doc benway

So a little while ago, I was asked to define enlightenment. Shortly after that I noticed people challenging whether this or that master was enlightened or if their students were enlightened, and so on. So I've been pondering this whole idea of enlightenment and how to define it or if it can be defined and what good that does us. So I'll ramble a bit about it and see where I end up... I hope I don't bore anyone too much or sound too full of myself but I guess I'll take that chance! What is enlightenment? I've seen lots of ideas and descriptions and some have been fairly satisfying at times, and others not. I imagine it depends on our frame of reference, conditioning, expectations, and so on, whether a particular definition or description is satisfying. So then it follows that this is a subjective thing. Is there a definition of enlightenment that would equally satisfy the Hindu, Jew, Christian, Muslim, atheist, non-dualist, Daoist, Buddhist, Jainist, and so on? Certainly the state or condition I am after is not dependent on the individual seeking it. Everyone has a different symbol or imagination as to what that state is but the state is the reality, these various groups don't define the reality, they're just doing their best to approximate it with words and concepts, which are never the thing, only representations and approximations. So it seems that enlightenment is an idea. It's a word. It's a thought. An image or symbol that the mind has created to represent something. Now it's important to recognize that thought is limited. We can never know EVERYTHING about anything. In fact we know relatively little about most things. And yet the mind can create a symbol to represent more than it knows, more than it can ever know - the limitless, the infinite, that which is beyond it's comprehension. So we create a word - God. And that represents that which is beyond all comprehension. And after a while, our image of God is so well established we actually have fooled ourselves into believing that we understand God. Or substitute the word God with anything of a similar nature - Dao, E&DO, Brahman, Atman, whatever. And we create a word/concept - enlightenment. What does this represent? Let's agree perhaps that it represents a state or condition that is beyond our limited condition of thought and concepts and ideas. A state approaching some contact with Reality or Truth. Some contact with the nature of our existence or awareness - whatever word you choose based on your conditioning and your path. So the mind creates this thought - there is a state called enlightenment. And then it becomes a goal, a desire, something that must be achieved. And yet it is a creation of the mind. And it is undefinable. So how can it possibly be achieved? And how could we know when it was? So we set ourselves up on this hamster wheel trying to get this thing. And why do we want it? That's critical! To end our pain and suffering? To make us powerful? To satisfy endless curiosity? All those things. The mind is never satisfied with what it is, what it has. That is our nature. Our nature is to build, grow, learn, become something other than what we are. It never ends. So for the spiritually minded, this concept of enlightenment becomes the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. An elusive concept, created by the mind, that is an endless source of desire, enticement, and frustration - DUKKHA! So the very thing we are trying to get rid of (if we are Buddhist, for example) is invariably generated by the path we are on. And it's very easy to deny that but if we look really carefully and deeply at ourselves, is it not true? And who is it that is doing the searching? An illusion. A thought that separates itself from the others and claims ownership as the thinker and subjugates all other thoughts to its management. The thought that analyzes and criticizes, adjusts and judges all the other thoughts. And is the thinker separate from thought? And can improving this "thinker" through practice, chanting, meditations, study, worship ever help the thinker to become aware of itself, it's true nature? Society has taught us to better ourselves, to study, to succeed, make money, have station. So we are after spiritual station. Will this allow us to see through this illusion? Or does it just further reinforce the thinker's existence? So how to deal with all this? Can the mind ever reach that which, by its very nature, is beyond the limitations of thought and concept. In other words, that which is beyond the mind? Is it possible? If so, what sort of quality of mind would it take to approach this? A mind that is full of concepts? A mind that is conditioned by a culture or a practice? A mind full of expectations and preconceptions (enlightenment is the rainbow body, enlightenment is Christ, Buddha nature, Ein Sof) and all of that? Because all of those are concepts created by man, by the mind. And the mind is limited to start with, now the conceptual framework which excludes all other concepts from other frames of reference narrows it even further. So how can this mind approach Reality? So what to do? I'm not going to claim to have an answer. Any answer would just be another construct of the mind - an idea, a path or method. And an answer would end this process of seriously examining this question. I am not looking for a conclusion because a conclusion is an end. And if we end this inquiry, we will certainly never reach what we are looking for. It's the question that keeps us alive. Keeps us looking deeper in ourselves. This is where we have to look, not in some holy book or technique or drug. What if I were to let all of that go. All of the conditioning, all of the ideas and concepts and expectations. Open myself up to whatever is left when I abandon everything else. Could that be the type of mind that could approach this problem? Is that meditation? If not that, then what? I'll repeat a phrase that I really like because I think it's apropos of all this. Belief is a fervent desire that a particular idea, that cannot be proven or disproven, is truth. Faith is the confidence that when all belief is discarded, what remains must be truth. I don't know if this will be of any value to anyone but sometimes working through things like this in my head seems to be helpful. Maybe I've just been reading too much Krishnamurti... Goodnight all, I'm spent.

I tend to agree with you on this. The distinction is an artificial one but useful, at times.

Awesome! Agreement! You don't say!

It's my assertion that both are pointing at reality. The moon is reality (whatever that may be or not be). I agree - how did realization come into this? My point is simply that they are all pointing at the same reality. Realization is just an attempt at or experience of conceptualizing reality. Each paradigm uses a different conceptual framework and therefore leads to different realizations. You can certainly argue that one is better or more accurate than another if you like. But the realization is not the reality - just an image created out of thought.

