Question of the Week: What is Enlightenment?
I’ve been reading your site for a short time now, and I’ve got a question. I havn’t yet found anywhere on this site any real description of what enlightenment is. So, what is enlightenment? What the hell is this thing everyone seems to be looking for?
The words and phrasing of what it may or may not be are really irrelevant. However, I do realize people need to have mental constructs. It makes them feel they can really ‘deal’ with something if they can first know it. Then, based on what is known, they can make some move toward it in order to own it. But this probably doesn’t help with your question.
Irrelevancy aside, let’s see if we can come up with an answer in ten words or less, just to keep it simple
Enlightenment is limitless expansion within a limited field.
The limited field is this physical world we all live within. And the limitless expansion…well, I will leave that for you to see on your own.
{ 57 comments }
And please, feel free to replace any ‘offensive words’ with those of your liking. Good luck to you!
BRAVO!!
Takuin, you may have just earned your place in history. If one needs a definition of enlightenment, well, you’ve give a perfect one.
Namaste.
Thank you very much, Tom.
I wondered if the words I’d used would travel well…it is good to know they have survived their trip so far.
Wonderful definition, if there has to be one.
From Ramesh Balsekar:”Enlightenment is total emptiness of mind. There is nothing you can do to get it. Any effort you make can only be an obstruction to it.”
From Ramana: “Mind is consciousness which has put on limitations. You are originally unlimited and perfect. Later you take on limitations and become the mind.”
The Buddha said it is the end of suffering.
While we think we are limited, is it possible to realize we are unlimited without having some sort of mental construct?
Those are great, Kaushik.
Here is one from George Carlin. It is not entirely on the same subject, but if you replace a few of the words, it fits nicely:
I think that being a student doesn’t give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster. In fact, if your parents are footing the bill to put your pansy ass through 4-7 years of college, you haven’t begun to be enlightened.
I think enligtenment is the realization that you were never born or will ever die and that you are eternity it-self. But hey, takes a few lifetimes for people to achive this from what I’ve read. What do you think?
Thank you very much, Mits.
What do I think?
Well, first I need to ask what you mean with the word you in the following sentence:
What is enlightenment? Honestly, I think it doesn’t matter. But if we’re chasing enlightenment, we’ll probably never know. And those who claim they are enlightened probably aren’t. The less concerned we are about “getting there” the closer we probably are.
Thank you very much, Andrea.
Long time no see! I hope you’ve been well…
You’ve said it very well. Many seekers will not entertain these things as you have described them. It might be difficult for them to imagine their effort easily working against them.
Some find their way through the maze, and others jump from teaching to teaching never quite able to make it out…
…seemingly.
No offensive here, Takuin. You have captured it in a nutshell, masterfully. The nutshell of course being the limited part, hard part
Thank you very much, Davidya.
I had all sorts of fancy ideas about what enlightenment really is. My last hang up was with the idea that I am awareness itself. It felt like truth, but it was still an identity that I was holding on to.
My final liberation came through when I realized that all ideas and concepts of consciousness were just new identities that my “me” had taken over. From being a “body” me, I had converted to a “awareness” me. This intuition was so strong, that the mind simply stopped “efforting” and in that moment the idea of “me” just dropped away. What was left was a center-less presence, and the mind was finally liberated and at ease.
A simpler definition of enlightenment would be, finding our “true” nature. Finding out who we really are. Not as an imagination but as a real experience. We are the “nothingness”, that’s our nature and our body. Once this is realized all imaginations and ideas drop away and there is simply the dance of existence. It’s really fun to live after enlightenment.
Hi Senthil
I hope you don’t mind a nugget of feedback. Congratulations, if one can say such a thing. (laughs) But be careful of the new concept that you have found the truth. You have found the truth of who you are. What about everything else?
If you explore Vedanta or Zen, you will find there is something more true.
In that sense Takuin has it better. Not finding a truth. But finding limitless expansion of truth. Then it’s even more fun
Davidya,
I am already experiencing what you are saying. This whole enlightenment thing can get so “mindful”, and yeah it looks like my mind made a new identity out of the “nothingness” experience. It did not take long for the high of this experience to die down.
I understand now what Takuin was expressing. The limitless expansion of truth, which is just continually expanding. There is no end to it, there is no “finding”. Every unfolding is the truth unfolding. The expanse of truth unfolding in the limitedness of human experience.
