Lost in secular land?

Hi Ona,

I think that you and I actually mean two different things, and that's OK. I tend to operate from a key philosophical difference than many other contemplatively inclined folks participating in the dharma forums.

There are those who assume that Enlightenment/Awakening is more or less the same for anyone who gets there, even if the path leading to it can vary. This is the "all roads lead up the mountainside" perspective. In my view, there is some truth to it. Though, it smacks of realism (there is a real thing called enlightenment, but many ways to acheive it).

BUT, I'm a bit of a radical contextualist... most of the time. I think that there are some deep features to the results of various contemplative practices that are held in common in an inter-related sort of way. But I also see that there are about as many different versions of awakening as there are yogis. One's context (biology, psychology, social influences, personal learning (reinforcement) history, socio-economic status, intellectual capacity, etc, etc.) can give rise to very different results for different people. To say that there's only one enlightenment is like saying there's only one ice cream, just with different flavors.

Of course, we will all make value judgments about which types of awakening we think are the most beneficial for ourselves and others. I make these kinds of judgments all the time. But I try not to make them as though it is because they are "right" or "true". It's more that I think certain goals and "end-states" (for lack of a better term) are more functional than others, for human beings. I'm perfectly happy saying that I think my values are better than someone else's, but I dare not say they are necessarily more true.

So, rather than pointing my finger at someone's practice and saying, "Hmph! That won't lead to REAL enlightenment," I try to point my finger and say, "Yuck! Why would anyone want THAT kind of "enlightenment"?!" Haha.

As I write this, I realize how ridiculous it sounds. I know that I'm residing in a very post-modern groove, and that there are valid points to other perspectives. I just like to make sure that my assumptions are being examined, so I don't fall into any of the old traps that I see others falling into all the time. I'm sure I fall into lots of traps, too.

Is that helpful at all? At least with regard to understanding where I'm coming from?

I think Jack Kornfield articulates this idea more clearly than I do. He uses two ideas. First, that awakening is like a multi-facted jewel (which emphasizes the inherent oneness of awakening in the midst of the diversity of expression). Second, he speaks of there being not just one enlightenment, but "Enlightenments" (plural). Acknowledging the multiplicity of awakened expression, while not putting them all against each other unnecessarily, is a worthwhile goal. It doesn't have to be "one", and it doesn't have to be "many". Both show up, and it's interesting to notice just what conditions give rise to the realization of either (which brings us back to my contextual schtick).

-Jackson

Zach, I enjoy having different opinions in this forum, and I didn't think you were belittling anyone's practice. Feel free to continue to speak your mind

Dear Jackson - that made my head spin! But that's okay! You are clearly far geekier than I and I suspect you have probably encountered far more diversity in the world of "enlightenment" than I have, which has given you a far broader perspective than I have. Or else you just like to really think about things in more complex ways than I do. (That's still okay, too.) It's always interesting to see how other people approach things, and I will keep your explanation stored away, and one day it might just pop back out of the filing cabinet and I'll say "oh my god, I totally get what he meant!"

(Crux - I certainly didn't think you were belittling anyone, and none of my comments were directed at your comments specifically.)

All - Honestly, it is absolutely fascinating for me to hear these various perspectives. Despite many of my friends having eclectic and *very* varied backgrounds of meditation practice, I am encountering a diversity of perspectives here that I do not among them, and that's good stuff.

I like what jackson just wrote about enlightenment(s)/awakening(s).

I was also intrigued and set free a little bit by ona's posting of the Titmus article in which he stated that "enlightenment" (from a historical buddha perspective) was just some western BS and that something called "awakening" was much more accurate.

I have a kind of base line interpretation of awakening that it would be hard to persuade me away from: being awake means that you get that (a) there is no real, solid permenant self, but rather a continuous and ever changing creation of mind and (b) that things are just constantly arising and passing and nothing ever lasts.

From that baseline there can and will be a lot of variation of what can and will happen to a person/entity in terms of actions, perspectives, states of minds, etc. but getting those two things in some form or another is basically it.

Zach -- I agree. I doubt anyone was offended by what you wrote. Keep it coming.

