Enlightenment enshitenment

For various reasons, I've been thinking more than usual lately about the words/concepts of enlightenment and nirvana. In fact, I'm wondering we all have gotten our ideas about enlightenment/nirvana in the first place.



The word "enlightenment" doesn't really imply a lack of suffering does it? It just means one is enlightened, one gets it, one understands something really well. There is no promise in the word other than that, right? But, I guess, we've somewhere gotten the idea that there is this thing called enlightenment and that it eliminates human suffering somehow and makes one wonderful in some ways. Where does that come from? What are the models, archetypes?



Now, the word nirvana, however, to me, does connote a "state" of total pleasure, or total joy, or a lack of suffering. But, does it imply a permanent state? (And, obviously, those of us with even a little understanding of the nature of things know that there is no permanent state so the point is moot, isn't it?) I think to many of us the word nirvana is accompanied by a mental picture of a Buddha or monk-type person meditating with a beatific smile on their face.



Anyway, if those of us with SOME maturity and understanding just take the words enlightenment and nirvana and take away all the contextual/cultural baggage and look at them in terms of reality -- what are we left with?

Below is some material from one of the many wikipedia articles on the subject and might present some pretty common answers to my questions and seems to go along in a lot of ways with what Chris said (no surprise there )



The English term enlightenment has commonly been used to translate bodhi, which literally means awakening, a Buddhist term referring to a unique experience which partially or wholly transforms an individual from his or her previous state in samsara. Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha, is said to have achieved full enlightenment, known as perfect buddhahood. In many Buddhist traditions, reaching full enlightenment is equivalent in meaning to reaching nirvana. Attaining Buddhahood is the ultimate goal of buddhism.

The understanding of what enlightenment entails differs somewhat among the various schools of Buddhism. In the Zen tradition, Kensho refers to enlightenment experiences at the start of the path to full enlightenment Satori is sometimes used interchangeably with Kensho, but more often refers to a more stable degree of realization. Five ranks of enlightenment were formulated by Patriarch Tozan along with the Ten Ox-Herding Pictures which detail the steps on the Path.

Nirvana used nearly synonymously with the word enlightenment in many Buddhist traditions, and in experience may in fact be the same thing. (involving the process of cessation of dukkha. Tathagata and Buddha-nature are often used as impersonal translations of enlightenment. Bodhi, in turn, means "awakened", that is, aware of the Buddha nature of all beings.

I think a useful thing to bear in mind, if we're delving into the semantic of enlightenment, is that 'suffering' is a pretty clumsy translation for 'dukkha'. Sometimes dukkha just does mean 'unpleasant sensation', I guess, but much more operatively it means unsatisfactoriness. That is, the essential nature of embodied life is that we seek pleasure and fulfillment (and peace and health and errrrrthing else) from the world of impermanent things, and as long as we continue to do that we will be left frustrated, unsatisfied, et cetera. So in that respect we can think of nibbana as a blowing-out, or cooling, not of our capacity to feel pain and harmful sensation—of our ability to suffer at all—but as a cooling of our inherent tendency to demand satisfaction from conditioned things.

Another way of reconciling these concepts would be to see nibbana as an extinguishing of our aversion to negative sensation; again, the suffering, the so-called 'bitter taste' is still there, but we fully recognize it as dhamma and therefore create no judgment towards it, feel no aversion towards it, and as cmarti mentioned, never shoot the second arrow. But yes, I would say even then the expectation that emotional pain will not arise after awakening is entirely wrong view. The only way to avoid the arising of grief at the loss of a loved one is lobotomy. But if we achieve the intuitive understanding that even our grief is dhamma, and that even our grief is a conditioned, arising and ceasing sense experience, we will be able to let it go completely when it subsides. Or so I believe.

In any case, I agree that that quality, if that's what enlightenment is, is not quite as sexy as many of the ideas we might have had about what enlightenment is. But I would also argue that the path to enlightenment is a completely holistic one, involving such a degree of self-transformation in the areas of wisdom, concentration, and virtue, that it's better to understand that kind of enlightenment as just the final step at the end of the path, rather than something that can be said to describe the entire path. Buddha dharma, in other words, is not simply enlightenment, but rather awakening (at least in the sense of a lasting achieved state, as in Theravada; maybe I should say Arahantship) is a cap on the entire edifice of the successful practitioner.

