Enlightenment - what is it?

[Tommy]

9 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I think it is exactly the opposite. Perhaps we have different understandings of the term. I refer to 'life force/awareness/soul' or something similar. My belief in its eternity and fundamentality is based on the idea that we don't understand how something non-conscious can become conscious. By definition, we cannot be 'not aware,' and we know it's possible to 'create' seemingly physical things in our minds, such as hallucinations.

 

Guess I look at it in a slightly different way which makes it seem to be the same thing to me. You are not wrong in your views. And I hope that neither am I??  Its just another day in paradise.

 

9 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

I don't think anyone has the right to do that on a topic like this. I am interested in your own interpretation of the term. 

You go on to talk about the allegory of the cave. I found that interesting. Would you like to expand on it?

Yes, if the person is a true master and can straighten me out then by all means do so. I truly would enjoy being knocked down a few pegs. But, yes, since we are human, it is thru experience that we learn and because of that, it is thru interpretations, which makes anything with a grain of truth in it, hard to dispute.

 

No, allegories and metaphors lose their solidity when questioned beyond a reasonable doubt. But, the cave allegory is what I was taught early on in my indoctrination of the fourth way. Not that I want to introduce another one of the 88 thousand ways. I often find myself going back to the basics in the many thing I do. Much like when troubleshooting engine's no start. Back to the basics. Does it crank? Is there spark?

 

 

I think someone said that it is better to remain silent rather than to speak and let everyone know I am an idiot. LOL.

[Maddie]

2 hours ago, Giles said:

 

Absolutely.., it is indeed  a very high bar if you choose to believe that this Buddhist definition is accurate in the absence of your own direct 1st-hand experience... 🤣

 

 

I'm just stating what it is, I think I had already shown enough healthy skepticism. I'm not even sure if there even is such a thing as enlightenment.  

[stirling]

3 hours ago, Giles said:

That's interesting because (merely IMO/IME) enlightenment is pretty common & reasonably easy to "attain". (It only took me about 18 months after stumbling across a method that actually works).

 

Is it your opinion that there are actually easy to complete instructions to become enlightened? How would you describe the result?

 

3 hours ago, Giles said:

What's incredibly unusual (again merely IMO/IME) is to stumble across someone who's managed to get on with having a normal, healthy life afterwards. 

 

In other words, the vast majority cannot even begin to "chop wood & carry water" afterwards.

 

Enlightened or not, there is water to carry and wood to chop, yes?

 

Most (all) of the enlightened "people" I know ARE pretty normal. Some are priests, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't drive cars and pay taxes. Many hold down jobs, have families, etc. While certain initial parts of the cycle can be challenging, this mostly due to not really know what happens next in my experience. Usually within a few months or a year, it becomes the normal way of being. 

 

3 hours ago, Giles said:

Furthermore, it's just struck me that most of those obsessed with the quest for enlightenment, really struggle(d) to "chop wood and carry water" in the first instance anyway.

 

That can be true, but I would say that most who are obsessed end up finding a moment where they realize that "they" aren't going to be what precipitates what "they" seek.

[stirling]

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

I guess that depends on who's definition of enlightenment you are using. The Buddhist one has a pretty high bar ie. no delusion, no unskillful desire, ect.  

 

All delusion means that you no longer mistake duality for reality. Unskillful desire is a motive of self-interest, and is mostly decimated by losing "self" view, though not always entirely. Keep in mind - this is "nirvana with residue".  My suggestion would to check out the "Four Stages of Awakening", one of the earliest maps for this in Buddhism:

 

Quote

A "Stream-enterer" (Sotāpanna) is free from:

1. Identity view (Pali: sakkāya-diṭṭhi), the belief that there is an unchanging self or soul in the five impermanent skandhas

2. Attachment to rites and rituals

3. Doubt about the teachings

 

A "Once-returner" (Sakadāgāmin) has greatly attenuated:

4. Sensual desire

5. Ill will

 

A "Non-returner" (Anāgāmi) is free from:

4. Sensual desire

5. Ill will

 

An Arahant is free from all of the five lower fetters and the five higher fetters, which are:

6. Attachment to the four meditative absorptions, which have form (rupa jhana)

7. Attachment to the four formless absorptions (ārupa jhana)

8. Conceit

9. Restlessness

10. Ignorance

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Path_and_fruit

 

All of these are entirely possible, but not in a way that makes sense if you believe you are a "self", or separate from the phenomena you observe. 

[Daniel]

37 minutes ago, stirling said:

How would you describe the result?

 

Epiphany 

[Daniel]

26 minutes ago, stirling said:

All delusion means that you no longer mistake duality for reality.

