Enlightenment - a state of stupor or constant thought?

[sschaula]

I've been thinking a lot lately about the idea of enlightenment...particularly the philosophical idea versus the new agey idea. Recently, I've been finding that both viewpoints are correct...they both aim towards perfection of enlightenment (an unceasing integration of truth into one's consciousness).

First I think I have to reiterate the two opposing viewpoints.

PHILOSOPHICAL ENLIGHTENMENT = when a person has discovered the ultimate truth. When a person views themselves and the world in the light of this discovery. The path to such is thinking intensely and logically.

Perhaps someone could help with a better definition.

NEW AGEY ENLIGHTENMENT = when a person's thoughts cease. When they become completely relaxed and "blissful". When a person lives in a state of egolessness.

Perhaps I could get a better definition from someone out there?

Anyway, it seems to me that the more I strive for perfection, the more the new agey enlightenment beliefs seem to be true. When I have contemplated the nature of the universe and found the ideas of emptiness to be true, all forms are illusory. Logic is undeniable, yet my thought itself is illusory. Countless mirages appear and disappear. At times, after contemplating this emptiness, there is just nothing more to contemplate...and I am in the state of stupor...or what new agers would call "samadhi".

It is a state of stupor. I cannot deny that...yet I cannot deny that it is inevitable. How could one think constantly? After thinking about emptiness for so long, it becomes more muscle memory than thought, and I view things in that light without thought. There isn't an arising of the question "What is the nature of this?" There becomes less of a need, and instinctively everything appears "illusory yet real"..."form and formless". I could perhaps call this "reflection", although reflection is often grouped into "thought". It really is more instinctual, and more of a muscle memory than a thought.

I have wondered how to avoid the state of stupor. I'm beginning to think it's impossible...although I'm still unsure. It seems impossible to constantly think and contemplate. Once one has found the truth in thought, what more need is there for thought?

A state of relaxation, or blissfulness, is also a part of the new agey idea of enlightenment. Certainly, it's hard to become blissful in the beginning stages of the philosophical path...yet after a couple years I've found my contemplations on emptiness more relaxing. There's a great deep comfort that the truth has brought to me.

When I'm tense, angry, scared...those are the times that I'm "unenlightened" so to speak. I'm worried about something that's just completely not true. And in truth, even my worry is a mirage. If I were to constantly be in my state of stupor, I doubt I'd have a single fear...a reason to hate, or any anxiety at all.

After thinking in light of the truth, these negative emotions definitely melt away in me. I've become a much more calm person since my introduction to this philosophy.

As an aside, I've been studying and implementing ideas from Coach Sonnon from http://www.rmax.tv into my fitness and health. One of his main practices is releasing tension through range of motion exercises, yogic flows and vibration drills. I've found that by doing these exercises, there is a lot more tension stored in my body.

Athletic people tend to feel good and relaxed in their spare time. They have less aches and pains than others. They definitely reap the rewards...yet I was athletic and reaping the rewards, and I still contain more tension.

Lately I've found that my jaw is tense. There will be a constant awareness of the musculature of my jaw and cheekbones which is very hard to relax. I read on one particular new-agey-enlightenment website that in order to be considered a guru by them, one would have to have a relaxed jaw. That website criticised J Krishnamurti (I think) because his jaw was clenched more often.

Having tension stored in the body disables you from being able to enter some of the more difficult yogic poses. You reach a certain point and just cannot go any more...and people think that you need to stretch your muscles out more in order to get there. According to RMAX and Coach Sonnon, it has to do with your muscle as well as your emotions.

Members of the messageboard on that website say that after releasing tension in their lower back, for instance, they'll experience a profound emotional release as well...sometimes (in extreme cases) causing them to either laugh or cry. While I think this is kind of silly, I've found in my own practice that the more range of motion and flexibility I have, the less attached I am...aka...the less negative emotions I have.

I'm not suggesting that anyone assume doing physical exercises will cause you to achieve enlightenment. I believe enlightenment involves primarily an understanding of the true nature of reality. The new agey idea of ignoring your thoughts and being enlightened in that stupidity is not enlightenment, in my opinion. BUT...

I am definitely proposing that perfected enlightenment will get you relaxation, blissfulness, and an ending of thought and self. A perfectly enlightened person has no tension stored in their body.