"see nibbana as an extinguishing of our aversion to negative
sensation"

I think that's well described.

But what about the non-dual bit? Is it that there is no aversion to negative sensation because any sensation or perception, unpleasant, neutral or pleasant, shares the same fundamental nature/essence as any other? Is it that perception/experience that extinguishes the aversion? I think it might be.

I certainly don't think that's wrong, but the most profound sense of non-duality in my personal practice is actually subject-object rather than attraction-aversion; that whole (as I've already trotted out elsewhere on this board) 'buddha seeing the dhamma' thing, where we realize that the basic perspective of the self-in-the-world is illusory and conditioned—in other words, that I share the same fundamental nature/essence with the universe, rather than my self and self-view being the essential lens and foundation and ultimate differentiation against all phenomena 'in the world'. Therefore, my mind, behavior, perceptions and emotions are threads (if you like, of the exact same color, texture and material) that make up the dhamma, of the exact same nature as every other phenomenon.

Which is funny, because I always thought that to 'be one with the universe' was the silliest, fluffiest thing I ever heard. But when I started to actually break it down and think about what that really MEANS—obviously I am a thing, and my mind is a thing, but what's important to realize is that my perception, being this one-dimensional mediating channel between me and the world, is just a conditioned phenomenon rather than any reflection of essence—then it began to seem to me like actually the most important thing in the world, instead!

So I think that realization of dhamma-self (if you will) is another way to describe the ultimate awakening, though obviously it doesn't mention unsatisfactoriness directly. But I thinkone could easily see how, if we intuitively realize our essential dhamma-nature (I'm a hinayanan, so I'm not allowed to say 'Buddha nature'), the notion of aversion to sensation would become a sort of quaint superstition to be dropped as no longer necessary.

I think I more or less agree with you, particularly this more or less. It's always interesting trying to work with widely differing vocabularies, and mine is particularly small and experiential rather than tradition-centric or technical. But this:

"I share the same fundamental nature/essence with the universe...
Therefore, my mind, behavior, perceptions and emotions are threads... of the exact same nature as every other phenomenon." was more or less what I was getting at, or intending to get at.

Per this: " if we intuitively realize our essential dhamma-nature (I'm a hinayanan,
so I'm not allowed to say 'Buddha nature'), the notion of aversion to
sensation would become a sort of quaint superstition to be dropped as no
longer necessary."

I would say that it is not "no longer necessary" but simply no longer applicable. ie the idea of dropping it implies a decision on the part of the person in question, but I think it just becomes irrelevant by itself, not something one decides is not important anymore. But perhaps that's a matter of vocabulary and such again, so no fuss.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Another thing that actually is extinguished in nibbana, if not negative sensation, is the Defilements of greed, hatred and delusion (I'm pretty sure). So, not perceptions or experiences, but motivations.

Another thing that actually is extinguished in nibbana, if not negative sensation, is the Defilements of greed, hatred and delusion (I'm pretty sure). So, not perceptions or experiences, but motivations.

-cruxdestruct

This is where my lack of scholarship really breaks down.

But, if what you are saying is true from a Buddhist perspective (and I feel like I read that many times over the years) then, a simple "cessation" isn't nibbana, because for sure a cessation doesn't "extinguish" greed, hatred and delusion. Unless "extinguish" means something temporary and not forever and ever.

I always loved the Heart Sutra: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartstr.htm

Not the exact translation I am familiar with, but close enough. I think it's fun that this particular translation refers to The Great Spell, for me pointing to the magical power of words in manifesting intention.

Thanks Ona, but is this real? Does an actual practioner experience all this, either temporarily in a cessation or permanently? And, if not, what is the point of stuff like the Heart Sutra to you and me?

The Heart Sutra has always been a very important pointer for me. Taken literally, it doesn't really mean much. Having experienced what the Heart Sutra points to is something else entirely.



And that's how I think we should be taking all of these teachings; as pointers, not as facts. Even things like the uprooting of greed, aversion, and delusion are merely pointers to me. Without experiencing what this is like first-hand, there's really no way to comprehend it. I think the comprehension that arises without experience can be enough to guide one's practice toward realization, but it is never, ever, not in a million years the same as tasting it directly.



