I think I just experienced enlightenment

[SeriesOfTubes]

WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT, NO, I MEAN REALLY, LIKE WHAT IS IT?

 

by Steven Norquist

 

The original 2003 essay

 

 

I like this essay, I have a copy in my bathroom magazine rack. However I do wonder if what he describes is full enlightenment. He seems to have negated too far, erring on the side of nihilism (not middle way) which perhaps correlates with not having any energy to do much of anything, e.g., a colossal effort to write an essay or play guitar? Since it was written in 2003 probably this sort of thing has been balanced out by now. Also in Buddhist terms wouldn't this level still be a reification of U=C?

[xabir2005]

I like this essay, I have a copy in my bathroom magazine rack. However I do wonder if what he describes is full enlightenment. He seems to have negated too far, erring on the side of nihilism (not middle way) which perhaps correlates with not having any energy to do much of anything, e.g., a colossal effort to write an essay or play guitar? Since it was written in 2003 probably this sort of thing has been balanced out by now. Also in Buddhist terms wouldn't this level still be a reification of U=C?

There are things that he said which is wrong. Things like, you become lazy after enlightenment (this is because he is at an early phase and fails to experience the rapture and energy due to the karmic propensities still obscuring them). Also, other things - there is karma, just no doer. There is rebirth, just no soul. He also fails to realize dependent origination and the emptiness of objects, that is why he says things like 'The reality is, the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist, and that is consciousness, and that is all.'

 

He is at the Stage 4 level of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment.

 

U=C points out to the fact that there is just what is observed that that is self-luminous, self-felt, without an observer. This is correct.

 

But there is no inherently and permanently existing Consciousness.

 

There is only consciousness arising dependent on conditions.

 

By reifying consciousness, he errs towards eternalism, not nihilism.

Edited December 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[C T]

There are things that he said which is wrong. Things like, you become lazy after enlightenment (this is because he is at an early phase and fails to experience the rapture and energy due to the karmic propensities still obscuring them). Also, other things - there is karma, just no doer. There is rebirth, just no soul. He also fails to realize dependent origination and the emptiness of objects, that is why he says things like 'The reality is, the body exists, the thoughts exist, the memories exist, and that is consciousness, and that is all.'

 

He is at the Stage 4 level of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment.

I do not see in what way, and why, he is wrong. I dont think he was. If, as you say, he is at stage 4, this would mean his insights are limited, but valid, in a sense, to what unfolds for him at that stage. For example, he is yet to see stage 5, so he would not be able to express a wider view that where his understanding is at that time, but that, however, does not make his views wrong. You ought to have seen this too, Xabir.

 

Its quite a challenge for non-students of Buddhism to grasp a reality where body, thoughts and memories are not a reality, and where such are not within the scope of consciousness, since for this group, sense perceptions, self and perceived reality are quite tightly woven together. To expect them to see beyond this, into how such a view can be expanded infinitely, may not be suitable for certain mindsets.

[xabir2005]

I do not see in what way, and why, he is wrong. I dont think he was. If, as you say, he is at stage 4, this would mean his insights are limited, but valid, in a sense, to what unfolds for him at that stage. For example, he is yet to see stage 5, so he would not be able to express a wider view that where his understanding is at that time, but that, however, does not make his views wrong. You ought to have seen this too, Xabir.

 

Its quite a challenge for non-students of Buddhism to grasp a reality where body, thoughts and memories are not a reality, and where such are not within the scope of consciousness, since for this group, sense perceptions, self and perceived reality are quite tightly woven together. To expect them to see beyond this, into how such a view can be expanded infinitely, may not be suitable for certain mindsets.

The view of 'existence' is wrong. It is not that his insight is wrong, but that although non-dual is realised, non-inherency is not yet realised. His insight is non-dual, but substantialist non-dual.

[Starjumper]

He is at the Stage 4 level of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment.

