enlightenment revisited

In the Meditation and Addiction thread there was a side discussion about how some people could be alcoholic and enlightened at the same time.

I'm having hard time reconciling the two. I'm neither enlightened nor alcoholic and admittedly my understanding of both is superficial. Yet the broader question about how enlightenment affects the behavior and the character is a legitimate concerns for us all especially those of us who are investing time and effort to that end.

The majority here believe that enlightenment doesn't make one perfect. Fine, but don't you think also that enlightenment will have bearing on one's behavior and character?
If one's notion of self disappears completely, how come things like jealousy, greed, lust for power which are built on the top of the notion of self still continue?

And, as another side discussion, is there a difference between first gear enlightenment and third gear enlightenment in terms of their effect on character and behavior?

Amr

Hi Amr,

Without addressing all of your points at once, I thought it might be useful to offer an alternate way to frame the discussion:

Can anyone offer any evidence that enlightenment enhances the morality of the enlightened individual? (I'm looking for specific examples.)

Not me, Kenneth.

Another alternate way to frame this discussion is to push it back to Amr just a little bit and ask why it matters if enlightened people are or are not more or less moral, sober, sane or perfect than the rest of us.

Amr?

"
Can anyone offer any evidence that enlightenment enhances the morality of the enlightened individual? (I'm looking for specific examples.)"

Hi Kenneth,

I think you will not get a specific example because it is mostly differcult to say from where the morality we do have comes specifically. If for example if one is honest in a given circumstance where specifically did this come from?

A good or bad moral action or any response or choice is a complex interaction involoving the person and those who judge him. To use Amr's example of greed, not everyone would define a given action as greedy by the same standards. Then the greedy action by the individual in a particular situation was the result of numerous stumli for a given response. To top it off morality can also be defined by what one fails to do or where one fails to act.

If we can change the question agian equate morality with wisdom accepting one shoe does not fit all ( individuals can all be wise even though their actions vary). Wisdom does not make every decision perfect and at no point is one perfectly wise.

I would argue that enlightenment and the path does make one wiser.

Hi AMR,

This topic is always interesting and usually quite enjoyable. I'm glad you brought it up.

We are once again within the context of "Models of Enlightenment". I think it's fair to say that addiction/substance dependency does not fit in to whatever model you use to define an enlightened being. Is that correct?

So, from this point of view, what do you think it means to be enlightened? Is it total freedom, or peace, or boundless compassion, or perpetual happiness and joy? Is it the end of any and all suffering? Or is it simply waking up to your true nature in an irreversible way, so that the truth is always available to you? These are just some of the many popular views on what it means to be awakened.

Some of the above mentioned views fit your standard of non-addiction, but some don't. So how do you suppose we could get to the bottom of this and discover what this enlightenment business is really all about?

~Jackson

"Or is it simply waking up to your true nature in an irreversible way, so that the truth is always available to you?" -Jackson

Can I vote for this one?

Kenneth

""Or is it simply waking up to your true nature in an irreversible way, so that the truth is always available to you?" -Jackson

Can I vote for this one?

Kenneth"

Haha. Of course!

~Jackson

"why it matters if enlightened people are or are not more or less moral, sober, sane or perfect than the rest of us? - Chris

"Or is it simply waking up to your true nature in an irreversible way, so that the truth is always available to you?" -Jackson

When I asked in the "Meditation and Addiction" thread if there is a binary (on/off) change that takes place as the result of enlightenment, the answer from Jackson was:

"Waking up to the truth is like realizing that this whole mess of life we're in -- there's nothing substantial about it. There's no real "I" in the mix. Just stuff. Just drama. It's one thing to understand this intellectually, and another thing entirely to know it in your bones"

I'm taking this definition as my starting point. And Kenneth seems to agree.

Chris, I'm not assuming that enlightened people are more moral or perfect than other people. But I'm assuming that enlightenment as defined above will have consequences on our behavior and character. I started with specific things like greed, lust for power and jealousy because if the definition above is true then these things should disappear without a trace.

Why does this matter?

First, If my assumptions above are true then claims to enlightenment are verifiable at least in the negative sense (false claims).
Second, I'm alway asked by close people (including my wife) why I'm doing this. One reason is that I'm trying to get out of the hole (dark night) that I got myself into and not to slip back. But there is also the big E. The question then why do you want that big E?

Waking up to our true nature doesn't mean much if it has no implication on our daily lives. What are the implications?

Amr

edit: grammer

"Can I vote for this one?
"

I am not eligable to vote

Thinking about how to define morality personally, I come up with three necessary elements: values, awareness, and intentionality/will.