:angry: Just watched Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee :angry:

Actually, I liked your joke! Hmmm, I suck at explaining Buddhist concepts but here's what struck me. There is something we call reality, then there's this pesky mind that always trying to figure it out. And it seems like my mind is chasing after reality to explain it but can never quite catch it. And yet there is this thing called DO (or mutual arising in Taiji theory) which tells me that there is no mind without reality and there is no reality without mind. The two define eachother. The two give "existence" to eachother, so to speak, like light implies darkness, like every front has a back and so on. So there is no separation between mind and reality, there is no cause and effect. Or should I say, cause and effect are happening simultaneously in both directions... Mind is trying to explain reality because it is there to be explained. One is implied in the other. Reality is there to be explained because mind is here to explain it. That sort of thing. Anyway - that's what I was thinking. Edit - "By leaving thoughts to settle, would that not lend a better chance for Reality to reveal its Isness?" And as I'm sure you can tell how I feel about this from my posts about thought and experience (that is to say, I agree completely), but at the same time I wonder how true this is. Because, after all, those very thoughts are equally a part of the reality! I was just thinking about this as a result of the recent post by goldisheavy. It's all very confusing. Otis? What do you think?

steve f , you are one cool bum. Kung Fu Hustle is the shizzle!

I think this is so true. Physical jobs are physically punishing. Intellectual jobs are psychologically punishing. And, of course, any boss can be an asshole. But there is something to be said for a hard day of physical work followed by a cold beer and a re-run of "Kung Fu Hustle"

If there is Dependent Origination, isn't it both?

Perhaps. I think one can also say that any contact with reality is contact with all of reality. Time and space are conventions of thought and measurement, they do not necessarily apply. Daoist principles of mutual arising, Buddhist principles of dependent origination - both paradigms suggest this to me. The universe implies me and I imply the universe. In terms of what it is that we experience, that is a very intersting question. I guess we would first need to agree to a definition of reality. Certainly beyond my skill set - I'm not a philosopher by a long shot, my son is though! The distinction I'm trying to make is that between direct experience - the sum total of our sensory input from all sources (experience), and the verbal and symbolic reflection and storage system (thought). I think the distinction is significant and worthy of consideration and can be very useful. And at the same time, I wonder if it is truly possible to separate these things totally - I doubt it, I think that is an artificial construct of thought like all the others...

This is Ambiguous. What does that mean? Oranges as well are not oranges, they are a collection of molecules, and we project the name orange onto it in reference to it's color in our language. Apples are not apples, they are a collection of molecules. This is how apples and oranges are alike. Can you elaborate? Sorry to intrude but I thought this was elegant, not at all ambiguous. If I'm off the mark, I hope the Forest will let us know. Reality is.... Dao is a word, Brahman is a word. Both are concepts, created of thought, to describe Reality, as is your non-dogma dogma, Vajrah. All are slightly different fingers pointing at the same moon. ... except of course, that yours is the best...

Are "you" right here? If yes, how much have you thought about what "you" is? "You" can think about what is right here and get pretty far out there if you approach it correctly. The best place to start, IMO, is with "you"

I will offer a slightly different perspective - not to argue, necessarily, but I think it's a valuable distinction. You can't understand reality. No matter how much you think or what you think about. You can only experience reality. That is meditation.

I thought you had no dogma. Come on dude, it's great that you are so passionate and knowledgable about the Dzogchen dogma. But, do you think you could let it go? Completely let it go? If not, can you learn something from that?

I can't really say much. I've never seen any sort of overview or summary of the system. My teacher is very traditional - he gives you something to work on and asks that you give him feedback periodically. When he perceives you've made adequate progress, he'll give you the next step. I've worked on five exercises, I guess one could think of them as levels, over the past six years.

No books other than my notebook, sorry. You have to learn from a teacher.

My school is called ------------ which means: ----------------------- It's a Daoist system of neigong and meditation which starts with practicing the microscosmic orbit and then moves to more complex and profound neigong exercises.

My apologies but I just peed a little.... My use of "created of mind" would be more accurately stated, "created by human thought." Having no answer was Buddha's answer. Having no answer is the nature of Interdependent Co-Arising and Emptiness. I think it's important to take care lest we corrupt it by turning it into THE answer. You and I seem to differ on this - to me you seem deeply attached to this paradigm as the answer. You seem to think that because of an insight into the true nature of Emptiness and Dependent Origination, that you cannot be attached to it. Untying the knot of ignorance involves letting go everything. Naked. I think it's something that bears careful consideration. Best wishes.

I think it tends to be people in science who are dogmatic, or create dogmatic environments. I believe that science, per se, as a method, is constructed in such a way as to eliminate, or at least minimize, dogma. It's content can be turned into dogma by people. Here's a nice editorial on science and dogma: http://gadfly.igc.org/eds/science/Science.htm

Yes, and poetry... Exactly right! Nice insight. And they tend to see through the metaphors of the other tribe, but not their own. Fascinating to observe - an example of thought not seeing itself, like the knife can't cut itself?

Naked of your dogma... "In the tendency to see the teachings of the Buddha as an explanation as how things are rather than as a support and guide to their practice, the Twelve Links have been misunderstood in many ways." Thich Nhat Hanh

Very nicely put

I changed my username a while back from xuesheng to steve f. Can I get the PPF name changed accordingly? I'm thinking of posting there again. Many thanks!

Thanks Buddy!

I hope spirituality wins, then we can return to the good ole' days, huh Immortal4Life? Your debate is not between science and spirituality, it is between science and Christian dogma - there is a difference...