Enlightenment Is an Attitude

[John Zen]

I've realized this, more and more, as I start to observe my life.

 

I have been sort of chasing enlightenment for some 4 years. I was always a perfectionist. I wanted to be the fastest, the smartest, the best.

 

I left Catholic High School, a single-minded environment where I was fed Dogma and Doctrine day after day, and took an introductory Philosophy class in a liberal, secular institution, where I was introduced to Spinozism and Pantheism. It clicked for me: "Anything that God created must have existed already, because nothing comes from nothing. Something cannot come from nothing. All of this stuff must be God". I discovered Epicurus: "Is God willing but not able to prevent the evil in the world? Then why call him omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then why call him benevolent?. Is he neither able nor willing? Then Why call him God?". My conceptions were turned upside down.

 

I became Athiest. If I was to be Catholic, it was going to be because I rationally came to that decision. I would not rationalize why I was Catholic. I began searching. Pantheism and Monism were intriguing, but they did not offer answers. I wanted to be Enlightened like the Buddha. I wanted to be wise. I wanted psychic powers.

 

So over the past 4 years I have been meditating. But I was still convinced there was some sort of secret that the ancient sages knew that I was left out of. I thought that the Bible and its myths were some code for a more esoteric doctrine that only the rich or initiated knew. Samael Aun Weor says that the myths represent the truth that coitus reservatus (karezza; sex without ejaculation/orgasm) provided fuel for the solar astral body, and that with enough time, astral projection, lucid dreaming, and a developed astral body will lead to salvation. Similar to Mantak Chia's "immortal fetus". This all sounded so right to me. The stories in the bible felt so right with his theories. All of Jesus' parables seemed to represent this hypothesis. It integrated East and West. I was convinced that enlightenment required this rigorous, scientific, self-denying approach. If I just give up orgasm, I will be able to travel around in my dreams for what seems like hours every night and have all sorts of desirable psychic powers.

 

But then I began to think. Even random songs on the radio seem to echo the "truth" of sexual alchemy. The Lord of the Rings can be interpreted in light of sexual alchemy. S.A.W.s "Gnosticism" is like Freud's Psycho-Analysis. Really, anything can be interpreted in terms of Sexuality. It's not that hard to do. It is possible that I am just gullible, and this self-proclaimed "Master" is just another guy who was born with an uncanny ability to "astral project". He thinks that it is a holy ability, and now I think he's just wired different.

 

Because what really is the benefit of Lucid Dreaming and Astral Projection? It's a little virtual reality for a few minutes a night.

 

Enlightenment isn't having powers. Enlightenment is an attitude. It is seeing the world objectively. I walk now through my college campus and see all the beautiful trees and flowers and all of the healthy, energetic people walking in harmony, and I think "this experience is perfect. It is as heaven". Yeah, there are car accidents and death, and bad weather. How will you react to these negatives? How much will you appreciate the neutral moments? How will you celebrate the positive ones? How you react to the negatives, neutrals, and positives: this to me is the measure of enlightenment.

 

And Love, as Jesus taught, is the attitude. Cheer in bad times, appreciation in neutral times, and ecstasy in positive times are all manifestations of love. Meditation has helped me immensely get closer to this attitude. Meditation is developing the Stillness/Silence/Peace that exists always within me. So when I find myself in tough or uncomfortable times, I can retreat to this place that I know is always there. When I find that I have come into incredible luck, I am thankful, but I attach to the success less, I grip it less tightly. I even out the highs and the lows, and achieve emotional stability.

 

Qi Gong, Tai Chi, Chakra Meditation, Yoga, these are all good things, yes, and I try them here and there. I think that they are sort of ways to augment meditation. Maybe some of these things will lead to a Kundalini Awakening which opens up the third eye and gives you a spiritual experience. But in the end, the experience is transitory. The ecstasy ends. You can have Chi flowing all over the place, or you can raise your Kundalini every day, but it means nothing for your spiritual advancement unless you use that experience to better your interactions with other people. How you take that experience and apply it to every-day life is the key.