It is true. Siddhis drop to the feet of an enlightened one. Seeking them out only hinders you.

Thus, I think both the philosophical and new agey ideas of enlightenment are real.

[Terry]

I am definitely proposing that perfected enlightenment will get you relaxation, blissfulness, and an ending of thought and self. A perfectly enlightened person has no tension stored in their body.

It seems to me the dead are the best practitioners among the enlightened.

The comatose closely approximate it, but alas, they twitch too much.

Amusingly, the modern New Age movement had its roots in Theosophy. And in turn, it bursted forth from the subjective idealism of Johann Fichte and the 19th century German idealists. Fichte's son, Immanuel Hermann Fichte, laid the philosophical foundations for Theosophy. History can be so sweetly ironic---to the point of tooth decay. Good ol' Plato; no one can ever get rid of him.

[N0X23]

After years of intensive investigation, I am thoroughly convinced that Enlightenment is entirely, 100% ,unadulterated bullshit. Philosophical, New-Age, or otherwise. A dogmatic hang-over from the archaic past.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

After years of intensive investigation, I am thoroughly convinced that Enlightenment is entirely, 100% ,unadulterated bullshit. Philosophical, New-Age, or otherwise. A dogmatic hang-over from the archaic past.

Most ideas people hold are some dogmatic hang-over of some kind, so what's new?

Nox, do you still consider yourself as aware or wise in any way? At least your proclaimed 'years of investigation 'must have given you some authority on the matter?

And why are you posting this here of all places, are you hoping someone will 'open their eyes'? Or did you just felt like it?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I am definitely proposing that perfected enlightenment will get you relaxation, blissfulness, and an ending of thought and self. A perfectly enlightened person has no tension stored in their body.

It is true. Siddhis drop to the feet of an enlightened one. Seeking them out only hinders you.

Thus, I think both the philosophical and new agey ideas of enlightenment are real.

This I agree with in a general sense. Why general? Because the more specific one becomes on this subject the more it varies. And also you can see often a pre-occupation arise with the body like in the Yoga subculture. Does it enhance wisdom though? I doubt it, I've seen mostly very deluded ideas emanating from teachers there.

In my view both of your descriptions of enlightenment are mostly unavoidable parts of the journey toward enlightenment. In themselves I wouldn't call them enlightenment but because of their profound effects (on thought, behaviour, being) it's tempting to believe some final goal is reached. The greatest temptation in my view is to confuse enlightenment with a profound understanding or some state of relaxation. Both states have actually more chance to disable any further attempt to reach 'perfected enlightenment' than anything else.

The 'yoga' and 'kundalini' sections of the 'new age' seem quite obsessed with the effects of emotions on body tensions, and the effect of body posture on emotion release. Since in my view emotion equals at the core some form of body state, it's no surprise to me these methods do work, or just occur spontaneously. The body can function as a memory bank for e-motions, sure.

The body is the 'greater mind' and any hope on rational thought while literary 'caged' in some complex emotional knot is futile. But when such knot is untied the journey really has to embarked upon yet. The ship is now waterproof but has to leave the harbor still. The sad reality is that almost no one has the balls to leave.

[N0X23]

Most ideas people hold are some dogmatic hang-over of some kind, so what's new?

So then would you agree that Enlightenment is as effective as a prescription of Bloodletting or as valid as a flat Earth?

Nox, do you still consider yourself as aware or wise in any way?

Aware in what sense? Self-awareness, or the ever present, unblinking “Awareness”?

Wise? Compared to who and using what as a comparison?

At least your proclaimed 'years of investigation 'must have given you some authority on the matter?

Yes. I speak from the utmost authority on this subject.

And why are you posting this here of all places, are you hoping someone will 'open their eyes'? Or did you just felt like it?

It seems an appropriate place for this subject matter. Do you disagree?

The body is the 'greater mind' and any hope on rational thought while literary 'caged' in some complex emotional knot is futile. But when such knot is untied the journey really has to embarked upon yet. The ship is now waterproof but has to leave the harbor still. The sad reality is that almost no one has the balls to leave.

Nice poetic metaphor, but utterly useless. This type of sentiment coincides perfectly with my earlier deceleration of archaic dogma.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Most ideas people hold are some dogmatic hang-over of some kind, so what's new?

