Never talk about it!

So a friend who is into fairly traditional Thai Forest tradition Buddhism was recounting an anecdote over dinner last month that I thought was interesting. It may actually be boring. But too bad, here it is:

He said real enlightened monks never say they are enlightened. I said why. He said, because then they wouldn't be enlightened, because talking about "oh, me, I'm enlightened" is ego-centric. I agreed that might very well be true. Teasing him a bit I asked them, so how do you know if a monk is not talking about being enlightened because he IS, or because he ISN'T? He admitted you can't evaluate them based on what they say about themselves, but you listen to what other people say about them, and learn that way which ones are rumored to really be enlightened; and you can also take into account their virtuous behavior such as kindness, generosity, patience and so on.

So I said why would it be important to know which monk is enlightened and which one isn't? And he said because you want to find the ones that are and hang out near them, and soak up the enlightenment, so maybe some of it rubs off on you and you might have a chance at enlightenment in this lifetime. And I said but isn't this very ironic? Here is a system which posits that one of the expressions of real enlightenment is that one doesn't define oneself by it, and yet here you are seeking to divide and label people into enlightened vs unenlightened, and define yourself by being in physical proximity to one you label as enlightened? Isn't this subverting the very point of the teaching?

He didn't seem to agree and the subject drifted in other directions, but this swirls through my head once in a while, and I wondered if anyone else had any thoughts on the matter, or whatever.

I have "believed" both sides of this argument (sometimes fairly vigorously) at different times. Your posting here inclines me more to teasing out the elements of the question than to debate and constructing an argument.

If I look into the formative factors of any tradition, I have to keep the cultural context in mind. And if I counterpose a contemporary mindset-- it is equally important (if quite a bit more difficult) to keep the cultural context in mind. The Thai Forest tradition is a monastic one; practitioners are, at least for the duration, guided by monastic rules and principles. The goal is insight into Emptiness-- notably the emptiness of self. The argument for practice begins with the unsatisfactoriness of ordinary life, one's assumed self, and way of interacting with others. So getting all jazzed about one's personal, unique, exalted accomplishment... is an "epic FAIL."

On the face of it, recent practice-research seems to assume that this system could be made more modern, practical, and efficient by "being more transparent." But the question as to what the desired outcome is, seems less to be considered than assumed: 'enlightenment' equally available to all, as quickly and painlessly as possible. The question as to whether the ordinary schmoe with her current ideas about what enlightenment could be, with rather minor tweaks to her mode of living and very little study-- could either understand the goal and the process, and achieve the result... doesn't seem to get investigated much.

This start at an analysis omits what seems obvious, so far: there are a fair few auspicious accidents-- historically and in our times; somehow or another, someone trips and goes sprawling beyond the methodical application of a culture-bound means. Discovery is made, in dream, vision, stressful circumstances, bewildering encounter, useful mistakes. My impression is that a lot of regulated practice is a kind of "reverse engineering" of discovery. The more effective practices represent real insight into a generalizable 'effective ingredient.' The less effective practices reproduce 'inert ingredients,' out of hope that it might matter.

(Thanks for the invitation to natter on, Ona. A reprieve from getting on with packing up my stuff.)

@Ona: The reasoning simply doesn't hold up.

It assumes (projects) a reason 'why' someone would label themselves a certain way-- it's just not sensible to assume that one knows the ONLY reason why someone would label themselves that way, right?

There are plenty of reasonable reasons for not labeling oneself as enlightened or whatever which reasonable people can disagree on, but this one just makes me chuckle and shake my head at the lack of critical thinking involved.

My sense is this position says way more about the assumptions of the one who utters it than it does about any hypothetical monk who does or doesn't disclose their own experience of awakening and the reasons they do or don't disclose that inner sense they have of the truth of their own experience.

ETA: cross-posted with Kate. Kate your response is thoughtful and experience-informed as always and I find it provoking deeper reflection. I really like how you are explicitly looking at it from these different angles, which were just implicit in my response, but I want to say-- yeah, what you said. It actually IS a reasonable response, within the context of such a tradition; what irks me is that people are so ready to interpret everyone else according to their own context, which I suppose I was doing a bit in my response. But the issue even in a traditional context in which such declarations is poo-pooed, as I see the issue anyway, is that it reinforces a sense of separation from the founders or prominent members of the lineage, as these figures DO disclose and announce their realization (mostly, or at least, often enough....). So letting the Buddha's declaration (calling himself the Awakened One haha!) stand but having such a rigid social rule for everyone else really feeds into the whole religious externalization of awakening-- THEY can be awake, but little ol me? Which I think is disempowering... One of my favorite teachers always says the Buddha wanted colleagues, not followers, and to read the early Suttas that certainly seems to be the case.

