A question about enlightment...

almer45

I would like to know the answer to a question.Let us suppose that a person who is a buddhist meditates many years and receives enlightment. The rest of the day when he doesn't practice meditation he is not enlightened but when he is in meditation he is enlightened. Should this person be called a Buddha or Buddha is someone who is enlightened all the time even in his/her daily activities? Are there only 1000 buddhas, 1000 people, who have been enlightened in all the story of mankind?

I write with absolute respect to Buddhism. I am not an expert about the matter (buddhist texts). Thank you very much in advance.

patbb

The rest of the day when he doesn't practice meditation he is not enlightened but when he is in meditation he is enlightened.

Enlightenment is self realization.
Realization through direct observation of our true nature and the nature of our reality.
It is permanent.
Let say you never felt what water feels like, once you do touch and feel water, you realized what water feels like, you cannot go back to whatever you use to think that it should feel like.

Jason

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

person

@pattb and @Jason answered the first part of your question.

As to the 1,000 Buddhas. The term enlightened gets used alot. In the more normal sense I think it refers to someone who has percieved the true nature of the mind. A Buddha is someone who has permanently removed all the imprints of delusions and ignorance from their mind.

Buddhist cosmology is generally considered to be infinite in time. Universes come into and out of existence. The 1,000 Buddha thing I think is in relation to the number of Buddhas during this universe, the actual teaching is during this one aeon, however you want to interpret that.

DharmaField

I have heard the experience is not a one off, but often starts in like rain with drips and drops of aha moments, sooner or later there is a big one and that is when the person gets it. After that, they usually experience a transformation, depending on how much they are in their heads as a person. That is still an experience that can over time be forgotten, but eventually, if they keep up a strong practice, it becomes like rain and washes away any doubts. This is not the because then you realise that there is a difference, between wisdom and doing, right speech, livelihood etc...that's doing the laundry. It is an education in non abiding and there are layers, so one can keep on learning...in that regard, the Zen tradition says the Buddha is still meditating. But it is always good to have a model of perfection, even if he is a serious and religious one in the true sense of the word...personally my model is hotei or the 10th oxherding picture, who seems more sociable.

almer45

Thank you for your replies very much. I understand what you say. Imagine that through meditation you can perceive the true nature of the mind as person says. With the help of meditation he has been able to calm his mind and be with his real nature. But after that, as he is in his daily activities (there are problems as we are alive) he can't perceive it. He knows what it is the nature of the mind, he knows that the nature of the mind is something real (perhaps with another name as Sogyal Rimpoché says in one of his books) but when he is during his daily activities he can't be that way. According to what person says (a person who has removed all the imprints of delusions and ignorance from the mind) this buddhist practitioner is not still a Buddha. Perhaps he has received and introduction to the nature of the mind or enlightment but he isn't still a Buddha or an enlightened being. Is this correct?

DharmaField

With practice and insight, one gets a sense of what could be called the great unfolding. Each moment becomes the goal, when we pay attention each action arises as an expression of the universe and a great sense of being in the flow develops. When we recognise there is nothing more than each moment and we and the universe are unfolding together, there is nothing left to attain.

DharmaField

No need to be a Buddha.

taiyaki

To be honest with you.

If an enlightened being perceives one state as not enlightened and another state as enlightened then they are in essence grasping at clarity, peace, etc (whatever they reify as enlightened experience).

An enlightened being recognizes what already is obvious and nothing more.

Jeffrey

Buddha is awakened all the time. Some scripture says there is an infinite number of buddhas on the tip of a hair. It's not clear to me what meaning of that scripture. 1000 seems like a good number though, who knows?

Iktomi

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

Psychological events are not permanent, even profound ones.

taiyaki

@Jeffrey

mini koala buddhas.

i like the idea of infinite buddha's. what is not buddha nature? =]

Jason

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

Psychological events are not permanent, even profound ones.

I suppose it all depends on what one means by permanent, if we want to get pedantic about it. For example, as I mentioned, awaking in the Buddhist context isn't simply a meditative state that one only experiences while in meditation and goes away during normal everyday life (such as was the case with the Buddha's first two teachers, who mistook the third and fourth arupa jhanas as awakening). This 'liberation of mind' (cetovimutti), as the Buddha occasionally calls it, on the other hand, is said to be unshakable, total, and permanent in the sense that an arahant achieves irreversible release — i.e., complete eradication of the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion — and can never fall back to a lower stage. It's also said (at least in the commentarial tradition of Theravada, at any rate) that they experience uninterrupted happiness/bliss (sukha) as a result of awakening. For one reference, see "Nibbana as Living Experience" by Lily de Silva.

seeker242

Buddha is someone who is enlightened all the time even in his/her daily activities?

