Regarding Enlightenment....

Hi Bigdog, interesting post. This is by no means a criticism of your post, you're doing some clear thinking here.


>>Many would consider "Enlightenment" to be on a universal-type stratosphere, basically meaning that enlightenment should be the same for everyone once attained and is thus an objective quality. This comes from many Eastern religions and whatnot.

It has to be defined for it to be called enlightenment, otherwise enlightenment would be any event or experience that people might choose. Enlightenment as an experience *can* have many outer 'symptoms', but at the core it is a direct experience of one thing, an understanding (that's why it's called 'realisation') that reality is structured in a particular way. This is true across all forms of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, etc, etc. Realisation means the same thing to all of them.


>>I think enlightenment is a subjective thing, regardless how one reaches it. How can someone truly tell you what enlightenment is? How it feels?

There've been many, many people who have become enlightened (some even reached buddhahood), even in modern times and you can read and compare their experiences, which you might find helpful. And I'm happy to say that some of them have never meditated in their lives. No matter what religion someone comes for, no matter what they previously believed, the basis of the experience of enlightenment is exactly the same and has been for at least 3,500 years of being recorded in various world religions.


>>What it takes to get you there?

Any buddhist worth his salt will tell you that there are tens of ways to 'get you there', not all buddhist by any means, not all even connected with any kind of a spiritual path. Some ways are faster, some ways are slower, none are wrong. Spontaneous realisation is relatively common too.

>>Enlightenment in my opinion is a sort of peace of mind only aquired through personal reflection and attunement, not some universal thing that someone can actually be the one to judge you "No, you are not enlightened."

Peace of mind, compassion, understanding, desirelessness, bliss, are the results of realisation, not realisation itself.


>In other words, no one should truly define "enlightenment" because it is a personal, subjective state of being.

To some degree yes, it is. But when anyone has such an experience the personal, subjective state they describe is the same from person to person, so thus it becomes defined. It's the people who have had such experiences that have conceptualised it, it isn't something that was first imagined, then striven for. The experience and it's definition came first.

Hope this helps.

MelT

 

Wait, so what's the difference b/n enlightenment and nirvana? cuz nirvana means u transcend the cycle of rebirth? But then so u r enlightened in life, and then, that means u will achieve nirvana? Can u become unenlightened? More and more, it sounds familiar all too familiar me, there are a shitload of parallels b/n Western and Eastern religion, now that I think about it...

 

i think...


enlightnement is not "digital". meaning, it's not something that gets "reached", like it's been switched on, but rather something that more and more of can be gained, and its not something one can "have", it is a journey.



i often wonder, what it means "enlightnement" in the auric sence. all the "believing is seeing" stuff. and so, perhaps you can be unenlightened or de-enlightened, if something drains or blocks your cosmic energy. but surely, an enlightened one would not do so. and so, the buddha would be the buddha even if no other buddha were around and would not "force" it upon any other, only to do, and be, and others would see.

(yep, that coulda been worded alot better)

 

possably so, but still i speculate, that they did "meditate", but it was a form of meditation largely unseen, with no external show except it's effects. much like the wind, you cannot see it, but you can see it's effects. "Vedanta" was what came to mind when i red the line i boldened and underlined in the quoted text. Vedanta (as i understand the word) can be considered a form of meditation, it is simply your mind clearing itself of erroneous or ill-serving thoughts, attatchements, emotions etc.
one can "meditate" in many ways, by walking, by breathing, by doing any task at all almost.

 

Good questions again. 'Nirvana' is what we call the state of having reached enlightenment. Because it's free of desires and a very pleasant state to be in, it tends to sound in texts as though it's regarded as a kind of 'heaven'. In basic mahayana, 'Samsara'= this life and suffering/desires, Nirvana, freedom from same. It isn't separate from or different to this reality, they're one.

Answering the question about being free of the cycle of rebirth would take a few pages to explain though, so I'll give a very, very broad answer that's only part of a proper reply. You transcend birth and death because you see that they're both only constructs within a purely relative reality, which is neither existent nor non-existent. They cease to have real meaning as terms.

However, taking this one step further, in some traditions it's said that once someone has become *fully* enlightened, they can choose to take on another form and be reborn again (or not) if they choose after they've died. But this idea may well be a hangover from Hindu antecedents (even in Tibet, Hindu teachings are mixed with local Bon Po and Tibetan Buddhism, it's unavoidable).

And you're right too about the parallels between eastern and western religion. Most religions have shared pasts and ideas, even coming from the same roots. Chrisitianity for example grew from Judaism, which itself was influenced by Babylonian and Sumerian myths. It's now split today from the 1 tradition it originally was into over 3,500 different groups. Buddhism is just the same, though to a lesser extent.

Can you become unenlightened? No, enlightenment is gaining an understanding about the nature of reality, sometimes so strong that what you understand changes how you think of life and reality forever. But, you could become enlightened to a small degree and for some reason (say, going back into a normal world and living normally again) rarely think about what you've learned, not apply it to the reality around yourself enough. In a sense, again speaking broadly, when you remember what you've learned, you're enlightened - when you don't you're not. You can't lose an experience, only forget it.