 

Kundalini or Astral Projection or Sexual Alchemy are all terms that are associated with "enlightenment", and maybe they are. But if they are, it is only because these experiences most dramatically change your attitude. Out of Body Experiences seem to increase a sense of spiritual connection to the cosmos, and consequently to other people. I guess my point is that all of these "advanced esoteric" practices/experiences are not enlightenment themselves. They are usually responsible for jump-starting and catalyzing an attitude change; but they are not necessary for enlightenment when the slow metamorphosis of Meditation takes a practitioner to the exact same end.

 

"Happily ever after" is the end. Happiness in good times and in bad. Someone strikes you on the cheek? Give them the other, because nothing can hurt you. Your skin can be bruised, but your emotions are immune. If you can reach that point, whether you need years of sexual alchemy, kundalini yoga practice, or just plain meditation to reach it, you are enlightened. There is no, one, secret formula. And that is a very liberating thought for me. I hope it is for you.

 

Namaste

[JohnC]

Nice personal share on your perspective.

 

So when I find myself in tough or uncomfortable times, I can retreat to this place that I know is always there.

Are you escaping inside?

 

Cause it sounds to me like your looking for emotional resilience in the moment, and if your escaping is that what you want?

 

Cause it sounds to me that your looking to to stay in the moment with the fire/goodstuff regardless of what it is.

 

John

[John Zen]

Nice personal share on your perspective.

 

 

Are you escaping inside?

 

Cause it sounds to me like your looking for emotional resilience in the moment, and if your escaping is that what you want?

 

Cause it sounds to me that your looking to to stay in the moment with the fire/goodstuff regardless of what it is.

 

John

 

No, I do not want to escape. If some stroke of ill fortune just hits me suddenly, I more just aim to remember the peace that I've found through meditation. I don't need to leave the moment, in fact I try to get more inside of the moment. Leaving the moment is what causes the pain (you begin thinking and thinking and thinking about all the ways that this bad luck erases your past work or makes the future less desirable now). Escaping is not how I try to cope.

 

But sometimes I still do. I'm not claiming to be enlightened. Sometimes I will just escape the moment. I aim not to, and meditation will help me do that more easily...

[Birch]

"The ecstasy ends. You can have Chi flowing all over the place, or you can raise your Kundalini every day, but it means nothing"

 

Agree it ends.

 

I wouldn't say it means nothing in one sense, because I do think that having a coherent mind/body/environment system is healthier than having one that is out of synch. But I agree that it technically means nothingin the interpretative "here's the big picture of what it all means" sense that so many people rush to others to be happily (or unhappily) told.

[JohnC]

No, I do not want to escape. If some stroke of ill fortune just hits me suddenly, I more just aim to remember the peace that I've found through meditation. I don't need to leave the moment, in fact I try to get more inside of the moment. Leaving the moment is what causes the pain (you begin thinking and thinking and thinking about all the ways that this bad luck erases your past work or makes the future less desirable now). Escaping is not how I try to cope.

 

But sometimes I still do. I'm not claiming to be enlightened. Sometimes I will just escape the moment. I aim not to, and meditation will help me do that more easily...

Cool.

 

Questioning for clarity.

 

The words you use speak to the world from which they come.

 

John

Edited December 30, 2010 by JohnC

[Marblehead]

Hi John Zen,

 

Thanks for sharing that with us. I enjoyed the read.

 

Well, one point I do not agree with:

 

Someone strikes you on the cheek? Give them the other, because nothing can hurt you. Your skin can be bruised, but your emotions are immune.

 

But I don't want my skin bruised either. No turning the other cheek here. And I promise you, if our body is intentionally abused our emotions will be bruised as well. Extreme submissiveness is not a wise way to live, I think.

[C T]

I've realized this, more and more, as I start to observe my life.

 

I guess my point is that all of these "advanced esoteric" practices/experiences are not enlightenment themselves. They are usually responsible for jump-starting and catalyzing an attitude change; but they are not necessary for enlightenment when the slow metamorphosis of Meditation takes a practitioner to the exact same end.

 

Thanks for sharing, John. Compared to a year ago, its very clear from your notes that you have matured in your views, so congratulations!

 

Those practices are more like toys, meant to distract, comfort, sooth and pacify those who never stop looking. Moreover, they do not take dabblers/practitioners to the same end... au contraire.

 

Meditation is good! Its good because it means getting used to a feeling of 'one taste' for all that comes into one's field of awareness. One taste.... these two words were my cue for many years on the Insight Meditation path, and they worked to bring me back to mindfulness each time distractions set in.