Yes

DharmaField

they experience uninterrupted happiness/bliss (sukha) as a result of awakening. .

In this world? ... I think I would prefer to be something less of an emotional monoculture, may be a bodhisattva listening to the tears of the world. May be even myself +:(.

Spaceless

Is there any slightest different in condition for space within earth and space outside the atmospheric spheres away from earth that is vacuumic

Iktomi

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

Psychological events are not permanent, even profound ones.

I suppose it all depends on what one means by permanent, if we want to get pedantic about it.

Lol, I'm so unimaginative.

Jason

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

Psychological events are not permanent, even profound ones.

I suppose it all depends on what one means by permanent, if we want to get pedantic about it. For example, as I mentioned, awaking in the Buddhist context isn't simply a meditative state that one only experiences while in meditation and goes away during normal everyday life (such as was the case with the Buddha's first two teachers, who mistook the third and fourth arupa jhanas as awakening). This 'liberation of mind' (cetovimutti), as the Buddha occasionally calls it, on the other hand, is said to be unshakable, total, and permanent in the sense that an arahant achieves irreversible release — i.e., complete eradication of the mental defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion — and can never fall back to a lower stage. It's also said (at least in the commentarial tradition of Theravada, at any rate) that they experience uninterrupted happiness/bliss (sukha) as a result of awakening. For one reference, see "Nibbana as Living Experience" by Lily de Silva.

Lol, I'm so unimaginative.

Not at all. I'm simply saying that permanent is an appropriate descriptor in the context that I used it, i.e., that awakening, as it's described in Buddhist literature, is permanent in the sense of being "continuing or enduring without fundamental or marked change" (Merriam Webster).

Iktomi

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

person

@Iktomi I wonder how you would define enlightenment. Psychological refers to events dealing with or affecting the mind. If its not mental then what is it?

patbb

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

perhaps we can think of it as the psychological events and/or physical restructuring of the mind are simply side effects of a great realization that goes beyond the mind and it's psychology.
realizing that the mind itself is a impermanent object.

Gui

imho - enlightenment is simply being awake. We don't know what that is exactly because we haven't experienced it. It is not of the mind but before the mind. It is not something in particular but the absence of grasping, aversion and ignorance.

@Iktomi I wonder how you would define enlightenment. Psychological refers to events dealing with or affecting the mind. If its not mental then what is it?

person

Thanks @Gui thats good. I guess it comes down to what the mind is and how one defines it. Enlightenment certainly wouldn't be a conceptual type of mind. What is beyond that? I doubt any of us really know.

This argument seems to come down to one of definition not of concept.

seeker242

Friend Sariputta, Nibbāna, Nibbāna is it said! What is this Nibbāna?
The destruction of Greed, the destruction of Hate, and the destruction of
Ignorance! This, friend, is called Nibbāna …

Destruction mean it's destroyed and does not come back which means its permanent.

"Rebirth has ended" means it's permanent. It's certainly not a "temporary ending of rebirth"

taiyaki

Actually there is no true difference between thought and the absence of thought. Both are luminous and empty.

The nature of all things are liberation.

Just this.

almer45

I am sorry I have not been able to write to you before.Thank you for your replies again. I know for certain that the nature of the mind exists, it is a fact. If the nature of the mind is something permanent when you are in it, then I would like to know something. According to Sogyal Rimpoché sem is the term referred to the ordinary mind, dualistic. Rigpa is not only the nature limited to our mind but the nature of/in everything. When people speak (even a self-realized buddhist) , when we are in our everyday world, we are using sem, according to this. Besides this, we have thoughts when we speak (sem?) A person should have to be round the clock in Rigpa to be all the day in the nature of the mind. I repeat, I know for certain the nature of the mind exists, but I doubt it is something permanent in our lives when we are alive. If we have problems for example it is very difficult to be in Rigpa. It is important for me to know this because I would like to know if after having flashes of the nature of the mind we should extend it to our daily lives, that is to say something permanent.

zen_world

I repeat, I know for certain the nature of the mind exists, but I doubt it is something permanent in our lives when we are alive.

This is very confusing...no idea how can you be certain of such a thing!