I realize how easy it is for the mind to hold on to a special experience and label it as the truth. It’s one thing to experience the truth of our being as “not a person” but a space, who’s nature is awareness, and it’s a completely different thing to embody it in the humanness of daily living. In fact, all of this is just concept in the end, an endless pursuit to know something and feeling special.
All thats left is the simplicity of living the ordinariness of every moment. It’s not even about living it, after all who is living it? Phew, it’s so there is no ground to stand on because everything keeps getting stripped away. Any stand you take, the truth simply strips it away. I just find myself becoming more and more comfortable standing in the ground of the unknown. It seems fearful and yet it seems so secure.
Wonderful. And you express that so well. Thank you.
I’ve found that mind continues to try to grok it. But that’s fine as it gives one a way to talk about it in in some way. But then it changes again.
Nowadays, I find I just stand in being. Not a place that’s unknown. Very secure. And the play dances. It’s less unknown and more about becoming known. So I let the becoming happen as it will. What will be a delightful surprise this week? (laughs)
You’ve both said it so very well, I can add nothing to it.
the question was – what is enlightenment? here i give what i feel the simplest answer. just look at the meaning of the word from the etymology. it comes from the verb enlighten which means to light up. that is to say that enlightenment is a stage of lighting up with knowledge and wisdom – away from the darksness of ignorance. as an example the person who asked the question used an expression which is far away from the civilized way of speaking. his intention to know has been overpowered by his severe ignorance of the way civilized man ought to communicate. so in this instance enlightenment would help him to make good use of his ability to express. we must not misuse our capability of expressing ourselves by expressing harmful or offensive things. just imagine the case of a dumb person or somebody who is disabled by hand etc. they want to say the most important things but cannot. so why do you misuse your capability? now the question is – are you enlightened now?
Thank you, Upali Sramon.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by this…could you please go into this a bit further? I would greatly appreciate it.
As for the ask-er of the question, I do not have his email address, so I can’t really ask him to be more clear than he was. But if we are lucky, he might pop in and share his thoughts with the rest of us.
what i mean is that he has not used his words properly. that is a sign of his ignorance. if he is enlightened he would use more polite words. by the way, i came to this site in my search for information on Upagupta. i read the poem in original bengali and liked it very much. i think the original name of the poem is not Upagupta. it is abhisar or abhisarika. any way, i am hoping to do a presentation on this poem in a conference in Sri Lanka. that is why i am searching information about it. i would like to know the name of the translator of this poem so that i can cite it in my presentation. thank you… you may contact me in the following address – revupali@yahoo.com
I found the poem with the help of google search. According to http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/tagore/frutgath.htm, it seems Rabindranath Tagore himself translated his Bengali poems into English.
thank you very much. i did not read the poem in English. actually we do not get the real taste of tagore’s literature from translations, even though by him.
Upali,
Sorry I did not reply so soon. Anjali provided you with a great link to use for your work. I hope it is useful to you.
And thank you, Anjali, for taking care of Takuin.
When there is Clarity about who and what I Truly Am there is a shift from personal separation to impersonal Unity
Hi Richard
You might want to think about it a little more broadly.
We could say there is a shift from personal separation to impersonal being. Some might experience that as an internal unity but what is meant by “unity” in Zen and Vedanta is much deeper than that. A further evolution of the impersonal internal being right out into the world. An all inclusive personal and impersonal, subject and object, inner and outer unity that progressively draws everything together in one wholeness. A much greater wholeness than what some call Self realization.
I mention this because if one doesn’t realize it’s there, it may be missed.
What you are describing is mysticism, not enlightenment.
Limitless expansion is still within the realm of consciousness – as there is ‘expansion.’ In other words, there is still a sense of ‘oneness’ that overrides the ‘nothingness’ – the both have not canceled out. In your description of enlightenment, an evolution is still taking place… yet this is the common misunderstanding of enlightenment that mystics make… regularly referred to the experience of “completeness” and “divinity” that they stop at believing they have ended their journey… this is also perhaps why a good mantra to have when seeking the truth is, “further”… always “further”… until you can go no further…
@Vajra
So expansion is incorrect but further is correct? Or is this just a semantic issue?
I find it interesting that you describe oneness as “overriding ‘nothingness’” but seem to think this is wrong. Vedanta would disagree. Or perhaps we are again having a issue with use of words.