 

That's very good, but It's really not good for me to be seeing things like that

 

What he calls step one I call cessation, which is the big wowie zowie start of it all, and he left out the part about how the feeling of cessation is one of such intense peace that it is both blissful and contagious to any who are close. By wowie zowie I mean you feel a rather sudden and very strong change, just like an instant and very strong drug high. All thinking stops suddenly and stays off for over 24 hours, you feel like you become pure awareness and everything and everybody seems just really fine.

 

Step 2 is what I prefer to call rain cloud samadhi, because it's described as heavens opening up and dumping all knowledge (you know, like instant answers to important philosophical questions ROFL) on you like a raincloud, that seems cool till it all leaks out and you forget it, which is cool too. After that if you generally have the ability to get answers to anything you are curious about, whether you voice it or not.

 

He left out the part about part two where it's full of pain and misery as you become more aware of how people around you feel, how the way they react to your innocence hurts, and to how they react to things in general. It also includes the pain of coming down off the high you get in part one. I hear part two has a fairly high mortality rate.

 

I don't understand any of the Buddhist/Hindu lingo in part seven but what he says about it is good. Does it stop at 7? Maybe I haven't gone past 7, maybe he just left off all the 'frosting' and only described the mental aspect. He also left the part out about how you care less and less about the whole thing as you progress along.

 

Is it possible someone could explain this ridiculous part of 7 in English, because I don't understand some of the words:

 

Anatta is a seal, not a stage.

Awareness has always been non-dual.

Appearances have always been Non-arising.

All phenomena are ‘interconnected’ and by nature Maha.

Emptiness is the ground of all experiences.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Starjumper7

[xabir2005]

That's very good, but It's really not good for me to be seeing things like that

 

What he calls step one I call cessation, which is the big wowie zowie start of it all, and he left out the part about how the feeling of cessation is one of such intense peace that it is both blissful and contagious to any who are close. By wowie zowie I mean you feel a rather sudden and very strong change, just like an instant and very strong drug high. All thinking stops suddenly and stays off for over 24 hours, you feel like you become pure awareness and everything and everybody seems just really fine.

 

Step 2 is what I prefer to call rain cloud samadhi, because it's described as heavens opening up and dumping all knowledge (you know, like instant answers to important philosophical questions ROFL) on you like a raincloud, that seems cool till it all leaks out and you forget it, which is cool too. After that if you generally have the ability to get answers to anything you are curious about, whether you voice it or not.

 

He left out the part about part two where it's full of pain and misery as you become more aware of how people around you feel, how the way they react to your innocence hurts, and to how they react to things in general. It also includes the pain of coming down off the high you get in part one. I hear part two has a fairly high mortality rate.

 

I don't understand any of the Buddhist/Hindu lingo in part seven but what he says about it is good. Does it stop at 7? Maybe I haven't gone past 7, maybe he just left off all the 'frosting' and only described the mental aspect. He also left the part out about how you care less and less about the whole thing as you progress along.

 

Is it possible someone could explain this ridiculous part of 7 in English, because I don't understand some of the words:

Not exactly... what you are describing are experiences and states and samadhis. These are transient.

 

What Thusness is describing is realizations into the fact, nature, of existence.

 

Stage 1 is the realization of the undeniability and certainty of pure beingness and existence. It feels like you have touched the core of your being and realized your true identity as that pure being or I AMness.

Stage 2 is the realization of the impersonality of Awareness, which then appears to be a universal source of everything and everyone.

Stage 3 is more of an experience though - it is dissolving the self into a state of oblivion and spontaneity.

Stage 4 is the realization of non-duality of subject and object.

Stage 5 is the realization of Anatta (Buddhist's No-Self, No-Agent)

Stage 6 is the realization of Emptiness and Dependent Origination

Stage 7 is the realization that non-duality, anatta, emptiness, luminosity is 'always and already so' as the nature and essence of all experience. This stage isn't actually really separated from stage 4, 5, 6, but rather is added to stress the point of 'spontaneous perfection' - that these are the nature of experience to be realized as being already and always so, not a state to be achieved or sustained. I.e. you don't try to achieve 'a state of no-self' which would be illusory because all along there is no self to begin with.