Please, other Buddhists here - expedient means!

Hope this helps,
MelT

 

chronic, i cannot explain it into my own words so i will use the words of Alan Watts from The Way of Zen

The Third Noble Truth is concerned with the ending of self-frustration, of grasping, and of the whole viciously circular pattern of karma which generates the Round. The ending is callednirvana...It has been variously connected with Sanskirt roots which would make it mean the blowing out of a flame, or simply blowing out(ex- de-spiration), or with the cessation of waves, turnings, or circlings of the mind...To attain nirvana is also to attain Buddhahood, awakening. but this is not attainment in any ordinary sense, because no acquisition and no motivation are involved. It is impossible to desire nirvana, or to intend to reach it.

I guess in a sense if you reach nirvana, you are enlightened, but there are 4 Noble Truths, nirvana being the 3rd Noble Truth. I'm not an expert on all this, but I think "complete" enlightenment can only be so after all 4 Noble Truths are "attained" and no I don't believe you can be unenlightened. don't mark my words though. I still have a lot to learn and unlearn..

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof;
Nirvana is, but no one seeking it;
The Path there is, but none who travel it.
- Buddha's doctrine given in the Visuddhimagga

 

Yoo, Digit!

I respectfuly bow and disagree. The criteria for an experience of enlightenment are very simple. It might sound a very complex journey to get there, but really it's just a matter of the right things coming together at the right time. It is as exactly you say, your mind clearing, which can and does happen regularly without meditation. As Longchen Rabjam said, "The mind at rest is the foundation of all great Experiences'.

I've researched spontaneous cases where people have had glimpses of realisation sitting on a bus, or at the front line, or arguing, or reading one explanation of the View. Meditation is to guide you towards a natural state of awarness (Rigpa), not a deep disconnection from this reality.

Entry into it isn't as uncommon as you might think. Maybe the best thing to bear in mind that it's described as 'The Jewel in the Hem of a monks coat'. He travels far and wide seeking enlightenment, only to eventually discover that he had it with him all along. The basis of it is within your own mind, not elsewhere in a spiritual plane.Opening the door to it IS 'just a finger snap of recognition' as they say, a sudden understanding and you're experiencing reality as that reality itself, all of it. Beyond ideas of people and time and a Universe.

MelT

 

Yes it's definitly all about spontaneity, you can not realize it's happening until it's happened, but by then you do not realize the state in which you are in, or else you are not truly enlightened because you can not contemplate itself. I like the idea of enlightenment and how they "describe" it by saying what it is NOT, because it is impossible to say what it IS.

 

Nicely put V'

I hate keep banging on about buddhism, but all this stuff is very interesting to talk about. There are things that happen within realisation, sensations and understandings that are beyond words, but look at the idea of Emptiness/sunyata to understand why nothing can be said of your perceptions and what you feel.

It's like waking up from amnesia and realising that who you thought you were isn't the real you at all. There's no sense of strangeness to it at all, but a sense of relief at remembering and recognising your real form.

MelT

 

Couldn't one say that a child is enlightened or an autistic person or one with other mental afflictions? Cuz they are very what's it called, innocent you know...do you have to experience reality as in normality in a psychologist sort of way, to be enlightened? Are some naturally enlightened, is what I'm getting at? Or as has been hinted at, are we all enlightened, but some just don't realize it? Are/can non-humans be enlightened?

 

You basically hit the spot chronic. A child is in a sense enlightened, but after the process of "growing up" it becomes delusional and hard to understand. And yes all sentient(concious) beings can be enlightened, from what I've read anyway.

 

We're all enlightened, but just don't realise it. We don't realise what we need to realise.

I think that many animals are enlightened in the sense that they have access to a larger and more complex sense of reality. But I dont think that they could take what they were sensing and intellectualise it enough to beocme fully enlightened. But everything has Buddha nature, it's just understanding it and hopefully having a direct experience of it to show you the reality of what you're trying to understand.

Do you know I've been asked more interesting questions here by the City dwellers than I have in years by meditators?


MelT

 

Sorry, I stuffed up that reply! My responses are also in italics in the 'quote block', above.

MelT

 

I think a good way of describing it is that you don't reach enlightenment, you remember it. My analogy above of waking up from amnesia is exactly how it feels (in part).

MelT

 

i could say the very same thing about tao.



hey melt, i couldnt quite see where you disagreed... was it that "i speculate"? ;D






hipiphonies and eurika moments of the state that gets us there
?

 

>>hey melt, i couldnt quite see where you disagreed... was it that "i speculate"? ;D

Yes, I forgot to say. This is damn good weed

It was simply that you were saying that maybe these people (those who have had spontaneous glimpse of enlightenment) had unknowingly been meditating in some way. But now I come to think of it we're both right. Meditation isn't required as I said, but like you said, certain kinds of jobs, walking outside in the country and doing all kinds of other things will help draw someone to a natural state of Rigpa, and the higher potential for a transcendental experience.


