The Enlightened Sage

[manitou]

In this issue of EnlighteNext Magazine, there is a dialogue between Wilber and Cohen having to do with Was the Buddha Only Half Enlightened? For those not familiar with these two men, Andrew Cohen is the publisher of EnlighteNext, and the article refers to him as a GURU, then defines guru as (n. Sanskrit): one who teaches spiritual liberation from his or her own direct experience or realization. The other man, Ken Wilbur, is described as the PANDIT within the context of the magazine, or (n. Sanskrit): a scholar, one who is deeply proficient and immersed in spiritual wisdom. He describes himself as an intellectual samurai.

 

Before I post part of the article, I just wanted to mention the above because it infers a big different in perspective of the two gentlemen. One is self-realized, one is learned by outer means.

 

 

WAS THE BUDDHA ONLY HALF ENLIGHTENED?

 

Question: Ken, I've heard you say that the Buddha wasn't as enlightened as an enlightened person today. In thinking about that, I've encountered a lot of different definitions of what enlightenment even is. Can you please explain what you mean?

 

 

KEN WILBER: Well, this is a controversial point, but there's a good reason why I continue to make it. What I've actually said is that Gautama Buddha was only half as enlightened as a modern sage has the potential to be. And to understand why that is, we have to look at a couple facts.

 

First, we have to understand that reality consists of two fundamental dimensions: the realm of emptiness and the realm of form. Emptiness is the timeless, unmanifest ground of being, and realizing that primordial emptiness has traditionally been what spiritual enlightenment is all about. That's what the Buddha called nirvana. It means nothing is arising. It's a state of consciousness essentially similar to deep dreamless sleep, in that there's no pain, no self, no suffering, no desire - none of that. It's a place of peace, stillness, and freedom beyond the turmoil of manifest existence. And discovering that unmanifest emptiness has always been seen as the one way to find liberation from samsara - the wheel of pain and suffering, birth and death.

 

Now, Gautama Buddha realized emptiness perfectly, so from the point of view of that traditional understanding, he was enlightened. He experienced a perfect oneness in consciousness that transcended the multiplicity of manifestation, time, and form. But about eight hundred years after the time of Gautama, an extraordinary gentleman by the name of Nagarjuna came along and pointed out that if you're serious about finding ultimate oneness, then you can't just be looking for nirvana divorced from samsara, because that's still dualistic. You have to be looking, instead, for the union of nirvana and samsara, the union of emptiness and form, the union of the unmanifest and the manifest, which Nagarjuna called Nonduality.

 

This realization ushered in the whole Buddhist Mahayana revolution, summed up in the famous declaration of the Heart Sutra: "That which is form is not other than emptiness; that which is emptiness is not other than form." And this dramatically changed the way liberation was thought of. No longer was it thought of as escaping half of reality and hiding in the other half, but uniting both halves, finding an enlightenment that included both the freedom of emptiness and the fullness of form. All of a sudden, you're no longer just enlightened to the nature of your own consciousness inside here, looking at a separate world outside there. You're no longer looking at a mountain, you are the mountain. You're no longer looking at the sun, you are the sun. You're no longer touching the earth, you are the earth. Galaxies circulate through your blood and stars light up the neurons of your night, and you are one with all of this.

 

So that's the first point - the Buddha realized emptiness, but as far as we can tell, he didn't realize the fullness of non-duality, or becoming one with all of form......."

 

 

Surely this can provide us with some cerebral jerky?

[phore]

i once met a man who realized the union of the form and formless. I having always thought that the path to enlightenment lay in emptiness alone was forced to re examine my worldview when i became friends with him. he could always tell when i was having trouble and turned me onto several herbal remedies, and gave me some good advice on how to handle situations in my life. He was so intuitive that there was no trace of religion or philosophy about him. He had many friends, helped people all the time, was not materialistic, and seemed to be one step ahead of everyone in the zen game. I never quite understood why i couldn't quite grasp reality on his level until my k opened up.

[WOOFY]

I like this posting very much is finally good to see that people are questioning the so-called masters or the so-called truth and not excepting that teachings hold the answers?