1. Value - This refers to a set of standards of a 'right', 'good', or 'desirable' way that things should proceed.

2. Awareness - This is the ability to detect or ascertain how much circumstances (including personal actions) are in line with those values, as well as the ability to define courses of action that can influencecircumstances to be be more in line with the values. (I think that our various perceptual capacities would be included under awareness - that would include our powers of empathy and also our powers of abstract reason or logic - both of which can have a huge impact on the courses of action we experience as available.)

and

3. Intentionality - Having established a right course, and having seen the opportunity for action, one must have the will, the power of intentionality to effectively carry out that action.

This is simple, but I think it touches the main bases.

I think it is helpful to consider how classical enlightenment would impact each of those components.

Does it enhance or limit one's clarity of values? How?
Does it enhance or limit one's awreness/perceptual capacities? How?
Does it enhance or limit one's power of intention? How?

I think that when we talk about 'enlightenment' our usual focus is on particular forms of awareness. There's not as much or talk or excitement about the prospect of becoming 'morally enlightened'. I just mean generally speaking. I know the traditions and the suttas are very concerned with that.

It seems to me almost that classical enlightenment positions you better to work at moral enlightenment. But that work will only happen in a very significant way if you choose to engage in it.

Hi, Amr.

I'm going to "third" the version of "E" started by Jackson and seconded by Kenneth. I want to wake up permanently and thus to know exactly what I am, and know the Truth. That's it. I hope knowing will make me better, but the second I say "better" I'm onto a slippery slope, first of language and then of ethics. Enlightenment is the knowing part. The doing part is still up to the body/mind combination called "Chris."

I think we can generally accept that enlightenment aside from completion of the energetic circuit, is a more or less permanent dissolution of the sense of separate self, thus, resulting in seeing reality for the first time, at least persistently, as it is. We are now something greater, bigger, more universal, yet now undefined - just this; whereas, before we were defined - 'me' and my biography.

However, in the same way our bodies are more or less the same before enlightenment, as after, at least on the surface appearance, so is the rest of us. Our stuff remains, due to the remaining habit patterns (karmic traces) in the conscious and unconscious mind - including conditioning, beliefs, trauma, cultural, family, social, societal, biological, psychological and spiritual influences, including what is or is not considered greed, good, bad, right, wrong, and how to go about getting what we want and so on. These factors or forces continue to operate on the individual and indeed, compose the individual. However, now that we are enlightened, we are freer, and more spacious to think and act; rather than re-act - consciously, and less so, unconsciously. We are not free in any absolute sense, as integration of this new awareness with the above is going to take time; and these forces operate according to known natural law like any other; in the same way we can't walk through walls now that we are awake, we cannot negate unconscious processes etc. And resolution of all that is not likely in what is left of our life time.

[cont.]

So yes, people like Trunkpa, who apparently had whatever bio-psycho-social reasons that he did for alcoholism and sexual affairs and very unethical sexual practices involving spreading diseases will continue; though not necessarily. In fact, enlightenment may even fuel a person's pathology in this sense, given the detachment and impersonal sense of being and his perception of those around him according to their karmic fate and whatever beliefs and rationalizations he used.

Alcoholism may dull the nervous system and mind - impairing judgment and opening us up to the more instinctually driven forces of our nervous system for instant gratification and intolerance of stress and delayed satisfaction; and further dull our minds to the influences of the wisdom mind.

As those of us from the social sciences know, it is clear we are very complex, mulitfactoral, multidimension beings, and we need to keep a broader systems focus, rather than focus on an individual in isolation from all of the above.

[cont.] edited for typos

That said, I maintain that enlightenment is a protective factor that is clinically significant, and once added to the mix with all the other factors, will make us less likely, in terms of probability, to behavior in a neurotic, suffering, anxiety driven manner; and that the presence and 'influence' of real wisdom, insight and compassion will have some affect on the bundle of forces that is this enlightened 'person'.

I am not enlightened, but certainly I have grown and changed immeasurably. I am steadily moving back towards that background awareness of infinity that was always present as a child - and yet this conditioning and trauma that is part of Adam remains, and yet slowly breaks down through time, as more and more persistent contact with infinity as Buddha Nature burns ever brighter like a cosmic fire incinerating the little acquired 'self' that has developed since childhood. And yet, this spaciousness, in the absence of the influence of wisdom mind with its inherent compassion and giving nature, is seen to erode the belief systems of the little me that structure relative morality, such that sociopathic traits could become increasingly predominant as one becomes increasingly free of social constructs, beliefs and conventional morality and the restraining forces this places on instinct. In this way we can see meditation and enlightenment may fuel pathology and immoral behaviors - one becomes universal where it matters not where whole universes implode and trillions times trillions of lives are extinguished in an instant.

[cont.] edited for clarity

Without the persistent contact and presence of the wisdom mind and its inherent and very real and personal compassion, love and generosity that is unconditional and not based on conventional morality of 'who does or who does not deserve', the impersonal 'spaciousness' may in conjunction with existing pathology, give rise to a freer space to act with impunity, in a morally free and unencumbered domain.

