Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Locked
visheshdewan050193
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 7:03 pm

Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by visheshdewan050193 »

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.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hello Vishesh, not sure if any of those people you mention still visit this place. They haven't posted much, if anything, in years. Perhaps you should notify Kevin at Google, where you did have earlier exchanges, in case he doesn't check this forum much.

My own take is that "cleansed citta" is nothing but another beautiful instance of the power of illusion -- the illusion of "independent reality" and purity. In reality there's only one. At some point, there's not to speak about a mirror to "clean", that whole act was just another powerful illusion bringing one to the point! That's why so much laughter happens in many traditional accounts of awakening.

This is also the relevancy of Quinn''s playful example of enlightenment by "quantum fluctuation or whatever". It cannot and will never be the defined end point of a long, laborious, arcane or contrived process ending in some validation by someone or by a golden standard. Only the human ego likes to quantify existence and spirituality, as if it would be possible! Buddha's back story already testifies of this. Of course one can say that without the journey the fundamental realization might never be reached but that doesn't say much about what that journey should be. People's drive to for example self-mortification will cause them to self-mortify until they're done with it.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by ardy »

Hi - I am not sure why you are asking this simple question. The answer strikes me that the 'real' work begins after enlightenment and not just before.

There are many examples of those who have made an initial breakthrough and struggled to stay in that state, moving from complete clarity to a more prosaic state of insights or 'ships in the night'. There are also examples of those who have fallen out of enlightenment completely.

If you have done some serious work on the way then given up for a while, the experience will show you how fragile those insights and peace in your mind are. The settling period post-enlightenment can be long in Hui Neng's case 15 years!
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote: There are many examples of those who have made an initial breakthrough and struggled to stay in that state, moving from complete clarity to a more prosaic state of insights or 'ships in the night'. There are also examples of those who have fallen out of enlightenment completely.

If you have done some serious work on the way then given up for a while, the experience will show you how fragile those insights and peace in your mind are. The settling period post-enlightenment can be long in Hui Neng's case 15 years!
It seems better to be concerned about wisdom than it is to be concerned about being in or out of enlightenment or any other entitlement. The human mind is fragile by its very nature and states -- no matter how powerful or peaceful -- forever come and go. Nothing can be "settled" but perhaps that realization has some chance to persist, but only because the whole inner and outer universe is reminding us that this is so. It needs heavy intoxication to forget. And yet that's exactly what's prohibiting each and every deeper understanding and living to occur naturally. This is why it's not about struggling to stay in anything, it's more like realizing what's happening when one is moving out. Life itself can appear as a holding on to, a tiger by the tail.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by Pam Seeback »

Diebert: Nothing can be "settled" but perhaps that realization has some chance to persist, but only because the whole inner and outer universe is reminding us that this is so.
Indeed. And it is possible for this wisdom of nothing being settled to persist, but not as an unbroken awareness, at least this hasn't happened for me (but getting closer). Relating this to the masculine and feminine mind, the conscious masculine mind uses reason to settle things, to keep the unconscious feeling void at bay while the conscious feminine mind allows the unconscious feeling void its space, even its wildness, eventually giving way to the masculine mind that shifts into gear to sort and analyze. What I am finding is that the key to living a conscious life is knowing when being masculine is required and when being feminine is required.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
ardy wrote: There are many examples of those who have made an initial breakthrough and struggled to stay in that state, moving from complete clarity to a more prosaic state of insights or 'ships in the night'. There are also examples of those who have fallen out of enlightenment completely.

If you have done some serious work on the way then given up for a while, the experience will show you how fragile those insights and peace in your mind are. The settling period post-enlightenment can be long in Hui Neng's case 15 years!
It seems better to be concerned about wisdom than it is to be concerned about being in or out of enlightenment or any other entitlement. The human mind is fragile by its very nature and states -- no matter how powerful or peaceful -- forever come and go. Nothing can be "settled" but perhaps that realization has some chance to persist, but only because the whole inner and outer universe is reminding us that this is so. It needs heavy intoxication to forget. And yet that's exactly what's prohibiting each and every deeper understanding and living to occur naturally. This is why it's not about struggling to stay in anything, it's more like realizing what's happening when one is moving out. Life itself can appear as a holding on to, a tiger by the tail.
HI D - I am not sure that statement (bolded) is correct. I have been in a state of heightened prajna and it certainly feels nothing like samadhi or any other state close to a breakthrough. It is like it comes naturally and although it is not what you would describe as logical wisdom, it appears more like another pathway opens.

I was not suggesting any sort of struggle, apart from building some 'great doubt', struggling is not what it is about it is also not about letting go of struggling. It is more like a total collapse of what you hold as true about yourself, allowing the truth to come through.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote: I have been in a state of heightened prajna and it certainly feels nothing like samadhi or any other state close to a breakthrough. It is like it comes naturally and although it is not what you would describe as logical wisdom, it appears more like another pathway opens.
What's the difference with feeling alive without the immediate experience of pressure or disturbance? Or in other words just a natural thing in contrast with a background of the opposite? It's your belief which then might add "heightened" or alien words like "prajna" to it, implying all the connected mystical "pathways".

It's unclear then what you take "logical wisdom" to be and why it would be something different than your "truth coming through". If it's truth, it manifests as wisdom in practice and surely would resonate with reason and proportion. All according to "the way". That's why I referred to wisdom and will keep suggesting doubt when it comes to any height, pathway, feeling or whatever you think it is. And surely it's never a form of "settling", that belongs to biology, hormones and life circumstances, spruced up as belief system as the religious remains a need.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: Clarification about the definition of enlightenment

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
ardy wrote: I have been in a state of heightened prajna and it certainly feels nothing like samadhi or any other state close to a breakthrough. It is like it comes naturally and although it is not what you would describe as logical wisdom, it appears more like another pathway opens.
What's the difference with feeling alive without the immediate experience of pressure or disturbance? Or in other words just a natural thing in contrast with a background of the opposite? It's your belief which then might add "heightened" or alien words like "prajna" to it, implying all the connected mystical "pathways".

It's unclear then what you take "logical wisdom" to be and why it would be something different than your "truth coming through". If it's truth, it manifests as wisdom in practice and surely would resonate with reason and proportion. All according to "the way". That's why I referred to wisdom and will keep suggesting doubt when it comes to any height, pathway, feeling or whatever you think it is. And surely it's never a form of "settling", that belongs to biology, hormones and life circumstances, spruced up as belief system as the religious remains a need.
D - I worked with some of the best computer engineers in the world at one stage in my life and they could logically build amazing things (ie the now used everywhere authentic simulation of the ocean) with certain wisdom in their understanding of issues but they never showed anything like prajna. It is not reason and proportion as it involves no effort, thinking, consideration, weighing up facts or anything else I associate with reason or logic. It just appears which I found very strange.

There is NO religion in my world, we are our own gods (without understanding). The work is about you and you alone not something else surrounded in dogma and proscriptive mental instructions and physical positions of the body and an overwhelming acceptance of a dead person (normally) who is far beyond what you could ever be.

It is NOT as you claim it to be, a logical, reasoned structure. Unless you have found a path no other human has done in history.
Locked