For me the "enlightenment" vs "awakening" debate seems like a word game. I get it as a politics kind of thing, like when people don't want to call something torture, because then they'd have to apply a law to it. Or they argue about what poverty is, so they don't have to pay welfare to certain groups, and so on. But I don't otherwise see how they are not two different english words that have long been used to point to the same ice cream (that Jackson suggests isn't one ice cream, but rather a bunch of ice creams...). But that's clearly the log in my own eye, so I'll keep listening and trying to comprehend.

One implies an arising of wisdom (light) the other implies opening one's eyes (to let light in!).

What is the implicit difference you (anyone) finds so important?

If the E word has been misused, why not reclaim it, like some people have reclaimed the word 'queer'?

"I have a kind of base line interpretation of awakening that it would be hard to persuade me away from: being
awake means that you get that (a) there is no real, solid permenant
self, but rather a continuous and ever changing creation of mind and (b)
that things are just constantly arising and passing and nothing ever
lasts."

So this is actually a broader question for the forum, not just Mike. The above description to me leaves out any mention of that which is *not* conditioned.

To totally paraphrase Titmuss (sorry dude), "impermanence,
unsatisfactoriness and
non-self are three
characteristics of conditioned existence - but not true reality.
If they were the true reality, there
would no release, no liberation.
The Unconditioned is anatta but not
anicca or dukkha."

Is the above paraphrase not applicable in certain lineages of Buddhism? In other words, is the Unconditioned not relevant in some contexts/culture/approaches?

If so, please explain.

Ona:

I think my feeling about the two words has always been that they are different things/ideas.

that "awake" referred to some kind of lacking in basic ignorance about things; while enlightenment was some kind of final end all and be all in which one had such a complete and super perspective on things that they were no longer incapable of regular suffering. Two different things for sure.

But, of course, that could just be me.

So then, for me, I don't really want that "enlightenment" word/thing. I don't believe in it really and it is just a loaded, misused expression. A straw man. I'm breaking up with it. I'm taking the kids and moving to a condo on the outskirts of town.

Awakening I like because it isn't so loaded, and the definition I gave it above is, to me, a real, actual thing that I understand and that I think really happens to people. And the fascinating thing is what all of us awake people are now doing with our lives.

(what I'm curious about now is if there is a form of my version of awakening that happens in different religious/philosophical contexts -- buddhist, christian, hindu, yoga/guru, non-dual, and on and on -- some understanding that happens that creates the same kind of freedom-feeling for each person but that is just interpreted differently based upon perspective/patterns. I'm not sure yet. )

"I have a kind of base line interpretation of awakening that it would be hard to persuade me away from: being awake means that you get that (a) there is no real, solid permenant self, but rather a continuous and ever changing creation of mind and (b) that things are just constantly arising and passing and nothing ever lasts."
So this is actually a broader question for the forum, not just Mike. The above description to me leaves out any mention of that which is *not* conditioned.
To totally paraphrase Titmuss (sorry dude), "impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self are three characteristics of conditioned existence - but not true reality. If they were the true reality, there would no release, no liberation. The Unconditioned is anatta but not anicca or dukkha."
Is the above paraphrase not applicable in certain lineages of Buddhism? In other words, is the Unconditioned not relevant in some contexts/culture/approaches?
If so, please explain.

-ona

This will be interesting.

On KFD it was called "the controversy" and it was, believe me.

I'm pretty sure that Chris Marti would have an explanation for you.

I, myself, at this point, don't understand all this "unconditioned" stuff, something that is actually cool and unchanging and wonderful. My only guess right now is that I just haven't seen it. All I see are the three characteristics and some wonderful, peaceful states of mind that are the fruit of various practices/perspectives/modes of awareness.

I hear you Mike. That's a useful clarification.

I am not really a Christian, but my practice includes some Christiany elements now (to my surprise, since I never had any previous interest). This is part of why I was asking my second question before. Because for me yes, thoughts sensations perceptions arise and pass away and are not me, for sure. But that's not all. There is God. There is Divinity in everything. All the other "stuff" of life (thoughts, perceptions, etc.) manifests out of that Source Of All Things, which is constant, unchanging, infinite and so on. (ETA: and which I'd say is the same as Titmuss's use of the "Unconditioned"). So I wondered how that matches up with other traditions.

To totally paraphrase Titmuss (sorry dude), "impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-self are three characteristics of conditioned existence - but not true reality. If they were the true reality, there would no release, no liberation. The Unconditioned is anatta but not anicca or dukkha."