 

I find this to interesting because I came to my understanding of mind state and the connection to reality a very different way it was not the spiritual path in the beginning, but the path of observation with the non-attachment and on non-judgement and without the contamination preconceived and believed teachings concepts and expectations, is only now I understand the complexity diversity and the essence my lessons thus so far I have allowed myself to look at what people are using seeking for the understanding of their search?

 

Because if you believe you have found the thing you looking for and are teaching or religious beliefs that suits you, that's all good and wonderful, but if you truly seek the truth I mean the essence of what these teachings and teaches have found?

 

Because as I've seen in my journey people teaches have truly found something that only a part and then hang on to that part as a divine truth cultivated quantified, then become stuck in it as a divine truth?

 

So what I'm saying is if you become stuck in belief practice an idea on hold this to be the divine truth you become trapped and unable to be go beyond your beliefs or the beliefs of the teachings or religion,

 

so thus remain trapped in idealisation and are able to think outside of the proverbial box because you're beliefs and the limitations doesn't allow for growth thus trapped in the belief in what you have found to be the complete truth, so sometimes teachings are away to understand your path your journey and sometimes they will keep you from your journey because until you learn to stop quantifying judging and labelling what you seek? You may become trapped in your interpretation or someone's else's interpretation

.

[Sunya]

Both Wilber and Cohen are not enlightened in the Buddhist sense and are hardly ones to judge whether or not Buddha was enlightened

 

I've read a lot of Wilber and had momentary fascinations with his "genius" but truly I can say that Wilber doesn't understand emptiness. His definition is flawed, and that's because he practiced Hinduism for a long time. I know he took up Tibetan practices, but he always did it in the context of a Hindu view and never actually realized what the Buddha truly taught.

 

Nagarjuna, when he taught that emptiness is form, was only building upon what the Buddha taught. Buddha taught no-self and dependent origination, which is the same as the Mahayana emptiness. No different.

[Gerard]

...So that's the first point - the Buddha realized emptiness, but as far as we can tell, he didn't realize the fullness of non-duality, or becoming one with all of form......."

 

Why doesn't he argue this instead?

 

http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html

 

No guts, for sure.

 

 

Surely this can provide us with some cerebral jerky?

 

I don't think so.

[C T]

Buddhism offers the most comprehensive and systematic path that leads to freedom from torment, guilt and angst. Freedom from such states instigates a return to affliction-free sanity. Being free from afflictive emotions and thoughts, there is no longer any relevance to question whether this man, The Buddha, was fully or only half-enlightened (half?). What matters is its a workable, sustainable, peaceful, non-harming, ecological philosophy, on so many levels.

 

Its a daring statement, but i would say that anyone who believes in philia, and who strives for peace and harmony, is, in my mind, a Buddhist. For me, 'Buddhist' is a way of being... not merely a label that lends a certain image to people. There are non-Buddhists who behaves in very buddhistic ways, and also, there are Buddhists who behaves otherwise. Its all about realizations, and how we treat and respect ourselves and others, and also, what our motives are. The Dalai Lama once met a Christian mystic (it was in France, i think... not sure, as i heard this a long time ago) - he gazed into this man's eyes, and immediately recognized that this man was truly an enlightened individual.

Edited December 26, 2010 by CowTao

[xabir2005]

Ken Wilber thinks that Buddha has only reached the Formless I AM of Thusness Stage 1 ( Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment ) and mistaken it to be Emptiness. What he doesn't understand is that Emptiness in Buddhism is not formlessness, but the truth of dependent origination which negates independent existence. Buddha never taught the formlessness of I AM - he only teaches dependent origination.

 

And then the next mistake is that Ken Wilber thinks that Nagarjuna teaches Non Dual of Thusness Stage 4. Nagarjuna's teaching is focused on Thusness Stage 6, Emptiness.

 

In reality, Buddha has reached Stage 5 and 6 (Anatta and Emptiness) realization while Ken Wilber obviously hasn't. Non Dual is already implicit in Anatta and Buddha's teachings all along, without reifying an ultimate consciousness that is non-dual with phenomena. All along Dharmas, phenomena, stream, alone IS - without an agent, all phenomena are implicitly non-dual. No substantial 'Awareness' is needed. No awareness. This is the depth of Buddha's insight, which the 'pandits' and 'gurus' have not seen.

