Survey: Your Definition of Enlightenment

Hi Gary,

Yeah, that's the spirit of what I was trying to convey. "Keep moving", "don't jump to conclusions" and so on. Challenge any concept (or other bit of experience for that matter) that presents itself as true: demand the evidence. Then challence that. If anything can hold up to this, it's a good candidate - but chances are, nothing will hold up. I can live with that, but not with the knowledge of deliberately letting me fool myself over this.

"I'm losing confidence that doing what I've been doing will bring results - well, that pisses me off! I'll have answers! Let them come and explain themselves, all these practices and concepts."

Admittedly, that's as practical and poetic as it gets.

Cheers,
Florian

"Yeah, that's the spirit of what I was trying to convey. "Keep moving", "don't jump to conclusions" and so on.
"

Keep moving; or stay sill?
Have conclusions or what will be will be?

What about we do all this stuff we have always done, is just a play in conditioning. Like being an actor in a play, continually changing the script but we are always in the play. I am sensing we need to be radical, believe NOTHING, do not believe ANYTHING and therefore form no conclusions. Everything in this play has the ego there, now the ego can play the game of not believing, he feels crazy but it might be a way out of the play.

Enlightenment is a concept. Each one has a different idea of it which they chase after, and so seeking begins.

Freedom, bondage, liberation, the 'me', and so on are also concepts. We seem to have a habit of living in ideas

- Martin

One thing that keeps nagging at me in all of this discussion:
Like Martin said, enlightenment is a concept. Sure.
But there certainly are people who think it is a physical occurence in the brain. For me, concepts are a creation of the mind and not "real," but physical events in the brain (firing of transmitters, strokes, etc) are not concepts, but actual organic, molecular events, and thus real.
The developmental Theravada view that enlightenment really begins at "stream entry" seems real to me because it has been described as an event that actually changes one's brain for good. Right? Certain cycles begin, concentration is greatly improved, the ability to make resolutions come true, etc. Just read what our own trustworthy members here have to say about their experience post SE.
So, anyway, I'm trying to prove that one possible definition of enlightenment actually isn't a "concept" at all. Did I succeed?
And, actually, I do think enlightenment happens when one sees their true nature, and one's true nature is the three characteristics. See the truth of the three characteristics, and thus see your true nature, and boom -- you are enlightened. It isn't necessarily something special or magical, enlightened is just the word used to describe a person who has seen their own true nature.
Now, what that looks like, how that does or doesn't change a person, how much more there may be to realize, etc. that is all interesting, but I think that the fact is that enlightenment is seeing your true nature. Period.
A zen person can get this, a Theravadan can get this, Tibetans, yoga practitioners.
I think Christians and Hindus and Muslums can get it but they interpret it through some different conditioning than a buddhist.
Non-dualists can get it -- you see things as they are you are going to see yourself as you are.

"I think Christians and Hindus and Muslums can get it but they interpret it through some different conditioning than a buddhist.
"

I realize that this doesn't make much sense, really. I don't really understand it myself but I think it is true. Dr. Ingram often states that people from various traditions, backgrounds, etc. may get fruitions/stream entry and not really realize what happened exactly. Which also is very confusing.
i''m curious -- maybe more will be revealed.

I think Martin456 is speaking to something very important.

"
I think Martin456 is speaking to something very important.

"

I would agree, what he said just put me off on a tangent that was related but not specifically directed to his point.

Just read this in Adyashanti's BG interview:

Adyashanti:
"Yeah. Looking back on it, it was almost like kind of mysterious how I just read, literally, read the word enlightenment in a book, and it lit something inside of me. I didn't know what the word meant, I didn't know where it was leading to, but it literally just sort of lit something inside of me.

It was almost like, I like to explain it like almost catching a disease. This incredibly powerful seeking disease, I just have to find out what this thing called enlightenment is. I didn't really have any reason why I had to find out. My spiritual search, I think unlike a lot of people, wasn't motivated by suffering, by angst, or by grief or I think a lot of the emotions that are part of really what fuel people's spiritual search. I mean, there was probably some of that going on unconsciously. But, for the most part, it was just, 'I have to find out what this enlightenment thing is.'

"Keep moving; or stay sill?
Have conclusions or what will be will be?