"your true mind is no mind " says zen masters...and I agree...
Maybe I misunderstood your statement...

patbb

I am sorry I have not been able to write to you before.Thank you for your replies again. I know for certain that the nature of the mind exists, it is a fact. If the nature of the mind is something permanent when you are in it, then I would like to know something. According to Sogyal Rimpoché sem is the term referred to the ordinary mind, dualistic. Rigpa is not only the nature limited to our mind but the nature of/in everything. When people speak (even a self-realized buddhist) , when we are in our everyday world, we are using sem, according to this. Besides this, we have thoughts when we speak (sem?) A person should have to be round the clock in Rigpa to be all the day in the nature of the mind. I repeat, I know for certain the nature of the mind exists, but I doubt it is something permanent in our lives when we are alive. If we have problems for example it is very difficult to be in Rigpa. It is important for me to know this because I would like to know if after having flashes of the nature of the mind we should extend it to our daily lives, that is to say something permanent.

there is a big vocabulary problem here.

when you say "the nature of the mind", you mean a specific realization about the true nature of the mind...

nature of the mind just mean whatever it actually is.



Rigpa is knowledge of the true nature of the mind

you can observe the true nature of the mind after you attain high concentration states, and then know about it (Rigpa).


Think of it this way.
You look through a microscope at a petri dish.

- The microscope does the same as what the high concentration allow you to do (a tool that allow you to see something you would otherwise not be able to see.)
- What you are observing in the microscope is the true nature of the petri dish.
- Rigpa is the realization and knowledge that ensues from observing the true nature of the petri dish. (like the realization that there are a whole lot of tiny little organism that live in the microscopic world)

driedleaf

In my opinion, enlightenment is gaining supreme knowledge, knowing the true meaning to life, and not a psychological event of some sort. It is a result of practicing the teachings of the Buddha, and having direct realization and experience of those teachings. Seeing everything from all angles and realizing from experience its true nature thus releasing oneself from mental effluents, skandas, kilesas and attachments. Having no existent value for greed, hate, and delusions through clear knowledge and insight.

Jason

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

Psychological simply means affecting or arising in the mind, and awakening is a mental event affecting or arising in the mind. I suppose one can debate the semantics or even the very existence of it, but the state of mind of awakening is said to be profound and something which essentially continues or endures without fundamental or marked change, as I've already mentioned. It's hard to compare this with normal states of mind since we're not talking about a normal state with conditioned mental objects, but one dealing with the deathless (amata) and unestablished consciousness (vinnanam anidassanam) devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly." Certainly one can take issue with this and declare that such a thing isn't possible, but regardless of whether one accepts the possibility, it should noted that this is how awakening is generally presented in the texts and by those who claim to have experienced it (e.g., Ajahn Boowa).

DharmaField

I am sorry I have not been able to write to you before.Thank you for your replies again. I know for certain that the nature of the mind exists, it is a fact. If the nature of the mind is something permanent when you are in it, then I would like to know something. According to Sogyal Rimpoché sem is the term referred to the ordinary mind, dualistic. Rigpa is not only the nature limited to our mind but the nature of/in everything. When people speak (even a self-realized buddhist) , when we are in our everyday world, we are using sem, according to this. Besides this, we have thoughts when we speak (sem?) A person should have to be round the clock in Rigpa to be all the day in the nature of the mind. I repeat, I know for certain the nature of the mind exists, but I doubt it is something permanent in our lives when we are alive. If we have problems for example it is very difficult to be in Rigpa. It is important for me to know this because I would like to know if after having flashes of the nature of the mind we should extend it to our daily lives, that is to say something permanent.

It starts with flashes and these become more frequent and more stable. After a while you see, yourself as Rigpa and inside and outside and you realise that there is no distinction between what you thought was yourself and the world. In otherwords, self is lost and that is very liberating as you know you will not die, because you were never born. But, this is not permanent state, although it is pretty unforgettable. Overtime, as your practice and concentration improves you don't need to be in a deep state, you get the knack of it as with riding a bike and you can experience rigpa even when typing the keyboard. In that state there is just empty heart-mind lovingly typing...but you can't express it because it is meaningless to others. This is pretty permanent, but if you stop practicing for a long time it does lose its freshness, and there is a tendency to rely on memory, not samadhi - and that is a trap for tigers. But you are still there, and can make your own choices, which are often mistakes - although one of my teachers claimed that was an illusion, but he was more of the crazy wisdom type.

driedleaf

The word "mind" is not necessarily a good representation for the Pali word "citta". The psychological aspect of it is only part of the picture. I am sure there is more involved here than that.

DharmaField

In the begining there were no people, from where did consciousness arise?