Is the above paraphrase not applicable in certain lineages of Buddhism? In other words, is the Unconditioned not relevant in some contexts/culture/approaches?

If so, please explain.

-ona

I think "unconditioned" is sometimes understood as a noun (i.e. The Unconditioned); sometimes as a verb (i.e. a process of unconditioning); sometimes as more of an adjective (having been unconditioned). I sometimes have a problem with the first one, becuase people can often mistake certain stages of practice having realized The Unconditioned, when really they haven't taken the step that unravels identification with consciousness/Witnessing (the identification being the potential "conditioning" factor... perhaps not).

There are strengths and weaknesses to all of these perspectives. From a contextualist point of view, it's more important to see how taking different perspectives can be helpful, as well as how they can block us from further growth. Taken to it's rational conclusion, continually unsticking one's self along the way may well lead to a more thorough realization of that little thing referred to by some Buddhists as, ya know, EMPTINESS.

Because for me yes, thoughts sensations perceptions arise and pass away and are not me, for sure. But that's not all. There is God. There is Divinity in everything. All the other "stuff" of life (thoughts, perceptions, etc.) manifests out of that Source Of All Things, which is constant, unchanging, infinite and so on. (ETA: and which I'd say is the same as Titmuss's use of the "Unconditioned"). So I wondered how that matches up with other traditions.

-ona

Right, you and a LOT of people see things that way and, so far, I just don't. So far -- and I am open and realize things can really CHANGE -- all that means nothing to me. All I can see so far is just a bunch of stuff happening which is then given a totally created meaning by our brains. And, anything that feels or looks like something special or divine or God or all those things you just said is just a trick of the body and the mind and, again, given meaning by the mind based upon our patterns of thought and perspectives, etc. It's all Oakland.

I know this might sound sad or depressing to some people but to me for some reason (so far) it is just wonderful and lovely.

"It's all Oakland"

ROFL

"It's all Oakland"
ROFL

-ona

Cool. I had a feeling you'd get that. Kind of obscure these days, though.

" But I also see that there are about as many different versions
of awakening as there are yogis. One's context (biology, psychology,
social influences, personal learning (reinforcement) history,
socio-economic status, intellectual capacity, etc, etc.) can give rise
to very different results for different people....So, rather than pointing my finger at someone's practice and saying,
"Hmph! That won't lead to REAL enlightenment," I try to point my finger
and say, "Yuck! Why would anyone want THAT kind of "enlightenment"?!"
Haha."

So to get back to this statement from Jackson for a moment (and anyone else's opinion welcome):

Jackson, if you were having coffee with a guy, Smith, and he told you how a few weeks ago he had this experience that [insert his description here, using any range of terminology relevant to his culture, background, etc.] you would likely be able to think to yourself "That sounds a lot like an awakening experience." or "That sounds like a pretty interesting experience, but not like an awakening experience."

The point being, that like email spam, you know it when you see it, no?

[And surely in many cases, "That sounds interesting, but not like any awakening experience I ever heard of, though Smith seems pretty sure it is, so I'll allow that he thinks that was an awakening experience and I think he has no idea what he's talking about." ]

I often think this about spam, that I can skim my inbox and say "spam, spam, spam" just by instinct, by reading the little signs, so why didn't it go in my spam folder? How did the computer not know?

If there is some gut reaction you have to a story like Smith's, then there must be some identifiable elements common to awakening experiences that make them recognizable as such no?

Do you get what I'm trying to poke around in here? You are saying there are all these different contextual ways of being enlightened or awake, and that is quite possible very true, but there is some common thread, or there would be no way to communicate about it, no?

And if there is a common thread, why is that not one ice cream with many flavors?

Good morning. This was such an interesting conversation I couldn't let it go this morning.

Ultimately if we are going to bother having conversations using words, we have to go with their limited ability to express very complex or subtle experiences. Otherwise, the option is not to talk to each other at all, in which case why have a forum?

Too late to edit... so this brings me to another point. If a person is talking about or teaching awakening, do they at some point say "here's what we're talking about" in a fairly specific way?