What about we do all this stuff we have always done, is just a play in conditioning. Like being an actor in a play, continually changing the script but we are always in the play. I am sensing we need to be radical, believe NOTHING, do not believe ANYTHING and therefore form no conclusions. Everything in this play has the ego there, now the ego can play the game of not believing, he feels crazy but it might be a way out of the play.

"

Hi Gary,

Noticing the play going on, and the script in my hands which I'm reading from, is quite something, quite a big step. That step, that "willing suspension of belief" in all the unquestioned conventions, well, it's a step, i.e. motion and direction. Jumping to conclusions about that (changing the script to accomodate this step) would prevent the next step, and end the motion.

As far as I can discern it, the step following that is to figure out the audience of the play. I'm playing this role for - whom? My family, friends, online acquaintances... I play, they react (by playing their roles). I see my role only through their eyes (since I know that I'm role-playing, the question is really, "am I convincing"? Am I fooling them well enough?). "I want to be a good family man and father because I want my wife and daughter to see me as a good family man and father". That's just plain twisted, so how come it's twisted, who's looking at who here? and so on.

After that, there will be another step, and another -

Cheers,
Florian

...

"Kenneth,

Keying on your latest BGeeksMag interview with our own JGroove (thanks Joel - so very nice! , where you say "I was thinking, at the very most basic level, the questions to answer are: 'What is enlightenment? ... " [read the rest here at www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/03/balanced-e...nd-the-chronic-yogi/ ]

What's your definition ... ?

Michael "

Hi Michael,

My definition of enlightenment is:

1. Objectifying and dis-embedding from the objects of attention.
2. Objectifying and dis-embedding from the apparent subject.
3. Seeing in this moment that this apparent subject and all these objects arise and pass away within Awareness, which gives rise to and is not other than all of manifestation.

(That's my definition for this week and may change without notice.)

Kenneth

No objects

No subject

Being

Much to love there

My limited view on this topic is that enlightenment has different stages. Liberation is waking up to what is, what truly is minus the concepts, minus the beliefs, and minus the limitations. So in Buddhist terms this means full realization of anatta of self, other, and all phenomena which is the realization of emptiness.

I do not think that Buddhist enlightenment is the same as Advaita, Sufi, and other radical nondual traditions that posit a oneness with everything because this still posits a grand Self, a One Being, which is not the same as emptiness. Buddhist enlightenment goes beyond this grand self by seeing its empty nature.

I also do not think that Buddha and Arhat are the same thing. If enlightenment happens in stages, then we cannot have the general blanket term of 'enlightenment' to connotate all stages. Enlightenment is the top, Full Enlightenment, Buddhahood. I do believe there are stages of awakening and it is not proper to call yourself enlightened until you're at the end of that journey, if there is an end.

I know that the purpose of this forum is to make enlightenment realistic, and I believe it is very realistic, but at the same time I don't think conflating the Mahayana view into the Theravada is proper. An arhat is liberated, a Buddha is enlightened. I think perfection is possible and that's the purpose of the Bodhisattva path; so I think full enlightenment is having complete wisdom, complete omniscience which happens through purification. A first stage Bodhisattva already has insight into anatta and emptiness but they still have defilements.

This is all just theory for me; I'm no arhat but it makes sense. I don't think full enlightenment is just realizing no-self and attaining peace and happiness.

"
Enlightenment is a concept. Each one has a different idea of it which they chase after, and so seeking begins.

Freedom, bondage, liberation, the 'me', and so on are also concepts. We seem to have a habit of living in ideas

- Martin"

I don't think there's anything wrong with concepts, in so far as the concepts work skillfully to bring one beyond concepts. The no-concept trap will leave you dead in the water; you'll be stuck in formless realm land, IMO. I believe integration of concept and no-concept is necessary, the intellect is not a tool to be forgotten. There is a reason that the Tibetans study Madhyamika so much in the beginning, a correlation to why they produce the most amount of realized beings, method aside. (This is just my opinion)

I think there is a wiggly line to follow. Because we're all yogis and aspiring yogis. And in the context of this discussion forum in particular, we are first and foremost yogis.

As such, our words are accountable not to an intellectual framework, but to a framework of lived experiences, dynamic and shifting.