 

 

Anyway, both Andrew and Ken are skewed towards Advaita and can only understand Stage 1 to 4. Ken Wilber is definitely at Stage 4 experientially - as for Andrew I think he is too. They fail to grasp Stage 5 and 6.

Edited December 26, 2010 by xabir2005

[suninmyeyes]

Ken Wilber thinks that Buddha has only reached the Formless I AM of Thusness Stage 1 (

In reality, Buddha has reached Stage 5 and 6 (Anatta and Emptiness) realization while Ken Wilber obviously hasn't. Non Dual is already implicit in Anatta and Buddha's teachings all along, without reifying an ultimate consciousness that is non-dual with phenomena. All along Dharmas, phenomena, stream, alone IS - without an agent, all phenomena are implicitly non-dual. No substantial 'Awareness' is needed. No awareness. This is the depth of Buddha's insight, which the 'pandits' and 'gurus' have not seen.

 

 

 

This is something I have seen claimed quite a few times.Now how do you know what gurus ,pundits or auntie Doris that lives across the road have seen/had insight of in general?

[3bob]

This is something I have seen claimed quite a few times.Now how do you know what gurus ,pundits or auntie Doris that lives across the road have seen/had insight of in general?

 

Good point Suninmyeyes!

 

Our mostly well intentioned Buddhist gurus simply don't know about what you've asked, but they make countless projections about same based upon lots of far-out and far-in stuff, much of which imo is good stuff.. None-the-less such projections, speculations and the comparitive delving upon what levels others are at is ultimately a foolish exercise. (and even that was a form of foolishness on my part, thus time to let it go )

 

Om

[3bob]

"Surely this can provide us with some cerebral jerky?"

 

To what end? More of same?

[mYTHmAKER]

In this issue of EnlighteNext Magazine, there is a dialogue between Wilber and Cohen having to do with Was the Buddha Only Half Enlightened? For those not familiar with these two men, Andrew Cohen is the publisher of EnlighteNext, and the article refers to him as a GURU, then defines guru as (n. Sanskrit): one who teaches spiritual liberation from his or her own direct experience or realization. The other man, Ken Wilbur, is described as the PANDIT within the context of the magazine, or (n. Sanskrit): a scholar, one who is deeply proficient and immersed in spiritual wisdom. He describes himself as an intellectual samurai.

 

Before I post part of the article, I just wanted to mention the above because it infers a big different in perspective of the two gentlemen. One is self-realized, one is learned by outer means.

 

 

WAS THE BUDDHA ONLY HALF ENLIGHTENED?

 

Question: Ken, I've heard you say that the Buddha wasn't as enlightened as an enlightened person today. In thinking about that, I've encountered a lot of different definitions of what enlightenment even is. Can you please explain what you mean?

 

 

KEN WILBER: Well, this is a controversial point, but there's a good reason why I continue to make it. What I've actually said is that Gautama Buddha was only half as enlightened as a modern sage has the potential to be. And to understand why that is, we have to look at a couple facts.

 

First, we have to understand that reality consists of two fundamental dimensions: the realm of emptiness and the realm of form. Emptiness is the timeless, unmanifest ground of being, and realizing that primordial emptiness has traditionally been what spiritual enlightenment is all about. That's what the Buddha called nirvana. It means nothing is arising. It's a state of consciousness essentially similar to deep dreamless sleep, in that there's no pain, no self, no suffering, no desire - none of that. It's a place of peace, stillness, and freedom beyond the turmoil of manifest existence. And discovering that unmanifest emptiness has always been seen as the one way to find liberation from samsara - the wheel of pain and suffering, birth and death.