 

Brilliant progress, and well done!

[John Zen]

Thank you for the kind words CowTao.

[manitou]

It seems that there's a journey into personality that must be taken in conjunction with the increasing meditative abilities; to fully realize our part in each and every argument, every exchange. Not being a Buddhist, I don't know if meditative technique at the levels that are discussed on this site have a mechanism for seeking the blockages within - most surely there is. If one is truly seeking enlightenment, I think this internal-delving process goes on throughout our whole lives. There is always more inner work to be done - if we're in awareness of our defects, it makes it all the easier and more expedient to get rid of them, if we're willing.

 

At some point, life becomes the teacher. It ceases being a cerebral learning experience. When one gets to the point where he takes full responsibility for all his actions and realizes that he has manifested exactly what he's got - whether we're talking about living situation, wife, kids, poverty, wealth, happiness, whatever - this is the other side to enlightenment. If I've manifested an argument with a friend (I don't care whose fault it was, I still manifested an argument) I must take the personal responsibility to find out exactly what part I played in all that. Sure, my first response will be to blame her. I should ignore the first response. I should wait for the second response where the situation can be transcended and ego doesn't get in the way. Then, and only then, when I can see my own part in this can I find the defect that is still there. A button that hasn't been fully filed down yet. Or as it says in the Tao, to be simple as the uncarved wood; no sharp edges, a dull sword. If people are pushing my buttons it's because there are still buttons there that need to be addressed and removed. What we want to shoot for is to be a clear tube with no buttons at all.

 

Can this be done through meditation and book-learnin' alone? I don't think so, but maybe I'm wrong. After doing this for a whole lot of years, I think my current master's name is One Day At A Time and the situations I can get myself into. On any given day I can see exactly what my innards have manifested. If there's strife, I've manufactured it somehow, even if I don't want to see it.

 

Personally, I believe this is where the rubber meets the road on any of this spiritual stuff. Simple but not easy. And it takes a lifetime. Unless one's behavior and intent is already impeccable, then all the above stuff is moot.

[Otis]

If people are pushing my buttons it's because there are still buttons there that need to be addressed and removed. What we want to shoot for is to be a clear tube with no buttons at all.

[Otis]

Enlightenment isn't having powers. Enlightenment is an attitude. .... And Love, as Jesus taught, is the attitude.

Very nice.

[Aaron]

John I appreciate what you've said. I do think there's this idea that enlightenment is an attitude, but I don't think that's necessarily so. Enlightenment is by definition the state of being enlightened. Buddhists believe enlightenment is the state of being free of ignorance, suffering, and desire (according to wiki). I think I like the more practical definition which is that enlightenment occurs when one becomes enlightened, or in lay mans terms, understands fully the problems at hand.

 

If we take the former, then we have to follow a specific dogma's definition of what enlightenment is, and to me that is restrictive. The latter, however, allows us the freedom of becoming enlightened without requiring us to abide by a strict criteria. For me, I'll never say I'm enlightened, rather I'll say I've come to an understanding.

 

When one comes to an understanding of the true nature of Tao, I think there is a profound change that occurs. I think on the journey to that awareness ones attitude slowly diminishes, until they finally have no attitude, no preconceived notions of truth and untruth, or right and wrong. One's actions begin to arise from Tao, rather than from self. That doesn't mean that one stops making decisions, but rather one begins to understand on an innate primal level what actions should be taken and what one's shouldn't.

 

To come back to attitude, attitude is very much a man made construct, it holds no place in enlightenment in a practical sense, rather it is a construct of the ego that we are encouraged to create, as if our attitude defined us as people, which it doesn't.

 

If you think enlightenment will free you from suffering in a physical or mental sense, I think you might be mistaken, rather enlightenment allows us to understand the true nature of how things occur. One thing that you realize is that being ordinary is quite in tune with Tao. Being a master of qi, communing with spirit, or redirecting your sexual fluids to your brain has little to do with it, as someone else said, they're nice tricks, but that's what they are, tricks. There's no reason one can't pursue these types of practices, but one should also keep in mind that they can distract you from what's really important, becoming aware of Tao so Te can arise.

