlightenment is like a free-fall from a cliff that never ends, you get acclimatized to the fall."

"This is the clearest definition of enlightenment I have come across. Enlightenment is completion of 4th path. Completion of 4th path requires completion of 3rd path. 3rd path has been completed if one can access nirodha samapatti. So one is enlightened if..."

This seems to be a vipassana-centric definition, which is fine but what about all the other variations of this practice?

One of the things that I love about this group here and at DhO is that we are taking a much more integral approach, trying to bridge the gaps across traditions. Intuitively, there HAS to be grand-unified theory of enlightenment, with a suitably precise definition but to my eyes that still needs to be found and consequently I am still struggling with the original question. Some of the answers here are (sorry) a little too poetic for my practical brain.

I guess I am just hoping I get it when I see it.

Here's my current working definition:

Enlightenment (a present participle): the opposite of "fooling myself".

Participles are *verb* forms. That's part of the definition.

It's a working definition, a "view" as in the proverbial Buddhist "thicket of views" sense. It works (it's a working definition after all) by reminding me that as long as I'm making assumptions such as this, that means I'm still in the thicket.

Cheers,
Florian

"This seems to be a vipassana-centric definition, which is fine but what about all the other variations of this practice?"

Not saying those don't exist or are not intimately related to the connotations of the word 'enlightenment', or shouldn't be pursued. I'm just not sure that they can be given a really precise definition (though I'd love to be wrong about that!). In the absence of a precise definition, the best that can be done is to give those general senses of what one means, and the instructions on how to see it directly for one's self.

Precision and practicality are good because they help limit misunderstanding. If a definition is not precise, then it allows one to mistake not-X for X. For instance, an imprecise definition of water is "a clear liquid at room temperature." Because there are many substances that are clear liquids at room temperatures, that definition invites the possibility of confusion. Likewise, in the vastness of what is possible in the mind, there are surely many kinds of states, experiences, ways of being etc. that share many properties with many facets of what one thinks of as "enlightenment" without actually being the "real thing". To the extent that our definitions and notions are imprecise in this way, there is a greater risk of confusion and miscommunication.

"Likewise, in the vastness of what is possible in the mind, there are surely many kinds of states, experiences, ways of being etc. that share many properties with many facets of what one thinks of as "enlightenment" without actually being the "real thing". To the extent that our definitions and notions are imprecise in this way, there is a greater risk of confusion and miscommunication."

Hi Brian,

Good point.

Is enlightenment a concept to be held, a position to be taken and acted from, an object of our experience (as subjects of it)? is it, in other words, a thing?

My current working definition sidesteps these issues somewhat by framing it in temporal terms, process or activity. Unchecked, this will turn into a static concept as well, hence the nature of the activity I chose as a definition: vigilance against this tendency of "turning it into another thing".

Cheers,
Florian

"@tomotvos: Some of the answers here are (sorry) a little too poetic for my practical brain.
"

I would like to note a variation on this sentiment. That being some of the answers here are (sorry) a little too poetic and practical for my brain.

And what if the universe, despite all of our attempts thus far, does in no conform to the way we think? In fact isn't it likely we have essentially trod the current path over and over. Maybe a radical shift is needed, and this radical shift can take hold by disregarding all concepts with regards to "Enlightment". I just have no confidence in doing what I have done for so long will suddenly bring results.