Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
an enlightenment question
chanratt
Veteran
when reading old zen stories about enlightenment the common theme seems to be such and such asked such and such what is the nature of such and such. the reply could be something like 'i have nothing more to say', and at that moment, such and such was enlightened. Now, what i think this means is that awakening comes in a flash of light, in an instant, in a profound moment of realization.
my real question is, is enlightenment a gradual process or does everything click into place all at once? what does enlightenment feel like? where could hear some real lfe experiences on this? im just curious
my real question is, is enlightenment a gradual process or does everything click into place all at once? what does enlightenment feel like? where could hear some real lfe experiences on this? im just curious
0
Comments
This stream-entry is the most important 'event' because at that point what was held as faith/belief becomes conviction; becomes known to the mind. One can pursue full enlightenment, or choose to spend their time helping others without regard to themselves (or both). In any case, this awakening generally leads to positivity and an embracing of life as it 'is' instead of how we would have it be.
Namaste
Well, this is the age old gradual v. sudden debate within Zen. The way I see it is that the Gradual school focuses on step by step attainments building upwards to enlightenment. They also seem to emphasize the fact that it is rare to achieve enlightenment in one lifetime, and so the emphasis is for smaller attainment. The Sudden school basically says that through singular, sustained focus, one can make the full break-through into realization in an instant.
Now, I personally don't really see such a dichotomy. My view of the "and then he was enlightened" stories is that, while the realizations are instantaneous, they often came after years and years of intense practice. Some of the monks in the stories are said to have practiced 10 to 30 or even more years before their 'sudden' enlightenment. I've also heard the idea that if one takes rebirth into account, those who achieve full enlightenment in this lifetime have practiced for countless previous incarnations. So, my thoughts are that these are not mutually exclusive 'beliefs' as much as different emphases or approaches.
I don't put stock in figuring out enlightenment. You sits on ya' cushion and you takes ya' time. :cool:
There are these two extremes that can happen in Zen and Theravadin Sanghas. On the Zen side there can be an attitude of radical non-dualism that is so radical all conventional progress is denied, no matter how unevolved the practice of the denier. This can lead to people confusing egoic license with liberation. It happens all the time. "I'm a jerk, and its perfect". Most students have a more balanced approach. On the other hand there can be in Theravada the opposite extreme that denies the immediacy of practice. This can lead to an attitude of seeing "all of us" (it will always include you to) are unenlightened, but one day, just maybe one day, we will be. Someone in another thread mentioned that there was a time of waning practice and a belief that we lived in a "degenerate time" among some Theravadins. That attitude lingers in subtle ways for some.
Talking to people in both Sanghas can feel like dealing with two silos at times, with each one collapsing the other into its own way of understanding. This is changing though.
For a moment let's consider that perhaps the schism between the schools is not the work of the unenlightened mind (of 'average' or non-'Ariya' monks) but of those who had become unbound by all fetters.
Given these considerations, it could be said that the conflict and apparent difference between the traditions/schools is no difference at all; that the Arahant would make no distinction between these (as valid ways of transmitting the Dharma) as they are in fact all correct.
Food for thought. Through the sense-doors may the conditions arise for new trends (directions) of mind that will lead to understanding.
Namaste
Even if you have the blissful sensation or feeling of vast and open spaciousness; even if you experience a non-conceptual and objectless state; even if you may experience the mirror like clarity, all these experiences are not Realization. There is no ‘eureka’, no ‘aha’, no moment of immediate and intuitive illumination that you understood something undeniable and unshakable -- a conviction so powerful that no one, not even Buddha can sway you from this realization because the practitioner so clearly sees the truth of it. That 'eureka', that intuitive illumination is Realization.
But there is a gradual process of deepening insight. This process has been described in Zen maps of enlightenment such as the 5 Ranks of Tozan, the 10 Oxherding Pictures, and so on.
Are you also saying that the habit energy of greed hatred and delusion is spontaneously unbound once and for all? I have not met a single person, teacher or student for whom that is true.
The issue here may be the definition of "Satori" or "Sudden Enlightenment" The approach taught in Son is "Sudden Enlightenment/gradual Cultivation" There is the initial awakening that resolves all existential doubt, but does not resolve habit energy, and so there is ongoing practice.
I think, from my personal experience, that enlightenment is a gradual process.
When I was fumbling around in the dark with my first views of The Four Noble Truths I think even then I was more enlightened than the time before that.
Now when I see, for example, how dukka arises dependant upon ignorance in the Second Noble truth I feel more enlightened than I was. I think the same for all of the common realisations we as Buddhist have: realising the value of practising metta, understanding the aggregate mind, those moments of clarity and mindfulness about emptiness and impermanence. All of these little things shed light upon the darkness and thus, by definition, are enlightening.
But I don't think this fully answers your question because its clear from the texts that enlightenment is ephphanic (and often very short to achieve in time), that the biggest realisation comes at the end. I can't possibly comment on that other than it does make sense to me; realising you are fully enlightened would probably be the biggest moment of any on the path...
I will let you know when I get there, which is at least twelve lifetimes hence as there is still beer to drink and things to think;)
namaste
When you solve a problem, does the answer come all at once or over time? It can happen both ways. There are many levels or stages of enlightenment, so the whole process takes a long time, traditionally three to thirty seven kalpas (eons).
No, it's a lower / earlier level of understanding. Stream entry is a very high level of realization, despite the name.
I think it depends. Some of the stories in Zen koans are involving monks who achieved a very high state of realization, likely that of stream winner or perhaps more in some instances. Also, I'm sure many instant-awakenings occur that do not constitute stream-winning.
He said that enlightenment is in stages.
Yet there are Buddhist stories where someone gains enlightenment immediately. I would suppose these are exceptional instances.
I do not understand this line of thinking in relation to Buddhist belief of rebirth... If enlightenment is to happen it is going to happen within that individuals lifetime. Who is to say it was achieved over one life time or a thousand?