So then would you agree that Enlightenment is as effective as a prescription of Bloodletting or as valid as a flat Earth?

I have no idea how you are defining Enlightenment currently.

Wise? Compared to who and using what as a comparison?

Compared to the audience you imagine when writing.

Yes. I speak from the utmost authority on this subject.

LOL! That sounds to me like a fine definition of enlightenment: the position of utmost authority on the subject!

And why are you posting this here of all places, are you hoping someone will 'open their eyes'? Or did you just felt like it?

It seems an appropriate place for this subject matter. Do you disagree?

I just don't see the difference between your claims and any dogmatic view you might have concluded to exist, here or elsewhere, I don't even know. You claim 'utmost authority', you make an absolute statement about what Enlightenment is and you engage in a discussion about it; sounds familiar! Perhaps you can enlighten me on what you exactly meant. How do you view for example QRS their view on enlightenment?

The body is the 'greater mind' and any hope on rational thought while literary 'caged' in some complex emotional knot is futile. But when such knot is untied the journey really has to embarked upon yet. The ship is now waterproof but has to leave the harbor still. The sad reality is that almost no one has the balls to leave.

Nice poetic metaphor, but utterly useless. This type of sentiment coincides perfectly with my earlier deceleration of archaic dogma.

It's easy to dismiss a bunch of words but I doubt your understanding of them really. It's partly based on what I know about existential philosophy, neuro-science, psycho-therapy and my own experiences. If they happen to coincide with some archaic stuff then so be it. For me that more traditional part of the understanding came way later and provides just another possible framework to work with.

[DHodges]

After years of intensive investigation, I am thoroughly convinced that Enlightenment is entirely, 100% ,unadulterated bullshit. Philosophical, New-Age, or otherwise. A dogmatic hang-over from the archaic past.

I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. But I don't think it really matters. Whether there is such a thing or not, ridding the mind of delusions (to the extent possible) is still a worthwhile goal.

[N0X23]

I have no idea how you are defining Enlightenment currently.

Liberation, Freedom, Cessation of Suffering, Unbinding: the foremost ease. calm, devoid of distress, Rapture in the Dhamma. Lokuttara Dhamma...etc, etc, etc....to ad nauseam...

Compared to the audience you imagine when writing.

No. I imagine ordinary people no different than myself.

I just don't see the difference between your claims and any dogmatic view you might have concluded to exist, here or elsewhere, I don't even know. You claim 'utmost authority', you make an absolute statement about what Enlightenment is and you engage in a discussion about it; sounds familiar! Perhaps you can enlighten me on what you exactly meant.

I claim to be the utmost authority of my own experience, nothing more.

How do you view for example QRS their view on enlightenment?

My view of their claims of Enlightenment are irrelevant. Even if they were three Supreme Buddhas, radiating pure perfection, like that of 10,000 jewels, that still doesn’t do shit for me.
Listening to their description of their meal, does nothing for MY hunger.

It's easy to dismiss a bunch of words but I doubt your understanding of them really. It's partly based on what I know about existential philosophy, neuro-science, psycho-therapy and my own experiences. If they happen to coincide with some archaic stuff then so be it. For me that more traditional part of the understanding came way later and provides just another possible framework to work with.

Perhaps not, I’ll give you that.
But how does ....”The body is the 'greater mind' and any hope on rational thought while literary 'caged' in some complex emotional knot is futile. But when such knot is untied the journey really has to embarked upon yet. The ship is now waterproof but has to leave the harbor still. The sad reality is that almost no one has the balls to leave.”

...have any relevance to mine, or anyone else’s Liberation?

[sschaula]

N0X,

Listening to a Buddha describe his meal does nothing for your hunger or mine, but I think it'd be a good idea to pay attention when they tell us how to find the kitchen.

I'll post more when I have time, probaby later today.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

I claim to be the utmost authority of my own experience, nothing more.

Fine.

Now shouldn't your first post in this thread not read something like: "I am thoroughly convinced that other peoples experiences of Enlightenment are entirely...bullshit.."?

You came here to discuss your experiences vs written forms of wisdom? You talk about "a dogmatic hang-over from the archaic past" and you give me as example stuff like: "Cessation of Suffering, Rapture in the Dhamma, Lokuttara Dhamma".

