Survey: Your Definition of Enlightenment

"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."

Kenneth,

I will have to respectfully disagree with you here.

The most important part about Buddhism is cause and effect, which relates to enlightenment because the right seed has to be planted for the right fruit to bloom. I think you can agree with me here. The Right view is the seed that cultivates into full enlightenment.

The view greatly differs between Advaita and Buddhism. Here is a more indepth account of this difference - awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/l...ar%20Rana%20Rinpoche

You can also read here for a description of an actual meditators experience of how his realization changed when he switched view from Advaita to Buddhism, Stages 2 and 3 are about as Advaita as you can get, beyond that are realizations due to insights of anatta, or groundlessness.

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/...s-of-experience.html

perhaps those insights will be familiar to you..

Here is my crude understanding: Though Nirguna Brahman is beyond concepts, the view is that Nirguna Brahman is behind all phenomena as the source of all phenomena. There is a subtle duality between awareness, or Brahman, and phenomena. This underlying essence is the Grand Self that I was referring to; and such an underlying essence gives cause to attachment. One first attaches to awareness, calling it Self, then one views all phenomena as possessing that essence. All phenomena then are experienced as arising from this source, which is the same as awareness. The realization of this source is the realization of Advaita.

This is different than my understanding of Buddhism explicitly due to the statement 'Emptiness is form, form is emptiness'.

Emptiness is not the same as Brahman because Brahman is viewed as a source, as an underlying essence, as a ground, but Emptiness is groundlessness and is not an underlying essence since there is no background or foreground. There is only empty phenomena, nothing else, and phenomena is no different than awareness in Buddhism. Advaita posits an eternal unchanging source, but in Buddhism this is viewed as illusion and cause for further suffering.

I know, this is all philosophy, all theory, and I know many here don't like that sorta stuff. You guys are serious, you want results not theories. Take it or leave it, but in my opinion if you don't scrutinize your view and analyze differences in realization, you won't understand the subtle nuance that makes Buddhist realization unique. The view is everything.

Hey Kenneth, no problem regarding the name/edit of post #45. Thanks for editing for clarification.
- Tina

"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"

hi telecaster

Why do you think it's myth? What do you think happens after enlightenment? (in the liberation sense). Do you, as a mindstream, simply float along and experience the universe for eternity? Or do you continue evolving? If so -- what is it to evolve? I think these are good questions to ponder.. I don't think I have any answers though :/ just theory.

Many people say there is no end goal, but I think there has to be. If our true nature is wisdom, and what prevents us from accessing that wisdom are defilements then why would there be infinite # of defilements? I think full realization of wisdom has to be possible; and as for the possibility of omniscience itself I think it's possible because of emptiness. To me, emptiness means freedom, no duality, no limits! but.. maybe i'm wrong. lol

"I know, this is all philosophy, all theory, and I know many here don't like that sorta stuff. You guys are serious, you want results not theories. Take it or leave it, but in my opinion if you don't scrutinize your view and analyze differences in realization, you won't understand the subtle nuance that makes Buddhist realization unique. The view is everything."-Mikaelz

I care about YOU, Mikael-- your thoughts are not so compelling.

What is view? Is it the same as religion? If it is, it's just a lot of opinions based on what other people have said. For view to be even remotely important, let alone "everything," it has to be firmly rooted in your own direct experience.

I know you have experience, and THAT's what I would love to hear about. What happens when you sit and note body sensations aloud for three minutes straight? That exercise will do more to transform your life and inform your view than reading every sutra ever written.

Affectionately,

Kenneth

Kenneth speaks great wisdom. My version is that realization and awakening is the same for all of us, and that's what drives all our various philosophies. We human beings get it right if we sit down, meditate and then let our experience inform us. When we first settle on the philosophy, the view, the religion, the belief, then we tend to go astray. So, why, you might ask, do the philosophies differ? Find out for yourself! Go sit.

"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. "

for telecaster:

Running meditation is one example. When it is time to do
running meditation in the Chan hall, someone shouts 'Run!'
Everyone runs. We may run until we perspire and almost pass
out. We may run until we are not aware of the heavens above,
the earth below, and people in between. During running
meditation we can become unaware of our self, and
fundamentally, there is no longer a self. When our running
meditation reaches the point that we have no notion of self
and others, we will be contemplating at ease. In the absence
of self, we will have no false thinking. In the absence of
people, we will have no false thoughts of others. At that
moment, we will be contemplating at ease.

The CHAN HANDBOOK
Talks about Meditation by
Venerable Master Hua

I read this on the train ride in to work this AM and thought of your post

"
Kenneth speaks great wisdom. My version is that realization and awakening is the same for all of us, and that's what drives all our various philosophies. We human beings get it right if we sit down, meditate and then let our experience inform us. When we first settle on the philosophy, the view, the religion, the belief, then we tend to go astray. So, why, you might ask, do the philosophies differ? Find out for yourself! Go sit.