So just as an example I picked up a book I have in my suitcase, which I haven't read all of yet, and began skimming the introductory parts. The book is Mind at Ease by Traleg Kyabgon. I wondered, does he set out to describe, right from the start, what the point of the book is, and does that point involve enlightenment/awakening?

So he actually kind of talks about spiritual journeys and the context of Buddhism and western preconceptions about spirituality and various things one needs to bring to the journey to make it wholesome and productive.

On page 48 he finally says something that is fairly straightforward: "The ultimate goal of the spiritual journey is to realize the union of your mind and ultimate reality. You discover that not only are you in reality, but that you embody that reality. (it goes on a bit)...what you become is what you have always been. At the end of the journey, you are simply returning home."

Whether that particular truncated description makes any sense to you or not, my point is, he tries to sum up "what the point is" in one brief paragraph.Of course he goes on to explore the details of that in the course of the rest of the 200 some pages.

But I spend a lot of time reading business pitches, and business plans, and I'm always looking for that "elevator pitch" . If you are going to teach about or talk about awakening, at some point don't you have to say "this is what it is"? And we can't do that without words, which are limited.

If someone came to you and said "I want to awaken/be enlightened. I'll do anything. Help me." (yes, using those words), what would you say to them?

and a vast emptiness absolutely chock full of pure potential (becoming/destroying) when I chose to perceive that.



.... palabra .....

"If someone came to you and said "I want to awaken/be enlightened. I'll do anything. Help me." (yes, using those words), what would you say to them?"

Do everything you can to closely and choicelessly watch your experience as if you and everything else was was brand new every moment.

Is that the same as or different than "be with everything just as it is"? (be vs watch I suppose being the distinction? relevant distinction or not?)

Is that the same as or different than "be with everything just as it is"? (be vs watch I suppose being the distinction? relevant distinction or not?)

-ona

I think the "watch" is the important word for me. You might or might not "be" with everything. Watch yourself being with every thing, watch yourself not being with everything, watch yourself attempting to be with everything, watch yourself trying to figure out the distinction between being and watching everything.

It's gotta start brand new right now all the time. Don't decide anything ever. Let yourself be as unskillful, ragged, confused, lost, hurt as you can be, or, as peaceful, wonderful, kind and wise as a moment can bring -- and everything in between. You and everything else are always moving all the time and it is suffering and illusion to alight in any one spot.

I spend a lot of time watch myself attemping to watch and looking away and getting upset at myself for looking away -- as soon as I just look at that process as if it were the most natural thing to be happening (and it is of course, whatever is happening is the most natural thing to be happening) the moment is transformed into something clearer, lighter, brighter. Then, often, I'll get transfixed by the clearer, lighter, brighter effects and start to expect those to happen every moment -- which creates an instant return of dark discomfort. It's a practice, an art form almost I think --- that when done with continuity and momentum on and off the cushion will wake one up.

I think that's useful advice, Mike, and quite simple, which I think is a good quality for things to have. My bias.

Part of this whole conversation for me is about exploring what words work and what words don't. As we have all been discussing, words are sometimes not really sufficient, and only hint at experience.

One example of why I am investigating this is a question from an acquaintance who wanted to start meditating. Given her tendency to be very nervous and unable to sit still for long, I suggested several months ago she start with the very simple "count to ten" method. After some weeks, to my surprise, she said she was able to sit for 20 minutes instead of five, and was feeling motivated to keep sitting. So I suggested she start watching the breath. Again, to my surprise, she did it, increasing her sitting time to 30 minutes, and starting to have some experiences of expansiveness, and now some experiences of unpleasantness and discomfort. She does not have the background or interest to be showered with "dharma terminology" - I am trying to keep things very simple. We have not even discussed "enlightenment" at all. Her initial interest was in seeing me and some other acquaintances practicing, and in thinking it might help ease her day-to-day anxiety (which it is).

My suggestion to her re: the unpleasantness, was this:

"The key thing to do when stuff is weird, painful, raw, strange or
otherwise unpleasant is to try to *not resist*. The Buddhist idea of
"equanimity" is about being able to be with whatever is happening right
now, no matter what it is. During practice, one tries to do this by not
grasping at stuff that feels nice, and not rejecting stuff that feels
icky. One tries to just allow whatever is happening at this very moment
to simply be as it is, and just be there, allowing it, neither analyzing
nor liking nor disliking nor running away from. Just sitting there,
allowing. As if you were caught in the rain without an umbrella and
instead of going "oh crap, I'm getting wet" instead you thought "that's
what rain feels like" and just noticed the sensations on your skin as
the rain drops fell on you, and just noticed that your body is
responding by getting goosebumps, and that your mind is responding by
wishing you had an umbrella. Just noticing it, and letting it be just as
it is."

