Enlightenment? July 8, 2009
Posted by Allison Steinberg in : General , trackbackHow do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it? Who is qualified to serve as judge to gauge whether someone is, in fact, enlightened when clearly those left to label someone as such are most likely not, themselves, enlightened? If it’s also true that one who claims to be enlightened is most certainly not so, how does one know when someone becomes enlightened? Stephen Bodian explores this with Adyashanti in “The Taboo of Enlightenment” in the Fall 2004 issue of Tricycle. Would love to hear what folks think about this.
Comments»
the taboo of enlightenment has contributed to making the Models of Enlightenment to be the mess they are right now. see: http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2009/01/daniel-ingram-models-of-stages-of.html
i prefer teachers who are not afraid to use the “E” word. i like Adyashanti for being a straight talker when it comes to enlightenment (or awakening). however, his expression of “enlightenment” is just one instance of its multi-faceted nature. there are other expressions out there. and i prefer those expressions that elucidate both the pragmatic/scientific as well as the transcendent nature of awakening.
my two cents.
~C
~http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptkH0uK1uXM
P.S. a better question for me is: what’s the point of enlightenment?
My in-depth response here: http://bit.ly/1xcLeu
[...] questions, with my responses following, were recently posed on the Tricycle blog: How do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it? Who is qualified [...]
I have to admit that being enlightened used to mean something. The mental state I was in was so painful I thought I just had to have some of that. Now, after all these years of study I have realized that enlightenment is nothing more than a state of mind or understanding. Children, for example, are enlightened as is anyone one that has realized that patience is the answer to most problems. You don’t have to be a monk in a cave. In fact I believe that the only way to know if you are enlightened is if you are an active part of society. You don’t have to know you are more than your physical body or who you really to be enlightened. If you do, great. But it’s not a requirement. Animals don’t know what enlightenment yet they trust themselves far more than the modern man or woman does, even the so-called enlightened. And I bet they aren’t worried achieving the state of enlightenment either. I carry water. I carry wood. That is my magic. It’s that simple. Being enlightened is over rated, just like being the greatest basketball player or athlete is over rated. It doesn’t mean anything, in the end. If you have found a way to stop the pain, if you have found a way to make sense of this craziness, if you have found a way to be happy in spite of it all, then you have made it. The rest of it is just details.
I appreciate Vince Horn’s comments regarding the need to demystify enlightenment. I’d like to make a minor point here. While I think it is true that we often project ‘weird shit’ onto those we regard as enlightened teachers–a longtime Buddhist practitioner once said to me, with a straight face, ‘Tibetans aren’t like us. They can fly’–I do believe the saying, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’ carries some validity.
Among The Three Trainings taught by the Buddha, morality is just as important as wisdom and concentration. I’ve grown tired of people saying that supposedly enlightened teachers who commit unspeakable acts–who harm others in ways that might shock an average person plucked off the street–have mere ’shadow issues.’ This has started to seem like a somewhat dangerous euphemism to me, valuable and true as the shadow concept is.
In other words, when looking for signs of an enlightened being, we should not demand an Unerring Goody Two Shoes who never gets angry, always wears a kindly smile, etc. But when it becomes clear that the individual in question routinely indulges in behavior that causes harm to others, I do believe that this should give us pause about that person’s level of realization.
Enlightened beings actually should have enough self-mastery that people associate them largely with wholesome states and behaviors, basic goodness and sanity. The strength and goodness of HH The Dalai Lama comes to mind here.
Dear Joel,
I really appreciate your comment and the points you bring up. I thought it would be helpful to respond, so that I could clarify some of my thinking around this topic…
Firstly, I totally agree that morality is an important part of the traditional Buddhist path also. Really, it’s an important part of living a good and healthy life. That said, when I use the word “enlightenment,” I specifically mean the realization that comes through training in insight. And so one can train in insight, attain realization, and then still be a jackass if they haven’t done much in the trainings in morality. And likewise, one can train in morality all day long, everyday, become a saint of sorts, and still not be awake in terms of insight. I tend to think there was both a reason that the Buddha separated these trainings (as becomes obvious when we see the huge disparity between the different trainings in certain people’s practices) and also a good reason he saw them as inter-connecting and mutually supportive. Mastery, or even small gains, in any of the trainings can be used as a support for mastery in the other trainings, but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
This brings us to another meaning of enlightenment, which is actually Buddhahood, in which we see enlightenment as the perfection of the 10 paramis (or 6 paramitas), which include qualities from all three trainings. I think when people think of “enlightenment” they are often thinking of the ideal of Buddhahood. But I’ll be honest, I don’t think the Buddha was a Buddha. Who can “perfect” a quality of being (let alone 10), and what does that even mean? “I’ve perfected patience”. Does that mean the quality of patience has an endpoint? And what can have an endpoint in the relative world? If that’s the case, I’d have to say this smells a bit of mythic dogma. If instead, the teachings on the perfections (whether there are 6 or 10) is pointing to ideals which we can cultivate, approach, and otherwise work toward, but which we acknowledge don’t have an endpoint per say, then I’m all for it. But when we recognize there isn’t an endpoint to patience, generosity, concentration, etc. then we’re also recognizing this type of enlightenment isn’t possible in the relative world. From this vantage, the 1st definition of enlightenment (certain significant milestones in the training in insight) becomes a much more useful working definition.