You also suggest people who think they have ended their journey are wrong (correctly) but suggest this contradicts what Takuin suggests. Is that not what expansion means? Continual growth?
Davidya: “further” until you can go no further… I did not express “further” as a equality of enlightenment.
Further becomes an important mantra for a seeker for enlightenment because it is repeatedly spoken about how you can get to immense stages of oneness and clarity where you can mistakenly believe you have reached the final point. You can even get to the “summit” of the mountain and believe it to be enlightenment. Yet there is another stage – to jump off the cliff. For this reason of edging a person not to mistake a point of rest for the final goal, “further” becomes useful – a tool in the process – until no process is needed.
Takuin: Hi.
“Can there ever be an understanding of enlightenment? The post itself reads The words and phrasing of what it may or may not be are really irrelevant. This includes whatever description I might have used.”
Sure. But not to misunderstand this – you are saying to me, “these words I used are merely the finger pointing at the moon, not the moon itself, and thereby can be seen as irrelevant.” Sure. No probs.
I am saying your finger is not even pointing AT the moon with that definition… but pointing at something in the opposite direction. Pointing at a quality of consciousness. Limitless Expansion is a quality of consciousness, and this is very much a common misunderstanding to mistake it for enlightenment.
Or in other words, someone asks you, “What is Enlightenment?” And you tell them how to pray to God in response. (an example)
Thank you,Vajra.
We are coming closer together now…
No, it is not the finger and the moon…if anything you should forget the moon because there is no finger. It is not a matter of having a finger or the existence of the moon…but pointing itself is too much, if that makes sense to you.
I do not know what you mean when you say, ‘quality of consciousness,’ and I am not sure how you are defining the words ‘limitless expansion’. If you could please go into it a bit more perhaps we might meet for the first time…
Hi Takuin,
It is always important to avoid a semantic issue by addressing the common meanings of words – instead of referring to a self-created one. Misunderstandings are created that way. For instance, what do you think people would think you mean by “limitless expansion” in general?
That something is going further and further into infinity.
There is movement…
There is no semantic issue if we understand our words. I just cannot understand what you mean, and I cannot make a guess. You are far too important to be ‘guessed’.
I do not know what anyone would think. But that is one reason for having open comments; people are always willing to tell what they think, especially when it comes to their beliefs.
If someone believes another person’s words to be wrong, they will explain why their words are right. Or at least, they will point out why the speaker (or writer) is wrong.
I always hope to understand the other person….not so i can find the right kind of response to crush them, but because I am more interested in them than I am in ‘me’, if that is the right way to put it. It is easier to come close to a person through their words…
It is like two people walking toward each other on the street, and there may be many obstacles keeping them from reaching one another. But finally, it might happen that they meet up, and then they can walk the street together.
It might be silly to say, but the interaction in the comments, and the whole movement of two people coming closer, it is something quite beautiful.
It does not compare to seeing this unfold in-person, but it does have a beauty of its own…
“No, it is not the finger and the moon…if anything you should forget the moon because there is no finger. It is not a matter of having a finger or the existence of the moon…but pointing itself is too much, if that makes sense to you.”
This is also a pointing… when the words manifest… all they do is point. You see?
Yes, what you are saying about dropping the moon, the finger, the space that encompasses both is advaita.
But advaita itself is a pointing at not pointing.
But if it was pointing at growing, at expanding… it would not be advaita.
Thank you Vajra.
We both have already said this many times…
I know nothing of advaita other than the meaning of the word itself. I do not know what would be, or would not be, advaita.
Thank you, Vajra.
Luckily, I know nothing of mysticism…
They were just words. And words used as pointers are really only relevant in the physical world, which can not touch the thing hinted at in this post.
You said ‘limitless expansion’ is still within the realm of consciousness…I would take that a step further and say, if there is a word being used for anything, it is within the realm of consciousness.
Can there ever be an understanding of enlightenment? The post itself reads The words and phrasing of what it may or may not be are really irrelevant. This includes whatever description I might have used.
The ‘answer’ to the question in the post was just something that came up as the question was asked. It is not a belief nor a creed to live by; just sounds created by chance…
What is Mysticism? – Limitless expansion within a limited field.
What is Enlightenment? – A headless Buddha.