Many of us (myself included) set out on the path with too many ideas about what fruition should look like (fruition here meaning the result of the practice). This results in the perpetuation bothersome self-improvement projects that really get in the way of deep insight. This is my opinion, of course, and I hope it is taken merely as a pointer as well. What happens when you stop trying to improve yourself and just look? What happens when you drop any goals and just see things clearly? The fewer expectations you have, I think, the better -- save for some precautionary warnings of general types of experiences you might have. As far as the specific ways one is transformed through practice... best to leave that alone for the most part.

Palabra.

Palabra.

-michaelmonson

You know, I had a feeling that post might receive a Monson palabra.

Any discussion of "real" goes back to our lies vs stories thread... I don't distinguish "real" vs "poetry". For me this journey is not like learning algebra or geometry. It's a much more religious experience. So I don't think I'll be much use in answering your questions.

For me the point of it is to poetically and beautifully speak to an aspiration to or experience of the Absolute that is otherwise not expressible. The recitation is like prayer. It is full of passion (perhaps a hard word to explain in this context) and surrender.

Hopefully others may be able to do some more satisfying sort of analysis!

eta: since hipster just chimed in, thanks.

Any discussion of "real" goes back to our lies vs stories thread... I don't distinguish "real" vs "poetry". For me this journey is not like learning algebra or geometry. It's a much more religious experience. So I don't think I'll be much use in answering your questions.
For me the point of it is to poetically and beautifully speak to an aspiration to or experience of the Absolute that is otherwise not expressible. The recitation is like prayer. It is full of passion (perhaps a hard word to explain in this context) and surrender.
Hopefully others may be able to do some more satisfying sort of analysis!

eta: since hipster just chimed in, thanks.

-ona

Interesting, really.

While I think a lot of people share them, I don't think I've ever read or heard anyone share such sentiments so bluntly.

It's good that you sort of warned me because there is such a fundamental difference in our points of view that it'll help to avoid some wasted time in any exchange or discussion we have.

While I love stories (my life is almost dominated by them because of my love of reading, watching televison and movies and plays, watching stand up comedians, telling and listening to stories, listening to podcasts of dharma teachers, and various entertainers especially comedians) my attraction to them is how they may illuminate what is really going on here, and how they can bring me more intimacy with things -- which is what I think of as "real."

I habitually try to distinguish (either by intellectual activity or just by a bare reality testing) between stories, poetry, teachings, etc. that point to something that is actually real and true and those that do not.

Things often ring false to me at first and later I see the truth or usefullness of them. Or, something that feels right and real to me at first will eventually begin to ring false. I think for some people the kind of constant critical and analytical point of view of things that I enjoy can just be irritating, annoying, even pointless (believe me, I've seen this more than I like and have learned to curtail myself in polite social situations).

I fully agree with hipster. While my geeky systematizing nature likes to understand the semantics of all the things we've discussed here—and while, on a practical level, it is indeed very useful for me to know what people refer to when they talk about the defilements, say, or the five aggregates, in a dharma talk—knowledge of what these things are, knowledge about how they work, and even knowledge about what is really entailed by enlightenment, awakening, or nibbana, is all completely tangential to my actual practice. Practice takes place in the body, through the vehicles of mindfulness and meditation. How could it take place elsewhere? How we could think, learn or know ourselves to enlightenment? I think I'm probably not alone in the occasions when I read a sutta, or learned a list, or even just listened to a story, and found delusion and stress arising even at the very same moment that I was weighing it in my mind, or trying to.

But I actually find that disconnect very reassuring. Because even when my intellectual zeal has exhausted itself for the day, and I am completely incapable of processing my reading material, I still have the ability to sit and be mindful of the body.

always helpful when we are aware of our own inclinations, eh?

I once went on a short retreat where we read the heart sutra daily, and also had sessions where we copied it over and over on paper. We never sat around analyzing it. It was a meditation of just being with the text, not trying to figure out the specific details of its meaning. We did that with other texts during the retreat also (it was an esoteric branch of Buddhism called Tendai). I found it a profound experience, but I'm prone to that sort of attitude, as you now know. For me, its usefulness (and that of the other similar exercises) was "proven" merely by the fact that I found it spiritually moving - not knowing what it meant, but immersing myself fully in it nonetheless.

Cheers, O

Ona, I have to ask, and let me know if I seem rude or uncool (likely):

What you are after with practice is to be "moved" and to have "profound experiences?"