How would you describe your own experiences of 'enlightenment' in the classic sense? Or the experiences that formed your investigation into the subject and your conclusion about enlightenment you are sharing with us here, and so on?

[N0X23]

DHodges

I'm not entirely convinced one way or the other. But I don't think it really matters. Whether there is such a thing or not, ridding the mind of delusions (to the extent possible) is still a worthwhile goal.

The “mind” IS delusion. How can the mind remove the mind? And how is that worthwhile?

sschaula

Listening to a Buddha describe his meal does nothing for your hunger or mine, but I think it'd be a good idea to pay attention when they tell us how to find the kitchen.

Why is that good idea?

[N0X23]

How would you describe your own experiences of 'enlightenment' in the classic sense?

Intriguing, hopeful, illuminating, frustrating, stagnating, frustrating, infuriating, maddening, hopeless, determined, terrifying, resolute, empty, headaches, fruitless, pointless, hopeful, frustrating, secluded, equanimity, calm, blissful, egomaniacal, egoless, empowered, angered, desperate, pointless, hollow, lucid, determined, incompatible, intriguing, hopeful, illuminating, frustrating......and on and on and on....Nothing, not even close to anything resembling the fruit promised by all the Sages great and small, if the “path” is followed with determination, patience perseverance. courage.

Nothing, but more empty promises and bullshit.
This so-called Enlightenment is no different the Christian’s eternal heaven, the Catholic’s Holy Pope or the Scientologist’s Xenu and space alien demons.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Nothing, but more empty promises and bullshit.
This so-called Enlightenment is no different the Christian’s eternal heaven, the Catholic’s Holy Pope or the Scientologist’s Xenu and space alien demons.

So are you saying that because you and everyone you know failed, it all has to be bullshit? What do you think is exactly promised, by lets say a Buddha? Or pick the teacher you regarded as highest.

Heaven, pope, demons, enlightenment all might be just as well misinterpreted concepts leading away from the original intended meaning. And space alien demons might pop up one of these days to exterminate us all. Some say they already started :)

[sschaula]

The “mind” IS delusion. How can the mind remove the mind? And how is that worthwhile?

I think this is the key to perfecting your enlightenment. In my terms, an enlightened person is just one who has seen through the delusions to the truth of reality. So a person can be enlightened and go back and be in delusion. They aren't constantly enlightened. They have their moments.

I'm not personally sure that perfected enlightenment doesn't exist. How could someone be personally sure, unless they had experienced it? It's like the whole unicorn idea...someone says they exist, and no matter what you believe because you haven't seen them, there's still the possibility that unicorns exist because you haven't seen everything.

For me, at this point, there are too many coincidences which lead me to believe that this perfected enlightenment is real. I guess it's a personal belief....not founded in logic. Certainly not "truth".

In fact, I probably should've never originally written this whole thing. It'll just mess with people's heads. They may think "oh so if I feel relaxed more often I'll be closer to enlightenment!"

I should have just continued on my way.

About the food....

Why is that good idea?

Because you said you were hungry.

[David Quinn]

Nox is just playing games with us, or perhaps expressing a little frustration. He doesn't really believe that enlightenment doesn't exist. He couldn't be that stupid. Indeed, he belatedly confesses that he still hungers for it.

The “mind” IS delusion. How can the mind remove the mind?

The mind is no more a delusion than anything else is. As always, it is the false perception of mind, or indeed of anything else, which constitutes delusion. Enlightenment simply means the elimination of all false perceptions. It doesn't mean eliminating the mind itself.


-

[sschaula]

In my view both of your descriptions of enlightenment are mostly unavoidable parts of the journey toward enlightenment. In themselves I wouldn't call them enlightenment but because of their profound effects (on thought, behaviour, being) it's tempting to believe some final goal is reached.

What would you call enlightenment, then?

My definition of philosophical enlightenment is more of a step on the way to perfected enlightenment.

[N0X23]

So are you saying that because you and everyone you know failed, it all has to be bullshit?

From my perspective, yes!
Why is it that we are to blame for it to have failed? And not that it has failed us?
This attitude is a by-product of our social constructs and conditioning.
The individual is always to blame for the flaw, and not the system itself.
I reject this guilt-ridden, hive-mentality programing.