Edited December 31, 2010 by xabir2005

[KoolAid900]

I wonder what characteristics one would find in an enlightened individual.

 

I've never met one, that I've known of. I wonder if they would seem extraordinarily kind or utterly blunt. I wonder if they would move and act with complete control or whether every moment would be new to them. I wonder if murder, rape, and other such horrors would be still seem as negative, or simply neutral.

 

I love music, and I love sounds, but I don't like words too much. They are so very arbitrary, yet so confined.

 

 

From my experience with enlightened individuals is that they vary tremendously from each other in expression of enlightened qualities and even vary a lot in different situations. Their qualities expressed range from blunt to gentle. They seem OK with gross negativities in one sense and to feel compassion and desire to help in another sense. This is of course all based on my personal belief that the individuals I'm speaking of are enlightened.

[C T]

The view of 'existence' is wrong. It is not that his insight is wrong, but that although non-dual is realised, non-inherency is not yet realised. His insight is non-dual, but substantialist non-dual.

In Buddhism, insights are endless, therefore it is not appropriate to say 'existence' is a wrong view. It may be incomplete, and limited, nonetheless it sets the ground for progression, as do all other realizations. 'Wrong' here suggests there is a ceiling, an ultimatum of one final, grandest Insight, of which, in Buddhism, there is none. Even the Buddha says there is a better way to catch a snake, He did not say there is a best way to do so.

[Vajrahridaya]

In Buddhism, insights are endless, therefore it is not appropriate to say 'existence' is a wrong view. It may be incomplete, and limited, nonetheless it sets the ground for progression, as do all other realizations. 'Wrong' here suggests there is a ceiling, an ultimatum of one final, grandest Insight, of which, in Buddhism, there is none. Even the Buddha says there is a better way to catch a snake, He did not say there is a best way to do so.

 

There is a final and grandest insight and that's the insight that fully liberates endlessly. But it's ramifications and expressions are endless.

[gendao]

Not exactly... what you are describing are experiences and states and samadhis. These are transient.

 

What Thusness is describing is realizations into the fact, nature, of existence.

 

Stage 1 is the realization of the undeniability and certainty of pure beingness and existence. It feels like you have touched the core of your being and realized your true identity as that pure being or I AMness.

Stage 2 is the realization of the impersonality of Awareness, which then appears to be a universal source of everything and everyone.

Stage 3 is more of an experience though - it is dissolving the self into a state of oblivion and spontaneity.

Stage 4 is the realization of non-duality of subject and object.

Stage 5 is the realization of Anatta (Buddhist's No-Self, No-Agent)

Stage 6 is the realization of Emptiness and Dependent Origination

Stage 7 is the realization that non-duality, anatta, emptiness, luminosity is 'always and already so' as the nature and essence of all experience. This stage isn't actually really separated from stage 4, 5, 6, but rather is added to stress the point of 'spontaneous perfection' - that these are the nature of experience to be realized as being already and always so, not a state to be achieved or sustained. I.e. you don't try to achieve 'a state of no-self' which would be illusory because all along there is no self to begin with.

Interesting summation - thanks

 

Just curious, what level are you at right now?

[Trash Filter]

It's amazing how someone like the Buddha reached this state. Full enlightement as he knew is probably still not the end, but there is even more!

 

TF

[Gerard]

You can reach that level as well. Just dedicate your life pursuing this most noble goal. Well worth the effort, for sure.

[C T]

There is a final and grandest insight and that's the insight that fully liberates endlessly. But it's ramifications and expressions are endless.

Very noble view indeed, VJ. On a relative and conceptual level, on the level of practice, yes, there is an ultimate breakthrough, but at that point of breaking through, one actually non-attains, in that one attains no thing, coupled with the realization that there is no one to attain anything... there is, however, a revelation of primordial clarity, a touching of the void.... which cannot be a final insight by virtue of its unceasing voidness and a clarity with no boundaries.