 

Unless denying duality is its own delusion.  If so, one delusion is being exchanged for another.

[Giles]

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

I'm just stating what it is, I think I had already shown enough healthy skepticism. I'm not even sure if there even is such a thing as enlightenment.

 

 

I actually find your skepticism in the face of no personal evidence to be very healthy, Maddie. 👍🏻

 

Nobody in their right mind would believe most of the nonsense that's written about it...

 

Incidentally, agnosticism will get someone a lot further, a lot faster than if their head is filled with concepts, in the event that they're seeking enlightenment.

 

[Giles]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

Is it your opinion that there are actually easy to complete instructions to become enlightened?

 

 

No. It's not my opinion, it's my first-hand experience.

 

I just sat on a cushion for a minimum of 20 hours per week practicing a somewhat uncommon type of meditation and I'm aware of many hundreds, if not possibly thousands, of others who did the same and got the same result (albeit, ultimately, through Grace...).

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

How would you describe the result?

 

 

I'd describe it as enlightening. 🤣

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

Enlightened or not, there is water to carry and wood to chop, yes?

 

 

I thought I'd just stated that. Sorry that it appears that I was unclear.

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

Most (all) of the enlightened "people" I know ARE pretty normal. Some are priests, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't drive cars and pay taxes. Many hold down jobs, have families, etc. While certain initial parts of the cycle can be challenging, this mostly due to not really know what happens next in my experience. Usually within a few months or a year, it becomes the normal way of being.

 

 

Jolly good. I'm pleased to hear that! 👍🏻

 

1 hour ago, stirling said:

That can be true, but I would say that most who are obsessed end up finding a moment where they realize that "they" aren't going to be what precipitates what "they" seek.

 

 

👍🏻

 

Edited July 19 by Giles

[Maddie]

58 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

All delusion means that you no longer mistake duality for reality.

 

I hear this duality word thrown around a lot here, but what does it mean in the way that you are using it? 

[ChiDragon]

15 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I hear this duality word thrown around a lot here, but what does it mean in the way that you are using it? 

Somehow, once I was told that the term 'duality' was derived from the concept of yin/yang.  IMO it seems the term is used very loosely without attachment! 

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, ChiDragon said:

Somehow, once I was told that the term 'duality' was derived from the concept of yin/yang.  IMO it seems the term is used very loosely without attachment! 

 

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

[ChiDragon]

28 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

Yes, It is not an ancient term that was used in the ancient Chinese language. The modern translation of 'duality' is "二元性" meaning pertaining to two elements. The two elements of Taiji(太極) are yin/yang( 阴/阳). The two elements are integrated as a whole but always described separately. In western thinking, I think the two elements may be referred as duality.

Edited July 19 by ChiDragon

[Tommy]

6 hours ago, Giles said:

 

That's interesting because (merely IMO/IME) enlightenment is pretty common & reasonably easy to "attain". (It only took me about 18 months after stumbling across a method that actually works).

I am sorry but that sounds a lot like bragging??18 months?? While there are others who would never say they have achieved anything even if they have. And there other still who have never even come close to the experience of Buddha nature. My logic compass is messed up now. Eh, I am getting use to being wrong.

 

Please note: I do not doubt you nor do I believe you. That is just the way I am. Trust but verify. Skepticism. Maybe that is what is keeping me back??

Edited July 19 by Tommy

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Giles said:

No. It's not my opinion, it's my first-hand experience.

 

Which is all there is.

 

2 hours ago, Giles said:

I just sat on a cushion for a minimum of 20 hours per week practicing a somewhat uncommon type of meditation and I'm aware of many hundreds, if not possibly thousands, of others who did the same and got the same result (albeit, ultimately, through Grace...).

 

In my experience the "grace" is the bit that actually matters. Waking up could happen while using the toilet or getting a speeding ticket.

 

2 hours ago, Giles said:

I'd describe it as enlightening. 🤣

 

I think you can probably do better than that!

 

2 hours ago, Giles said:

I thought I'd just stated that. Sorry that it appears that I was unclear.

 

No problem, friend

[Tommy]

1 hour ago, ChiDragon said:

Somehow, once I was told that the term 'duality' was derived from the concept of yin/yang.  IMO it seems the term is used very loosely without attachment! 

I believe here that duality means the separateness one experiences in this life before enlightenment. There is you there and me here. We can see each other as not us or separate. A duality like light and dark. Ying and yang. Hot air and cold air foods. Yeah, stuff does get around and used in all sorts of ways.

