Enlightenment, in depth

[goldisheavy]

Enlightenment is a realisation rather than an experience or state -- it is a realisation of an ever present fact. Enlightenment should not be mistaken as a state of no-self -- because that is misunderstanding what no-self means. No-self is a dharma seal, which means that it is an ever-present nature of reality, whether we notice it or not. There never was a self to begin with, thus we should not mistaken no-self as being a state where 'self' has disappeared, rather, realising no-self means we realise that all along, there never was a separate self within nor apart from phenomena, we realised there is no observer apart from observed. To say that 'self' is annihilated is wrong because it implies there was a 'self' in the first place to 'disappear', but this is an illusion because no 'self' could be found to begin with that could 'exist' or 'annihilate'. Much less is no-self a state we can 'gain' and 'lose'. Hence enlightenment is 'realisation' and not a 'state'.

 

Well said.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I've read through the material in the first book, in Jed Mckenna's series. It is a good book and describes how to conceptualize enlightenement, without any energy work. I prefer doing it with energy work.

 

I'd say that writing out everything the way he described it (Which I no longer remember) ((That I started))

Started stressing me out, I cried, got over things, cried some more... Got frustrated, angry... Wanted to yell at the guy who suggested his material.

 

Anyway, I made some progress into that but stopped. I put the brakes to it as quickly as I could becuase of the stress it put me under. I'm not stressed over it anymore, but I want to do this my own way now. Mostly by working out fears through some writing and pulling things out energeticly, targeting things with imagination and intent.. It works well, but doesn't cause the flood to come rushing out, so to speak.

 

If you take McKenna's road to its end there wont be any "you" left, that person will have died. The whole point of his practice is to deconstruct every part of yourself until nothing remains. No likes, no dislikes, no opinions or preferences, no memories, no ego, no anything. Just a dead and empty husk. I'd say if such thoughts bother you not to pursue his path its a bloody one.

[Mokona]

I totally agree, but the thing that keeps getting to me is hard for me to explain. Its like.. Is that enlightenement? Or is it just his particular brand? With the progress I've made thus far I can't see myself on that same path so I had to discard it. It did do a great job of beating up my old belief system. It may have been a catalyst for further learning ath the very least. Anyway, good luck if yourself (Pie Guy) or anyone else wants his type.

 

(But then again, who is to say that you follow his directions and still find yourself in a different state of being?)

[Todd]

 

Todd,

I agree. The purpose here is for the majority of people in this topic to agree on a definition, based on texts and reasoning...then to discuss the nature of what we've defined.

 

Enlightenment is not separate from us. What does this mean exactly? Does it mean enlightenment is like our natural state of being, when unobstructed? That could make for part of a good definition.

 

"Enlightenment is when someone is unobstructed to their natural state of being." Ehh, a shaky definition...could you improve it?

 

If we think we've become enlightened, we're always wrong...why is this? With this logic, it's impossible for an enlightened person to recognize their own enlightenment, which is foolishness. There may be some truth to it, like if the enlightened person is egoless and doesn't equate "themselves" with their body/mind...but that person could still easily admit "they" are enlightened.

 

a) Allowing the entirety of expression to reveal itself in each moment.

Recognizing we aren't defined by any experience.

c) Resting in the faith that reality is self-revealing.

d) Letting go. Knowing that we don't know, but being interested.

e) Allowing instead of seeking.

 

These could be summed up here...

If we could put it in other words: "fully accepting everything as it is"...does that work?

 

If so, what about the nature of enlightenment causes an enlightened person to fully accept everything as it is?

 

Does it make someone unenlightened if they don't accept everything as it is?

This could be a good part of the definition. It points out that the definition is imperfect and might be misleading to the unenlightened.

 

 

Here are the possible definitions (please correct me if I've misinterpreted what you all have said):

 

1) Enlightenment is being unconcerned: an enlightened person has experienced all possible concerns, recognized the way being concerned works, and have resolved all of their own concerns as a result.

2) An enlightened person is able to manifest anything, and be able to perform magical feats as a result.

3) Enlightenment is when someone is unobstructed to their natural state of being.

4) Enlightenment is fully accepting everything as it is.

5) Enlightenment is when the 10 fetters are eradicated.

6) Enlightenment is when there's no self delusion.

7) The end of believing/identifying in thought without recognizing its "surrounding space" (we will still need some clarification as to what that means).