I was definitely feeling more "amused curious strange" about the whole thing than "must find answers!" about it.

I also find myself in a tradition where these factors play out - on the one hand vigorously urgent and radical stories about miracles, saints, transformations; on the other a self-effacement, humility, silence, recollection. It's not really one or the other, more like a playful tangle, and context is more specific and delicate than "Catholic" - it makes a difference to whom you are speaking and in what context what sorts of personal experiences might be appropriate to share.

@Jake, the labeling thing is fascinating, really. I am watching/have watched people I know well seem to almost fade out: outspoken and brash, even, about awakening...and slowly, as the years pass, as they were more and more deeply humbled, silence. To whom does such a label apply? What does it even mean? And having seen that, I wonder if it isn't really quite a bit deeper than just being uncooperative, evasive or deceitful. That it actually might be radically honest. But I don't know.

To contextualize Gauthama's "claim"-- it was actually pretty self-deprecating, if I read it right. The question was: "Are you a siddha or a god? (There is SOMETHING about you!)"

The answer was-- "No, I'm just someone who is awake." No implicit disempowerment of others, in my eyes: all of us know that being asleep and awake are different, and that we are capable of both.

Kate Gowen wrote: ...

On the face of it, recent practice-research seems to assume that this system could be made more modern, practical, and efficient by "being more transparent." But the question as to what the desired outcome is, seems less to be considered than assumed: 'enlightenment' equally available to all, as quickly and painlessly as possible. The question as to whether the ordinary schmoe with her current ideas about what enlightenment could be, with rather minor tweaks to her mode of living and very little study-- could either understand the goal and the process, and achieve the result... doesn't seem to get investigated much....)

Also interesting me lately. Though I don't know what to say about it. My brain is muddly and I have a bad cold.

I'm sure that the muddle will pass, sooner or later, with the phlegm. I await with pleasure your further thoughts.

I think the cultural context here is important - for Theravada monks, claiming any spiritual/supernatural achievement (siddhis as well as awakening) to lay people (NOT to other monks) is specifically an offense against the monastic code. This occured in a culture in which it was generally assumed that laypeople can't become fully enlightened (although they can reach the early stages in the four-path model), and that monastics are dependent for their livelihood on the donations of laypeople. So the rule seems to have been laid down in order that monastics not compete with each other making false claims, in order to get greater gifts from the laity. There is often a general perspective in Theravada Buddhist cultures that the more advanced the monastic you donate to, the greater the karmic reward you reap, but I can't remember if this has any textual source.

So monastics can discuss these things among themselves, in a context where it's assumed that only they are capable of them (at least to a complete extent). So when you have laypeople trying to wake up hanging around monastics, there's a kind of two-worlds-clash paradigm which has this kind of outcome. Of course the ego-effacing thing can also come into play, which IMHO can be both great and really counterproductive, probably depending on personality.

That's interesting E3T. I wonder about monastic rules being seen as largely functional - is that a view coming from Western anthropologists and historians, or from within the tradition? Is it understood within the tradition as merely/mostly functional (ie this way people don't compete to donate more to certain monks), as opposed to "mystical" (ie this way one constantly returns to pointers to selflessness)?

Interesting question. I would say it's both. The training rules are both for the purpose of activities that help you along the spiritual path, and also for practical support, and that's recognised within the context of the rules themselves. One of the cool things about the Vinaya, the Buddhist monastic code, is that each rule is accompanied by the story of how it came to be given (in the early days there were very few rules, and as Buddhism became more and more popular the Buddha laid down more and more).

Occasionally they're basically just, because the Buddha said so, but often they are really interesting (and point to all kinds of wicked behaviour the monastics got up to). And you see a mix there of the reasons you mention, so sometimes it will be for spiritual development but other times, the main reason seems to be simply because the laypeople complain and the Buddha says that monastics won't get alms if they alienate the laypeople (of course, at this time they're not really 'monastics,' rather wandering ascetics who settle down for three months a year during rainy season)

Kate Gowen wrote: To contextualize Gauthama's "claim"-- it was actually pretty self-deprecating, if I read it right. The question was: "Are you a siddha or a god? (There is SOMETHING about you!)"

The answer was-- "No, I'm just someone who is awake." No implicit disempowerment of others, in my eyes: all of us know that being asleep and awake are different, and that we are capable of both.

