Clarification about the definition of enlightenment
Posted: Tue Apr 21, 2015 8:07 pm
This is really just addressed to the trio of David Quinn, Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway.
" Imagine that an ordinary person is walking along the street, minding his own business, when suddenly, though the sheer workings of chance, his mind stops experiencing false thoughts and he enters into a period of enlightenment. Imagine also that it is a complete surprise to him, that he previously had no desire or thought to seek enlightenment, that it occurred spontaneously as a freak of Nature. It might have been the result of a quantum fluctuation or whatever. Now imagine that he actively uses this priceless tool of perceiving everything without any false interpretations to uncover the great truths of life, as anyone naturally would in such a situation. And then, after he does this, imagine that he decides to turn this tool upon the nature of enlightenment itself and the state of his own mind. Imagine that his mind is so crystal clear and free of false interpretations that he is naturally able to perceive that he is indeed enlightened. "
- From the Larkin Debate page
Have you managed to do this yourself? turn this tool upon the nature of enlightenment itself and the state of your own mind to ascertain its veracity?
Also -
'enlightenment is the absence of delusion by definition'
Would a better definition be 'enlightenment is the absence of delusion 24X7, while one is concious/alive'?
I came across a post Quinn made in 2007 where he wrote that being immersed in the Truth of formlessness is the only 'happiness' an enlightened being can have - since he has abandoned intellectual constructs and emotional securities. To be separated from this Truth is to 'suffer' terribly precisely for this reason.
Doesn't really sound like Quinn lost the potential to suffer (at least at the time when Quinn wrote this).
In Buddhist terminology, stream-enterers are ariyas who have perfected their View about nibbana - in the sense that they have directly gained the proper understanding about its nature.
Stream-enterers however, are not equivalent to arahants - who are considered to be delusion free constantly, while alive. Stream enterers are said to have 'permanently' abandoned the fetter of belief in a self. I think this could be better interpreted as belief in the intrinsic existence of anything - what you wrote about in your essay 'Wisdom of the Infinite'. However, they are not considered to have completely severed the fetter of fundamental avijja (delusion) - which is what would make you an arahant (fully enlightened being). I was wondering you could read a book - the Path to Arahantship by a guy named Ajahn Maha Boowa - and a series of his talks on a website called accesstoinsight - and ignoring the the inconsistent traditional hogwash he puts in his exposition as opinions - I'd like you to offer your views on the distinction he makes between citta conditioned by fundamental avijja (delusion) and without (which he termed as full enlightenment). Although the distinction hasn't been found in the traditional suttas, his description of citta (in a very specific content - not merely as a a state of mind in samadhi) did seem similar to your description of Tao in your essay, and unlike David Quinn (supposedly) and Kevin Solway, he didn't claim to be suffering from lapses into delusion after the moment which he unequivocally considered to be his full and proper enlightenment.
I'd like to know your ideas about the causes that seem to be preventing you to be delusion free all the time.
" Imagine that an ordinary person is walking along the street, minding his own business, when suddenly, though the sheer workings of chance, his mind stops experiencing false thoughts and he enters into a period of enlightenment. Imagine also that it is a complete surprise to him, that he previously had no desire or thought to seek enlightenment, that it occurred spontaneously as a freak of Nature. It might have been the result of a quantum fluctuation or whatever. Now imagine that he actively uses this priceless tool of perceiving everything without any false interpretations to uncover the great truths of life, as anyone naturally would in such a situation. And then, after he does this, imagine that he decides to turn this tool upon the nature of enlightenment itself and the state of his own mind. Imagine that his mind is so crystal clear and free of false interpretations that he is naturally able to perceive that he is indeed enlightened. "
- From the Larkin Debate page
Have you managed to do this yourself? turn this tool upon the nature of enlightenment itself and the state of your own mind to ascertain its veracity?
Also -
'enlightenment is the absence of delusion by definition'
Would a better definition be 'enlightenment is the absence of delusion 24X7, while one is concious/alive'?
I came across a post Quinn made in 2007 where he wrote that being immersed in the Truth of formlessness is the only 'happiness' an enlightened being can have - since he has abandoned intellectual constructs and emotional securities. To be separated from this Truth is to 'suffer' terribly precisely for this reason.
Doesn't really sound like Quinn lost the potential to suffer (at least at the time when Quinn wrote this).
In Buddhist terminology, stream-enterers are ariyas who have perfected their View about nibbana - in the sense that they have directly gained the proper understanding about its nature.
Stream-enterers however, are not equivalent to arahants - who are considered to be delusion free constantly, while alive. Stream enterers are said to have 'permanently' abandoned the fetter of belief in a self. I think this could be better interpreted as belief in the intrinsic existence of anything - what you wrote about in your essay 'Wisdom of the Infinite'. However, they are not considered to have completely severed the fetter of fundamental avijja (delusion) - which is what would make you an arahant (fully enlightened being). I was wondering you could read a book - the Path to Arahantship by a guy named Ajahn Maha Boowa - and a series of his talks on a website called accesstoinsight - and ignoring the the inconsistent traditional hogwash he puts in his exposition as opinions - I'd like you to offer your views on the distinction he makes between citta conditioned by fundamental avijja (delusion) and without (which he termed as full enlightenment). Although the distinction hasn't been found in the traditional suttas, his description of citta (in a very specific content - not merely as a a state of mind in samadhi) did seem similar to your description of Tao in your essay, and unlike David Quinn (supposedly) and Kevin Solway, he didn't claim to be suffering from lapses into delusion after the moment which he unequivocally considered to be his full and proper enlightenment.
I'd like to know your ideas about the causes that seem to be preventing you to be delusion free all the time.