 

There is really nothing to get in Buddhism, so many masters use the word 'attainment' cautiously and sparingly, because it can be potentially misleading. But i can understand that many Westerners are caught up with attainments, its a biggie for them. They (the masters and teachers) choose, if they can, to emphasize Non-attainment, since Buddhism is very much about deep investigations leading to wisdom which then allows the letting go of fundamental causes of suffering and attachment, rather than attaining anything. Its quite a matter of how far we are willing to relinquish clinging to what is false, and for this reason, there is no end goal, no final insight.... but endless liberation, yes, that i agree fully. Spontaneous, continual recognition of shunyata creates the cause for this endless liberation to stabilize. Its good.

Edited January 5, 2011 by CowTao

[Vajrahridaya]

Very noble view indeed, VJ. On a relative and conceptual level, on the level of practice, yes, there is an ultimate breakthrough, but at that point of breaking through, one actually non-attains, in that one attains no thing, coupled with the realization that there is no one to attain anything... there is, however, a revelation of primordial clarity, a touching of the void.... which cannot be a final insight by virtue of its unceasing voidness and a clarity with no boundaries.

Word to your Buddhanature!

 

There is really nothing to get in Buddhism, so many masters use the word 'attainment' cautiously and sparingly, because it can be potentially misleading. But i can understand that many Westerners are caught up with attainments, its a biggie for them. They (the masters and teachers) choose, if they can, to emphasize Non-attainment, since Buddhism is very much about deep investigations leading to wisdom which then allows the letting go of fundamental causes of suffering and attachment, rather than attaining anything. Its quite a matter of how far we are willing to relinquish clinging to what is false, and for this reason, there is no end goal, no final insight.... but endless liberation, yes, that i agree fully. Spontaneous, continual recognition of shunyata creates the cause for this endless liberation to stabilize. Its good.

 

Very well put. (humbled)

[Gerard]

Well, there is something to attain even though the so-called masters don't like to talk about it due to their inherent Yin nature (Asians are Yin vs. Westerners being more Yang, but there are of course gray areas, but generally speaking this rule is true). Whether you like to talk about it it's another story. I don't like to discuss this in real life (in person) but hey this is the Internet, a written medium, hence a word must be used. We can't just refer to it as: " ." It wouldn't make any sense. And we all know this is a forum, a lot of talk happens here.

[三江源]

In response to the last three posts...

 

Dont we love paradox.

 

Nice conversation within a conversation.

[三江源]

Well, there is something to attain even though the so-called masters don't like to talk about it due to their inherent Yin nature (Asians are Yin vs. Westerners being more Yang, but there are of course gray areas, but generally speaking this rule is true). Whether you like to talk about it it's another story. I don't like to discuss this in real life (in person) but hey this is the Internet, a written medium, hence a word must be used. We can't just refer to it as: " ." It wouldn't make any sense. And we all know this is a forum, a lot of talk happens here.

 

Resonating with this one, yet in the West and on a message board... I like the "..." idea"!

[Starjumper]

Very noble view indeed, VJ. On a relative and conceptual level, on the level of practice, yes, there is an ultimate breakthrough, but at that point of breaking through, one actually non-attains, in that one attains no thing,

 

That is very good

 

coupled with the realization that there is no one to attain anything.

 

Realizations, realizations, realizations, whats all this realization stuff all the time?

 

Sorry, you got the chronology totally Buddhist backwards. The feeling of no self happens in the first step, not the last, it only last for a day or so.

 

and its a ------ FEELING, not a ------- realization! Did you hear it yet? No, OK, that's what I thought, NEXT.

 

Then you get your brain back and it's time to grow up, if you (they, I, us, Aunt Nelda) have the guts. YOU YOU YOU YOU ME ME ME ME THEM THEM THEM. They're all around here somewhere, Helloooo, we're all separate individuals, I'm not you and you aren't me, and some Buddhists are monotheists!

 

Actually the way Buddhists talk about enlightenment strictly in terms of realizations just seems so wrong, seems really sick, but I'm different.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Starjumper7

[Apech]

 

...

