About realizations and insight as an achievement on the path

[Neirong]

Online discussions on 'enlightenment' and 'spiritual development' often revolve around two distinct viewpoints. One camp advocates for the power of a sudden realization, an insight into a 'noble truth,' as the ultimate goal of spiritual development. They believe that once this insight is achieved, the journey is complete. The other camp, however, emphasizes the importance of continuous training and practice.

 

In reality, insights and realizations are indeed beneficial to the progress of an individual in the self-development path.

 

The trickery here is that people often misjudge and falsely interpret their realizations or, to be more precise, their value. A small thought springs, but it is already an enlightenment. Because of their lack of critical thinking and discernment, people think of low-value insight as the highest-tier achievement. In the vast majority of cases, those insights and realizations are like a kid making two steps and stumbling or thinking a silly thing.

 

The appeal of such a stance is high, as making the path easy, instant, and achievable removes all effort, hard work, and practice. Why bother with difficult practices? Why take challenges? Why bother improving yourself? Why bother even training your physical body?

 

In my view, no insights or realizations could completely replace hard work and daily training. A trained individual will simply be on a higher level than someone who merely has an insight into the path. It is one thing when you try to be someone, and it is ultimately another thing when you are someone. Proper training/self-development should lead to lasting internal changes, not fleeting ones.

 

Think of an insight/realization as a model. An insight into a house design plan would lead to a great house/apartment, but it still needs to be built, which is years of work. Without work and investment, it is only a piece of paper. People live with their insights in a pipedream reality. Why bother building a real house when you have a beautiful plan for an imaginary one?

 

In the real world, when you apply your insights and realizations to practice, they will be changed by reality itself. You may have a specific plan, but as you proceed with it, you will find flaws, issues, and areas for improvement. Those are difficulties and challenges that have to be overcome; the problem, however, is that people too stuck up in their invaluable insights are not willing to test them.

 

Now, then, we look at the opposing camp, which is all about grinding practices. Does practice alone matter? You can do a lot of work, but without any real plan ahead or insight, it can quickly turn into carrying bricks from point A to point B, only to take them back, rinse, and repeat forever. If you just practice without any mental development and discernment, you will end up doing a lot of work for no real benefit. The effort itself does not equalize the efficiency and effectiveness of training.

 

It is different when you join the school and have a properly laid out plan of self-development in front of you. You can save yourself a lot of time and trouble.

[dwai]

IMHO, this is a very reductionist analysis of the "Realization" camp 

 

Following are the misunderstandings  - 

 

First, what is meant by Realization? It is not tiny (and sometimes fleeting) insights but rather a permanent and irreversible shift in perspective, transitioning from identification as a limited body-mind to an unlimited consciousness. 

 

Second, there is a misunderstanding that no effort is needed for Realization to arise. On the contrary, depending on the individual, much effort might be needed to prepare the mind (and body). The logic is as follows - An impure, scattered mind cannot break through the veil of ignorance (contrived mind). Often, the reason why the mind is impure and scattered is rooted in a body that is not stabilized. So, the effort needed to purify the mind can (and often does) include practices that stabilize the body (physical and subtle). 

 

Third, there is a misunderstanding of causality. Practices that cultivate and purify the body and mind do not automatically lead to Realization. Proper guidance is required. Only after the mind is prepared can the guidance be accepted. The guidance is in the form of pointing to our True Nature. Causality (for Realization) is incorrectly attributed to practices because nothing external to the practitioner is realized—it is always with us but obscured by a veil of ignorance. 

 

Fourth, there is a misunderstanding that there is nothing to be done after Realization. If we consider our True Nature to be like the Sun and the mind to be a mirror, the mind needs to be kept clean of dust that prevents the light of our True Nature from being reflected properly in our everyday lives. Practices are needed to keep the mirror clean. 

 

[Mark Foote]

6 hours ago, dwai said:

IMHO, this is a very reductionist analysis of the "Realization" camp 

 

Following are the misunderstandings  - 

 

First, what is meant by Realization? It is not tiny (and sometimes fleeting) insights but rather a permanent and irreversible shift in perspective, transitioning from identification as a limited body-mind to an unlimited consciousness. 
 

