enlightenment

genkaku

Language is a tentative, approximate business and yet sometimes I think we treat it as more than that -- as if it had some rock-solid, no-doubt-about-it quality.

What brought this to mind was reading a thread in which someone wrote that they were not certain that a particular person was "enlightened." In other threads, the "enlightenment" of Gautama seems to be taken for granted. While there are certainly plenty of texts that assert Gautama's "enlightenment," still Buddhism itself is replete with encouragements not to rely on scripture but instead to find out for ourselves.

It seems to me that the only way to actually know if someone is "enlightened" is to BE enlightened. What other yardstick could there possibly be for someone who wished to assure what otherwise is just a religious or philosophical reassurance?

Just noodling here. In what way is "enlightenment" useful to you? To what extent do you feel you know what you're talking about? What's your take?

fivebells

When there's peace and no struggle, that's as close as it gets. Can struggle start again? Of course. Can struggle be ended permanently? That seems to be the conventional Buddhist soteriology, but I have no experience of it. I've seen people I highly respect who've studied for decades still in the grip of one form of karma or another. Maybe they just didn't practice assiduously enough, but I'm not buying it at this stage. The conventional soteriology seems to assume a stable state results from enlightenment, a stable personal trait. And that seems to run counter to anicca and anatta.

The practice ends struggle, but a lot of karma degrades attention and I run the karma unconsciously and forget to practice with it as a result. As I gain fluency in the practice, and faith in it as my primary refuge, the practice affects more and more facets of my life. Maybe one day it will affect every facet, but new situations are always arising, and demanding a new context for practice. Maybe at some point the practice builds so much momentum that every skerrick of karma is cleared away. Or maybe I'm just missing the point. The approach I'm describing here seems to be leading me in a good direction, for now.

Talisman

When the Buddha was living I am sure his degree of awakening was easily apparent and it is why he was able to gain such a large following in such a short amount of time. His rightly self-awakened, enlightened status is why Buddhists take refuge in him. He is the living proof that humans can be self-liberated and free from the suffering of samsara. In my practice, although I have never met a Buddha in this life, I still take refuge in my potential for Buddhahood based on my faith that others who have come before me have already acheived that which I seek.

seeker242

>In other threads, the "enlightenment" of Gautama seems to be taken for granted.

This is a result of faith IMO, which is a skillful quality

>Buddhism itself is replete with encouragements not to rely on scripture but instead to find out for ourselves.

It is also replete with encouragements of faith, AKA: having faith in the scriptures is quite beneficial, etc.

ThailandTom

There is absolutely no doubt that pretty much everybody can take at least one thing from buddhism to improve their life if put into practice, but to become fully awakened is something that we all hear and talk about, something that we often see as a goal, sometimes an impossible one to some.
I watched a talk by one of the monks of the society of Western Australia, (not brahm) and I have now forgot the power of his words, because he said that we often see this goal as unattainable. But after listening to the 50 minutes, I was pretty convinced it is possible. I must dig it out at some point, it was a great talk.

I wonder if you were to spend an entire day with somebody who is known to be enlightened, such as the dalai lama, would you be able to see it in his body language, in his words and actions... I keep reminding myself of the great Ajahn Chah when he stated that you wll not reach enlightenment if you strive to get there.

Talisman

The Dalai Lama is not yet fully enlightened. He is Bodhisattva and will not acheive nirvana until the time is ripe for attaining samyaksambuddhahood.

ThailandTom

Yea I wrote that part with a little in-conviction, I never knew that. Fair enough, but going back to that talk I heard from a monk to which his name now has gone from my memory, it was really inspiring to bring you back on the path with right effort and the notion that it is possible. Was Ajahn Chah so say fully awoken?

ThailandTom

I am pretty certain this is not the talk, the talk was from a different bald guy But this may help some people who come to read this thread anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA#p/u/24/3i7gbPgxp3M
metta

Talisman

I'm not sure what stage of the sravaka path Chah had attained. Probably non-returner or possibly once-returner. In my understanding arhatship is extremely difficult to attain without the guidance of a living Buddha. It's also not customary to proclaim one's attainments to the lay community.

vinlyn

Language is a tentative, approximate business and yet sometimes I think we treat it as more than that -- as if it had some rock-solid, no-doubt-about-it quality.