"

In Buddhism, and this has been confirmed by my experience, the View and realization are interrelated. Having proper philosophical foundation is necessary in all Buddhist schools for this very reason, that is why Tibetans meticulously analyze meditative experiences according to Madhyamika, not the other way around. The same can be said for Vipassana, if you don't conceptually understand what impermanence means or no-self or unsatisfaction, how will you progress on the path? The reason is that the mind is extremely delusional and the seeds of ignorance run extremely deep, they run deep into the unconscious. The tendency to reify a self is extremely deep; so is the tendency to reify a source or essence.

"View and experience in meditation are interrelated. having proper philosophical foundation is necessary in all Buddhist schools for this very reason, that is why Tibetans meticulously analyze meditative experiences according to Madhyamika, not the other way around. The same can be said for Vipassana, if you don't conceptually understand what impermanence means or no-self or unsatisfaction, how will you progress on the path? "

Another interesting question.
For so long I've had the point of view that all insights were only legitimate if they are gotten without any previous conceptual support. For an insight to have meaning it has to be original to me, right now, with a fresh, empty mind. Any previously held concept only serves to distort my sight and cause me to see things a certain way because, say, my teacher told me that was how things should be. See what I mean? ("be a light unto yourself and work out your own salvation with diligence")
But, I don't know, I bet there are some yogis out there who have progressed a long way while getting very strict and exact conceptual guidance.
Probably something in between the two extremes is what would work best?

I just feel that the "buddha" and the texts and all the teachers and books are incidental to becoming enlightened/liberated and not at all required.
There was enlightenment before the buddha and there will be enlightenment after all entities that have any knowledge of buddha and buddhism are dead, gone, and forgotten.

Mikaelz, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying. It sounds to me like you're asserting that one needs to understand some Buddhist philosophy, must have read something of it or have previously adopted a particular view in order to have realization or awaken.

Do I have that right?

Hi Mikael,

I've reproduced your comment below, with some changes, in order to make a point, which I will summarize below:

"In Christianity, and this has been confirmed by my experience, Faith and Salvation are interrelated. Having proper philosophical foundation is necessary in all Christian schools for this very reason, that is why Eastern Orthodox monks meticulously analyze meditative experiences according to gospels, not the other way around. The same can be said for redemption, if you don't conceptually understand what grace means or the Holy Spirit or the Trinity, how will you progress on the path? The reason is that the mind is extremely delusional and the seeds of ignorance run extremely deep, they run deep into the unconscious. The tendency to succumb to sin is extremely deep; so is the tendency to deny God." -(Nobody really said this, I'm just using it to make a point.)

All right, Mikael, you may protest, and rightly so, that I am taking this a bit far. But my point is that the paragraph above would not seem at all out of line to many religious Christians. The holder of such a view might be just as intelligent, well-read, and sincere as yourself. The problem is that it's all ideas, arbitrarily held, apparently for the mere sake of having ideas to defend. Ideas are interchangeable. One is as good as another. Buddhist religion is as good as Christian religion is as good as Jewish religion is as good as The Cult of the Great Spaghetti Monster. If you want to contact something real, you want to loosen your grip on ideas, not tighten it.

You correctly point out that "the tendency to reify a self is extremely deep." Right. And the high road to reification of a self is to dig in and defend the One True Way.

All of this sutra thumping is just distracting you from getting your behind onto the cushion. The only doctrine you need is "ehi passiko."

Yeah, this isn't a chicken/egg thing. It's a cart/horse thing

"
All of this sutra thumping is just distracting you from getting your behind onto the cushion. The only doctrine you need is "ehi passiko.""

Kenneth, thanks for taking the time to respond. I do meditate and this isn't sutra thumping, but rather me stressing clarity in thinking. This clarity is very important to me, it has pragmatic purpose.

I think we are taking about different things because we have different views of what emptiness is, what the nature of beliefs are, and the relation between ideas and enlightenment.

You have deep insight, yet still have thoughts, indeed thoughts never go away, right? so why discount the need for clarity in thinking?

As for Buddhist philosophy vis a vis Christianity and Judaism, the 'raft' of Emptiness is a conceptual dissolver, a 'view-less view' -- not a concept. It is complete negation that allows for non-conceptual wisdom through experience via non-reification. Having the right view lets you see that having a non-conceptual non-dual experience can still lead to reification of a source or essence, this happens almost automatically because the roots of delusion reach very deep, deeper than non-dual.