 

 

In MN 70 (Kitagirisutta, PTS 478 p 151), Gautama speaks of "the one who is freed both ways" and "the person who is free by means of intuitive wisdom"--Gautama says "I, monks, do not say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence."  He goes on to speak of "the person who is a mental-realiser", "the person who has won to view", and "the person who is freed by faith", and "the person striving after faith".  For these last four, Gautama declares "I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence."

 

The person freed both ways has "apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are utterly destroyed."  The person freed by means of intuitive wisdom is abiding "without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances  which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; yet having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are utterly destroyed."

 

 

Quote

 

Second, there is a misunderstanding that no effort is needed for Realization to arise. On the contrary, depending on the individual, much effort might be needed to prepare the mind (and body). The logic is as follows - An impure, scattered mind cannot break through the veil of ignorance (contrived mind). Often, the reason why the mind is impure and scattered is rooted in a body that is not stabilized. So, the effort needed to purify the mind can (and often does) include practices that stabilize the body (physical and subtle). 
 

 

 

Shunryu Suzuki's analysis:

 

So, when you practice zazen, your mind should be concentrated in your breathing and this kind of activity is the fundamental activity of the universal being. If so, how you should use your mind is quite clear. Without this experience, or this practice, it is impossible to attain the absolute freedom.

 

(“Thursday Morning Lectures”, November 4th 1965, Los Altos; emphasis added)

 

 

My understanding of "your mind should be concentrated in your breathing":

 

The presence of mind can utilize the location of attention to maintain the balance of the body and coordinate activity in the movement of breath, without a particularly conscious effort to do so. There can also come a moment when the movement of breath necessitates the placement of attention at a certain location in the body, or at a series of locations, with the ability to remain awake as the location of attention shifts retained through the exercise of presence.

 

(Common Ground)
 

 

In my experience, when necessity in the movement of breath places attention, "how you should use your mind" is mostly to retain a presence of mind with the location of consciousness. 

Gautama cited a rhythm of thoughts as his way of living, both before and after enlightenment--my summary:

 

1) Relax the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation;

2) Find a feeling of ease and calm the senses connected with balance, in inhalation and exhalation;

3) Appreciate and detach from thought, in inhalation and exhalation;

4) Look to the free location of consciousness for the automatic activity of inhalation and exhalation.

 

 

Quote

 

Third, there is a misunderstanding of causality. Practices that cultivate and purify the body and mind do not automatically lead to Realization. Proper guidance is required. Only after the mind is prepared can the guidance be accepted. The guidance is in the form of pointing to our True Nature. Causality (for Realization) is incorrectly attributed to practices because nothing external to the practitioner is realized—it is always with us but obscured by a veil of ignorance. 
 

 

 

Gautama was a person "freed both ways", meaning he came to intuitive wisdom through the concentrations, through the deliverances.  Do the concentrations automatically lead to insight?--no, he studied under two teachers who had achieved deliverances but did not arrive at the concentration Gautama associated with his enlightenment, in spite of their attainment. 

 

Gautama's description of the final concentrations, and the experience that likely was the source of his insight into dependent causation:

 

…And again, Ananda, [an individual], not attending to the perception of the plane of no-thing, not attending to the perception of the plane of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, attends to the solitude of mind that is signless. [Their] mind is satisfied with, pleased with, set on and freed in the concentration of mind that is signless. [They] comprehends thus, ‘This concentration of mind that is signless is effected and thought out. But whatever is effected and thought out, that is impermanent, it is liable to stopping.’ When [the individual] knows this thus, sees this thus, [their] mind is freed from the canker of sense-pleasures and [their] mind is freed from the canker of becoming and [their] mind is freed from the canker of ignorance. In freedom is the knowledge that [one] is freed and [one] comprehends: “Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the (holy)-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so’. [They] comprehend thus: “The disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of sense-pleasures do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of becoming do not exist here; the disturbances there might be resulting from the canker of ignorance do not exist here. And there is only this degree of disturbance, that is to say the six sensory fields that, conditioned by life, are grounded on this body itself. [One] regards that which is not there as empty of it. But in regard to what remains [one] comprehends:  'That being, this is.' Thus, Ananda, this comes to be for [such a one] s true, not mistaken, utterly purified and incomparably highest realisation of emptiness.