 

Now, Gautama Buddha realized emptiness perfectly, so from the point of view of that traditional understanding, he was enlightened. He experienced a perfect oneness in consciousness that transcended the multiplicity of manifestation, time, and form. But about eight hundred years after the time of Gautama, an extraordinary gentleman by the name of Nagarjuna came along and pointed out that if you're serious about finding ultimate oneness, then you can't just be looking for nirvana divorced from samsara, because that's still dualistic. You have to be looking, instead, for the union of nirvana and samsara, the union of emptiness and form, the union of the unmanifest and the manifest, which Nagarjuna called Nonduality.

 

This realization ushered in the whole Buddhist Mahayana revolution, summed up in the famous declaration of the Heart Sutra: "That which is form is not other than emptiness; that which is emptiness is not other than form." And this dramatically changed the way liberation was thought of. No longer was it thought of as escaping half of reality and hiding in the other half, but uniting both halves, finding an enlightenment that included both the freedom of emptiness and the fullness of form. All of a sudden, you're no longer just enlightened to the nature of your own consciousness inside here, looking at a separate world outside there. You're no longer looking at a mountain, you are the mountain. You're no longer looking at the sun, you are the sun. You're no longer touching the earth, you are the earth. Galaxies circulate through your blood and stars light up the neurons of your night, and you are one with all of this.

 

So that's the first point - the Buddha realized emptiness, but as far as we can tell, he didn't realize the fullness of non-duality, or becoming one with all of form......."

 

 

Surely this can provide us with some cerebral jerky?

 

Mental masturbation and hey ya gotta sell magazines:)

[RiverSnake]

If i become a Buddha or reach immortality in this lifetime then perhaps i will feel that i am qualified to make such an argument as Ken Wilbur. Until then, i'll pass.

[Lucky7Strikes]

Ken Wilber sucks.

[ralis]

Ken Wilber sucks.

 

Will arrogance ever cease with you?

[Jetsun]

Will arrogance ever cease with you?

 

I don't think it will ever cease with Wilber, who on earth calls themselves an 'intellectual samurai'? and if you read his website it's hard to read an article without suffering him talking up his own brilliance

[manitou]

I don't know anything about Buddhism other than what I've read on this board from some real intelligent people.

In order to reach our innermost selves and have the changes performed on our personalities that must be performed for the channel to become clear, I'm wondering which of the Buddhist processes takes you furthest into self. Into your motives, your selfishnesses, times you've harmed others. Is this all covered under the umbrella of, say, Attachment and non-attachment? Or is there a specific method that Buddhism utilizes to perform this function? Is this process within the 8-fold path, or another devise? I'm looking for this connection in Buddhism because I know it's there because Buddhism is a path to self realization; this is purely for my own curiosity and looking for comparisons between the paths. It's my thing.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Into your motives, your selfishnesses, times you've harmed others. Is this all covered under the umbrella of, say, Attachment and non-attachment?

 

One of the things lacking in the Buddhist discussions here is engaged Buddhism. There seems to be an over-emphasis on the philosophical aspects by the several who post here, without any real social or personal engagement. It seems like the striving is for Buddhahood on the meditation cushion, rather than looking hard at motives, selfishness, harm, and the suffering of others. It may be there, but it isn't talked much about here, instead the focus is endlessly on dependent origination/emptiness. It would be nice if the Buddhists on this forum gave their Buddhist life a personal and societal context for us to consider. It may well be there, but we don't see it in the posts.

[C T]

I don't know anything about Buddhism other than what I've read on this board from some real intelligent people.

In order to reach our innermost selves and have the changes performed on our personalities that must be performed for the channel to become clear, I'm wondering which of the Buddhist processes takes you furthest into self. Into your motives, your selfishnesses, times you've harmed others. Is this all covered under the umbrella of, say, Attachment and non-attachment? Or is there a specific method that Buddhism utilizes to perform this function? Is this process within the 8-fold path, or another devise? I'm looking for this connection in Buddhism because I know it's there because Buddhism is a path to self realization; this is purely for my own curiosity and looking for comparisons between the paths. It's my thing.

From Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche:

 

"There are different vehicles for shravakas (lay Buddhists), bodhisattvas (stream enterers) and followers of Secret Mantra. Each have their respective precepts, trainings and samayas (vows). When condensed to the essence, the very heart of all these samayas is contained in the four samayas of the Dzogchen view - without inherent existence, all-pervasiveness, one taste and spontaneous perfection - and the three root samayas of Body, Speech and Mind.