We all walk around with a lot of baggage; enlightenment clearly won't wipe this away any more than enlightenment will give my body an instant shower, making it musky fresh. However, we may or may not have more insight into it; and we may at least see that we are not the baggage itself, as we once thought we were - that is, I am not this f###ed up person, however, I may still be f####ed up for a time, if not the rest of this life. It is then up to us to work on our stuff. And certainly, we are better placed to do so, being enlightened.

In kind regards,

Adam.

And finally, I seek enlightenment because I have no choice. I have seen through. I can't go back - can't forget. I am the infinite - I am this. Enlightenment is my natural state; and ignorance of my true condition is like a splinter in my mind. I pick and pick and pick to get it out and utterly destroy the me in the process.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"And finally, I seek enlightenment because I have no choice. I have seen through. I can't go back - can't forget. I am the infinite - I am this. Enlightenment is my natural state; and ignorance of my true condition is like a splinter in my mind. I pick and pick and pick to get it out and utterly destroy the me in the process." -Adam West

This is beautifully written, Adam, and accurate. All of the reasons we give for wanting to get enlightened are just rationalizations after the fact. In other words, the need for liberation comes first, then the reason. Having once tasted freedom, we have no choice but to continue. The splinter has to go, because it is seen as an irritant. Ignorance itself becomes the goad that spurs us on to freedom.

"It seems to me almost that classical enlightenment positions you better to work at moral enlightenment. But that work will only happen in a very significant way if you choose to engage in it."-Nigel Thompson

I agree with this, Nigel. As I look around, I see that some individuals are becoming "emotional grownups" (Jed McKenna's term) over time. This, however, seems to be only loosely correlated with enlightenment. It seems to be more a function of socialization. Certain scenes contribute mightily to emotional maturity. 12-Steps programs, spiritual communities like Insight Meditation Society, and social work programs at universities all come to mind as places that produce crop after crop of emotionally enlightened (but not necessarily spiritually enlightened) folks. This observation speaks to the conscious "engagement" part of your thesis.

As to the likelihood that spiritual enlightenment provides a strong base from which to develop moral enlightenment, this seems intuitively correct to me. Spiritual enlightenment, then, along with a good social scene and the will to improve, would seem to be a uniquely powerful combination for achieving emotional grownup status.

The one thesis that never seems to survive inspection is the "magic switch" theory of morality, in which an individual reaches some level of enlightenment and is instantly granted perfect morality. The magic switch is found in spiritual literature, to be sure, but I can't find anyone who has shaken the hand of the man to whom it has happened. I have tentatively concluded that the magic switch is pure self-serving hype, promoted by spiritual teachers and organizations. It's easy to see why salesmen would choose this bait, and it's easy to see why we fall for it. It's much more difficult to articulate the real benefits of enlightenment, and it's much more difficult, as a student, to conceptually grasp them.

There has been many discussions on DhO about what enlightenment is. The discussions were informative but often wide and broad and therefore rarely came to satisfying conclusions.

May I suggest a methodical approach this time. First let's drop morality and ethics from the picture.

Enlightenment is not claimed to be a skill that we continue to develop. There is a certain point where a certain thing happens. There is something absolute about it. Right?

Let's start with that thing as a premise. Then we use that thing as a cause that will have an effect. We keep tracing the chain of cause and effect until we come to something observable. Once we come to something observable then we can go back to our premise and see if it's true or not. If not, we can start from another premise and so on.

Also let's talk about Enlightenment from your actual experience as oppose to what we've read in texts.

How does that sound for a plan?

Amr

"How does that sound for a plan?"-keeiton

Hi Amr,

I loved your post, because it so clearly expresses your frustration. I think there are many who share your exasperation with the conflicting definitions of enlightenment, the slipperiness of the supposedly enlightened people, and the appeals to authority (all of which I am guilty of).

This is why fundamentalism is so appealing: "If someone could just give me a formula, some straight talk, some clear expectations...what a relief that would be! I might be willing to sign up right away." The cognitive dissonance can be so crippling that we might even give up some of our critical thinking in order to resolve it.

But it can't be resolved that way. Last night, Jackson sent me an email with a quote from the Tao Te Ching:

"Because I do not know its name, I call it the Tao. If forced to give it a name, I would call it 'Great'. (Ch 25, v 2)."

Lao Tzu wasn't trying to be cute. He didn't know what "it" was. Neither do I. Nobody does. Of course it would be comforting to have some clear talk about this. But nobody knows about it, no matter how enlightened they are. The more enlightened I get the more "unlightened" I be. What could I say to you about the Absolute that wouldn't be a load of chicken scratch? As far as the relative fruits of enlightenment, I can't even agree about that with my best friend, let alone find a broader consensus out in the world.