What brought this to mind was reading a thread in which someone wrote that they were not certain that a particular person was "enlightened." In other threads, the "enlightenment" of Gautama seems to be taken for granted. While there are certainly plenty of texts that assert Gautama's "enlightenment," still Buddhism itself is replete with encouragements not to rely on scripture but instead to find out for ourselves.

It seems to me that the only way to actually know if someone is "enlightened" is to BE enlightened. What other yardstick could there possibly be for someone who wished to assure what otherwise is just a religious or philosophical reassurance?

Just noodling here. In what way is "enlightenment" useful to you? To what extent do you feel you know what you're talking about? What's your take?

I think I agree with what you seem to be saying here.

We do not know factually that Siddhartha became enlightened. We who consider ourselves followers (to one extent or another) do tend to start with acceptance that he was, but as a matter of faith, not fact. We find ourselves in almost the same situation as Christians who accept the story of Jesus' resurrection...no facts, but faith.

Then, when we get down to people beyond Buddha who may or may not be enlightened. Well, I think a lot of people here jump to a lot of conclusions not based on fact.

But for me, that is why I prefer my viewpoint of Buddha's teachings. Whether he was enlightened or not, he was a remarkably wise man and his teachings can provide us with great wisdoms.

genkaku

When the Buddha was living I am sure his degree of awakening was easily apparent and it is why he was able to gain such a large following in such a short amount of time.
________________________

Hi Talisman -- "I am sure" sounds very comforting and I am happy for you if it is true but your certainty seems to be based on a curious deduction -- that Gautama's large following provided assured testimony to his enlightenment. Can we infer from this that the marvelous wonders of logic (intellect) are sufficient to nail down "enlightenment?" No criticism intended from here, but it just sounds a bit narrow -- limiting something that is often described (another limitation) as "unlimited."

You do bring to mind a good question, I think: Are we really so sure of what we claim to be so sure of? Intellect and emotion -- the ordinary basis for certainties -- tend to wimp out when it comes to experience ... or anyway that's my take.

Talisman

I knew, immediately after saying it, that I would get criticism for that statement lol His large following was not the end-all be-all argument for his enlightened status just an example. If a following is a sign of awakening then hitler could be considered awakened. There are many other factors including my own experience with the Dharma that give me reason to believe that buddhahood can be attained. I can't easily validate my faith in something that I isn't verifiable. I just have faith.

vinlyn

I knew, immediately after saying it, that I would get criticism for that statement lol His large following was not the end-all be-all argument for his enlightened status just an example. If a following is a sign of awakening then hitler could be considered awakened. There are many other factors including my own experience with the Dharma that give me reason to believe that buddhahood can be attained. I can't easily validate my faith in something that I isn't verifiable. I just have faith.

And yours is an example of noble faith.

genkaku

I knew, immediately after saying it, that I would get criticism for that statement lol His large following was not the end-all be-all argument for his enlightened status just an example. If a following is a sign of awakening then hitler could be considered awakened. There are many other factors including my own experience with the Dharma that give me reason to believe that buddhahood can be attained. I can't easily validate my faith in something that I isn't verifiable. I just have faith.

And yours is an example of noble faith.

I really don't mean to be a Nagging Nellie or a Facile Skeptic, but it does seem to me that the line between noble and ignoble faith is a tricky one and one worth attending to. I cannot pretend to know where anyone else stands when it comes to noble or ignoble faith, but I can keep an eye on my own garden.

My teacher once commented when I asked him for a comment, "In the beginning, belief and hope are necessary. After four or five years (of practice), they are not so necessary."

What I took away from his comment was this: Belief and hope are wonderfully miraculous abilities. Belief and hope inspire action and for a direction that requires practice (eg. Buddhism), they are indispensable companions. Put bluntly, they get us off the dime ... to stop just talking the talk and start walking the walk.

But belief and hope deserve attention as time a practice progress. What really has some good results can nourish some very bad habits.