 

Vajrayana practitioners (ought to strive to) abide by these 3 sets of principles. For example, we take refuge at the very beginning of any empowerment, and will have therefore received the refuge precepts of the shravakas. After that, we form the bodhicitta (the wish or intention to attain liberation for the benefit of sentient beings) resolve and thus receive the bodhisattva precepts. As for Secret Mantra, the moment we drink the 'samaya water', the drops of water from the conch shell given out before the actual empowerment, the water is transformed into Vajrasattva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajrasattva), who then rests in the center of our hearts. When the samayas are kept, we are never separate from Vajrasattva.

 

The practice of Secret Mantra is the short-cut, the swiftest path to reaching the inconceivable common and supreme accomplishments. It is also a very demanding path, and students are encouraged to approach this path gradually, to go through the preliminaries until it bears fruit, and then proceed on to the higher levels. As one moves up the different vehicles, the 'narrow defile' of the path of samaya grows increasingly confined; there is less and less room to move, so be on guard. In the case of a shravaka or bodhisattva, it is more simple to progress: keep virtuous and disciplined in thought, words and deeds - stay on guard against unwholesome behavior, adopt what is good. The samayas of Vajrayana (the major path), on the other hand, is to never let your body depart from being the deity, your voice from being mantra, and mind from the state of samadhi. If you are able to do so, this is keeping the ultimate samayas with the Body, Speech and Mind of the victorious ones. You can then truly be said to possess the sacred precepts of Vajrayana. Without doing so, understand that the samayas of Secret Mantra hold extreme risk.

 

In the general classifications of samaya you find the four stages called infraction, transgression, violation, and breach (or contradicting, damaging, breaking, and passing). These categories depend in part on the length of time which has passed since the samaya was damaged. After 3 years of still not having confessed and apologized, there is no longer any chance to mend the samaya. At this point it is overstepped and becomes irreparable.

 

Broken samaya really does have an impact on the practitioner, and also on the guru of the practitioner. It creates unhappiness and turmoil that prevents one from remaining easefully in the state of samadhi. In other words, impaired samaya hinders the training in samadhi and creates obstacles for learning, reflection and meditation. Broken samaya is definitely detrimental to health, happiness and the cultivation of other positive qualities.

 

The proper way to keep the samayas intact is through right view, meditation and conduct. If this is not completely possible, patience is a strong basis for returning over and over in one's attempts to keep them."

 

 

There are many approaches on the Buddhist path that one can take towards the ultimate goal of emancipation, or freedom from ignorance and mental turmoil. At the heart of all these options lie the basis of the Buddha's teaching, that of the Four Noble Truths. Any doctrine that does not revolve around the four truths are essentially not the teachings as taught by the Buddha.

 

In keeping with the correct ways of practicing Buddhism for the sake of freeing oneself from the clutches of mental suffering, one moves thru the various yanas (levels), whereby the four truths are revealed in subtler and subtler ways, until such time when it all becomes so vivid and clear that one literally feels as though there is a falling away of a kind of veil that has been obscuring and limiting one's perceptions all this while. For this to take effect, students and practitioners are encouraged to receive empowerments in line with their personal realizations. These empowerments are like acknowledgements from one's teacher that one is ready to move up another step. One of the clauses in receiving empowerments is that the receiver will strive to uphold certain precepts and vows that accompany the ceremonial blessing given by a lineage guru, and should these precepts be broken, an immediate attempt is to be made to mend the breakage. Depending on one's level, such mendings could be in the form of confession (made to any one or all of the 35 confessional buddhas), or simply feeling deep remorse and resolve to become more mindful and considerate in the future, with the aim of not repeating the same old habitual, reactionary and ignorant tendencies. Such mental preparedness are called keeping samayas. Being mindful of these samayas, they become guideposts and lamps on the path towards liberation, in the Buddhist sense.