What do you think is exactly promised, by lets say a Buddha? Or pick the teacher you regarded as highest

Okay, for example...

"This is peace, this is exquisite - the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."

- AN III.32

Unbinding: the foremost ease.

- Dhp 202-205

The enlightened, constantly
absorbed in jhana,
persevering,
firm in their effort:
they touch Unbinding,
the unexcelled safety
from bondage.

- Dhp 23


"In the same way, monks, for a disciple of the noble ones who is consummate in view, an individual who has broken through [to stream-entry], the suffering & stress that is totally ended & extinguished is far greater. That which remains in the state of having at most seven remaining lifetimes is next to nothing: it's not a hundredth, a thousandth, a one hundred-thousandth, when compared with the previous mass of suffering. That's how great the benefit is of breaking through to the Dhamma, monks. That's how great the benefit is of obtaining the Dhamma eye."

- SN XIII.1

I have experienced only slight and temporary forms of what is promised above. Nothing worthwhile or lasting.

Heaven, pope, demons, enlightenment all might be just as well misinterpreted concepts leading away from the original intended meaning.

Do you think that my “failure” is due to misrepresenting the concepts presented above? They seem pretty clear and concise too me, not a lot of room for misinterpretations, from what I can see.

sschaula

Because you said you were hungry.

Yes, but I have already toiled with their recipes for years and I am still famished. Gnawing on a bone is futile.



Quinn

Nox is just playing games with us, or perhaps expressing a little frustration. He doesn't really believe that enlightenment doesn't exist. He couldn't be that stupid. Indeed, he belatedly confesses that he still hungers for it.

Playing games? Hardly. I am the one is being fucking fooled with by these Sages, Buddhas and Gnanis with their hollow prescriptions and contradictory declarations.

The mind is no more a delusion than anything else is. As always, it is the false perception of mind, or indeed of anything else, which constitutes delusion.

How can there be a false perception of the mind? I cant even find the fucking thing. Can you?

Enlightenment simply means the elimination of all false perceptions.

I agree with your interpretation. But, how in the fuck does one get from eliminating false perceptions, to “Nibbana is bliss supreme”?!
In my experience it doesn’t, at all.
I have eliminated avijja and I still hunger and suffer.
The sage prescribing Enlightenment to eliminate lust, hatred and delusion, is as effective as rubbing holy water and magic crystals on ones head, to rid ones self of a tumor.
Archaic superstitions, no different then weeping statues and the image of the Blessed Virgin Mary on a tortilla.

[Jamesh]

Something I posted over at Common Ascent in The Chattering Monkey forum :)

so, you are saying that everyone sees the concept of enlightenment as real?

I think all understanding is a limited form of enlightenment.

When one gets enough of the big picture of reality in their head, then supposedly emotions fall away. Acceptance of the big picture allows one to look at things that arise, "issues" for instance in a different light. Issues lose the pre-conceived boundaries evident in those who are not wise or enlightened. When an enlightened person looks at an issue, a "mystery", an unknown, then they can shine their intellect on it like they were seeing it in daylight, as compared to those who tend to just shine a torch on an issue. This is because the unenlightened when looking at an issue, must navigate through the fog of emotions, and every time they shine their intellectual torch on an issue they are only capable of viewing what their torch shows them, not where the issue fits into the big picture. As I said though all understanding could be considered as a limited enlightenment, so those who post here in the philosophy forum and all respected thinkers would all be able to see a bigger picture than the average Joe - but they cannot be enlightened until there is no deep emotional fog as even though their panorama will be much wider, and their memories will alleviate the need to shine a touch every time on what they have already uncovered and understood, but they will still have boundaries at all times.

Now I used the term "daylight" above not "perfect visibility". Surely, the enlightened will still have cloudy days when their bodies induce emotions and their mental light is dulled. Even in the daylight of their minds there will be nooks and crannies or caves where they need to use a torch. They can still only consciously focus on one issue at a time, but when they do focus they should have clarity of vision, there should be no fog between them and the issue that has gained their attention, as well as being virtually no barriers that would prevent their mind from logically searching and selecting from memory the most pertinent information required to arrive at a rational conclusion.