Ona,

I appreciate that you're taking the time to have this discussion with me and the others in the forum. I absolutely LOVE the diversity of perspectives found here!

You wrote: "Jackson, if you were having coffee with a guy, Smith, and he told you how a few weeks ago he had this experience that [insert his description here, using any range of terminology relevant to his culture, background, etc.] you would likely be able to think to yourself 'That sounds a lot like an awakening experience.' or 'That sounds like a pretty interesting experience, but not like an awakening experience.'

The point being, that like email spam, you know it when you see it, no?"

This is a great scenario to explore.

First, I should say that I really do agree that there are many deep features to this path of/toward awakening that we're all speaking of. The common features that I think are the most clear and easy to spot are the ones that come early one. For example, A&P experiences are pretty easy to spot, as are "dark night" periods. Equanimity can be a little bit more tricky, but it can be "diagnosed" when enough of one's history is provided for the sake of context (there's the all-important 'C' word again!").

However, beyond what some of us refer to as "first path" (i.e. stream entry, initial kensho, etc.), it can be really tricky to determine just what "full awakening" is in any sort of broad sense. After this initial awakening, there are many different types of developmental practices one can choose to focus on (or just sort of "fall into" based on the momentum of their practice). Some choose (based on their context, of course) to choose a path more focused on non-attachment. Some focus on cultivating compassion. Some focus on service. Some focus on peace. Some focus on being OK with whatever is happening without engaging in any "works" to change experience. Some focus on "works" that are less conducive to suffering than other works which are prone to cause lots of suffering. Some focus on stabilizing some kind of non-dual perspective. Some focus on being flexible enough to enter and exit a full range of perspectives when they feel they are appropriate. Some rest as conscious-knowing, some ground themselves in changing experience.

Which of these is the "real" enlightenment; the full big-daddy-shebang!

What I see happening often is that people will continue to practice after a developmental breakthrough, and then they come to new territory. This new territory, according to their current models, MUST be higher, wider, deeper, more awakened than whatever came before, because what comes before is always less impressive than what comes after, right?... No, not necessarily. What I think is really happening, here, is that people are tapping into different facets of awakening at different times. It's not that abiding non-dual awareness is all that much better than full-bodied compassion. It's not that equanimity is lesser than loving-kindness. They're all a part of this big, vast, multi-dimensional potential that we seem to want to label with one big, all encompassing word - Enlightenment.

You see, what I find to be the danger of the "one enlightenment" idea is that it leads people to think that every new discovery is necessarily a step forward. Sometimes it's a step to the side, I think. It's hard to know what is really a forward leap and really just another facet to explore from the groundless-ground of awakened consciousness. Unfortunately, the diversity of models and their potential for being misinterpreted (or rather, unhelpfully interpreted) makes it incredibly easy to find a map or model that aligns with whatever one desires to believe (e.g. this new thing MUST be higher/better/wider/deeper than where I was before!).

To address your "mail vs. junk mail" analogy... first, I like it! But, I'll put it a different way. Let's say "enlightenment" is like a community. When you first visit the community, you meet some really great people. These people behave in certain ways, and you begin to associate the people with the community of enlightenment. But, the more time you spend in the community, the more you meet different kinds of people with different characteristics. Each person isn't necessarily more enlightened than another. But, when you're in the community called "enlightenment", you tend to know where you are. So, yes - I can usually determine whether or not one's experience or development may constitute being within the family of awakened experiences. But I hate to refer to enlightenment as One thing that will inevitably be the same for everyone.

[Of course, saying awakening is like a “family” or “community” is yet another feature of my contextualist bias. I know there are limitations to this view, even if I haven’t figured them all out yet.]
Is that any more clear? Again, I really appreciate your taking the time to help me flesh out my views. I enjoy your point of view. It challenges me to question my own assumptions, which is something that is good for all of us.

Have I mentioned that I love this forum?

-Jackson