 

Having said these, it is good to bear in mind that the Buddha also gave a wide array of antidotes to tackle all sorts of afflictive mental states, some say 84 thousand in all, and to find these antidotes, it is encouraged that one delve into the suttas and tantras with an open mind and extract the teachings that is most appropriate to the individual, and apply such, all the while keeping to an investigative attitude, and not accept or reject any of the teachings until one has gained some sort of experiential insight into them. Once these insights are attained, the student is then asked to promptly discard the particular teaching lest it becomes a yoke or burden, and move on to the next level or teaching, and repeat the whole process of contemplation and investigation, thru to discarding this, and so on.

[Z3N]

This is the most modern and direct point of penetration on this topic. This is the way of spiritual evolution on a quantum scale.

 

You have my respect Woofy.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Z3N

[ben]

[manitou]

Being mindful of these samayas, they become guideposts and lamps on the path towards liberation, in the Buddhist sense.

 

 

CowTao, thank you so much for going to all that trouble. It's the concept of the samayas that I think I've been looking for. This practice would seem to separate the men from the boys. This would seem to be the narrowing road, the one that becomes less obstructed with personal baggage the more impeccable of heart the practitioner becomes. It's the connection I've been looking for. I'll be printing your information out - thanks again!

[Vajrahridaya]

 

So that's the first point - the Buddha realized emptiness, but as far as we can tell, he didn't realize the fullness of non-duality, or becoming one with all of form......."

 

 

Surely this can provide us with some cerebral jerky?

 

Sadly, Ken Wilber doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

The Buddha didn't even focus on Emptiness, but instead focused on dependent origination, which means emptiness in form, basically. Nagarjuna and Buddha didn't teach anything different. Plus Ken is more of a new age guy who thinks emptiness means ultimate oneness. He doesn't even understand Nagarjuna! He does what Nagarjuna says not to do, he takes up emptiness as an ultimate ground of being, a truly existing essence of everything.

 

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of Ken when it comes to Buddhism. He really doesn't get it. Though, he's a pretty smart guy in other ways.

 

Ken is not a good source for Buddhist teaching at all.

 

But, whatever. In this Kali Yuga, people will continue to be misguided about Buddhism by these people, these New Age pundits like Ken Wilber.

 

Still, I think he has a good heart, a huge ego based upon his own intellectual musings, a big bank account, and a hot girlfriend.

 

Nothing inherently wrong with that, but he's in no position to comment on what the Buddha taught.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

 

There are many approaches on the Buddhist path that one can take towards the ultimate goal of emancipation, or freedom from ignorance and mental turmoil. At the heart of all these options lie the basis of the Buddha's teaching, that of the Four Noble Truths. Any doctrine that does not revolve around the four truths are essentially not the teachings as taught by the Buddha.

 

 

Mahro Pranams to CowTao!

 

1. The Nature of Suffering (or Dukkha):

"This is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."[4][5]

 

2. Suffering's Origin (Dukkha Samudaya):

"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[4][5]

 

3. Suffering's Cessation (Dukkha Nirodha):

"This is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."[4][5]

 

4. The Path (Dukkha Nirodha Gamini Patipada Magga) Leading to the Cessation of Suffering:

"This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration."[6][7]

Edited December 27, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

The Dalai Lama once met a Christian mystic (it was in France, i think... not sure, as i heard this a long time ago) - he gazed into this man's eyes, and immediately recognized that this man was truly an enlightened individual.

 

I think this is totally possible, but most likely this individual had karmic connection from previous lives to the Buddhas realization. I mean... to even just meet the Dalai Lama physically and feel a connection means you have karmic ties from a past life to begin with.

 

Because even after enlightenment, cause and effect still manifest.

[ralis]

I think this is totally possible, but most likely this individual had karmic connection from previous lives to the Buddhas realization. I mean... to even just meet the Dalai Lama physically and feel a connection means you have karmic ties from a past life to begin with.

 

Because even after enlightenment, cause and effect still manifest.

 

According to you, the Buddhas are the only enlightened ones! Therefor, everyone else falls short. Your legalistic view is no different than the average fundamentalist preacher.

Edited December 27, 2010 by ralis