On top of that, the thing (i.e., our conceptual faculties) that we're using to explore the question ('what is enlightenment') is one of the very things that is being transformed by asking/practicing the question! (in other words, 'What keeps happening to the ice fireplaces that I build every week?!')

Our very relationship to terms and concepts (such as 'complete', 'empty', and 'full') changes as we practice. Let's hope that it does!

I think this is why it's good to practice in terms of specific beneficial processes. Forget the rest.

I'll tell you where THE horizon is when I get there. But one thing's certain, if you're practicing and I'm not, you'll definitely reach MY horizon first.

Maybe if we keep passing enough of our erstwhile horizons, our sense of what a 'horizon' is will change at some point. (And maybe that point in itself represents another horizon!)

"


An arhat is liberated, a Buddha is enlightened. I think perfection is possible and that's the purpose of the Bodhisattva path; so I think full enlightenment is having complete wisdom, complete omniscience which happens through purification. A first stage Bodhisattva already has insight into anatta and emptiness but they still have defilements.

This is all just theory for me; I'm no arhat but it makes sense. I don't think full enlightenment is just realizing no-self and attaining peace and happiness.

"

Interesting place for more info.
I'm open to anything but at this point I can't see how perfection and omniscience is possible.
I'm curious, on what do you base this opinion? Seriously, i've become pretty certain such people are mythic.
THANKS

"My limited view on this topic is that enlightenment has different stages. Liberation is waking up to what is, what truly is minus the concepts, minus the beliefs, and minus the limitations. So in Buddhist terms this means full realization of anatta of self, other, and all phenomena which is the realization of emptiness.

I do not think that Buddhist enlightenment is the same as Advaita, Sufi, and other radical nondual traditions that posit a oneness with everything because this still posits a grand Self, a One Being, which is not the same as emptiness. Buddhist enlightenment goes beyond this grand self by seeing its empty nature.

I also do not think that Buddha and Arhat are the same thing. If enlightenment happens in stages, then we cannot have the general blanket term of 'enlightenment' to connotate all stages. Enlightenment is the top, Full Enlightenment, Buddhahood. I do believe there are stages of awakening and it is not proper to call yourself enlightened until you're at the end of that journey, if there is an end.

I know that the purpose of this forum is to make enlightenment realistic, and I believe it is very realistic, but at the same time I don't think conflating the Mahayana view into the Theravada is proper. An arhat is liberated, a Buddha is enlightened. I think perfection is possible and that's the purpose of the Bodhisattva path; so I think full enlightenment is having complete wisdom, complete omniscience which happens through purification. A first stage Bodhisattva already has insight into anatta and emptiness but they still have defilements.

This is all just theory for me; I'm no arhat but it makes sense. I don't think full enlightenment is just realizing no-self and attaining peace and happiness.
- mikaelz"

Although this may be a view of the minority here, this comes closest to my view regarding the definition of Enlightenment.
- Tina

Tina:
It's weird. I certainly believe everything is empty, but I also feel we are all connected or "one."
Both can't be true?
We are all one big connected bunch of empty things.
And, I like the non-dual approach a lot but I certainly don't think there is a grand Self. No way. (but, of course, i am open to finding out anything as I go along investigating things)
right now "primordial awareness" isn't an entity to me at all, it is just a good way to describe what it FEELS LIKE to experience emptiness. There is awareness and primordial is just a way to make it sound like it is at it's most basic level (empty) but I guess some of these non dualists think there is a "One Being?" huh

"Tina:
It's weird. I certainly believe everything is empty, but I also feel we are all connected or "one."
Both can't be true?
We are all one big connected bunch of empty things.
And, I like the non-dual approach a lot but I certainly don't think there is a grand Self. No way. (but, of course, i am open to finding out anything as I go along investigating things)
right now "primordial awareness" isn't an entity to me at all, it is just a good way to describe what it FEELS LIKE to experience emptiness. There is awareness and primordial is just a way to make it sound like it is at it's most basic level (empty) but I guess some of these non dualists think there is a "One Being?" huh
"

Hi Mike,
Yes, variations on what is meant by "nondual." The Advaita view comes from vedic teachings (Hinduism), the belief in "One" meaning "God."
I used to think of it much like what you described - all connected as one, but now I see nondual meaning "Not Two" as in not separate, no distinctions. Whereas, "One" implies some sort of differentiation or innate separateness from some 'other'. I know this sounds confusing. I'm probably not the best for providing explanation... it's just something that I "get" in a nonconceptual way.