Edited July 19 by Tommy

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

I hear this duality word thrown around a lot here, but what does it mean in the way that you are using it? 

 

Every time either of us write a sentence we use the convention of language, which requires that we use the structure of subject and object. This necessary convention for language also creates a "duality" or a separateness between us and what we discuss, or who we interact with. 

 

Quote

A subject is a being that exercises agency, undergoes conscious experiences, is situated in relation to other things that exist outside itself; thus, a subject is any individual, person, or observer.

 

An object is any of the things observed or experienced by a subject, which may even include other beings (thus, from their own points of view: other subjects)

 

A simple common differentiation for subject and object is: an observer versus a thing that is observed. In certain cases involving personhood, subjects and objects can be considered interchangeable where each label is applied only from one or the other point of view. Subjects and objects are related to the philosophical distinction between subjectivity and objectivity: the existence of knowledge, ideas, or information either dependent upon a subject (subjectivity) or independent from any subject (objectivity).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_and_object_(philosophy)

 

Buddhism considers the true nature of things to be devoid of a subject/object relationship. The subject/object delusion is actually the cause of our suffering, whether we are talking of the simple duality of "self" (no-self), or sunyata (emptiness). Carefully examined this subject object "dualism" can be intellectually taken apart:

 

Quote

In the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, the Indian philosopher Nagarjuna seizes upon the dichotomy between objects as collections of properties or as separate from those properties to demonstrate that both assertions fall apart under analysis. By uncovering this paradox he then provides a solution (pratītyasamutpāda – "dependent origination") that lies at the very root of Buddhist praxis. Although Pratītyasamutpāda is normally limited to caused objects, Nagarjuna extends his argument to objects in general by differentiating two distinct ideas – dependent designation and dependent origination. He proposes that all objects are dependent upon designation, and therefore any discussion regarding the nature of objects can only be made in light of the context. The validity of objects can only be established within those conventions that assert them.

 

...this is STILL, however only an intellectual understanding. An abstraction or scaffolding - NOT our lived experience. If we are fortunate there is a moment, after some practice, where the intellectual understanding can become an experiential understanding that stands the test of weeks, months, years, and eventually a lifetime, changing everything we understand about reality. This moment is awakening/kensho/stream-entry, and the insight or understanding is sometimes called prajna (wisdom). 

 

Quote

Prajñā (प्रज्ञा) or paññā (𑀧𑀜𑁆𑀜𑀸) is a Buddhist term often translated as "wisdom", "insight", "intelligence", or "understanding". It is described in Buddhist texts as the understanding of the true nature of phenomena. In the context of Buddhist meditation, it is the ability to understand the three characteristics of all things: anicca ("impermanence"), dukkha ("dissatisfaction" or "suffering"), and anattā ("non-self" or "egolessness"). Mahāyāna texts describe it as the understanding of śūnyatā ("emptiness"). It is part of the Threefold Training in Buddhism, and is one of the ten pāramīs of Theravāda Buddhism and one of the six Mahāyāna pāramitās.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism)

 

This initial glimpse makes it so that we can appreciate this "non-dual" nature of reality any time we stop contriving our reality with the mind and our "dualistic" thinking. When the mind drops out, prajna (wisdom) arises and the simple phenomenal experience of arising and passing becomes visible. Eventually, as karma (our story) is exhausted, the effort to prop of the false sense of "self" drops away, and prajna becomes the permanent way of seeing. This is nirvana (with residue). 

 

Quote

There are two types of nirvana: sopadhishesa-nirvana literally "nirvana with a remainder", attained and maintained during life, and parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana, meaning "nirvana without remainder" or final nirvana. In Mahayana these are called "abiding" and "non-abiding nirvana." Nirvana, as the quenching of the burning mind, is the highest aim of the Theravada tradition. In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, in which there is no abiding in nirvana.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)#

 

Nirvana with remainder is the highest attainment possible by a living Buddhist. 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, Maddie said:

What confuses me is that I hear it used in a Buddhist context often yet I have never read a Sutta where the Buddha mentioned it. 

 

I use the term duality because it is in English, and I feel it is easy to relate to than something like sunyata, which means emptiness. Sunyata begs the question, "empty of what"? A simple answer might be: duality. Another I like to use is "intrinsic existence", but this also requires more thinking. Neither are strictly correct, of course. See my discussion above about subject/object language.

[dwai]

12 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

Somehow, once I was told that the term 'duality' was derived from the concept of yin/yang.  IMO it seems the term is used very loosely without attachment! 

In this context, duality means subject-object duality. 