How concepts of Judaism and Christianity and Islam can lead to the same realization when they posit an essence and a source? Does positing essence/source not lead to grasping in your experience? Do you believe that thoughts only exist at the conscious level? That the purpose of concepts is to move into a non-conceptual state and thus be free of thoughts? This is perhaps why we disagree. I don't believe simply accessing and remaining in non-conceptual state will lead to complete liberation because delusional tendencies still remain sinceconceptual understanding and refinement has been ignored.

Buddhist enlightenment is not just nonduality; the other half is insight of non-inherency; such an insight is non-intuitive because we want to reify so badly, we want to cling/grasp to some essence very strongly. The desire for having a ground runs deeper than thoughts.


from awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2008/02/...-to-longchen-at.html

"The seen, sound are the non-dual luminous experience; but direct experience of non-dual luminosity is not suffcient. Though perfectly clear and vividly present as in non-dual experience, the 'seen' is radically different from the 'sound' -- this is its emptiness nature. This viewless view must be fused into our non-dual insight. When views are firmly established and non-dual experience thoroughly authenticated, a practitioner will see everything as Awareness without conflict in both views and experiences. Not bounded within an inherent and dualistic paradigm, he will not be confused. When the real cause and the empty nature of our pristine awareness are understood, this '˜Emptiness' view too must be discarded."

"It is not uncommon to find practitioners totally giving up this attempt to synchronize "views" and experience and conclude that it is an absolute futile endeavor to do that. They prefer to rest fully in naked awareness. By doing so, the practitioner will miss something valuable -- the insight of the importance of "non inherent existence". . .When the view and experience are harmonized, the practitioner can then progress further. He rest neither in concepts nor non-conceptuality. He frees himself from erroneous views like "I am You and You are me". He sees 'Everything as Awareness' but that is because in the world of Empty Luminosity, the practitioner is not bounded in a subject/object or object/attributes paradigm. 'Awareness as Everything' should never be understood from a dualistic perspective."

Thank you Mikaelz for posting the above link, I always enjoy the links you refer to.

Now, if i may act as some sort of intermediate here regarding Mikaelz and Kenneth... both having valid points.
Firstly, the obvious is that the subject of "Enlightenment" is generally a hot subject in that there are varying opinions and thoughts related to what it is and how to get there.
Secondly, I don't think that what Kenneth and Mikaelz are saying is really that different. One is building upon a solid foundation based on specific schools (traditions) of Buddhism, deep and rich in Buddhist philosophy, and practices. It's like the cake whereby you have milled the flour, milked the cow, churned the butter, and carefully selected the spices and other ingredients to make a cake and it's frosting. Those of us who want to know in depth about Buddhism, a specific tradition and it's practices, stages, etc., then this is the choice we make.
On the other hand, the other is trying to reach various people who may or may not be Buddhist, and he is trying to show them how they can taste the sweetness of the cake. The people whom he reaches may or may not care about all the ingredients that go into the cake, (and if they do care about such ingredients, then they are free to go out and carefully select the ingredients, make the cake, etc.), and just use the frosting that is offered here... because it is indeed very good frosting -- it is sweet and attainable.

Personally, I choose a way very similar to what Mikaelz describes, I want indepth understanding, and since I'm training to be a priest, it is important that I have this in depth understanding. However, I have to realize that not everyone that I teach will be interested in this entire indepth process... it may be overwhelming to them. If I insist that they learn to the extent that I'm learning, they may give up. Who would benefit then?

- Tina

Here's a teaser from the next installment of my talks with Joel Groover. It will go live Tuesday on Buddhist Geeks Mag:

"All of this awareness, by the way, it is not anything separate from or other than all of the phenomena that arise within awareness; this is all a package. Now if I were to say to you that there is some facile way in which to conceive of this without actually looking at it in real-time, I would be lying. And if anyone says to you that there is some way to conceive this'”-'Oh, don't you just understand...?'-'”that is baloney.

"It is not a concept and can never be conceived, which is why throughout the ages sages have insisted that you cannot think your way through this. But there is this remarkable experience of the integration of the absolute and the relative. So to be enlightened is to objectify everything that is arising and passing in the mind and to let awareness recognize itself.

"And while we are talking about this in this very stratified way, in this very picked-apart way, the truth is it is a seamless whole, and the only reason we are doing it in this systematic way is to make it accessible so that it is possible to learn step-by-step how to dis-embed from each stratum of mind and how finally to surrender to things as they are." -Kenneth Folk

All of this can be seen, Mikael. Of course you'll still have thoughts when you can see this for yourself, but they will be your own, not something you have read. We're not talking about an idea, and no amount of ideas or argument will help you see it. You already have enough ideas. What you don't have is enough practice hours. Why would you even want to argue with me about it? I'm bewildered.