Hope and belief get us off the dime, but practice provides experience and experience trumps belief and hope. A person who wishes to learn to ride a bicycle erects an intention based on faith/hope/and belief. But once s/he has learned how to ride a bike, the necessity to believe or hope is redundant and worse, perhaps, dangerous.

Belief and hope fire up intention and action. But to remain satisfied with belief and hope -- to create what some call a "nesting" place of comfort and conviction -- is to deprive yourself of the experience you claimed to be after in the first place. This is a realm in which salesmen abound and no one is freed from doubt.

As I say, I am not trying to undermine or disparage anyone's faith or hope or belief. I am just trying to suggest that we should use the good tools Buddhism suggests for all activities, namely, attention and responsibility.

vinlyn

And yours is an example of noble faith.

I really don't mean to be a Nagging Nellie or a Facile Skeptic, but it does seem to me that the line between noble and ignoble faith is a tricky one and one worth attending to. I cannot pretend to know where anyone else stands when it comes to noble or ignoble faith, but I can keep an eye on my own garden.

My teacher once commented when I asked him for a comment, "In the beginning, belief and hope are necessary. After four or five years (of practice), they are not so necessary."

What I took away from his comment was this: Belief and hope are wonderfully miraculous abilities. Belief and hope inspire action and for a direction that requires practice (eg. Buddhism), they are indispensable companions. Put bluntly, they get us off the dime ... to stop just talking the talk and start walking the walk.

But belief and hope deserve attention as time a practice progress. What really has some good results can nourish some very bad habits.

Hope and belief get us off the dime, but practice provides experience and experience trumps belief and hope. A person who wishes to learn to ride a bicycle erects an intention based on faith/hope/and belief. But once s/he has learned how to ride a bike, the necessity to believe or hope is redundant and worse, perhaps, dangerous.

Belief and hope fire up intention and action. But to remain satisfied with belief and hope -- to create what some call a "nesting" place of comfort and conviction -- is to deprive yourself of the experience you claimed to be after in the first place. This is a realm in which salesmen abound and no one is freed from doubt.

As I say, I am not trying to undermine or disparage anyone's faith or hope or belief. I am just trying to suggest that we should use the good tools Buddhism suggests for all activities, namely, attention and responsibility.

I am referring ONLY to the portion of this discussion referring to enlightenment of Lord Buddha. I am not referring to a hundred other things various people have faith in. I would have to take each of those things one by one.

And yes, I think there is a difference between noble and ignoble faith. And it is a tough line to draw. I have faith in the most basic teachings of Buddhism, but the further along one goes into Buddhism, my faith begins diminishing and I have more and more questions. For example: the Noble Eightfold Path...difficult to disagree with these principles. Various levels of Buddhist heaven and hells...I become more skeptical; sounds like fables or parables.

Talisman

My faith extends primarily to refuge in the 3 jewels. Otherwise the teachings and practices must be verified through direct experience, which in turn stengthens my faith in the jewels. It's reciprocal.

aMatt

It may be best to ignore such things as enlightenment. Faith, Buddha's mental view, any goal of attainment... aren't all that useful.

Practice and you will see for yourself. Be discerning and willing to try, then the path speaks for itself.

Talisman

"ignore" is a strong word

aMatt

Oh? Some teachers say "kill".

fivebells

Belief and hope fire up intention and action. But to remain satisfied with belief and hope -- to create what some call a "nesting" place of comfort and conviction -- is to deprive yourself of the experience you claimed to be after in the first place. This is a realm in which salesmen abound and no one is freed from doubt.

As I say, I am not trying to undermine or disparage anyone's faith or hope or belief. I am just trying to suggest that we should use the good tools Buddhism suggests for all activities, namely, attention and responsibility

Hear hear!

Cloud

Enlightenment is obtaining a correct understanding of the nature of mind and all phenomena. This correct understanding is a transformation of the mind, and seeing clearly the mind no longer creates thoughts, speech or actions that would lead to suffering. The cause of suffering (craving/thirst for sense pleasures, becoming and annihilation) has been laid down in light of this new-found clarity or wisdom of reality.