 

("Lesser Discourse on Emptiness", Culasunnatasutta, Pali Text Society MN III 121 vol III p 151-2)

 

 

"That being, this is."  Dependent causation, in a nutshell.
 

 

Quote

 

Fourth, there is a misunderstanding that there is nothing to be done after Realization. If we consider our True Nature to be like the Sun and the mind to be a mirror, the mind needs to be kept clean of dust that prevents the light of our True Nature from being reflected properly in our everyday lives. Practices are needed to keep the mirror clean. 

 

According to the Platform Sutra:

Hung-jen, the Fifth Patriarch, the Enlightened Master

Shen-hsiu, the Learned Senior Monk, experienced in gradual meditation

Hui-neng, the illiterate woodcutter from the barbarian south, suddenly enlightened

 

1) Shen-hsiu presents the following verse which Hung-jen characterizes as incomplete in understanding.

 

The body is the bodhi tree,

The mind is like a clear mirror.

At all times we must strive to polish it,

And must not let the dust collect.
 

(Yampolsky 130)
 

This can be understood as advocating a gradual process of achieving and maintaining the purity and clarity of the mirror-like mind, the mind of emptiness or empty awareness, of the oneness of reality. The emphasis is on the form of practice required of the body and the mind to cultivate and sustain this awareness.

 

2) Hui-neng offers the following alternative verse:

 

Bodhi originally has no tree,

The mirror(-like mind) has no stand.

Buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;

Where is there room for dust (to alight)?

 

(Yampolsky 132)

 

 

This can be understood as advocating the sudden awakening to emptiness/oneness. The emphasis is on realizing emptiness beyond form all-at-once, instantaneously, in the here-and-now (in the moment of reading the verse).

 

3) Another edition of the Platform Sutra attributes the following verse to Hui-neng:

 

The mind is the Bodhi tree,

The body is the mirror stand.

The mirror is originally clean and pure;

Where can it be stained by dust?

 

(Yampolsky 132)

 

 

This appears to be a kind of combination (although not exact) of the first two lines of Shen-hsiu's verse and the last two lines of first version of Hui-neng's verse. The first half is form and the last half expresses emptiness. One must realize emptiness in the world of form, and the true nature of form is emptiness. However, one must realize emptiness in this very moment, not see it as something that one strives to achieve or keep in the future.

 

Hui-neng, the illiterate woodcutter who comes from outside of the rigid hierarchical structure of gradual meditation practices, achieves the instantaneous awareness of the oneness of all reality in the here-and-now. Nevertheless, he inherits the religious authority of the Fifth Patriarch Hung-jen and eventually becomes the Sixth Patriarch, the head of the Chan/Zen Buddhist order in China.

(Mark Ty Unno, Professor of East Asian Buddhism, University of Oregon;https://pages.uoregon.edu/munno/OregonCourses/REL444S05/HuinengVerse.htm)

 

 

Edited August 7 by Mark Foote

[dwai]

@Mark Foote, can you please explain what "deliverances" means? TBH the language is a bit archaic in your post above (cankers, deliverances, etc) - if you don't mind can you explain to me like I was 10 years old?

 

[forestofclarity]

On 8/6/2024 at 7:52 PM, Neirong said:

One camp advocates for the power of a sudden realization, an insight into a 'noble truth,' as the ultimate goal of spiritual development. They believe that once this insight is achieved, the journey is complete. The other camp, however, emphasizes the importance of continuous training and practice.