8) Enlightenment is residing in the space from which everything arises.

9) Enlightenment is (some sort of) understanding that there is no imaginary experiencer.

10) Enlightenment is a realization of the true nature of reality (part of which includes realizing there is no self/doer/thinker/watcher/observer).

11) Enlightenment is NOT a loss of self, or a state of not being aware of a self.

 

So, who agrees/disagrees on these definitions? Why?

 

What I think:

 

1) I have problems with this, because it's possible for an enlightened person to still be concerned with things, in their enlightened way. If someone were totally unconcerned about anything, they wouldn't even need to eat food or drink anything, and they'd die soon. This isn't how supposedly enlightened people have lived...so it doesn't seem to hold up as a good definition.

2) This one should be thrown out. No explanation needed.

3) I'm not sure what to think about this definition. It seems to be a possible misinterpretation of some of the paradoxical teachings. If it's true, we need to define what our natural state is and what exactly is obstructing it. For instance: if thoughts are obstructions and pure awareness is our natural state?

4) Do enlightened people accept everything as it is? Some pretty smart seemingly enlightened ones have said things about this very topic. Sorry, I don't have the link and this is totally off of memory, but I think it was Adyashanti who talked about returning his food because it wasn't cooked well enough. If someone accepts everything as it is, they will see no need to eat or drink, and die soon...so this definition is problematic.

5) This seems to line up with our #10 definition. Good enough for me.

6) No self delusion is one of the 10 fetters. "Self delusion" should be defined exactly, though. It could mean a realization of no self, or something else. Since there are other definitions which include this, we can exclude it.

7) I still don't know what "surrounding space" means.

8) Residing in some primordial space seems to be in line with #3.

9) This falls under #10.

10) Awesome definition.

11) I think we should include this one in #10. It's okay to have a very long and descriptive definition.

 

...phew.

 

 

Scotty,

 

There are many different definitions of enlightenment, and for very good reason. They aren't really meant to be statements of fact. This is why, if I had to choose a definition to stand by, then it would be "Enlightenment isn't what anyone thinks it is." That is if I HAD to choose. I don't even stand by that.

 

Definitions of enlightenment are used as teaching tools. Different definitions guide attention in different directions. The usefulness of the definitions is not in holding onto the definitions, but in what happens when attention is directed in a skillful manner.

 

I would suggest that, though it may be comprehensive to put together a long list of what has been said about enlightenment, it is not more effective than looking in the direction that one of the definitions points toward, and then staying with that until truth is revealed. The reason I say this, is because different definitions are pointing in different directions. This is not necessarily because the people who gave the definitions were aiming at different points, but because they were talking to different people. Different people have different tendencies, and so need different pointers.

 

By way of analogy, lets say that enlightenment is a particular location in space, say 18th and Grand in Cinicinatti, OH. If you are starting in Austin, TX, then I will give you different directions to it than if you are starting Chicago, IL. In some ways, the directions would be opposite: go north vs go south. In other ways they would be the same: go east. Coming from New York, a different set of instructions is given. If I put these directions together I get: go east and north, go south and east, go north and west. We've got the bases covered for three people, but is this the best for any one of them, or for someone coming from Florida?

 

And the thing with enlightenment is that it doesn't happen to be a particular location in space that we can then go to. It is right here, always. There isn't anything that we can do to arrive where we already are. It is only in thought that we were ever anywhere else, that we were ever anything but enlightened.

 

Different people have different ways of thinking that they are somewhere other than enlightenment, so different pointers are given.

 

As far as the allow everything to be as it is pointer goes, everything means everything. If there is a movement in me to send some poorly cooked food back, I'm not going to refer to the definition that I worked so hard at coming up with, and then tell myself that I shouldn't send the food back because it wouldn't be allowing everything to be as it is. That would be to take the definition conceptually, to still think that I can successfully navigate life by referring to thoughts. There would actually be a number of unseen assumptions that I would be making if I were to ignore the movement to send my food back. These assumptions are the very thing that create the denial of what is, which is enlightenment.

 

Though if this definition doesn't do much for you, then feel free to chuck it. Its what you'd have to do eventually anyway.