For instance, as another example of what I mean… see here:
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Enlightenment/Ramakrishna_Enlightenment.htm
Vajra,
I forgot to mention, and you might have missed it, but I left the first comment on this post. If you scroll up to the top comment and read it, it might help us as we go through our conversation.
It is something to keep in mind…
Hi, yes I did read it before posting in this thread. I do not find offense with the word choice.
Like the story of the girl kept constantly in her house by the grandfather… never any visitors… never let outside… he teaches her all different kinds of meaning to words… of course… it all makes sense to her… because they begin to converse in this language…
When finally one day the house is unwittingly set on fire… the grandfather is trapped in a room… and the girl runs outside the house for the very first time… screaming out “help, fire!” – or so she thought…
Yet to the people on the streets, it was a strange sight of hearing a girl yell, “diamond hockey!”
And nobody understood.
Your terms refer to mysticism.
I have found that it is important to differentiate between the two for seekers – as it is the easiest mistake to make to think of mysticism and enlightenment as the same thing (even if you don’t know one or the other). Expansion of consciousness is a very mystical experience.
Awareness cannot be expanded or contracted. It just is. It does not evolve.
Consciousness evolves.
Thank you Vajra.
In this sort of writing, words are just words to me. It could have come up in myriad different ways.
It is not my business if you say the words refer to a mystical state, but I will not try to dissuade you in any way. I do not know why you say it is mystical, but if you really believe it is a mystical thing I will not disagree with you. Besides, who am I to try and push you in a different direction? I have no desire to corrupt you.
I asked about your words because I do not even know what mysticism is. I do not know what it points to or whom might like or dislike it. It has no real meaning to me…
You can only say, “Your terms refer to mysticism,” if you already have an idea of what is and is not a mystical term. All I wanted to know was your idea of the two. Not to build it into anything, and not to use it as something new in my repertoire.
My only concern was to understand you.
Misunderstandings don’t usually happen out of a desire to corrupt.
Often it is just an honest mistaking of one experience for another.
In that case, let’s just make this easier –
What did you mean by ‘expansion’?
If I have misunderstood you, explaining this should (hopefully) clear that up.
Why I am saying this is because in attempting to explain what I mean I am bringing up more terms and words that you say you don’t quite get. So, perhaps we should try this the other way around…
What did you mean by ‘expansion’?
Thank you, Vajra.
In the post I said I would not explain it. But I think the truth is closer to, I cannot explain it. Let me tell you how this post came about…it might be helpful here.
I receive a number of questions every week. Some are highly personal, and others are rather general. Usually, I’ll use both kinds for the Question of the Week. I have to tell you, I have received this question more than any other, but I have never responded. To respond to a question like this is to bring more trouble than good.
About one week before this post I was speaking to a friend of mine who is a spiritual teacher, and we were discussing this very matter. He asked what my most frequently asked question was. I told him. He asked what my answer was. I told him I’ve never answered. He asked why not. I answered with words probably similar to what we both have said in the above comments. He agreed. But then he said why not do it anyway and find out what happens. I laughed him off.
On the day of this post I remembered the conversation with my friend. I thought why not. I’ll sit and see whatever might arise. I went to a small park in my neighborhood and sat. I did not have the question in my mind. I just sat. I wasn’t probing, nor was I looking for an answer.
I felt the wind. I heard the leaves moving in the trees. I heard the nearby construction crew. I could smell pollen in the air…it was sensation. It was the functioning of this organism known as Takuin.
Somehow, words arose out of that. They were not intended to be believed or adhered to. It was just something that arose in that particular moment in time. The words written then, are not the exact words written in this post. A writer appeared and did a bit of editing.
Perhaps he should have stayed his red pen?
Questions like ‘What is Enlightenment’ are silly and unnecessary, even though there are people out there more than happy to go on about what it is or what it isn’t for hours and hours. It is good for generating comments, but little else.
Yes, I understand your intent here.
Here is what I am saying to you;
If a man was in a ditch… and did not know he was in a ditch, could he even begin the process of getting out?
If a man was in heaven… and did not know he was in heaven…
If a man was one with all… and did not know he was one with all… could he even begin the process of going “further”?
Each time he could say it is Enlightenment – if he did not know it was heaven, or a ditch, or “oneness”, or mysticism.
To let words come to you by themselves without seeking is also to go with the flow… but those words will only define where you are (even in not defining them).