 

True awareness of Tao, being able to practice Tao (which isn't a good description of what I'm saying at all really, but the best description I can come up with), well that is an entirely different thing. When one is in harmony with Tao, then Te will arise on it's own. It has nothing to do with a state of mind, but rather a non-state-of-mind. Actions arise in response to what's occurring around you, on an intuitive level you understand what needs to be done and what doesn't. I know I said this before, but I think it is important to clarify the difference.

 

When one speaks of enlightenment, one needs to keep in mind that the state of enlightenment for a Taoist (another term I dislike using) and a Buddhist are different. Taoists are not so much about detaching as they are reattaching, the reason they use the phrase detach is because it is a common descriptor of an awareness and state of consciousness that occurs when one becomes "enlightened", in fact the way one who is practicing Tao reaches this state is by understanding that he is attached to everything in existence, while a Buddhist seems to come to this understanding by concluding that they are detached from everything in existence. I'm not sure if that makes complete sense, but that's the best I can come up with.

 

With that said, if you've read this far, then I hope I've been able to explain another perspective of enlightenment to you, and I hope that you might be able to accept that having a change in attitude is not bad at all, but that there is more to it, and I definitely think you're on the right track.

 

Aaron

Edited January 1, 2011 by Twinner

[John Zen]

At some point, life becomes the teacher. It ceases being a cerebral learning experience.

 

I agree completely. Meditation (Or Kundalini or Yoga or whatever) are not the only means. Simply deciding to change your attitude and deciding to love will get you there too.

[manitou]

I agree completely. Meditation (Or Kundalini or Yoga or whatever) are not the only means. Simply deciding to change your attitude and deciding to love will get you there too.

 

 

There you go. Deciding to love. Whatever that means in any situation. Just always take the high road if you can, and try to be thoughtful of others. I think the more years we do this mindfully is how Life files the buttons down.

 

Twinner, that was one astounding piece of writing. That was beautiful, and I couldn't agree more with all of it.

[Otis]

Personally, I see the concept of enlightenment as a destination as a red herring, a distraction that takes away from the real process at hand: that of living one's life.

 

For that reason, the OP's conclusion that enlightenment = Love, seems perfect to me. Love as in loving Life, all its contents, and all the other participants in the game. Because then enlightenment is a growth-filled path of discovering myself, others, and the world, that lasts the rest of my life. It has nothing to do with comparing myself to others, or to some conceptual model. It's just living my life with great care and fearlessness, which is exactly the path I want to be on, anyway.

[Birch]

"one who is practicing Tao reaches this state is by understanding that he is attached to everything in existence, while a Buddhist seems to come to this understanding by concluding that they are detached from everything in existence."

 

I like this.

[John Zen]

"one who is practicing Tao reaches this state is by understanding that he is attached to everything in existence, while a Buddhist seems to come to this understanding by concluding that they are detached from everything in existence."

 

I like this.

 

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of Buddhism, though. Buddhist's aim to have detached emotions. Not to detach themselves from the world. That's how I see it anyways...

[Otis]

I don't think this is an accurate portrayal of Buddhism, though. Buddhist's aim to have detached emotions. Not to detach themselves from the world. That's how I see it anyways...

I think you're right; that's what Buddhism is about. The middle way does not exclude life, even as it seeks to let go of panic and habits of avoidance and addiction.

 

I have, however, heard several Buddhists repeatedly endorse the "detach themselves from the world" model as their own interpretation of Buddhism. Engagement with life (the yang balance to yin "surrender-of-attachment") is seen as anathema.

[Birch]

"have detached emotions"

 

Why would anyone want that????? I wonder if there might not be be a confusion here between the interpretation of an emotion and the actual bodily event(s) of the same.

 

I'm personally in favour of alignment of interpretation AND emotion - of what has been previously distorted. IMO and IME, the distortion is the source of suffering.

 

And I think I have an inkling of how that comes to be so in the first place and how it gets subtly perpetuated. And I think (and through practice and tries and fails) that I mistrust Buddhism in this respect for some reason, something not quite "right" about it IMO. Or maybe it's just not my thing and my thing is more of a Taoist thing

 

Oh, then there's this stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

[Aaron]

To clarify, I meant detached from everything that exists, in the sense that they understand their true place within "reality", that the world that they see is a construct of the ego, that in reality they are not attached to it, except for their own perception. When one talks about emotional detachment, I think it's very easy to confuse the idea with the notion of "Spock-like" logic, which it isn't. Rather it is, as I stated, a state of consciousness that arises when one becomes aware of their actual connection (or lack of connection if you prefer) to reality.