Of course we can discuss this, and we will. At the same time, though, it's valuable to cultivate a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance. And, above all, to enter into "the simple ground, into the silent desert, into which distinction never gazed..." (Meister Eckhart).

Kenneth

EDIT: Kenneth slipped in as I wrote this comment - read his post for a much better answer than mine!

I find myself conflicted when it comes to this conversation. I WANT to be enlightened. I really, really do. At the same time the rationale for getting there has changed several times over the course of my own practice. I went from what I now see as a very naive rationale (I'll be superhuman in some way, incapable of doing harm, capable of seeing magnificent visions and heavenly orbs), to having a somewhat more, , grounded reason (get me OUTTA this nightmare called Dark NIght!), to having a little bit more sophisticated rationale (I want to be present all the time, right now), to the version I articulated earlier here (I want to know what I am and the Truth of existence), with more than just a tinge of altruism because I do believe having enlightenment will make me a "better" human being when combined with the drive and the appropriate techniques to be that.

All that is meant to say.... Dang! It's really complicated and I'm not surprised there is never a truly satisfying answer that fits all cases for all people. In fact, I'd be shocked if there was such a thing!

""And finally, I seek enlightenment because I have no choice. I have seen through. I can't go back - can't forget. I am the infinite - I am this. Enlightenment is my natural state; and ignorance of my true condition is like a splinter in my mind. I pick and pick and pick to get it out and utterly destroy the me in the process." -Adam West

This is beautifully written, Adam, and accurate. All of the reasons we give for wanting to get enlightened are just rationalizations after the fact. In other words, the need for liberation comes first, then the reason. Having once tasted freedom, we have no choice but to continue. The splinter has to go, because it is seen as an irritant. Ignorance itself becomes the goad that spurs us on to freedom."

Adam and Kenneth, you both provided very accurate summaries of why it is that so many of us are compelled to awaken. Nicely done.

The desire for enlightenment, in my opinion, is not the desire to "get" something, but rather to "get the f**k out!" We find ourselves in a nightmare, and somehow become aware of this fact. Once we know that we are in a nightmare (or even that we just "might" be in one), we will try to wake up. Why? Many reasons: curiosity, hope, excitement, fear, compassion, whatever. And as we practice, we come to realize that trying to improve the qualities of our dream-state self do little to wake us up. In fact, it could make us more content to remain in the delusion.

We wake up for waking up's sake. Any other reason we layer on top of this is merely a way to justify our practice for those who don't get it. Somehow, just wanting to get to the Truth isn't enough for others in the dream state. They want to know, "How will your enlightenment help ME." Forget all that. We don't have to try and be a Buddha. We don't have to lay down our lives for a line of ants walking across the road to wake up to the Truth.

Is anyone else reading this thread and thinking of "The Matrix"?

I so share Amr's pain because like him, I am on the dark side of the divide. And I too am putting in a ton of effort to get stream entry and beyond, and I often catch myself wondering exactly why. What is the benefit? I am very thankful that my wife has not really asked that question because I would indeed be hard pressed to give a cogent reason. Being on a slippery slope post-A&P, needing to resolve something, doesn't quite cut it.

And it sounds like getting to where the more senior among us are is kind of like waking up in The Matrix, where the reality is not all that rosy. Pretty gritty, in fact. And I keep picturing the guy who wants "back in", chewing on his steak and saying, "I know this steak is not real, but man, it tastes good!". I don't feel like I am in hell right now, so why do I want to get out?

I try and answer this by thinking of my two young boys, and thinking if there *is* an answer that I can equip them with then dammit I am going to find it. And along the way, I really hope that by being more grounded, unplugged from whatever it is that is controlling my actions, I can actually practice more of the Eightfold stuff which just...makes...sense. I am not expecting a "magic switch", but tools to enable me to do that human being thing a whole lot better.

Naive?

web.mac.com/danielmingram/iWeb/Daniel%20...ook/The%20Blook.html

this is a link for Dr. Ingram's book. Chapter 31 is an awesome exploration of all the "models" of enlightenment. check it out if you haven't already.

Anyway, as long as I can remember I've been convinced that it is possible to really know who we are and that that knowing would be a good thing. And, that getting there was the only real important thing to do with one's life.

(side note on MY wife: the more her and I talk about all this stuff the more it seems like she may actually have fruitions. I'm going to try and get a complete post on this at some point and get your opinions)

"I loved your post, because it so clearly expresses your frustration." Kenneth

I'm glad you're enjoying my frustration Kenneth. ;p

Seriously though, I understand that it's not easy to discuss this issue. But my hope that with persistence and precision will be able to either understand the changes enlightenment introduces or, at least, we'll have a genuine understanding of why we can't understand it.

Is such a gaol too ambitious?

Amr