From what I grokked from your definition, it strikes me as you are speaking of oneness.
It is often said that you cannot define enlightenment, you can only define what it is not. By seeing all that it is not, you then are left with enlightenment – which cannot be put into words.
Your definition is a definition of one thing that enlightenment is not.
Yet, even in oneness, “limitless expansion” is indescribable…
Thank you, Vajra.
And there we have it. That is all we can say about the thing…
That does not require you needing to define enlightenment…
Yet it can be useful for them to realize it is not the same.
Even with your definition, as I was reading through the comments, I found several who mistook what you said for oneness. My intention in posting was to clarify this.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vajra. It is very nice to have you here with us all. I’m sure those subscribed to this post will find your comments valuable.
And thank you for your intention…although….I don’t know the difference between oneness and enlightenment either, haha. I don’t know the differences in the way they are described by others. it really is not so very important anyway…
Thank you.
Not to reopen the discussion, but I find your statements very curious. For example, you offered the link above with the interesting story of how Ramakrishna lost the last barrier and became one.
Yet here and in your first comment you equate oneness with an incomplete state. And so on.
To me, the deeper you step into pure Being/ Tao/ Brahman, the more boundless you become. The experience of that boundlessness thus continuously expands. And refines. We could say always further or there is an experience of limitless expansion within this apparent person.
We might say this is the experience and not the core of what Enlightenment means (and it means so many different things to so many people). Perhaps headless Buddha may more accurately say what it is. And what Takuin says is how it is experienced. It is easier to point to the resulting experience than it is to describe what it is, thus Takuins description holds more meaning.
When I wrote about this, I simplified it to “Enlightenment is limitless expansion”. There is not much more that can be said about it that has meaning.
As you seemed to suggest, the process of enlightenment is not a place you arrive at but rather a continual process, punctuated by occasional larger shifts.
Enlightenment does not rob one’s ability to discern. Oneness often can.
I am not sure what I said that gave the impression that I was referring to Enlightenment as an ever evolving process, because I tried to be very clear in expressing this – the process of “further” is only to make sure you keep going until Enlightenment. After Enlightenment, there is no ‘further’ to go. Further becomes null and void.
There are 84,000 paths to enlightenment, and in that striking abundance there is often the tendency to mistake qualities of the path for qualities of the goal. Oneness with God is a very common example of this; such a oneness involves an experience of limitless expansion. A kind of limitless evolution and discovery. Such a oneness is encompassed in the “flow” of the Universe.
There is no expansion in Enlightenment as Enlightenment is not an experience. All experiences are within the realm of consciousness, including oneness with God.
There is a reason why Advaita is, when one is being specific, not called One… but rather as not-two. Because the “oneness” of Advaita is quite different to the Oneness of “Unified Consciousness.” Infact, you could say they are entirely unrelated. But since oneness as a word is used for both these unrelated aspects, they are commonly thought to be the same. As an example, if someone says “fluid”, it could mean liquid, or it could mean grace of movement… but to take both ‘liquid’ and ‘grace of movement’ to be the “same thing” – that’s the misconception about oneness in a spiritual context.
Being in a state of oneness with Krishna (or Kali) is different to the “oneness” of Enlightenment.
In the former, to be one with Krishna is limitless expansion. One is in eternal Bliss. The Gods are not enlightened. They are not Buddhas, but they are Boddhisatvas, which is why Bakthi Yoga is such a powerful path to Enlightenment – although you have to finally cut off the sacredness, and along with it… cut off the limitless expansion.
In oneness of Enlightenment, “oneness” is the state (or statelessness) of being undifferentiated; of being not-two… you are not ‘actually’ being one at all, but the word is often used figuratively to only describe the dropping of duality. Enlightenment is not a state of bliss. Bliss is an accessory, and not always sought. It is not even a necessary state of being Enlightened. Expansion is not a necessary state of Enlightenment.
Unlike being one with Krishna – which is not a dropping of duality, but an embrace of real “ONENESS.” Collective Consciousness… Unified WHOLE… Limitless expansion… that sort of thing. This kind of oneness is the realization that you are all that exists. In that, you are one! Total! A totality of expansion!