[Thunder_Gooch]

I totally agree, but the thing that keeps getting to me is hard for me to explain. Its like.. Is that enlightenement? Or is it just his particular brand? With the progress I've made thus far I can't see myself on that same path so I had to discard it. It did do a great job of beating up my old belief system. It may have been a catalyst for further learning ath the very least. Anyway, good luck if yourself (Pie Guy) or anyone else wants his type.

 

(But then again, who is to say that you follow his directions and still find yourself in a different state of being?)

 

I am not really sure what enlightenment is or isn't. I have taken Jed's method as far as I can, I don't know if anything including my own existence and experience is real or true.

 

I do know however I don't want to be reborn into another world like this one, so I want to stop the rebirth process if such a process exists.

 

That's what I am most concerned with, if I ever solve that problem then I will worry about ultimate truth and enlightenment.

[xabir2005]

Thanks forestofsouls,

 

I was looking over the fetters, and I see that I misunderstood the first one: self-identity. I was taking it to mean all self-identity being lost in a stream-enterer...but that website says this:

Is it true that the false self identity ("I am") is there even with stream entry and everything up to Arahantship?

That's right. You can see Daniel's mapping of the 4 stages to Arhatship in terms of non-dual/no-self realisations. Only at Arhatship is the Self thoroughly, completely, seen through. This is the opening of the Wisdom Eye.

 

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...tenment-by.html

[xabir2005]

Edited April 24, 2009 by xabir2005

[Thunder_Gooch]

Thought this video would be appropriate for this discussion.

 

9G8WEVTcFM0

 

Lyrics to Right Where It Belongs :

See the animal in it's cage that you built

Are you sure what side you're on?

Better not look him too closely in the eye

Are you sure what side of the glass you are on?

See the safety of the life you have built

Everything where it belongs

Feel the hollowness inside of your heart

And it's all

Right where it belongs

 

[Chorus:]

What if everything around you

Isn't quite as it seems?

What if all the world you think you know

Is an elaborate dream?

And if you look at your reflection

Is it all you wanted to be?

What if you could look right through the cracks?

Would you find yourself

Find yourself afraid to see?

 

What if all the world's inside of your head

Just creations of your own?

Your devils and your gods

All the living and the dead

And you really are alone

You can live in this illusion

You can choose to believe

You keep looking but you can't find the woods

While you're hiding in the trees

 

[Chorus:]

What if everything around you

Isn't quite as it seems?

What if all the world you used to know

Is an elaborate dream?

And if you look at your reflection

Is it all you wanted to be?

What if you could look right through the cracks

Would you find yourself

Find yourself afraid to see?

Edited April 24, 2009 by More_Pie_Guy

[simple traveller]

1) The exact definition of enlightenment.

I think that enlightenment is not a destination but a journey. Enlightenment occurs in stages. We can have enlightened experiences that add to our enlightened state and they can be cumulative. The mind can become enlightened and then the 'light' can always get brighter. Our body can become enlightened, then can always become brighter. And our soul/spirit can become enlightened and always become brighter. Enlightenment is not an end to a journey but the beginning of a new journey. How do we define it, I don't think that it is fair to define it. Defining it would put restrictions on what enlightenment was. Each of us is unique and all have different points of view, saying enlightenment is one thing for someone could say that is not available for someone else. Each of us, can experience enlightenment in unique ways.

 

2) Reasons for why enlightenment (as we define it) either is or isn't an experience.

Again I don't think definitions can really apply. Is it an experience, that all depends on your current point of view and point of reference. As your point of view and point of reference changes so do the definitions change. Reality and illusion are based on point of view and point of reference, change these and reality and illusion change as well.

 

3) What else it could be besides an experience.

Anything and everything.

 

4) Reasons why people think it's impossible to fall from a state of enlightenment.

I don't know about this really, but I remember something my Master once said, "A saint can become a monster and a monster can become a saint". This teaching stays with me and encourages me to always be aware of my thoughts, actions, and words.

 

Thank You

[Wayfarer64]

One persons' enlightenment is anothers' dogmatic darkness...

 

I've listened to "born again" Christians and some of them seem totally in the dark to me, but from where they came from they have seen the light...

 

There are obviously many ways to see the light amongst us. and each of us may grow spiritually in a variety of ways...

 

It does seem as if there is no end to the potential of spiritual insight and growth~! There is an ever expanding opportunity to find realms of consciousness to explore... And as the whole universe is always growing and changing and new life forms come and go there is no fore-seeable end in sight!!!