 

I don't know if people are familiar, but this is kind of a big deal especially in Korean and Chinese Zen. While there are schools with almost nearly every permutation (sudden training, sudden enlightenment to gradual training, gradual enlightenment) the most commonly accepted version is sudden enlightenment, gradual training (although I would argue, gradual training, sudden enlightenment, more gradual training). There is a paradox at play, and the concepts (of course) cannot fully resolve it. 

 

I actually really think the Daoist metaphor is apt. If you are going to grow a flower, you need the right foundation: soil, air, water, sunlight, etc. Which doesn't mean that flowers only grow in well tended gardens, but a well tended garden is more likely to support flowers. In this case, the garden would be prepared--- weeds pulled, soil tilled, water channels provided, etc. Then, also very important, you need the right seed. One cannot grow a sunflower with an apple seed, for example. Then finally, once planted, additional gardening is necessary so that the seed blossoms on its own accord. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stirling]

To me, this discussion is a classic "category mistake". The way Mahayana Buddhism (one simple, but clean perspective amongst many) discusses this problem is to introduce the concept of the "two truths" doctrine:

 

Quote

The doctrine of two truths—the absolute and the relative—holds that there are two ways of viewing the world: as things appear to be, and as they are. In other words, existence is both relative (or conventional) and absolute. The relative or conventional explanation of reality is what we know and experience, while the ultimate or absolute truth is inexpressible, empty (sunya), and lies outside of conventional experience and language. The conventional truth about something is its dependence on conditions. The ultimate truth is its emptiness. This doctrine has its roots in the words of the historical Buddha, who acknowledged that some experiences, in particular nirvana, lie beyond the ability of language to describe.

 

The famous Buddhist monk and philosopher Nagarjuna (c. 2nd–3rd centuries CE) held that the Buddha’s teachings must be viewed in light of the two truths if they are to be properly understood. But it is not as simple as relative truth being incomplete and absolute truth being perfect and complete. Nagarjuna walks the middle path between them. Both are true, he said, and there is value in both because the conventional depends on the absolute and vice versa:

 

Without a foundation in the conventional truth
The significance of the ultimate cannot be taught.
Without understanding the significance of the ultimate,
Liberation is not achieved.  

–Jay L. Garfield, trans.

 

Early classical Indian Buddhism, including the Theravada school, which still exists today, taught that samsara was the world of suffering and nirvana the escape from it. Nagarjuna argued that this was only relatively true. The absolute truth, he said, is that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana because both are mental constructs empty of a fixed essence. Viewed relatively, this world of suffering may be samsara, but viewed in the light of absolute truth, this world is nirvana.

There are many ways of interpreting this claim, but it appears to turn the Buddhist path on its head: What is the point of practice if there is no goal? We practice not to become a buddha but because, the two truths doctrine teaches, we already are buddhas, we just don’t realize it yet.

 

https://tricycle.org/beginners/buddhism/two-truths/

 

In this case, "spiritual development" is very much a "relative" idea. Our experience of the relative world is that: time passes, "work" creates change, the "self" changes, space shifts. This is at odds with how enlightenment knows the world to be, to wit: Time, Space, and Self are mental constructions. 

 

So, at the moment of realization it is understood that there has never been any place but this enlightened moment, there has never been a "self" separate from the arising phenomena of this moment, and there has never been any other place but the field of experience where this all takes place. This is also the persistent understanding, afterwards, forever.

 

The idea that years of cultivation, meditation, work, or anything else led to this moment of enlightenment is obviously a delusion to enlightened Mind. Now is where awakening/realization/enlightenment always is happening, and it is always here, and without a "self" to precipitate it.

 

To the "relative" mind there is years of practice, and a moment of supreme clarity. To enlightened mind there is always just "this" happening NOW, to no-one whatsoever. 

 

What use is this idea to the those who cannot see from this perspective? It is entirely possible (and does occur) that just some simple contact with these ideas might be (relative) what precipitates an awakening. This is the reason exposure to enlightened teachers has any value whatsoever. 

[Mark Foote]

On 8/7/2024 at 1:25 PM, dwai said:

Can you please explain what "deliverances" means? TBH the language is a bit archaic in your post above (cankers,deliverances, etc) - if you don't mind can you explain to me like I was 10 years old?