Kenneth

Tina:
To me this is a really important point and I hope I don't seem flippant:

I think the difference is more like someone has been told by all the authorities and experts that the only way to get from Cleveland to Chicago is to first go south through Dallas. And, for centuries people have loved the trip from Cleveland to Dallas to Chicago and use it as a holy pilgrimage and much is written about all the stops on the way.

Then, someone else points out that if you just want to be in Cleveland, you can actually just go due west.

But, sure, if one wants to become an expert on the trip from Cleveland to Dallas and then on to Chicago then they should study up on that route.

"What you don't have is enough practice hours. Why would you even want to argue with me about it? I'm bewildered.

Kenneth"

I never bothered studying the texts and just reading a sutta made me sleepy. I gathered that the three characteristics were something to look for. That was about it. All the rest of the theory made my head spin and so did thinking there was no self. Jeesh, did that make it doubly spin.

What got me over the line was 9 years of sitting on my arse, suffering like a bastard and finally seeing what it was all about without all that having this view, having that view. i reckon from my own experience, if you are equanimous with sensations (and look at them as an object) on the body for long enough (years maybe) and continuously not react to them you might just accidentally get enlightened without knowing about anatta, anicca, and dukkha.

I am not an intellectual!!!!!! Just a meditator dealing with a third eye chakra headache!

"I am not an intellectual!!!!!! Just a meditator dealing with a third eye chakra headache!"

Yikes! That headache stayed with me for quite some time. It will go away with time. Rest assured

T...

I think that Jack Kornfield is right when he talks about "the Jewel of Awakened Consciousness". Just as a Jewel has many facets, so does this true nature we all share, whether we know it directly or not. Emptiness is one facet, and the one that is most emphasized across the Buddhist traditions. Cognizance (or Luminosity) is another facet. Absolute Peace is another. Joy is another. Compassion is another. Need I go on?

Not every tradition emphasizes the same facet(s), nor does every enlightened teacher has access to even more than one. What limits them is often the vary thing that helped them reached their advanced level - rigid adherence to their preferred sacred View.

So while I don't believe that some chaotic pluralism is correct - the kind that says "everyone is right! No one's ideas are better than any others!" (in fact, just writing that makes me want to puke my guts out). But there are universal features to awakening that span traditions, and we shouldn't ignore them based on conflicting terminology. To truly let go would be to acknowledge that perhaps there's more to this stuff than any one tradition can comprehend.

To echo a recurring theme... the more I practice, the more clealry I see the truth that spans across traditions.

...

"

Personally, I choose a way very similar to what Mikaelz describes, I want indepth understanding, and since I'm training to be a priest, it is important that I have this in depth understanding. However, I have to realize that not everyone that I teach will be interested in this entire indepth process... it may be overwhelming to them. If I insist that they learn to the extent that I'm learning, they may give up. Who would benefit then?

- Tina"

I see your point Tina, thanks Indeed most people don't want to go so in depth, and in actuality most people don't want to meditate at all! I was thinking of how best to help people -- get a PhD in Buddhism and teach, or go to acupuncture school and learn TCM and Medical Qi Gong to help people through that route. I realize I'll only be able to help people physically with acupuncture but possibly I'll be able to talk to them and inspire them to look deeper into their problems. I think it's wonderful you're becoming a priest.

"No amount intellectual understanding will enable you to hit a major league fastball ... "

I just have to disagree. Just HAVE to. I could decline, but I can't:

You better know that a "bat" is that oblong wooden thing and that a "ball" is that round thing covered in leather and that it will be "thrown" by a "pitcher" and "hitting" means to strike the ball with the bat while standing next to "home plate"
probably takes more intellectual understanding than enlightenment

"No amount intellectual understanding will enable you to hit a major league fastball ... "

Although intellectually understanding why you should practice swinging the bat this way instead of that way can help you become a better hitter faster. A good intellectual understanding, combined with experience from practice, may also reveal a technique that yields better results than just practice alone.

I play basketball. The other day I read an explanation for why shooting the ball with a high arc makes it more likely to go in. This intellectual understanding helped me lock into a better shooting technique. I had stumbled into and out of this technique in the past through sheer trial-and-error practice, but the intellectual understanding helped me focus on it and lock it in.

I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that similar dynamics could be at play in contemplative practice. Even the idea of practice as a certain way of orienting attention is an intellectual understanding. Someone had to figure out once upon a time that the orientation of attention is a factor that leads to spiritual development. We are all infinitely better off now thanks to this intellectual understanding which helps guide our practice.

I don't think anyone is advocating a purely intellectual approach, just as in truth no one can endorse a method of practice without some implicit level of intellectual understanding. The question, if anything, is at what level of sophistication and complexity we should allow concepts to guide practice. I think that's more of an individual preference kind of thing, and probably not that big of a deal pragmatically so long as one is doing some kind of effective practice diligently and not being overly hindered by their concepts.