 

YAY!!!

 

love to all- Pat

Edited April 24, 2009 by Wayfarer64

[Unconditioned]

This is why I keep urging people to read Perfect Brilliant Stillness, because it's just so damn clear about all this stuff.

 

But in short, re "Reasons for why enlightenment (as we define it) either is or isn't an experience.", the reason why it cannot be an experience, according to David Carse, is that an experience requires an experiencer, and that awakening involves the imaginary experiencer being permanently replaced by the understanding that there isn't and never was such a creature. And understanding, in that context, does not mean understanding as we understand it ( ), but is simply the closest available word.

 

And anything further will be paradoxical riddles, because there's simply no alternative. As he repeatedly says "Does exist, cannot be expressed."

 

 

Great point, assuming that one is talking about an entity to experience something. We are but we are not some 'thing' and at the same time we are something, just not what we label it... oh boy... paradoxical riddles indeed!

 

But here is my question to David's point of view - if there is absolutely no experiencer then what is it that is able to be aware, conscious, alive, etc.? The unconditioned self is very much alive and is experiencing but it does not identify with the experiences, no?

[Aetherous]

Still working on getting a decent definition...

 

I'm wondering what "realization" means, exactly. It could be misleading to say something along the lines of "enlightenment is a realization of no self", because many people think that realizing something is understanding it.

 

Someone who understands that the sense of self is false, isn't necessarily enlightened. So is there a more appropriate term to use?

[Birch]

How about "making it so" or "making it real" for realization?

 

I'm wondering right now why an intellectual realization wouldn't be 'enough' (seemingly it isn't) - does it have to be guts and all? To what point? Just how much do you need to realize it? Does it require agony? Bliss? Isn't all that just a question of degree? I'd also understood that traditionally blissful states could really just be so many more illusions on the way. Useful to point out that other ways of being/feeling do exist but that's about it (I'm not knocking them - you gotta love chilling ;-))

 

Sorry Scott, I kind of wandered off there;-)

[Aetherous]

Kate,

 

Well there's a difference between understanding it and living it. If you only understand it, it doesn't impact your life; you have to remember it after periods of forgetting and living in delusion.

 

So it really does have to be a spontaneous experience of the "realization" rather than learning it from thinking about it, like another piece of information that the self recalls.

 

This makes realization a confusing term to use.

[Birch]

Ok.

 

How about 'visceral understanding'? I'm trying to find a rich enough paint colour for your plate that would match what I reckon you're getting at.

 

OT - people I meet are always saying/doing things that would in my opinion tend to point towards an enlightened individual, then they (purposefully;-)) go ignore the whole thing.

 

Could we get the Dan's and others down here to give their definitions and such? That would be interesting. I don't know any of them though.

 

Kate

[Vajrasattva]

Ok.

 

How about 'visceral understanding'? I'm trying to find a rich enough paint colour for your plate that would match what I reckon you're getting at.

 

OT - people I meet are always saying/doing things that would in my opinion tend to point towards an enlightened individual, then they (purposefully;-)) go ignore the whole thing.

 

Could we get the Dan's and others down here to give their definitions and such? That would be interesting. I don't know any of them though.

 

Kate

 

 

THere is a

 

1) Biological Change & "effect"

 

2) Emotional Change

 

3) Spiritual Awareness 1st of Expansion then later of Contraction.

 

4) Then an Integration with all things & an acceptance of "ALL" direction as truth. Then find it in a "Single" point.

 

5) Somewhere before or a after a complete Surrender of all Selfness to become Selfless for the greater whole.

 

0 to become 1 as the Sufi's say " Chod" as the Tibetan would scream : ).

 

6) One then simply is a conduit for whatever the "God", Tao, Universe ,Creator/Shakti/ True Self wants to manifest in this "Creation"/Illusion.

 

7) and there is a Simplicity that later occurs where one simple "IS" all the time.

 

8) even though you "Are" you are also still HUMAN. So learn to "Be" integrate.

You are part of a GREATER WHOLE and a INNER Whole...

 

It never ends in my opinion and you are always discovering even more depths both inner and outer to an ever growing State beyond States. Going Beyond the BEYOND to find the TRUTH. And that must occur with out & Within.

 

One CAN NEVER really put into words its not really something "Clear Coated".