[dwai]

13 hours ago, Giles said:

 

No. It's not my opinion, it's my first-hand experience.

 

I just sat on a cushion for a minimum of 20 hours per week practicing a somewhat uncommon type of meditation and I'm aware of many hundreds, if not possibly thousands, of others who did the same and got the same result (albeit, ultimately, through Grace...).

 

 

And a meditation technique led you to “enlightenment”? 
 

13 hours ago, Giles said:

 

I'd describe it as enlightening. 🤣

 

 

I thought I'd just stated that. Sorry that it appears that I was unclear.

 

 

Jolly good. I'm pleased to hear that! 👍🏻

 

 

👍🏻

 

 

[Giles]

13 hours ago, Tommy said:

I am sorry but that sounds a lot like bragging??18 months?? While there are others who would never say they have achieved anything even if they have. And there other still who have never even come close to the experience of Buddha nature. My logic compass is messed up now. Eh, I am getting use to being wrong.

 

Please note: I do not doubt you nor do I believe you. That is just the way I am. Trust but verify. Skepticism. Maybe that is what is keeping me back??

 

 

No need to apologise Tommy!

 

After all, I'm just another random, anonymous member of this bulletin board and, IRL, just another totally ordinary and entirely unremarkable human being. 😊

 

Plese note that I've already stated that it wasn't me who "attained" anything. I just followed some simple instructions by meditating for about 20 hours a week for about 18 months using an fairly obscure but well-documented ancient method that was passed on to me by someone who themselves claimed to be enlightened.

 

The apparent result of that effort on my part was enlightenment and part of that realisation was that, ultimately, I did nothing: enlightenment was/is always entirely down to Grace (merely IMO/IME, although.., I subsequently discovered that many ancient religious texts also point to that conclusion).

 

Again, apologies for my previous apparent lack of clarity.

 

[Giles]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

And a meditation technique led you to “enlightenment”? 
 

 

Yes. In the relative sense.

 

However, no, not in the ultimate sense, as I've already stated, several times, as clearly as possible...

 

Edited July 20 by Giles

[Giles]

13 hours ago, stirling said:

Which is all there is.

 

I know. 😊

 

13 hours ago, stirling said:

In my experience the "grace" is the bit that actually matters. Waking up could happen while using the toilet or getting a speeding ticket.

 

Indeed, although, is it not the case that there are apparently two main categories of awakening experiences:

 

1. Enlightenment in the presence of self and objects: sahaja samadhi and

 

2. Awakenings in the absence of self and objects: nirvikalpa samadhi?

 

Is it not also the case that true enlightenment depends upon experiencing/having experienced both (i.e. the relative ultimate reality as well as the ultimate reality)?

 

13 hours ago, stirling said:

I think you can probably do better than that!

 

That's true. 😊

 

Happy to.give it a go with you via private DM if you like?

 

13 hours ago, stirling said:

No problem, friend

 

Thank you Friend. 🙏

 

[snowymountains]

On 7/15/2024 at 10:40 PM, NaturaNaturans said:

So, in my understanding englightentment is something you can not achieve, any more then you can achieve a foot: you allready have it. It is the realisastion of oneness.

 

In general, I think trying to put words to it only mudders the water. Still, I am curious, what does the term entail to you?

 

You'll get as many definitions and as many philosophies have been developed on planet Earth.

 

My take on the matter is that for one there's no final realisation, it's a process. After all, nobody can know if there are further realisations down the road the moment they self-declare enlightenment.

 

It involves a certain degree of know thyself, both in terms of mindfulness and in terms of longer term tendencies and other internal mechanics.

 

It involves living in a way in which the conscious personality is aligned with our organism.

 

It includes some experience of interconnectedness or oneness if you prefer to call it that.

 

You also don't need any religion to progress, your organism already knows everything about it and it will throw "puzzles" at you, which will be catered to you, your next step and your path, which may not be the same as that of somebody else who lived 1000 years ago. By all means do study spiritual texts, just don't take them too literally.

[old3bob]

we can also ask or say what is it not....for instance it is not a thing in the fullest meaning of that word.

[Maddie]

34 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

By all means do study spiritual texts, just don't take them too literally.

 

When I was younger I had been raised by a pretty religious mom and then later ended up in a Christian cult. Obviously I left the cult and later when I became interested in Buddhism I thought all was well. But after a while I started to be kind of miserable with the type of Buddhism I was doing. It was in the somewhat recent past that I realized that I had unconsciously brought some of my cult/fundamentalist mindset into Buddhism and it was not serving me well at all. I am still interested in Buddhism but my interest now without the cult mindset makes it much more pleasant.