So disagreement...no, I was wrong...

MelT

 

Sorry about the length of this. I did post an edited version a few weks ago, but I thought it might interest one or two people here in its longer form. It's from someone who has had an enlightenment experience, and pretty much reflects the central content of many decent 'glimpses'. Although at first reading it might sound contradictory in parts, it's really the limitation of words and concepts that make it impossible to describe other than through rough analogy.


"I discovered that nothing that can be distinguished as being anything is really me. Everything that is conditioned, subjected to cause and effect and thus impermanent, is not who I really am. That all the thoughts, feelings and views that we harbour have nothing to do with me. Even my body is not really me. There is no 'I'. No one to feel, no one to think or act. All of this happens independently of me, yet not apart from me. The 'I' as such is nothing more than a set of ideas, thoughts and views which are being continuously sustained by dwelling on them and holding on to them as real. Once the false 'I' is seen through, the true self manifests.

My true self is awareness or consciousness, but not as you think of it. What I discovered was that my awareness is not bound by anything at all. I call it the Unconditioned or Essence of Mind. What I mean by Essence of Mind is that when you take everything in the mind and strip away, then there is just this, the essence, left.

It is not bound by space, so it could be called infinite, yet this is not really true as it cannot really be said to have any spatial limits even if this limit is infinity. Thus my true self expands everywhere in all directions, yet it is nowhere to be found.

It is not bound by time, so it could be called eternal, yet this is not really true either, as it is utterly beyond any time limits even if this limit is eternity. My true self was never born, never ages and never dies. Yet to say that I will live for eternity is not true either, as it is utterly beyond time. Perhaps the closest thing would be to say that there is just this utterly unchanging moment, yet this also fails to hit the mark as it could imply that it is static which it is not. It is beyond static and moving. Thus before the world was, I AM. Not before the world, I was, but before the world, I AM.

It is not bound by any conditioned phenomena (which constitutes all of existence - the entire universe). Since all conditioned phenomena are in a constant state of flux, the Unconditioned could be said to be unmoving, yet this is not really true since it implies something static. Let it be understood that it merely does not participate in the flux of conditioned existence, and this absence of flux is called unmoving.

Since it is not bound by any phenomena, it is not bound by the senses either. There are no sounds in the Unconditioned, so it could be said to be silent, yet this isn't really true either. Rather, it is the absence of sound and silence. It cannot be seen, heard, smelled, felt, tasted or cognised about in any way. Rather, your true self is that which cognises, smells, tastes, feels, hears and sees. Yet this is not entirely true either as this could imply that there is a self experiencing this, and thus bound by the senses. Rather, there is just this awareness of the senses.

It is not dual in any way. Thus it could be said to be non-dual, yet this isn't really true either. Rather, it is neither dual nor non-dual. In actuality, the only thing that creates dualistic notions such as good/bad, here/there and subject/object is your thoughts. Thoughts is that which separates. Thus whenever you are bound by thoughts, you are separated from that which is, and true freedom cannot be found. Thus thoughts will never be able to capture your true self. True freedom means that everything merely is as it is. There is no trying to add or take anything, indulgence or rejection, or perhaps more accurately: There is no 'should'. Only when you are capable of giving up all ideas of anything that 'should' be in any way, including the tendency to think 'should', only then can you truly be free. Even the thought that 'should' should not be there means you are bound. True non-'shouldness' means taking in both 'should' and the absence of 'should' and let everything, even your 'shoulds', be as it is. As long as you are bound by any mental state whatsoever, your true Unconditioned awareness cannot manifest. If your true self can be said to be any mental state, it is the state of no state at all.

Since it is not bound by time or movement it any way, it is always present. Even though you may not realise it, and you are constantly pulled around by your thoughts and views, your true self remains utterly unmoving. Nothing can affect it. Therefore, once you discover your true self, nothing changes at all. If anything changes it is merely that you are now aware of the fact that things are as they are, and that it has always been so. There is nothing to be realised.

Since it is this true ground of reality and there is nothing further beyond this, it could be said to be 'ultimate'. But since it is always present in all things (and always has been), it would mean that everything is ultimate. Since there is nothing for which the ultimate can stand in contradistinction against, what is the point of labeling it such?

Some people may perceive all of this as something deeply mysterious beyond the scope of their own capacities. It is not. It is simple and plain living, and nothing mysterious about it. Do not imagine that this unconditioned awareness is somehow apart from the world and daily life. On the contrary, it could be said that one is even more closer to life than ever before, because there is no separation between you and the world. When caught up in dualism, one creates the illusion of someone being aware (subject) and something to be aware of (object). Yet there is just this awareness, there is nothing to be aware of. Conditioned phenomena are not apart from awareness in any way, yet they not really awareness either.

Perhaps the best way to describe this is to use the analogy of a mirror, the unconditioned awareness being the mirror and conditioned phenomena beings images reflected in the mirror. The mirror doesn't change because reflections arise. It does not dwell upon the reflections, yet the reflections exists nowhere apart from the mirror. The are the mirror, yet the mirror isn't the reflections."

MelT