So, I’d say that enlightened beings realization should not be judged by their behavior, as insight training can really be done largely independent of the training in morality. That said, as Buddhist practitioners, the ideal, as you say, really is to combine the three trainings as best we can, so that we can live an awake, still, and ethical life. That though, is probably an endless process, and so I think we should give ourselves some credit where it’s due, and also be patient with ourselves as best we can.
Hi Vince.
Thanks for the clarification, and you’re right–what I had in mind was probably something more along the lines of Buddhahood, though I do hope that I’ve seen through some of the more unrealistic, unfair and on some level even aggressive expectations that we can have for teachers.
This statement is particularly pithy and helpful:
“…when I use the word ‘enlightenment,’ I specifically mean the realization that comes through training in insight. And so one can train in insight, attain realization, and then still be a jackass if they haven’t done much in the trainings in morality. And likewise, one can train in morality all day long, everyday, become a saint of sorts, and still not be awake in terms of insight.”
Maybe some of the trouble that arises with teachers, their behavior and students’ expectations has to do with all parties involved failing to make clear enough distinctions between the Three Trainings.
Certain teachers seem to be more than comfortable opining on a wide range of morality-related topics. Their willingness to do so strongly implies that their own moral development is superior–in short, that they do indeed walk the talk on morality. Disappointment and confusion inevitably result when one finds that the teacher, though a meditation master, isn’t an exemplary human being after all, from the standpoint of basic, decent behavior.
Still, if I’m looking to find a Teacher, rather than a teacher, I’m going to want that morality piece to be there. And one can see the importance of this in the Tibetan injunction, as discussed recently on your show, to spend something like five years closely scrutinizing a Teacher before entering into any kind of classical, weighty relationship with that person.
I do think that jackass-type behavior, which I would associate with things like arrogance, inconsideration for others, meanness, heedlessness and so on, generally stems from dissatisfaction in the person. And so it’s a koan for me–how can meditation masters behave poorly, after all of those hours looking into the nature of reality, no-self and so on?
Anyway, thanks again!
Joel
i generally agree with my friend, Vince on his above post. as Daniel Ingram would say, insight and morality (though interdependent) have different gold standards.
having said that, i’d make some refinements on what Vince had mentioned:
“So, I’d say that enlightened beings realization should not be judged by their behavior, as insight training can really be done largely independent of the training in morality.”
since cultivation of concentration, insight, and ethics are not mutually exclusive, they all influence each other in a non-linear fashion (e.g. concentration leads to insight which then leads to ethical behaviour which then leads to better concentration which then leads to deeper insights… etc.) since behavior is one manifestation of ones ethics, therefore insight also affects behavior. based on this we can infer that behavior is necessary but not sufficient to examine ones level of awakening.
however, in the ultimate sense (at least according to numerous literature and people who’ve been there and done that), we really can’t know with certainty who or what is enlightenment until we get a taste of it ourselves and come to the realization that there’s no distinction between enlightenment and non-enlightenment, because there’s no self that gets enlightened in the first place.
bottom line: the dualistic nature of language gets in the way. we can only know reality as it is once we come to a “place” beyond (or before) distinction between subject/object, mind/body. this can come about through practice and/or by serendipity. so lets choose our paths wisely
my two cents.
~C
Enlightenment is a word.
Seriously.
An individuals enlightenment can never be ascertained by one who has not tasted “it”. However, an enlightened individual can ascertain whether or not another is awake or enlightened. It is simple.
The core issue is that becoming free of our “thinking self’ is just so damned hard. We are truly entranced by it. Whatever our Karma is, it will still continue to function. All one can do is to continue to turn away from negative patterns while being attentive to them on the spot. By being “attentive to them on the spot”, we get a chance to see ourselves in that light “just as it is”, but only if we are awakened.
Personally, I found life much more difficult after several kensho than before. In the end, I continue to persevere, and after many years of practice, I am beginning to have confidence, fearlessness, in confronting myself, which is my life without end.
Also, realizations are endless, thus practice is endless. Tutsita heaven awaits me.
Anyhow, the H.H. has his karma and I have mine. He appears to be a saint, and as my ex-wife will attest, I am an asshole. So I tear off another piece of TP with zazen and continue wiping.
In Dharma,
Kozan - “Just do what is in front of you and keep your direction. Every single thing will support you.”