Perhaps, we just construct a view of being separate from the whole.

almer45

I really like what you told Dharmafield. This must be really wonderful. This is what I wanted to know. The nature of the mind should be extended so it is a permanent state. I have realized that sometimes it can also happen when you are not meditating. It comes and says, "I am here again, I am in everything". But when you think you can be in the nature of the mind...When a lama thinks or has a problem (he is also a person)... Can he be in the nature of the mind? I really liked patbb what you also said. The problem is that we would really like to have the telescope as a permanent sight...

Jason

The word "mind" is not necessarily a good representation for the Pali word "citta". The psychological aspect of it is only part of the picture. I am sure there is more involved here than that.

In regard to the Pali terms citta (intellect), mano (mind), and vinnana (consciousness), the commentarial tradition of Theravada considers them to be more or less synonymous based upon this passage from SN 12.61:

But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it.

It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another.

That said, I'm more inclined to agree with K. Nizamis' assessment (which can be found in the notes to their translation of SN 12.61); although I do think that citta, mano, and vinnana are more alike in character than, say, steam, liquid and ice.

DharmaField

I really like what you told Dharmafield. This must be really wonderful. This is what I wanted to know. The nature of the mind should be extended so it is a permanent state. I have realized that sometimes it can also happen when you are not meditating. It comes and says, "I am here again, I am in everything". But when you think you can be in the nature of the mind...When a lama thinks or has a problem (he is also a person)... Can he be in the nature of the mind? I really liked patbb what you also said. The problem is that we would really like to have the telescope as a permanent sight...

Yes! When we really are in that state, it is mindful awareness, as Dogen says, and so when we are truly mindful we can express right action, etc, because it is an expression of being, empty of self. There is little mind, but there is something of a harmony, being in the flow, that allows us to make better choices, than otherwise.

But if we don't meditate, but instead get drunk, mindfulness may remain, but then we can so easily lose it, and memory might take its place. Then our stuff can get in the way, and we don't even notice that our heart has closed. Defilements stick around anyway - we get an award and notice how pride sneaks in. Even more resilient are childhood wounds which are often invisible and so we may ignore our needs perhaps in helping others, on to find them return as a craving. Jack Kornfield speaks of how therapy helps. I think that some teachers are just frauds, but others who become abusive, act out deep anger and hatred which rises up from childhood wounds and these early traumas are re-inacted. Their student's blind faith, born from thinking that there is a permanent state of perfect wisdom, do not challenge such behaviour and everyone suffers. We are human and who can cast the first stone? Knowing this is the source of compassion and forgiveness.

It is always contentious to criticise, but it is important to be aware of our humanity. See http://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/behind-the-thangkas-sogyal-rimpoche-the-imbalance-of-power-and-abuse-of-spiritual-authority/

I am not so certain about the end of all defilements, seems to me a completely impossible task, but a good aspiration.

almer45

I have read your link Dharmafield. I have only read one of Sogyal books, "the tibetan book of living and dying". I will really read with more attention the text in the link you show. I practice kriya and I also like reading buddhist texts. For me compassion and love for all mankind is the main thing we should try to do in our lives. Bye bye, Spanish time (1:00). I have to go to bed.

taiyaki

"'Therefore, Maitreya, do not fool and delude these deities! No one abides in, or regresses from, enlightenment.

Maitreya, you should introduce these deities to the repudiation of all discriminative constructions concerning enlightenment.

"'Enlightenment is perfectly realized neither by the body nor by the mind. Enlightenment is the eradication of all marks. Enlightenment is free of presumptions concerning all objects. Enlightenment is free of the functioning of all intentional thoughts. Enlightenment is the annihilation of all convictions. Enlightenment is free from all discriminative constructions. Enlightenment is free from all vacillation, mentation, and agitation.

Enlightenment is not involved in any commitments. Enlightenment is the arrival at detachment, through freedom from all habitual attitudes. The ground of enlightenment is the ultimate realm. Enlightenment is realization of reality. Enlightenment abides at the limit of reality.

Enlightenment is without duality, since therein are no minds and no things. Enlightenment is equality, since it is equal to infinite space.