Enlightenment is finding peace without anything more than what you already are.

fivebells

Well, now we're back at the question of how a fully enlightened being would experience being water boarded, given that neurologically there appears to be a hardwired panic reaction to water in the bronchi. How would that panic not be suffering?

Cloud

@fivebells, Is there not a neurological hardwire that if you experience the pain of fire you feel it is as pain? A mind that has transformed through enlightenment would know that there was a sensation of pain but would not be disturbed, in the same way.

fivebells

Yes, but this is panic, not pain. How does a fully enlightened being relate to hardwired panic?

seeker242

I knew, immediately after saying it, that I would get criticism for that statement lol His large following was not the end-all be-all argument for his enlightened status just an example. If a following is a sign of awakening then hitler could be considered awakened. There are many other factors including my own experience with the Dharma that give me reason to believe that buddhahood can be attained. I can't easily validate my faith in something that I isn't verifiable. I just have faith.

And yours is an example of noble faith.

As I say, I am not trying to undermine or disparage anyone's faith or hope or belief. I am just trying to suggest that we should use the good tools Buddhism suggests for all activities, namely, attention and responsibility.

Agreed! However, the Buddha taught that faith is one of those tools as are the others you mentioned. He taught that faith is something to be cultivated along with the others.

Bhikkhus, there are these five mental abilities. What five?

The ability of Faith (saddhā)
The ability of Energy (viriya)
The ability of Awareness (sati)
The ability of Concentration (samādhi)
The ability of Understanding (pañña)

These are the five abilities.
It is, Bhikkhus, because he has developed & cultivated these 5 abilities,
that a Bhikkhu, by the destruction of the fermentations, in this very life
enters and dwells in the stainless liberation of mind, released by wisdom,
realizing it for himself with direct experience and complete understanding!

Yes, but this is panic, not pain. How does a fully enlightened being relate to hardwired panic?

If it's not your body, then why would it matter if it's panicking or not?

person

Well, now we're back at the question of how a fully enlightened being would experience being water boarded, given that neurologically there appears to be a hardwired panic reaction to water in the bronchi. How would that panic not be suffering?

This Vietnamese monk set himself on fire in 1963 to protest the beginning of the war there, he sat in this meditation pose unmoving for 3 minutes while his body burned. Its not waterboarding but still quite the distinction between pain and suffering.

person

Sorry he wasn't protesting the war he was protesting religious persecution by the south. :dunce:

Tikal2012

1) Suffering.
2) The cause of suffering.
3) The cessation of suffering.
4) The way leading to the cessation of suffering.

Cloud

@fivebells, What is it that panics? When I put my hand in a fire, it burns, but what knows the burning?

Normally we don't understand the cause and effect, the conditioning, and what we really are. Not knowing, we can not break free of that conditioning. Broken free, mind turns to pure experience (as @Being21 said). Pure experience does not panic, does not feel pain, but it is the knowing of these things. It is only experience. This is called the mind "taking Nirvana as object". The "one who knows" as Ajahn Chah would say; the bodhi mind.

The enlightened mind is such that your viewpoint or perspective is one of the experience itself. There might be panic caused, and part of the mind may panic, but that would not be seen as you. You in effect would only be the experience/awareness, and associating with that experience such things as panic would not apply. It would be the same as seeing someone else doing jumping-jacks; that doesn't bother you, because you consider yourself to be something different.

The experience is not really seen as "me" though, because how could it? All experience is non-dual, it requires something to experience as well as a sense door and a mind. Nothing is truly separate. Experience comes and goes, belongs to no one and is not-self.

I'm sorry if this is hard to grasp. It's hard to put into words too! This is a bit beyond "Buddhism for Beginners".

evolve

would an enlightened mind ultimately then, have the ability to endure psychological torture despite the other part of mind being panicked?

Also, if there is a seperation between enlightened mind and other mind, how would that relate to the quote by Dudjom Rinpoche " The nature of mind is the nature of everything" how is the nature of enlightened mind the nature of other mind at the same time, i.e if one is able to endure and be aware, while the other panics wheres the interbeing?
Thank you for teaching me

Cloud

An enlightened mind isn't different than a regular mind. It simply does not crave and cling, does not create an "I" or separation where it does not exist, knows the true state of affairs. Seeing things clearly, there is the knowing/wisdom that prevents unwholesome mental phenomena from arising in the first place. Pure experience can not be this or that, good or bad, pain or pleasure... that would require perspective/views and thoughts to be added onto the experience.