I habitually try to distinguish (either by intellectual activity or just by a bare reality testing) between stories, poetry, teachings, etc. that point to something that is actually real and true and those that do not.

-michaelmonson

Michael, I think one element of the concern about 'realness' that might be troubling you is that I think things can be real in two different ways. I think the above discussion of what happens during the process of awakening takes place in the context of what I'll arbitrarily call Realness Prime; I think it is useful, insofar as it's more true that aversion and craving cease, and less true that actual painful and pleasant sensation cease. So it's real in the sense that it accords with the systematic model of being and mental state that Buddhism establishes. But it's not real in the context of what I'll arbitrarily call Realness Null: It's not present, in the room with you, or even better, in your body. It's not in the past, it's not even (necessarily) in the future, the way that the sun going down is in the future. It's a hypothetical. So it might be a useful tool for cognition, it might be a useful pin to stick in a map of practice, but even something as fundamental as the attainment of nibbana still only exists in the world of maps. If I should be so lucky as to attain it, then it will exist, and I will no longer need to think about it. Realness Null isn't necessarily more real than Realness Prime, such that Realness Prime is not totally real. It's just a different kind of real. Realness Null is space-time, the intersection of dhamma and the six senses. So while I definitely wouldn't scorn anybody for, for instance, demanding a more truthful account of the life of a spiritual leader, any more than I would say that it's ok for our government to lie to us as long as it's for the greater good, I would say that every past moment of even the greatest spiritual leader's life is already inaccessible to us, and so all we can ultimately do is shuffle these facts and beliefs around in our minds like pieces on a chessboard.
It occurs to me that a more succinct way of putting it is: enlightenment is real, but it doesn't exist.

Just to be clear on the various things said and opined by me and others on the Heart Sutra and other things in terms of being "real" or "pointers" or just "stories" or "lies."

I like and agree with this:

Many of us (myself included) set out on the path with too many ideas about what fruition should look like (fruition here meaning the result of the practice). This results in the perpetuation bothersome self-improvement projects that really get in the way of deep insight. This is my opinion, of course, and I hope it is taken merely as a pointer as well. What happens when you stop trying to improve yourself and just look? What happens when you drop any goals and just see things clearly? The fewer expectations you have, I think, the better -- save for some precautionary warnings of general types of experiences you might have. As far as the specific ways one is transformed through practice... best to leave that alone for the most part.


However, this part:

The Heart Sutra has always been a very important pointer for me. Taken literally, it doesn't really mean much. Having experienced what the Heart Sutra points to is something else entirely.

And that's how I think we should be taking all of these teachings; as pointers, not as facts. Even things like the uprooting of greed, aversion, and delusion are merely pointers to me. Without experiencing what this is like first-hand, there's really no way to comprehend it. I think the comprehension that arises without experience can be enough to guide one's practice toward realization, but it is never, ever, not in a million years the same as tasting it directly.



Doesn't work as completely for me. Like I said, with something like this it is my natural inclination to really listen to the words and try to see what they are actually saying and to test it against how I think things really are. And, I hold such texts as this, that are recited on a daily basis in zen centers throughout the world, to an even higher standard of reality testing. It isn't just poetry as it is used -- it is a teaching, a teaching that the faithful I think often do take literally as something they should be aspiring to -- and something, to the detriment of their practices I think, that they compare their reality to and constantly find lacking -- which brings us back, I think, to the paragraph that I like so much. The reason that we often have so many wrong ideas about what fruition will look like is from so many unexamined texts, poems, teachings, stories.



I think if one isn't relentless at trying to distinguish the bare truth in the words they hear, it isn't very likely they will be able to distinguish what is really going on in their own experience versus the stories that their mind will constantly come up with as an explanation.



I think one of the challenges is to be able to set aside expectations and "just look" while at the same time keeping the ability to live a life that is intellectually engaged on a level of high scrutiny. While difficult, I think it is quite possible to do.

I fully agree with hipster. [...] Because even when my intellectual zeal has exhausted itself for the day, and I am completely incapable of processing my reading material, I still have the ability to sit and be mindful of the body.

-cruxdestruct

Hey crux. (I chose not to quote your whole post, to save space.)