The enlightened do create a core internal boundary of truth "tenets" (for want of a better word), which could be thought of as unchallengeable truth mirrors because all indecision is repelled off them, confusions do not penetrate this internal boundary. The more rational these "truth mirrors" are the more enlightened a person will be.

We all create this core of truths, enlightened or not, but as there is no absolute logic or permanent rationality associated with emotions and their offshoots - morals, ethics, traditions, conformity, femininity - then these mirrors are easily shattered. This is not the case for someone who is truly enlightened. Their inner core is a ball bearing, literally too considering the creation of such of ball of truths requires significant masculinity of thought. For ordinary folk their tenet centre is more like a hall of mirrors in an amusement park - misshapen images bouncing from one mirror to another - the end result being illusions and delusions, and of course a belief in uncertainty.

As I'm not enlightened myself I cannot tell if someone is enlightened or not, it wouldn't be logically possible to be able to do so, however as a result I trust no one in this regard. At present the central ball of core truths in my head is made of clay, it’s a work in progress. Trouble is I'd want to shape it so that it can remain receptive to emotions that I rationally decide as being advantageous - most people who seek enlightenment or state they have gained it are in this category, enlightened Buddhists for example. I don’t know anyone who gives me any significant certainty that they have achieved this. The QRS (Quin, Rowden, Solway from the Genius Forum) don't fit into this category, because they do not desire or attempt to include emotions as part of their core, so it is possible they are enlightened.

I wouldn't know how to test whether the QRS are or not. Enlightenment is not a matter of knowledge of details, like a science problem for instance. A genius of science or a writer may just be a person with a brilliant memory and sufficient curiosity, but they will never become enlightened unless they philosophically examine reality.

The desire to deal with details is emotionally caused, and the QRS have expressed no real interest in detail or matters that is empirically based and bounded. As their core tenet is absolute truth and they provide a service for others to learn about reality, they do display interest in details such as masculinity and femininity, but that seems to be mainly as an aid to promoting truth and defending it, and as such the cause of this desire may not be emotionally based, but simply based on what is logical and rational relative to their memories.

I regard all memories as having an attached value, a good, bad or indifferent contextual tag, and that this value is dynamic over time because it is relative, it is one of very many within the brain, and thus (potentially) alterable by all other stored values, as well as being the cause of changes to other values. The effect of a particular value is dependant upon the quantity of direct relations with other values and the depth of indirect relationships, and the strengths of each interrelated value, within a network of hierarchical sized data flow channels. As well as providing the data for the production of chemical signals to change the body in some manner, which includes the bodily changes required for feelings and emotions, this value provides for a ''bring to front' (ie put into consciousness), a 'self-destroy' or 'file' or 'amend file' or 'delete file' code upon the stream of data being processed. Without a system that has some commonality with the above, we could not learn, we could not manage our brain, we'd all be skitzo. As some emotions are hard wired into memory, like the mental cause of a baby crying, or sex or herd related desires, then it is possible there are also some instinctual type emotions relating to helping others and desiring the survival of the individual and the species that have basically non-dynamic values categorised as "Strongly Good/Beneficial". This would mean that those who go against the grain at least in the given examples are likely to have damaged base memories, damaged by whatever means; developmental faults; disease; alcohol; drugs; an overabundance of "Strongly Negative/Harmful" values with virus like destructive qualities (depression); accidents; damaging forces (headshaking for instance).

So apart from the seemingly obvious rationality in attempting to survive, the QRS or a true buddha, may have retained these normal instinctual memories, but otherwise be basically non-emotional.

The main reason I guess I have doubts about non-emotional enlightenment, or enlightenments of rationality, is I quite frankly don’t understand why they don't get bored shitless. To me boredom is another instinctual emotion. How do I know they just value truth in order to alleviate boredom? Perhaps a form of enlightenment is the eradication of boredom, when it occurs with a strongly beneficial control over emotions, a form of centre within the duality of emotions (the body) and rationality (the logical mind). The trouble with such a balance though, is that to be able to strongly tie it together, you are dependant on others. A Buddhist monk who acknowledges enlightenment in themselves, may not be able to keep the balance when their circumstances change (the last century Zen Buddhists in Japan and their support of war and merciless killing for instance). Rational enlightenment is purely for individualists, for those who choose their own core values regardless of the herd, and thus are more likely to be capable of accommodating change and retaining the enlightened mindset.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

So are you saying that because you and everyone you know failed, it all has to be bullshit?

