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.
enlightenment
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
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?
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?
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA#p/u/24/3i7gbPgxp3M
metta
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.
________________________
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.
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.
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.
Practice and you will see for yourself. Be discerning and willing to try, then the path speaks for itself.
Enlightenment is finding peace without anything more than what you already are.
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! If it's not your body, then why would it matter if it's panicking or not?
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.
2) The cause of suffering.
3) The cessation of suffering.
4) The way leading to the cessation of suffering.
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!
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
Pure experience, no experiencer or effluents, is Nirvana. I think.
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?
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
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"
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.
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.
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 ......
@upekka
but vitakka and vicara are positive attributes!
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