"I don't think full enlightenment is just realizing no-self and attaining peace and happiness. "

Imagine being free from the tyranny or your own thoughts.

"It's weird. I certainly believe everything is empty, but I also feel we are all connected or "one."
Both can't be true?
We are all one big connected bunch of empty things.
And, I like the non-dual approach a lot but I certainly don't think there is a grand Self. No way. (but, of course, i am open to finding out anything as I go along investigating things)
right now "primordial awareness" isn't an entity to me at all, it is just a good way to describe what it FEELS LIKE to experience emptiness. There is awareness and primordial is just a way to make it sound like it is at it's most basic level (empty) but I guess some of these non dualists think there is a "One Being?" huh -telecaster"

Advaita is a Sanskrit word that is literally translated as "not-two." That's not the same as "One Being." It's sometimes explained as "one without a second," but the meaning is better captured in "not-two." It just means nothing is separate from anything else at the most basic level. It doesn't imply a great, holistic being. That would be a particular interpretation of monotheism, which Advaita is not. Just as in Zen, Taoism, and Dzogchen, the highest understanding of Advaita is considered to be inexpressible. Anything we say about it will be wrong.

"Hi Mike,
Yes, variations on what is meant by "nondual." The Advaita view comes from vedic teachings (Hinduism), the belief in "One" meaning "God."
I used to think of it much like what you described - all connected as one, but now I see nondual meaning "Not Two" as in not separate, no distinctions. Whereas, "One" implies some sort of differentiation or innate separateness from some 'other'. I know this sounds confusing. I'm probably not the best for providing explanation... it's just something that I "get" in a nonconceptual way. "

Thanks.
I definitely don't get it
I do know that it feels good to surrender and that doing nothing brings peace bliss intelligence light clarity
I do know that "God" is as hard to find as a "self"
I do know that "emptiness" seems so exactly right and just beautiful, gorgeous and freeing

oh, and thanks for posting more often!

When I was about 20 I used to take speed and go on long runs. (it wasn't the meth they use now, it was something called dexedrine, or deximyl -- sort of a high class diet pill we got from doctors).
Anyway, once on one of my runs something happened that convinced me that "bliss is doing nothing." When I realized it while running I knew that I woudn't ever be able to see it again in the same way once the drug wore off, so my drugged self kept repeating to my straight self (that would appear later without the insight) "bliss is doing nothing, bliss is doing nothing." I think I even wrote it down.
I still don't know what I saw on that run but I'll never forget the urgency of my conviction.

"Advaita is a Sanskrit word that is literally translated as "not-two." That's not the same as "One Being." It's sometimes explained as "one without a second," but the meaning is better captured in "not-two." It just means nothing is separate from anything else at the most basic level. It doesn't imply a great, holistic being. That would be a particular interpretation of monotheism, which Advaita is not. Just as in Zen, Taoism, and Dzogchen, the highest understanding of Advaita is considered to be inexpressible. Anything we say about it will be wrong."

Hi Kenneth,
These last few posts & quotes are looking a bit confusing as to who said what (Mike's reply to my post that you then quoted, looks like it's quote from me). :=)
Nonetheless, you're right, the literal translation of the Sanskrit word "Advaita" is "not-two." Hence, the irony of my statement when taken out of my intended context regarding the Vedas. Previous to my Buddhist & Daoist studies and practice, I had much interest in Hinduism, the four Vedas and particularly the Upanishads. One of the main themes of all the Vedas includes the unification of the human soul (Atman) to God (Brahma). It's from this context that I held in mind when I posted (#43).

No worries, no argument intended.
- Tina

edit: added post # for reference and clarity.

"Hi Kenneth,
These last few posts & quotes are looking a bit confusing as to who said what (Mike's reply to my post that you then quoted, looks like it's quote from me). :=)" -Khara

Sorry, Tina. I got lazy and didn't attribute the quote to anyone, which often results in confusion. (Just fixed it, so now the quote is correctly attributed to Telecaster (Mike).

Kenneth