What is enlightenment

[maestro]

This has branched off from the "enlightenment finally" thread. I define enlightenment as the end of mental suffering. I propose that this enlightenment can be achieved by observing the mind, locating the source of suffering and ending it. I would like to hear what others believe is the thing or state on which to put the label enlightenment on.

[Dan Rowden]

So, what to you is the source of suffering?

[maestro]

First of all suffering is persistent, and not a momentary sensation. Thus if you experience fear and it ends instantaneously it is not suffering. But if it goes on and on then it qualifies as suffering.

Suffering is persistent leakage of mental energy through conflict in the mind, or a process which keeps on absorbing energy like anxiety of fear.

[samadhi]

I define enlightenment as the end of mental suffering. I propose that this enlightenment can be achieved by observing the mind, locating the source of suffering and ending it. I would like to hear what others believe is the thing or state on which to put the label enlightenment on.

Mental suffering arises in concert with the ego so to propose an end of one implies the end of the other. However when you put forward a mental technique as a means to that end, what you are really saying is, the ego implements a technique, by and for the ego, that results in the end of the ego. Just think about that, okay? It shouldn't take you too long to see the contradiction.

[maestro]

Ego is the belief that there is a thinker of thougts and a feeler of feelings. It is implicit in our language structure. Thus it is a powerful and hidden thought in the mind and associated with strong emotions.

The mind now implements an observation process. The process consistently reports observations which contradict the existence of a ego, if the mind is commited to logic above all it has no choice but to discard the concept.

[Nick]

Enlightenment is an effortless consciousness of reality as it ultimately is, and living according to it.

[divine focus]

Enightenment is not giving a fuck, while being unable to say "nothing matters."

[Dan Rowden]

Enlightenment is.....................................

[maestro]

Dan, if you want to keep enlightenment shrouded in mystery it is up to you.

Here is the post I wrote in the other thread which I think sheds light on the method
The method I described here resembles the method of enquiry and observation (jnana yoga, vipassana). This method was proposed in antiquity when the workings of the mind were not very clear, and paradoxes such as (who is the observer, the soul, the universal soul?) have always plauged it. I am actually providing a coherent picture of how it works (using neuroscience) and solves the problem of suffering. I can also attest that it works very well indeed.

Also I think my neural exposition clarifies the concept of nonattachment, this concept is also problematic in the classical framework, who gets unattached to what? Is there a doer which does it? If the soul is pure why did it get into misery and attachment in the first place. How will an unattached person behave will he enjoy nothing? Is he a Zombie?

Attachment is the strong connection of the feedback loop, wherein certain stimulus activate certain thought patterns. Nonattachment not allowing this activation to occur.

Another paradox that is resolved in this framework is that countless masters have insisted that being (or nonreactive behavior) is natural and effortless, but seekers seem to find it so hard.

[samadhi]

Ego is the belief that there is a thinker of thougts and a feeler of feelings. It is implicit in our language structure. Thus it is a powerful and hidden thought in the mind and associated with strong emotions.

So far so good.

The mind now implements an observation process. The process consistently reports observations which contradict the existence of a ego, if the mind is commited to logic above all it has no choice but to discard the concept.

What you describe is self-inquiry, a technique as old as enlightenment itself. It's a fine technique, practice it wisely see where it takes you. My only caution would be that you might think the technique matters more than the one implementing it. The technique won't get you there; it can only show you that 'you' and 'there' are both 'here'.

[maestro]

My only caution would be that you might think the technique matters more than the one implementing it. The technique won't get you there; it can only show you that 'you' and 'there' are both 'here'.

Sam are you enlightened? If not why should I take your authoritative pronouncements seriously?

[samadhi]

Let's just say I've done my homework.

Do you want to do some inquiry? Can a technique in fact enlighten you? All it can do is show you the contradiction of your beliefs. Believing in a contradiction is no impediment to ego, in fact in thrives on it. "Look! I can exist even when you prove I don't!" All contradiction can do is show you the paradox. Solving the paradox is another matter.

Apparently you want us to believe you have solved it. Great. I will look for your enlightened perspective in your posts.

[maestro]

But Sam you know that if you are not enlightened you are speaking as an ego. Thus (by your own logic) whatever you say is plain unreliable.

[samadhi]

Please, by all means, don't believe me! Enlightenment is not about you believing my words. Your belief in me won't help you at all. I say what I do not for your benefit but for mine. I speak for myself alone. If you want to verify my words, that's your business. I couldn't care less what you do with them. But this is an enlightenment forum and people come here to talk about it. If you are interested in the perspectives of others, great, take what you like. If you have no interest in my perspective, then put me on ignore. I never ask for anyone's belief. I simply enjoy the discussion.

[Dan Rowden]

Why do you enjoy it?

[samadhi]

It seems to be my nature. Why that is so, I don't know.

[Dan Rowden]

Maybe you should employ maestro's technique and find out!

[samadhi]

maestro's technique is self-inquiry, I know all about it. It's fine. Technique can take you to the paradox, it doesn't solve it.

ETA: It should be noted, there are many levels to self-inquiry. His seems to be a beginner's level. But people can do it for years, in silence, isolation, fasting, etc. Self-inquiry has a lot of depth, how far you pursue it depends on your earnestness and commitment.

[Dan Rowden]

If technique leaves you at paradox, your technique sucks.

[samadhi]

See my edit above.

[Dan Rowden]

I bet you never went the silence route :)

[samadhi]

Well, I've done retreats. There is certainly something to be said for taking a good chunk of time and just sitting in silence.

I also think having access to a teacher can be particularly helpful. It's very easy to get stuck. Having a teacher can show you where that happens and maybe how to get past it.

[Dan Rowden]

There is certainly something to be said for taking a good chunk of time and just sitting in silence.

That sentence is as funny as hell even for a humorless guy like me.

[samadhi]

Share the humor with us. I'm curious.

[Dan Rowden]

Um, something to be said for silence. It's a crack-up.