Yet … there is a ‘further’ to that… as even there you must eventually ask, “Who is this “I” that is the totality?” – That is what leads to Enlightenment. After that, there is no ‘further’ to go, as you have reached the answer that cannot be written –
There is nothing to “expand.” You can choose to experience “limitless expansion”, or you very well can choose not to – just like after being enlightened you can choose to leave the world, or teach people. Saying “limitless expansion” is the experience of enlightenment is like saying teaching people is also the experience of enlightenment. Teaching is a role, a quality. Limitless expansion is also an experience, a quality. It is no more accurate to define Enlightenment as limitless expansion as it is to define it as the experience of teaching.
The reason why no “experience” of Enlightenment definition has ever been given is because Enlightenment is not an experience. Why do you think Enlightenment is so difficult to most people? Because it is not an experience, and they are trying to experience it.
I’ll say that differently to make it very clear – In Enlightenment, you can choose to limitlessly expand just as much as you can choose to play hockey, but you can just as much choose NOT to limitlessly expand, and that does not make you any less Enlightened.
I posted the link to that unique story of Ramakrishna because he steps from bliss with God to the other kind of oneness… the oneness where bliss is not a factor, where limitless expansion is not a factor.
This misconception of mistaking accessory as a factor was created because many have spoken of living in “bliss” after Enlightenment.
@Vajra
Thank you for your further elucidation. I see we’re actually closer in viewpoint than I first thought. There is some variation in how words are meant.
While it may be possible there is an end to the process, some final Enlightenment, everyone I know who is at some advanced stage sees the process as continual. This is because the degree of refinement vs the limits of a persons time here get in the way of any form of growth “ending”. For example, in the scale of 16 Kalas, humans rarely even get half way up. Even avatars rarely reach the highest reflection of Godhead. In that sense there is a great deal of upward growth possible.
I do however agree that there is a final “awakening” if we could call it that. But I disagree we should consider it a goal or the end of anything.
I agree there are many confusions with the path vs the “goal”. Some for example may experience an inner unity with self-realization, then confuse this with the advaita of unity. Your example of oneness with God is another. I tend to refer to this stage as God Realization rather than oneness for that reason. However, I can also observe that the shift of God realization is one of those that is experienced as a never ending refinement, continuing long past full Enlightenment.
I agree that enlightenment is not an experience. It is a being, as is each primary stage towards that, as mentioned above. God Realization for example is not a discovery of God, it is the becoming, the oneness with same. However, there is no way to describe Enlightenment (a word I actually avoid) except by its qualities or symptoms.
I would disagree that gods are Boddhisatvas. Boddhisatvas are a stage of human development. I uses gods to describe embodied aspects or qualities of God. These don’t evolve in that sense. Other types of beings also evolve in distinct ways from humans. But we may be getting into semantics again.
I agree that a relationship with God is dualistic. In Vedanta they talk of Leshia Avidya, the remains of ignorance, where a small duality is retained after enlightenment to maintain a relationship with God or guru.
I also disagree about bliss. When bliss becomes contained, along with all experience, within That, it is no longer separate from That. Then it is our very breath. If bliss is not there, the Enlightenment is not yet complete. In fact, it is inherently part of satchitananda. the pinnacle of self realization, before one may even approach Godhead. If it is not experienced in an ongoing way, there is further refinement to come.
As for totality, is there further than that? Paradoxically, yes. The Rig Veda’s 10 mandalas I’ve heard described as the 10 stages of Unity, after “true oneness”. I’ve also heard description of the 10 totalities. I go on about this mainly because every time I’ve had the slightest impression I’ve reached some sort of ultimate, this has been incorrect. I no longer set an upper limit. Others have come to the same conclusion, that there is always a further.
“I like happiness as much as the next guy, but it’s not happiness that sends one in search of truth. It’s rabid, feverish, clawing madness to stop being a lie, regardless of price, come heaven or hell. This isn’t about higher consciousness or self-discovery or heaven on earth. This is about blood-caked swords and Buddha’s rotting head and self-immolation, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something they don’t have.” – Jed McKenna, Spiritual Enlightenment: The Damnedest Thing, Page: 265.
“I would disagree that gods are Boddhisatvas. Boddhisatvas are a stage of human development.” – What makes you so sure of this? ‘Boddhisatva’ is not merely a reference to the human dilemma.
I am going to be in Tiruannamalai (Ramana Maharishi’s Ashram) until Sunday, I will respond fully to you when I get back.