 

My suggestion is JUST DO & Smile a lot eventually it will happen if you are supposed to go through it and if you really want to "know". Or just wait till you "Die".

 

Peace & God Bless

 

Love

 

Santiago

Edited April 25, 2009 by Vajrasattva

[xabir2005]

Still working on getting a decent definition...

 

I'm wondering what "realization" means, exactly. It could be misleading to say something along the lines of "enlightenment is a realization of no self", because many people think that realizing something is understanding it.

 

Someone who understands that the sense of self is false, isn't necessarily enlightened. So is there a more appropriate term to use?

Realization is a good word and so is 'intuitive insight'. Of course there is a difference between intellectual and direct non-conceptual knowledge. Edited April 25, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrasattva]

Realization is a good word and so is 'intuitive insight'. Of course there is a difference between intellectual and direct non-conceptual knowledge.

 

 

Experience will always kick Theory in the ass : )

[Gerard]

It is the end of the journey: no mind no karma. What is it? Cross the door when you finish walking your path and you'll soon find out.

 

Liberation.

 

 

Edited: missed one word.

Edited April 25, 2009 by durkhrod chogori

[Apech]

For 'realization' I would understand a transformational change, that is the truth of 'enlightenment' is fully absorbed or embodied in the being to the degree that one becomes a living version of that truth. So for instance if you take the mind's non-dual nature then the mind of the enlightened person is completed absorbed in that awareness.

 

I think there are four stages to this:

 

1) you see it (as an experience)

2) you absorb it - allow it to change you

3) you learn to activate its power (siddhis)

4) you become it i.e. go beyond duality.

 

So it goes from being an experience to simply being what you are.

[Vajrasattva]

It is the end of the journey: no mind no karma. What is it? Cross the door when you finish walking your path and you'll soon find out.

 

Liberation.

Edited: missed one word.

 

 

there is a split moment when its all revealed and then its up to you to "do" or not "do" and "be" or "Fade". If you miss that moment you are back in the "wheel" again. Some never get ready for that moment it passes them like a blink of the eye. Others spend a lifetime preparing and then in that split moment can be fully liberated of ALL things. Then the Bodhisattva likes say cool I will go back and be for the sake of others enlightenment.

 

The Sufi says I will go back and be nothing on all levels so I can be filled with the ONE for the SAKE of the ONE (the ALLAH, the entire creation, etc).

 

 

Its all the same....

[simple traveller]

You are seeking a definition for that which cannot be readily defined. You are seeking words that help to conceptualize, so that your mind can find some sort of foundation. These definitions and words will only serve to limit the existence of what your seeking. Stop looking, stop defining, leave the names behind and exist and you will be what you seek.

 

Thank You

[Birch]

THere is a

 

1) Biological Change & "effect"

 

2) Emotional Change

 

3) Spiritual Awareness 1st of Expansion then later of Contraction.

 

4) Then an Integration with all things & an acceptance of "ALL" direction as truth. Then find it in a "Single" point.

 

5) Somewhere before or a after a complete Surrender of all Selfness to become Selfless for the greater whole.

 

0 to become 1 as the Sufi's say " Chod" as the Tibetan would scream : ).

 

6) One then simply is a conduit for whatever the "God", Tao, Universe ,Creator/Shakti/ True Self wants to manifest in this "Creation"/Illusion.

 

7) and there is a Simplicity that later occurs where one simple "IS" all the time.

 

8) even though you "Are" you are also still HUMAN. So learn to "Be" integrate.

You are part of a GREATER WHOLE and a INNER Whole...

 

It never ends in my opinion and you are always discovering even more depths both inner and outer to an ever growing State beyond States. Going Beyond the BEYOND to find the TRUTH. And that must occur with out & Within.

 

One CAN NEVER really put into words its not really something "Clear Coated".

 

My suggestion is JUST DO & Smile a lot eventually it will happen if you are supposed to go through it and if you really want to "know". Or just wait till you "Die".

 

Peace & God Bless

 

Love

 

Santiago

 

 

Thanks for 'coming down' ;-) to give your input into this one Var. I appreciate it a lot.

 

Kate

[Vajrasattva]

Thanks for 'coming down' ;-) to give your input into this one Var. I appreciate it a lot.

 

Kate

 

 

: ) My best wishes to you

santi

[Sunya]

excellent thread