 

For the Taoist, they see the former, a connection to the real and physical world through the emptiness (Tao) that exists, for a Buddhist, they come to see that they are detached from the real and physical world through understanding the emptiness that exists. (Again it's not the easiest thing to explain, so if someone feels they can do a better job, please do.)

 

Aaron

Edited January 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Vajrahridaya]

To clarify, I meant detached from everything that exists, in the sense that they understand their true place within "reality", that the world that they see is a construct of the ego, that in reality they are not attached to it, except for their own perception. When one talks about emotional detachment, I think it's very easy to confuse the idea with the notion of "Spock-like" logic, which it isn't. Rather it is, as I stated, a state of consciousness that arises when one becomes aware of their actual connection (or lack of connection if you prefer) to reality.

 

For the Taoist, they see the former, a connection to the real and physical world through the emptiness (Tao) that exists, for a Buddhist, they come to see that they are detached from the real and physical world through understanding the emptiness that exists. (Again it's not the easiest thing to explain, so if someone feels they can do a better job, please do.)

 

Aaron

 

Dependent Origination explains that you are inherently attached to everything, but emptiness reveals that to reference the limited ideation, notion, and experience of the ego, is going to limit ones experience of everything to immediate locality attachment, i.e. I was born by these parents, went to this school and these are my friends and this is my experiential reference... period. I am this body! This is the kind of attachment that the Buddhist is learning to let go of, but at the same time, learning to attach to the entire cosmos!

 

Otherwise why would a Bodhisattva take up the vow to realize liberation for the sake of all beings, referencing infinite regress?

 

At the same time, a Bodhisattva trains in the view that beings do not inherently exist, only relatively exist, in order to not get caught up in other peoples "shit." You can't really help another out of a pit by jumping in with them. Well, ok, unless it's to offer a back to step on to boost the other out, then they in turn help you climb out by reaching out a hand, but why not just reach out a hand from above in the first place? But, then the person in the pit would have to recognize the hand and the hand would have to have a firm platform above to extend from... Anyway... I hope you get my meaning.

 

Buddhism is far from Nihilistic or non-life-affirming, as it is a very life affirming path, just not within the construct of the merely mundane and limited view of the 5 senses as it is holistic and inclusive of the 5 senses, but transcendent simultaneously.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

"have detached emotions"

 

Why would anyone want that????? I wonder if there might not be be a confusion here between the interpretation of an emotion and the actual bodily event(s) of the same.

 

I'm personally in favour of alignment of interpretation AND emotion - of what has been previously distorted. IMO and IME, the distortion is the source of suffering.

 

And I think I have an inkling of how that comes to be so in the first place and how it gets subtly perpetuated. And I think (and through practice and tries and fails) that I mistrust Buddhism in this respect for some reason, something not quite "right" about it IMO. Or maybe it's just not my thing and my thing is more of a Taoist thing

 

 

Yes, your mistrust lies within your interpretation and the limits of your personally referenced experience only, not having anything inherently to do with Buddhism.

 

What is meant by detached emotions, is merely referencing objective and birds-eye outlook, rather than getting all caught up in the muck of life, getting all angry and worked up, getting all defensive then offensive, getting all button pushed and what not.

 

Buddhists realize deep connection with everything, thus deep compassion arises without attachment to limited self reference, thereby action can spring spontaneously from an expanded experience of life beyond the limitation of the 5 senses, without denying the 5 senses and their importance at the same time.

[Marblehead]

Nice clarifying of concepts there Vaj!

[Vajrahridaya]

Nice clarifying of concepts there Vaj!

 

Danke schoen darling.

[manitou]

Buddhists realize deep connection with everything, thus deep compassion arises without attachment to limited self reference, thereby action can spring spontaneously from an expanded experience of life beyond the limitation of the 5 senses, without denying the 5 senses and their importance at the same time.

 

 

It's statements like this that make me realize that we're all going up different paths on the same hill and meeting at the top. This is the Tao.