Pure experience, no experiencer or effluents, is Nirvana. I think. The nature of experience is to arise and fall, just as formations arise and fall, just as mental formations arise and fall. That's why the nature of mind is the nature of everything. Every temporary phenomena shares this same nature, and this nature is the Dharma.

taiyaki

yup what cloud said!

ThailandTom

Studies done on deep mediators and monks actually showed that their brain had been changed through meditation, quite literally. I forge the term now, something like brain plasticity or something.

Cloud

Yeah the brain changes, but it's always changing. Meditation does change the brain, hence why first awakening is called the path of seeing, and further awakenings are called the path of transformation. Learning always changes the brain, and the process of enlightenment changes mental patterns.

ThailandTom

So then an enlightened mind is different from an unawakened one.. But also, two unenlightened minds would not be the same. I really need to find that talk on enlightenment, mainly for people who dispute it as being possible or are losing faith in it as a goal, but also for myself to remind myself of the same thing!

Cloud

It's not the mind that changes, it's the content, just as two brains work the same but will physically differ as far as neural pathways and the knowledge/experience they represent. The mind is always just the four aggregates of consciousness, perception, feelings and thoughts. Each of these is based upon either the experience of form or the formless, be it from the senses or the mind itself (the mind is considered a sense door, the sixth sense).

Two fully enlightened minds would differ in knowledge/experience but would both have Nirvana as object, discerning the Four Noble Truths and the Three Characteristics, completely released from any craving or attachment to sense pleasures, becoming and annihilation.

The brain and mind are not the same, but they are directly related to each other and dependent. A change in the brain will affect the mind; experiences of mind reflect change that happens in the brain due to contact with an object... for instance light enters the eye and a signal is sent to the brain, that signal is interpreted as an "experience". Where is mind?

fivebells

The enlightened mind is such that your viewpoint or perspective is one of the experience itself. There might be panic caused, and part of the mind may panic, but that would not be seen as you.

Sure, but powerful experiences have a tendency to collapse attention down on the the most powerful features, and create an identification with them. I know it is possible to train to prevent this collapse in specific situations because I've done it. The first question is whether it is possible to train to prevent this collapse no matter how powerful the experience is (e.g., can you do it with water boarding.) @person's example of the self-immolating monk may be salient, here. The second question is whether it is possible to train in such a way that you don't need to prepare for specific situations, and can rest in the experience no matter how powerful or traumatic. (My understanding is that @person's monk pursued specific training for several weeks before his demonstration.)

Broo

This is how I understood: everything is made out of "sankara" San means collection and kara means information.
our mind body and everything else in the universe and out of universe are made out of Sankara.
These sankara constantly change (appear and disappear) Mind is made out of Sankara so our body. Difference is speed of Sankara- Speed of sankara of mind is higher than speed of light therefore we still cannot capture this to modern day instruments. Sankara in body has much slow speed.
Mind is in our body but we cannot pin point where exactly in the body. But still mind always travel with body.
Mind and the body glued together. This glue is "Thanha" - Thanha exists because we constantly communicate with mind and body. We try to analyze things through our mind. Then we sucked in to illusion created by mind.If we can break this communication with mind (inner chatter) we will be in path to open our third eye. (Prangya=knowledge)
How? once some one understood this mechanism and practice to ignore their mind by stopping two way communication (inner chatter)
Sankara of body and mind will come in to same frequency or speed then you will see non self through your third eye.
Sorry about my English. But this works for me for some extend.Haven't seen the third eye yet. But I feel Sankara in my body since i started practicing.
Any thoughts? Criticism welcome

aMatt

Sure, but powerful experiences have a tendency to collapse attention down on the the most powerful features, and create an identification with them. I know it is possible to train to prevent this collapse in specific situations because I've done it.