 

Then you get your brain back and it's time to grow up, if you (they, I, us, Aunt Nelda) have the guts. YOU YOU YOU YOU ME ME ME ME THEM THEM THEM. They're all around here somewhere, Helloooo, we're all separate individuals, I'm not you and you aren't me, and some Buddhists are monotheists!

 

Actually the way Buddhists talk about enlightenment strictly in terms of realizations just seems so wrong, seems really sick, but I'm different.

 

Buddhists cannot be monotheists ... if they think they are then they are something else.

[C T]

Buddhists cannot be monotheists ... if they think they are then they are something else.

[C T]

That is very good

 

 

 

Realizations, realizations, realizations, whats all this realization stuff all the time?

 

Sorry, you got the chronology totally Buddhist backwards. The feeling of no self happens in the first step, not the last, it only last for a day or so.

 

and its a ------ FEELING, not a ------- realization! Did you hear it yet? No, OK, that's what I thought, NEXT.

 

Then you get your brain back and it's time to grow up, if you (they, I, us, Aunt Nelda) have the guts. YOU YOU YOU YOU ME ME ME ME THEM THEM THEM. They're all around here somewhere, Helloooo, we're all separate individuals, I'm not you and you aren't me, and some Buddhists are monotheists!

 

Actually the way Buddhists talk about enlightenment strictly in terms of realizations just seems so wrong, seems really sick, but I'm different.

You say it lasts only for a day or so? Maybe its because for you its a feeling. For those who make it a Realization, or in most instances where the Realization makes them (either way applies), it goes deeper and lasts much longer.

 

No need to get hung up on things. Should be easy for you since you recognize your unique difference from the lot of others...below your status? Hope not.

[Lucky7Strikes]

That is very good

 

 

 

Realizations, realizations, realizations, whats all this realization stuff all the time?

 

Sorry, you got the chronology totally Buddhist backwards. The feeling of no self happens in the first step, not the last, it only last for a day or so.

 

and its a ------ FEELING, not a ------- realization! Did you hear it yet? No, OK, that's what I thought, NEXT.

 

Then you get your brain back and it's time to grow up, if you (they, I, us, Aunt Nelda) have the guts. YOU YOU YOU YOU ME ME ME ME THEM THEM THEM. They're all around here somewhere, Helloooo, we're all separate individuals, I'm not you and you aren't me, and some Buddhists are monotheists!

 

Actually the way Buddhists talk about enlightenment strictly in terms of realizations just seems so wrong, seems really sick, but I'm different.

Anatta is a seal, as in, that is reality. There is no you. What is you? Your eye, your face, your feet, your feelings? Your memory? Your consciousness?All these things are transient and do not hold. At best one arrives at the uncertainty of one's identity, which is better than false certainty.

 

The only thing that holds is insight into reality as is. True insight does not go away because it penetrates all conditions, let alone 2 days. Buddha is non other than the dharma. He is he embodiment of truth, just as in Taoism one would say that the sage is "one" with the Tao.

 

There is no set chronology for Buddhist awakening, the methods are suited for different conditions. For you? It's going to take a lot of deep seated imaginary ego fighting. You were right when you said earlier that these teachings are dangerous for you. I personally don't think you should go near it at all since your sense of being so special is important to you.

 

All egos, prides, attachments are subject to change. They all deconstruct and so people have said these things eventually cause suffering, and that point in suffering is when these teaching start to truly matter, not some magic tricks.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Starjumper]

Buddhists cannot be monotheists ... if they think they are then they are something else.

 

Then a bunch of them are something else, because they see Buddha as god/

[Apech]

Then a bunch of them are something else, because they see Buddha as god/

 

But that's not a Buddhist view is it.

[Ninpo-me-this-ninjutsu-me-that]

But that's not a Buddhist view is it.

 

It's a flexibly minded Buddhists view. Beyond Buddhism I call it! My, that could make a great book title. 'Beyond Buddhism', 'tired of the same old enlightenment? Sick being dependent on your origination? Well buy 'Beyond Buddhism - The Secret Level!' today to find out this kick ass system that is way better than anything that Buddha guy taught!'

 

$5.95. BUT only Today!!