"'Enlightenment is unconstructed, because it is neither born nor destroyed, neither abides nor undergoes any transformation. Enlightenment is the complete knowledge of the thoughts, deeds, and inclinations of all living beings. Enlightenment is not a door for the six media of sense. Enlightenment is unadulterated, since it is free of the passions of the instinctually driven succession of lives. Enlightenment is neither somewhere nor nowhere, abiding in no location or dimension. Enlightenment, not being contained in anything, does not stand in reality. Enlightenment is merely a name and even that name is unmoving. Enlightenment, free of abstention and undertaking, is energyless. There is no agitation in enlightenment, as it is utterly pure by nature. Enlightenment is radiance, pure in essence. Enlightenment is without subjectivity and completely without object. Enlightenment, which penetrates the equality of all things, is undifferentiated. Enlightenment, which is not shown by any example, is incomparable. Enlightenment is subtle, since it is extremely difficult to realize. Enlightenment is all-pervasive, as it has the nature of infinite space.

Enlightenment cannot be realized, either physically or mentally. Why? The body is like grass, trees, walls, paths, and hallucinations. And the mind is immaterial, invisible, baseless, and unconscious.'

-http://www.imeditate.com/books_music/vimalakirti/vimalakirti04.html

Iktomi

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

Psychological simply means affecting or arising in the mind, and awakening is a mental event affecting or arising in the mind. I suppose one can debate the semantics or even the very existence of it, but the state of mind of awakening is said to be profound and something which essentially continues or endures without fundamental or marked change, as I've already mentioned. It's hard to compare this with normal states of mind since we're not talking about a normal state with conditioned mental objects, but one dealing with the deathless (amata) and unestablished consciousness (vinnanam anidassanam) devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

This is not an issue of semantics and I haven't claimed that this "state," as you refer to it, does not exist. I can see where the trouble is now that you've said more about it however. You say that it's hard to compare with "normal states of mind," because it's "non-attached to any phenomena." Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are necessarily attached to phenomena. What you're talking about is something metaphysical and therefor not a psychological state or event. With metaphysics anything is possible and like God, there's no way to either prove or disprove the existence of such things.

DharmaField

No disagreement with vimalakirti mythical dialogue, all we need to is get out of way and reality comes forth.

Jason

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

Psychological simply means affecting or arising in the mind, and awakening is a mental event affecting or arising in the mind. I suppose one can debate the semantics or even the very existence of it, but the state of mind of awakening is said to be profound and something which essentially continues or endures without fundamental or marked change, as I've already mentioned. It's hard to compare this with normal states of mind since we're not talking about a normal state with conditioned mental objects, but one dealing with the deathless (amata) and unestablished consciousness (vinnanam anidassanam) devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

This is not an issue of semantics and I haven't claimed that this "state," as you refer to it, does not exist. I can see where the trouble is now that you've said more about it however. You say that it's hard to compare with "normal states of mind," because it's "non-attached to any phenomena." Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are necessarily attached to phenomena. What you're talking about is something metaphysical and therefor not a psychological state or event. With metaphysics anything is possible and like God, there's no way to either prove or disprove the existence of such things.

I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous, particularly with the complete absence of upadana, which is a key part of awakening. I think Bhikkhu Nanananda sums it up well in "Nibbana Sermon 07":

Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.

We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness.[ix] A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.

But feel free to argue with that, too.

misecmisc1

my view: Enlightenment or Nirvana cannot be explained or expressed in words totally. it can only be experienced on Self-realization.

if i compare it with what Yoga in Hinduism states, then i think Nirvana is 4th state (Turiya). Yoga states there is conscious mind which is active when we are awake, active unconscious mind which is active when we are dreaming, latent unconscious mind where all the Samskaras(habitual patterns of past lives or present life) are stored and 4th state Turiya which is put as a question mark, which is realized on Self-realization.

Since this 4th state preceeds mind, so it cannot be understood by sense organs which are driven through our mind.

The above are totally my views, which can be totally wrong too.

Iktomi

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

Psychological simply means affecting or arising in the mind, and awakening is a mental event affecting or arising in the mind. I suppose one can debate the semantics or even the very existence of it, but the state of mind of awakening is said to be profound and something which essentially continues or endures without fundamental or marked change, as I've already mentioned. It's hard to compare this with normal states of mind since we're not talking about a normal state with conditioned mental objects, but one dealing with the deathless (amata) and unestablished consciousness (vinnanam anidassanam) devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

This is not an issue of semantics and I haven't claimed that this "state," as you refer to it, does not exist. I can see where the trouble is now that you've said more about it however. You say that it's hard to compare with "normal states of mind," because it's "non-attached to any phenomena." Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are necessarily attached to phenomena. What you're talking about is something metaphysical and therefor not a psychological state or event. With metaphysics anything is possible and like God, there's no way to either prove or disprove the existence of such things.