Yes, happiness is not the driver of awakening, but bliss may be a carrot after it’s been tasted. And a good sign when it’s established. McKenna is a curious example to use. Rather in your face and a perhaps extreme position on the subject. I prefer to speak with others I know who have tred the path.
On Boddhisatvas, I could be wrong. But this meaning is what has been explained to me by Buddhists and related web sites. And it’s clear to me that each being-type has their own type of journey, their own dharma. I did not describe it as part of a dilemma, just as a point of human evolution. Not yet avatar, but beyond sage. Something like that.
As for “further” you said “the process of “further” is only to make sure you keep going until Enlightenment. After Enlightenment, there is no ‘further’ to go. Further becomes null and void.” This suggests Enlightenment is a goal that can be reached. But from what Ive seen in myself and dozens of others, as that “goal” is approached, we discover that we are again back in Kindergarten, just beginning another new leg of the journey. Enlightenment was just a concept that is never met. There is always further, hence “limitless expansion” Takuin described.
Davidya, hi,
Is it really a position? Ramana Maharishi speaks of it in a very simple, soft, direct approach – he wrote merely a pamphlet and 40 verses… the rest is accounts of dialogues with Ramana. His entire focus is on self-enquiry. Osho speaks of it as integration, his manner is often controversial, his way of explanation is sometimes brilliant and lucid. Two examples, yet these are easily accessible to the world. But essentially they are both speaking about the same thing – and there are other ways of speaking about it… the way McKenna did is as a sword coming down on common misconceptions. Quite similar to Hakuin in a few regards – Hakuin also had a focus on dispelling the grand illusion that had caught the Zen community during his time – he was ruthless in cutting to the truth of the issue. Was it ‘extreme’? Only relatively, and in that it becomes a mute point on HOW it is said. Rather, WHAT are they saying – that’s what’s important.
My spiritual journey lead me on the Tantric path which is equally ruthless, if not more, a path of chopped heads and rotting corpses (perhaps it does not make sense to you because you PREFER the gentle approach – and that’s fine – but make not mistake, that is merely your preference. You cannot pass judgment over a path simply because you prefer it otherwise. I understand that the soft way of “coaxing” suits a world full of egos, those are the kind of spiritual paths that become very popular. However, in those cases, the truths often become misrepresented. What McKenna did was simply to say the apple and the orange may seem to be joined at the hip, but the apple is still an apple and the orange still an orange. Nothing extreme about that. Unless you want to also think of Aghori’s who eat their Guru’s flesh upon his demise also extreme – yet that is not even an opinion, it would be an uneducated bias created from personal sentiments. It is frightening, yes! Kali’s blood-soaked mouth is also terrifying – but there is a deeper meaning there – as to why it is so ‘in-your-face.’ It takes a little discovery.
From my understanding, every sentient that exists is a Boddhisatva (also an outlook of the Tantric path). But that has come through several years to seeing what Boddhisatva actually means and to explain that would take a bit of time (neither is it so important to clarify), so I’ll leave it at that. No probs, you see it as what popular Buddhism has told you, and you see the importance of living as a Boddhisatva, and that’s what is important.
So, finally… now why would you assume that “further becomes null and void” means Enlightenment is a goal? Not necessarily. It means that these ideas of “further” and “journey” are within the realm of seekers of Enlightenment – these are mindsets. Of going from point A to point B.
Not once did I say that you stop learning altogether after Enlightenment! Learning is forever! But further is the wrong word here – the very idea of “further” does not exist after Enlightenment as you are everything and nothing. Even the MANNER in which you learn (after Enlightenment) becomes something that is INCONCEIVABLE to people on this side of the river.
I take it you have heard of the analogy of a group of villagers on one side of the river who have never been to the other side… and try to imagine what the other side is like. One day a visitor comes from the other side and they ask him to describe what the other side is like. He replies, “it is so different to your side that they only way you can understand is if you go there yourself.” His descriptions would have been only PLACE-MARKS but otherwise, “null and void” when you get to the other side.
Hi Vajra
One of the things that’s really important to understand about all teachers and stories. They are all human and each of us is coming to this in our own way. People will speak of awakening as they see it. This may be based on their own experience or a blend of this and the tradition they are from. It is always a position or viewpoint or perspective.