In an enightened mind, there would be nothing present to generate that identification. The collapse doesn't arise from the stimulation, but from the ego's grasping at the "not-waterboarding bodily sensations." If you toss a torch into a pool with an oil slick, the oil burns, not the water.

When I asked this same question of my teacher, he said "yes, if the buddha stepped on a thorn, would he experience pain? There would be sensation, but it would happen in a space that would be unrecognizable to us"

fivebells

The collapse doesn't arise from the stimulation, but from the ego's grasping at the "not-waterboarding bodily sensations." If you toss a torch into a pool with an oil slick, the oil burns, not the water.

We're going around in circles a bit, here, but the question for me is what the ego looks like at the neurological level, and whether one can train to rest only in the water, no matter how brightly the oil burns. If the oil burns sufficiently long and hard, the water gets very hot...

When I asked this same question of my teacher, he said "yes, if the buddha stepped on a thorn, would he experience pain? There would be sensation, but it would happen in a space that would be unrecognizable to us"

I know the conventional soteriology, but I don't buy it at this stage. It is too far outside my experience. (Direct experience, obviously, but also observation of advanced practitioners.)

aMatt

I know the conventional soteriology, but I don't buy it at this stage. It is too far outside my experience. (Direct experience, obviously, but also observation of advanced practitioners.)

I wouldn't consider this a doctrine. If you watch the difference between someone well practiced and someone who is not, you can observe how the practice provides cognitive stabilization. In the analogy of the oil slick, the enlightened mind has no slick. The conditions for grasping are silent, abandoned. There is nothing for the torch to burn. If they were being waterboarded (though unlikely) there would be nothing to collapse the sensation into self-identification.

The mind would have sensation, but not identification with the sensation. The identification isn't implanted by the phenomena. The identification could only happen as a co-arising of the ego's grasping, which would be absent. Does this really seem circular?

In western psychology, there are notions such as brain plasticity and systematic desensitization that lend scientific credence to this. It would be possible to rework the brain in such a way that the response it has to the sense organs is without and automatic emotional resonance. Such as experiencing the sensation of drowning without dissatisfaction. Like how arachnophobic persons can go through meditative-like exercises to still the fear of spiders. Then, when a spider is on them, there is no perception of that spider that remains that would fuel the arising of fear.

fivebells

Sorry, not accusing you of circular reasoning; it is the debate which seems to be circling back on itself. Not enough relevant shared experience to resolve this question to my satisfaction. Perhaps it will get clearer as I parctice more.

I agree that the phobia training is suggestive (Dan Siegel's description of treating dog phobia in The Developing Mind is worth a read) but don't know how profound a trauma that could work with, nor whether it is possible to train to rest in the experience of an unfamiliar trauma as it arises for the first time.

I have experienced the cognitive stabilization you describe, but have also experienced it being undermined by physical insult.

upekka

I feel Sankara in my body since i started practicing.

it is advisable if one can investigate a bit further on

Kaya sankhara = in and out breath
citta (mano) sankhara = feeling (vedana) and perception (sanna)
vacci sankhara = vitakka and vicara


whether we like it or not we breath in and breath out

whether we like it or not if mind (consciousness) contact with form/rupa (sabda rupa, rupa-rupa, gandha rupa, etc.) there is feeling and perception

when there is feeling and perception and there is no mindfulness that everything is changing then there is vitakka and vicara on feeling or perception which create another round of ......

Vincenzi

my goal isn't enlightenment, it is nirvana.

@upekka
but vitakka and vicara are positive attributes!

upekka

@upekka
but vitakka and vicara are positive attributes!

true
but that is
when within first jhana or when within dhamma investigation (dhamma vicaya)they are positive attributes (cause)
and
if one is still not with Noble Right View 'they' bring positive results (effect)

(positive fabrication/vitakka-viccara (kamma) brings positive kamma vipaka)

all other times, sense contacts result in vitakka-viccara and they can be possitive, negative, or positive and negative
the results would be accordingly

however if one is with Noble Right View there is neither positive nor negative fabrication (vitakka-viccara) because there is wisdom (panna udapadi), in short no kamma to bring kamma vipaka