I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous, particularly with the complete absence of upadana, which is a key part of awakening. I think Bhikkhu Nanananda sums it up well in "Nibbana Sermon 07":

Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.

We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness.[ix] A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.

But feel free to argue with that, too.

There's nothing to argue with. You haven't presented an argument against what I've previously posted.

mind7

Enlightenment isn't a meditative state; it's a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. As @patbb said, it's a self-realization that's permanent.

Psychological events are not permanent, even profound ones.

I think after one becomes enlightened, he will always be enlightened. He can still cloud his mind, but he will always know the truth

Jason

Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are not phenomena that continue or endure without fundamental or marked change. That is simply a fact.

Psychological simply means affecting or arising in the mind, and awakening is a mental event affecting or arising in the mind. I suppose one can debate the semantics or even the very existence of it, but the state of mind of awakening is said to be profound and something which essentially continues or endures without fundamental or marked change, as I've already mentioned. It's hard to compare this with normal states of mind since we're not talking about a normal state with conditioned mental objects, but one dealing with the deathless (amata) and unestablished consciousness (vinnanam anidassanam) devoid of defilements and non-attached to any phenomena whatsoever, or as Dogen says in the Genjokoan, "No trace of realization remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly."

This is not an issue of semantics and I haven't claimed that this "state," as you refer to it, does not exist. I can see where the trouble is now that you've said more about it however. You say that it's hard to compare with "normal states of mind," because it's "non-attached to any phenomena." Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are necessarily attached to phenomena. What you're talking about is something metaphysical and therefor not a psychological state or event. With metaphysics anything is possible and like God, there's no way to either prove or disprove the existence of such things.

I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous, particularly with the complete absence of upadana, which is a key part of awakening. I think Bhikkhu Nanananda sums it up well in "Nibbana Sermon 07":

Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.

We have already mentioned in previous sermons about the established consciousness and the unestablished consciousness.[ix] A non-arahant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established consciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or entanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of penetration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to unravel the meaning of the expression anidassana viññāṇa.

But feel free to argue with that, too.

There's nothing to argue with. You haven't presented an argument against what I've previously posted.

You sure have a funny way of not arguing considering that the majority of your responses seem to consist of disregarding everything I say, as well as all the references I provide, while simultaneously not agreeing with anything I say and labelling it all metaphysical. For example, you said, "Psychological events and the way the mind relates to experience are necessarily attached to phenomena," to which I responded with, "I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous, particularly with the complete absence of upadana, which is a key part of awakening." I even included something I thought explained what I meant relatively well. I don't see anything inherently metaphysical about that, only a distinction between how the mind relates to phenomena with and without the presence of clinging (particularly the latter). If you disagree with that, then by all means, help me understand your point of view of awakening and its affect on the way the mind relates to experience. I'm sincerely interested in hearing your opinion.

Iktomi

I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous...

Alright let's look at this. The terms 'interaction' and 'attach' are not synonymous, that's true. However the fundamental characteristic these terms have in common is connection. In order for things to interact they must somehow connect, right? Obviously things that are attached have a connection. Are we clear so far?

Jeffrey

@Iktomi, in buddhism attachment means you get angry when things change. Whereas interaction might be in a poised spacious mindset that adjusts to changes. Basically buddhists practice because they don't like change.

mind7

I don't see interacting with and being attach to as synonymous...

Alright let's look at this. The terms 'interaction' and 'attach' are not synonymous, that's true. However the fundamental characteristic these terms have in common is connection. In order for things to interact they must somehow connect, right? Obviously things that are attached have a connection. Are we clear so far?

You don't have to be attached to something to interact though. I would say that being attached to something is the desire to prevent change in that object. Non-attachment would be being at peace with change

driedleaf

Attachment would mean not being able to discard it. Interacting can involve discarding it, putting it aside, or just letting it be.

person

You don't have to be attached to something to interact though. I would say that being attached to something is the desire to prevent change in that object. Non-attachment would be being at peace with change

I'd agree with this take as well. Attached has a harder feel to it, a permanent connection, like a barnacle on a ships hull. Interact sounds more like a hand pushing a door open. In both there is a connection, but there is a distinction.

Iktomi

@Iktomi, in buddhism attachment means you get angry when things change. Whereas interaction might be in a poised spacious mindset that adjusts to changes. Basically buddhists practice because they don't like change.

Point is that even in the "spacious" mind state there is interaction and connection. Metaphysical things don't need to be connected or interactive. They can be any way that anyone wishes them to be and there's no way to prove or deny them, because there's no way to interact or connect with them.