Kate, I agree. I think the Buddha was just describing a way of being that he was living and which he saw as the birthright of sentient beings, something we can all relate to and are capable of. To me this ties in with the story of his remembering that childhood experience of wholeness and non-clinging which helped precipitate his 'awakening'. We are talking about something very basic about our nature as humans when we talk about 'awakeness', not something lofty and abstract. And I think that is super empowering.

That's why I cringe a bit when contemporary teachers dodge the issue or teach unclearly or project awakening into distant future rather than grounding it in an overlooked but simple quality of the present moment. But this doesn't really speak to the issue of labeling, I guess, and what's more important probably is the issue of how one feels about the label-- i.e., whether that label is the basis for an identification or whether it's just an empty description.

You know, "I am NOT awakened" can be a simple description that seems more-or-less accurate OR it can be the basis for a heavy delusion, depending on how the one uttering it relates to the description, and whether there is insight into the openness of the description or not... just to flip the script on this topic a bit We identify all the time with our concepts of what things are, who we are, how things are; the specific content of the statements we make about those aspects of life is less interesting to me-- from an 'awakening' perspective-- than how we relate to those statements~

Kate Gowen wrote: ...

On the face of it, recent practice-research seems to assume that this system could be made more modern, practical, and efficient by "being more transparent." But the question as to what the desired outcome is, seems less to be considered than assumed: 'enlightenment' equally available to all, as quickly and painlessly as possible. The question as to whether the ordinary schmoe with her current ideas about what enlightenment could be, with rather minor tweaks to her mode of living and very little study-- could either understand the goal and the process, and achieve the result... doesn't seem to get investigated much....

(Thanks for the invitation to natter on, Ona. A reprieve from getting on with packing up my stuff.)

Nattering back during my usual 3am wakey wakey. It seems that the "quickly and painlessly as possible" approaches and the "take up your Cross and follow me through the narrow door through which few will ever enter" approaches cannot really be equivalent. HOWEVER, to transmute "you get what you pay for" - "you pay for what you wish to get". That is, each seeker is on a winding path that is far larger in scope than our perceptions of it. We see "I spent two years with that teacher!" - God sees an entire life being woven, with that just a fragment of it. Our stories about ourselves, our achievements, our setbacks, are written by selecting out little fragments that seem important and stringing them together. We ignore the entire tapestry, focusing on the knot over there in the yellow part, the moth hole near that red part... as if those define the tapestry. It's blindness.

What one understands or desires if/when one grasps at a "quickly and painlessly as possible" approach cannot be equivalent to what one grasps if/when one enters into a "narrow door/painful road" approach. It cannot be. However, we are always, always, in every moment, freely choosing. It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive, nor even the only two responses available (there's also pulling out a pint of chocolate ice cream and flipping on the television, though I don't think anyone has proposed that as a wisdom tradition).

Anyway, I suspect the proposals of quickly and painlessly have been around for millenia. Nothing is new in human culture. Certainly many venerable old traditions posit the path to wisdom being quite onerous. I don't think they have said that just to be coy. I don't know anyone personally for whom it has been quick or painless. People I've known personally who have said it was quick and painless simply hadn't walked very far along the pilgrim's road yet, still had a full canteen of wine and sack of s'mores, and no blisters or sunburn yet.

I do have a propensity to value hard work, care, dedication, tradition, etc. so even I take my own evaluation of things with a tiny (tiny!) grain of salt. I don't know if I value those things because they have turned out to seem so rich and relevant, or vice versa. Since I also often say that, I wonder if it is true or not. I think it might be a "both" thing. This is that "second thoughts" part, @Kate and Shargrol...

Ona Kiser wrote: What one understands or desires if/when one grasps at a "quickly and painlessly as possible" approach cannot be equivalent to what one grasps if/when one enters into a "narrow door/painful road" approach. It cannot be. However, we are always, always, in every moment, freely choosing. It's not as if the two are mutually exclusive, nor even the only two responses available (there's also pulling out a pint of chocolate ice cream and flipping on the television, though I don't think anyone has proposed that as a wisdom tradition).

Sleep Your Way To Enlightenment!

"Now meditate deeply on darkness. Darkness is the nature of deep sleep. So meditate on darkness. Visualize that you are inhaling and exhaling darkness. Visualize darkness flooding you and everything around you. Visualize it entering into each and every cell of your body, until all that exists is darkness.
Repeat the word darkness mentally like chanting a mantra. If your mind starts wandering, bring it back to the experience of darkness.

When this meditation is done successfully for one full night..."

Bwahaha! Just one night! Successfully! Preceded by years of trying.

every3rdthought wrote: Sleep Your Way To Enlightenment!

That link probably belongs on the other Awake Network .