When we read or hear a story or teaching, it’s good to put the teaching/er in that context. Where are they speaking from? We may only have a general idea, but it’s worth doing. This can help avoid the idea that this set of teachings is true and that set is false. Or I believe this or that and not the other. Or this one is more dramatic and that one gentle. None of this has anything to do with the teaching. 2 people on the same path will experience it very differently, perhaps one as gentle, another as dramatic.
As your own spiritual journey unfolds, many will need to tap into different teachings to understand different parts of the journey. One teacher will not speak about something we’re experiencing. But another teacher covers that, and so forth.
The only real truth is our own truth and even that is subject to change.
I appreciate there are some teachers who say “this is it”, there is an end to further. And some believe this. But I found that wasn’t the end of it and every time I thought I’d arrived, I was mistaken. There are other teachers I’ve found value from who indicate that as humans, the potential is far beyond what we can reach in a lifetime. I’ve already mentioned the Kalas, for example. There are many models, some more inclusive than others.
From what I’ve seen, Tantra, Zen and Vedanta are 3 traditions that are more inclusive of higher states of being than many others. I have tapped into aspects of each of them at different parts of my journey and know followers of each. I don’t discount the value of any teaching unless it is misleading. I simply try to put it in context.
Yes, I know the story and know what it means. Similarly, I’ve also found that most people who use the word “enlightenment” these days don’t know what it is. They have a grand concept of it. But when the discover what it is, they realize the concept had nothing to do with the experience of it. It wasn’t even a good pointer. But it may have helped us look in the right direction at least.
There does not seem to be a meeting of minds here , like I had with Takuin. I’m not sure what more I can add to this discussion as we seem to be repeating ourselves.
ps – keep your hair long. Then when you loose your head, you’ll have something to hold on to it with.
Meeting of minds happen through grokking the person you are speaking with. We may find others every now and then who seem to be on the “same wavelength”, but even more crucial than that is developing the ability to listen… to grok those who seem to be of different streams to us. It creates a sense of openness towards understandings those who can otherwise be quite “alien” to us.
For instance, from the very first words I wrote in this thread, you have been coming back to me with several assumptions about what you think I am saying, the kind of assumptions that I practice not making when I am communicating. To do that, one must “feel” the words being said, rather than studying them intellectually or cerebrally. When you grok the words, you wouldn’t be making as many assumptions.
For a deeper understanding of grokking refer to Robert Heinlein’s “Stranger In a Strange land.”
Cheers.
Oh, and one more thing – what exactly do you think I mean by this – “After Enlightenment, there is no ‘further’ to go. Further becomes null and void.”?
Only fools believe that after enlightenment there is no further,Vajra….first of all,nice to see you again,my good man…kisses
Second …realizing your true nature means realizing the eternal witness in you…this don’t means that the witness was separated before…it was just not aware thru you.
The bliss factor is only a resonance factor.
The peace factor is a knowing factor.
The transformation factor after enlightenment is very difficult because the interdependence of the elements.,and that includes consciousness.
Not only your consciousness..but the others too…family/country/nations/earth..billions of them…see what I mean?..
And THAT is the challenge after ….for you must decide to just be a flake on the realm of life(even knowing it)..like the advainta versions of Ramana(where you sit in meditation all day,and say nothing..or not use your powers because,,there is only this..everything is all,,) or choose the manifestation version (since you KNOW the consciousness shapes the reality)
In other words,you act as unity not from separation…I repeat..
You act as unity not from separation…ponder my mahayogi words,my friend.
Be aware Vajra..that awareness can’t know itself unless it manifested as consciousness.
And you can’t achieve full enlightenment unless you manifest it back to the eye watching you,in the consciousness realm,or body realm,etc..
It IS GOD KNOWING itself…Vajra..my good man.
Kisses to you..and be well… I explained everything here..
http://kriptodanny.blogspot.com/2010/06/marvelousare-you-ok-yesi-am-darwin.html
“Your natural state has no relationship whatsoever with the religious state of bliss, beatitude and ecstasy; they lie within the field of experience. Those who have led man on his search for religiousness throughout the centuries have perhaps experienced those religious states. So can you. They are thought-induced states of being, and as they come, so do they go. Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the wrong direction, they are all within the field of time. The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man. That beaten track will lead you nowhere. There is no oasis yonder; you are stuck with the mirage.” – U.G.Krishnamurti.
{ 3 trackbacks }
Comments on this entry are closed.