From my perspective, yes!
Why is it that we are to blame for it to have failed? And not that it has failed us?

I'm not sure I can follow your step from failing to blaming. Blaming the system, or blaming yourself, both seem a bit pointless. You can only do what you have to do, considering all you know about this world. And if a meteor crashes down on you the second before you reached enlightenment, are you gonna blame someone for it?

I have experienced only slight and temporary forms of what is promised above. Nothing worthwhile or lasting.

Do you think that my “failure” is due to misrepresenting the concepts presented above? They seem pretty clear and concise too me, not a lot of room for misinterpretations, from what I can see.

My impression is that there are a couple of things at play:

You are treating all these ancient scriptures too much like some absolute source of authority. The journey must be your own and over time you might see how some of it is true and perhaps how some of it isn't. Why would it matter? You don't know who wrote the stuff, who translated it, who edited it. Do you think there were only enlightened sages involved in handling those texts? Aren't you only assuming something? These scriptures have value when you start recognizing things in it you already know from experience. You seem to work from the other way around which leads eventually to frustrations.

You might have become the victim of the system's 'hive mind' idea of gratification. You have grown impatient seeing no progress, experiencing still some dissatisfaction. How different is that with the story of Siddhartha Gautama? Sometimes you have to walk away from the traditional path to find it again. Maybe you should indeed reconsider everything, rejecting what you learned and tried. How else to get to the beginner's mind?

From the few that are looking for it, only the very rare individual finds. Most fail, most give up or embrace some placebo. Why would the most valuable treasure known to men be something different than the most impossible to obtain? Failure is the default. And if you're aiming to gain anything from succeeding, it might be indeed the wrong tree you're barking up.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

In my view both of your descriptions of enlightenment are mostly unavoidable parts of the journey toward enlightenment. In themselves I wouldn't call them enlightenment but because of their profound effects (on thought, behaviour, being) it's tempting to believe some final goal is reached.

What would you call enlightenment, then?

My definition of philosophical enlightenment is more of a step on the way to perfected enlightenment.

It's my belief that calling something 'enlightenment' following above definition, i.e. becoming something necessarily imperfect and limited, is not really conductive to proper understanding of the matter. For a few however it might be a great stepping stone.

Then again, I do recognize the light-years wide gap between the comprehension of a serious student 'on his way' and someone not having had any interest in the nature of reality ever at all. The gap might be as well described as the difference between light and utter darkness.

What would you call enlightenment, then?

I don't know for certain if anyone actually ever reached it as a final complete, perfected state. Maybe some sages only saw some foreshadowing and expressed it as stories about Jesus, Buddha, Zarathustra and so on. The following comparison is the closest to my current view.

A simple room, darkly lit, with one candle on the table.

A moth appears dancing around the flame, enticed, enthralled by the sparkling light. This, for him, seemed the highest, most desirable destiny: to become just like that white, a flaming moth. Pulling closer, daring, overcoming the heat and the blinding radiation the moth starts to see clear enough to notice: that what he once thought to be, a moth, seemed now more like a fleeting shadow on the walls. All the flying and the turning and the approaching was a shadow play after all.

The shadow realized a question: what possibly could have been causing such shadow to appear? Was there a real Moth flying between him and the flame? Could it be that the flame was never meant to be touched, but should he look for the Moth of Moths instead?

When the draught and dust settled for a bit in the room, the room stopped dancing around for a while, the shadow fled and seemed to return to the flame that cast it.

[Pye]

*

Jamesh, your post reminds me of some things I learned from a significant teacher to appear after these prompting quotes:

To me boredom is another instinctual emotion. How do I know they just value truth in order to alleviate boredom? Perhaps a form of enlightenment is the eradication of boredom . . .

and

because they do not desire or attempt to include emotions as part of their core . . . it is possible they are enlightened.

For this teacher I mentioned, boredom is not for alleviation nor are emotions for eradication.

Boredom is a flat-out condition of human being and needs sat-with, lived-in, and not run-from. We shall find out a great deal about existence in this condition, were we not to think reactively to hurry-up and remedy it (you know, cause some more noise just for the sake of the noise). Perhaps it is even this hurry-up-and-remedy so fundamental a portion of our existence that causes so fundamental a portion of our of existence to be devoted to running-in-place. Sit with your boredom; get to know it. There's fruit there.