 

dwai, that's the beauty of Gautama the Shakyan's lectures--he goes into great detail, and yet for the most part there is an explanation somewhere in his teaching for all of the details.  The beauty, and also the difficulty, because in some cases there isn't a clear explanation.  A Rosetta Stone.

"The Deliverances" are outlined in one of the long sermons of the Pali Nikaya D. ii. 70-71--they consist of:   1) "having one's self external form, one sees forms"; 2) "Unaware of one's own external form, one sees forms external to one's self"; 3) "'Lovely!'--with this thought one becomes intent"; 4-8) the standard arupa jhanas, infinity of ether/space through the cessation of ("determinate thought" in) feeling and perceiving.

 

The formulation of three initial ("material") states of concentration followed by four further ("immaterial") states occurs elsewhere in the sermons, though I can't give you the reference at the moment--I do recall that in that reference, the third of the initial states is referred to as "the beautiful".

The more common formulation of the states of concentration is four initial jhanas, followed by the same four further states.  The four initial states are marked by "equanimity with respect to multiplicity (of the senses)", and the four further states by "equanimity with respect to uniformity (of the senses)".

By "the Deliverances", I believe Gautama is referring to the states of concentration.  My guess is that early in his teaching, he taught the three states including "the beautiful", and that later he came to the very detailed teaching of the four initial jhanas.

Here's the whole section of the lecture about the seven types of persons--I typed it out for another site yesterday, and I think it's a fascinating piece of Gautama's teaching:

 

Monks, there are the seven (types of) persons existing in the world.  What seven? The one who is freed both ways, the one freed by means of intuitive wisdom, the mental realiser, the one won to view, the one freed by faith, the striver after dhamma, the striver after faith.

 

And which, monks,  is the person who is freed both ways?  As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are utterly destroyed.  I, monks, do not say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence.  What is the reason for this?  It has been done by him through diligence, he could not become negligent.

 

And which, monks, is the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom?  As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; yet, having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are utterly destroyed.  This, monks, is called the person who is freed by means of intuitive wisdom.  I, monks, do not say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence.  What is the reason for this?  It has been done by him through diligence, he could not become negligent.

 

And which, monks, is the person who is a mental-realiser?  As to this, monks, some person is abiding, having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are incorporeal having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some (only) of his cankers are utterly destroyed.... This, monks, is called the person who is a mental realiser.  I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence....                         

 

And which, monks, is the person that has won to view?  As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; yet having seen by means of wisdom some of his cankers are utterly destroyed, and those things that are proclaimed by the Tathagatha are fully seen by him through intuitive wisdom and fully practiced.... This, monks, is called the person who has won to view.  I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence....                         

 

And which, monks, is the person who is freed by faith?   As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; and having seen by means of wisdom some of his cankers are utterly destroyed, and his faith in the Tathagatha is settled, genuine, established.  This, monks, is called the person who is freed by faith.  I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence....                                                                                                                                                                                                     And which, monks, is the person who is striving for dhamma?   As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; but although he has seen by means of wisdom his cankers are not (yet) utterly destroyed; and those things proclaimed by the Tathagatha are (only) moderately approved of by him by means of intuitive wisdom, although he has these states, namely the faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom.  This, monks, is called the person who is striving for dhamma.  I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence....        

 

And which, monks, is the person who is striving for faith?   As to this, monks, some person is abiding without having apprehended with the person those peaceful Deliverances which are having transcended material shapes; yet, having seen by means of wisdom his cankers are not utterly destroyed; but if he has enough faith in the Tathagatha, enough regard, then he will have these things, that is to  say, the faculty of faith, the faculty of energy, the faculty of mindfulness, the faculty of concentration, the faculty of wisdom.  This, monks, is called the person who is striving after faith.  I, monks, say of this monk that there is something to be done through diligence....   

 

MN 70 (Kitagirisutta, PTS 478-480 pp 151-154)

 

 

Edited August 9 by Mark Foote