When you use phrases like "geeky systematizing nature" and "intellectual zeal", you should know that I'm right there with you. In my psychology program, I'm somewhat known for intellectualizing everything; breaking things down, using metaphors, challenging the remarks of others who haven't thought things through (in a kind way, of course), etc. I like to know how the mind works. In terms of psychology, I love behavior analysis because it's the closest thing to "hard science" at the moment.



And yet, this does nothing for Insight practice until it is applied. So, all of these teachings -- if they are to be of any use at all -- should be pointing to practices that are to be practiced, not simply talked about. And I think that's what we do here, for the most part. Sure, we get pretty geeky and intellectual at times. But, we are usually focused on getting this information into practice. THAT'S where the good stuff is.

And that's why I like to talk about things as being pointers. It's way too easy for me to try to understand things abstractly, and thus widely miss the mark. The only thing that keeps me grounded is coming back to the practice, again and again, and just reminding myself that the only way I'm going to realize any of this stuff is if I really engage in the practice in itself, of itself. Right here, right now.



I say all of this because I imagine you're somewhat "wired up" like I am. It's great to have the ability to use and understand complex language. We just have to remind ourselves to practice! I'm really, really glad that we all do that, here. It makes the discussions far more meaningful and beneficial.

"Ona, I have to ask, and let me know if I seem rude or uncool (likely):

What you are after with practice is to be "moved" and to have "profound
experiences?"

Hm. Interesting question (you ask very interesting questions!). I am not necessarily very good at explaining myself, but I'll give it a whirl. I am after nothing. It seems more my natural inclination to be mystical. It has been so since I was a child. My earliest religious practice was in a devotional religion in which one submits to and honors deities representing the natural forces of the world (the sea, the mountain, etc.), speaks to spirits, and so on. I left that years ago after becoming tired of the cultish politics and hierarchical dogmatic structure. Only in more recent years did I begin a "dharma practice" of sorts, though again, I did not stick with the hardcore dharma approach (a la Ingram), but integrated the Western Magickal tradition.

I know the tendency is to think of mystical practices as distracting or undermining of meditative practices, but I have always integrated both. That is to say, I might sit in prayer (perhaps it is equivalent to a concentration type practice, like jhanas?) and then do insight practice from there. Or do my meditation at one time of day, and devotional work to an angel or saint at another time. In either case, all things, all experiences, perceptions etc during any activity - whether having a vision, trembling before God, picking your nose, or sitting properly on a cushion in front of a Buddha - arise and pass away and have the same fundamental (and inexplicable) essence. As we were talking about in the thread about meditating in strange places, meditation and insight into the true nature of every moment can be had in a fluorescent lit conference room, on a plane, on a retreat in the mountains, while cooking dinner, whether one is on a cushion or in the shower or having a chat with a spirit. From my perspective it seems (and others might have other terminology) the Absolute is the source of all thoughts, sensations, perceptions, and that includes not only interesting or intense perceptions like grief or ecstasy, but the boring ones, too, like scratching the back of your hand or blowing your nose or staring out the window trying to figure out what to write on your shopping list.

I guess I just have never seen mystical practice as in opposition to meditation practice, but either complementary or... not signficantly different from? It's interesting there are actually old Christian Mystical texts that describe stages of experience very much like the Stages of Insight from the Therevada tradition that influenced people like Ingram. Perhaps since we all have the same basic brain structure, certain kinds of meditation/contemplation practices seem to rewire it, whether one is a Zen Buddhist or a Sufi or whatever. You just fall into the one that suits your nature or culture.

Again, it is clearly not a useful method for some people, nor remotely appealing to others. And that's fine. There wouldn't be a thousand roads to Rome if there weren't a need for them. I ended up on this forum at the suggestion of a friend, as there are so few places for any intelligent level of discussion of meditation and related things. I enjoy that and get to learn some Buddhisty terminology along the way.

How did you get into dharma practice yourself, and what are you after, to send the ball back into your court?

Lordy that was long. Sorry about that.

Actually all I want to know is:

In Buddhist teaching, is commonly stated that nibbana is the extinguishing of greed, aversion, delusion for ever, or just temporarily?

Or, in Buddhist teaching, is "nibbana" more like a temporary "cessation" moment in which, perhaps, such things are only extinguished for a short time?

The answer to such a question may help me to understand some things better, including the Heart Sutra.

I like understanding things better, its fun.