As regards emotions, our "internal narrator" (you know - the constant mental chatter in us that must work so very hard to collect-up, string-together, justify and defend our private existence to us and others [known as ego to most]) . . . this internal narrator wants to keep them close, these emotions -- examine them, wallow in them, expend large amounts of focus trying to eradicate or manipulate them -- which paradoxically forces us to remain close to them always. There is no hope there, even and especially in the project of eradication. Such a thing just points and points and points to emotions, makes them bigger than they are; keeps them close.

Perhaps what many do not realize is the size of their minds - perhaps even an infinite internal landscape exists there, to match that from whence it comes. With our narrators chattering so close to our ears, we are compelled to stay close; our vision is short-sighted. But when one sees this space opening up for them, emotions don't go away, as in disappear. They simply now have a far larger landscape in which to roam. An infinite one. With so much room to roam, they [emotions] have free reign to cover as much ground as they can, and in doing so, get lost in something far larger than they are. Can become the tiny things they are in comparison to the infinite. They can even get tired of all that room and lay down, contentedly.

Boredom is necessary. To feel it is to begin to understand how much chatter, emotive turmoil, we create to offset it. If one can sit with one's boredom long enough without giving it a remedy, we can begin to see past it to the possibility of this infinite space, where emotion can rise naturally, and romp into it, and thus become more accurately positioned in the grand scheme of things.

.

[Pye]

*

So in answer to the original question of the thread, I would say that enlightenment is neither a state of stupor nor one of constant thinking.

It is awareness (awakened-ness, if you prefer) -- heightened, broadened, expanding. further and further, by degrees. If one has had any sudden leaps (flashes), they simply join a string of movements that appear, at least to me, not to have an ending state. For to be aware is to attend to it always.

.
edit: parenthetical addition

[sschaula]

N0X, I definitely won't argue with you. We're in the same boat. The only difference between what we're saying is that you don't think there's a shore and I think that it's just beyond the horizon...for the both of us.

New agey gurus, such as Ramana Maharshi, as well as a guru I had...a woman who called herself "G"...seemed to say that this perfect enlightenment is only brought about by the grace of God. Basically saying there's nothing you can do about it. It's like getting shit on by a bird...you can try and get beneath it but chances are you won't be able to get shit on by trying...it just happens sometimes. To some people.

Although, I don't know if perfect enlightenment exists either. I suppose if there IS a way to eliminate the ego by whatever means, then it's possible.

[Cory Duchesne]

I always liked this quote by U.G. Krishnamurti, even though I understand the man as flawed.

"There are no perfect individuals, only a perfect species". -U.G.

I don't see anyone in particular as perfect and flawless, however, I do see a minority of humanity that has operated, is operating, and is destined to operate on a very high level of energy, morality, responsibility and awareness. There will always be blunders and mishaps, but the more wise we get, the more easily we will be able to laugh at ourselves and thus get along with others. The more pompously enlightened, sagely and spiritual we become, the more isolated, robotic and useless we will become.

Why do we get so caught up on who's perfect and enlightened and who isnt?

The reason why is we allow ourselves to be dependent on inspiration. We fool ourselves into thinking perfect people have existed, or exist, and thus we imagine what that state of perfection is, and then we foolishly strive for it, fooling others into thinking we are the superior and leader, yet in the meantime we are being exploited by someone elses frightened desires.

This is not to say we should resist our natural inclination to distinguish superior qualities/relationships from inferior ones. But the preocupation with wanting to believe that there is a perfect human being in order that we can be inspired to blindly take action is what has to go.


I do think its true that nobodies perfect, but I think its terrible to live by the motto 'nobodies perfect'. Complacency, smuggness, sadism, vulgarity, violence arrogance, and laziness should not be preserved through the 'nobbodies perfect' motto.

As humans, we fundamentally do not want to suffer, even though we are suffering imensely. We will continue proving this through our actions which are all forms of escape from suffering.

It seems total suffering is the only thing that can free us....not so much from suffering, but from our panicky immature reaction to suffering. We need to be free from fear, not so much suffering.