Best Of

Further inquiry showed that often modern psychological framing around transcendent experiences think of them as something created. My approach to living these days is drawing heavily on psychology in addition to Buddhism, so I've probably been focusing more on the "soteriological" aspects, plus I'm a practical person anyway, so what it takes to make something happen matters at least as much as the isolated, pure idea.

Been playing with Chat GPT and thought to ask a question along these lines. The two points that stood out to me, and reflect my own learning.

Ontology vs. soteriology: The question mixes two angles. Ontologically (what is enlightenment?), many Buddhist traditions teach that awakening is the recognition or removal of ignorance about the true nature of mind and phenomena — it is a seeing of what already is. Soteriologically (how does one become enlightened?), awakening happens through a causal process: ethical conduct, meditation, wisdom — i.e., conditions and effort.

And then the Madhyamika understanding of emptiness and its relation to enlightenment. This is the tradition I developed my sense of Buddhism in.

Madhyamaka: Emphasizes emptiness. Enlightenment is the experiential realization that all phenomena lack inherent existence. This realization is not a “thing” that’s created; it’s a correct cognition that arises when ignorance ceases.

Practical summary: Buddhism generally resists the notion that enlightenment is an invention or addition to a self. It’s better described as the cessation of ignorance and the direct realization (revelation) of reality — a change that occurs through causes and conditions, not creation ex nihilo. The upshot for practice is the same either way: cultivate the conditions (ethics, meditation, wisdom) that allow the revealing to occur.