enlightenment revisited

"Gozen: But it wasn't until I spoke to Kenneth that the explicit question of "being done" was raised. Yes, I did feel "done." I'm no Buddha. And I have all those other life-level responsibilities, plans, etc. Yet, from the first moments after Awakening, I felt (and wrote in my journal) that "If I never accomplish anything else, THIS is enough."

"

That sounds familiar. When I had my experience I was very thankful (at that time I used the concept of God as it was very common in the groups) and while I was walking the tears came from my eyes and I said aloud something like: "Thank you, I will remember this forever and will be grateful as there isn't anything more I can ever want." There was this sense of "enough", nothing more was required.

Still I wouldn't say it was enlightenment. It was very meaningful experience that had great impact on my life and personality and it had implications that can be seen in my life today also. But it doesn't really mean anything if it's taken away from the context. Context being here my life and all the frameworks I use together with everyone else to create concepts that we can try to share verbally and other ways. In my eyes the enlightenment, awakening, realization, kensho, 1st gear, 3rd gear etc aren't very helpful concepts as those tend to put experiences in different levels. I would like to take all the "spiritual" aspects away from the context and just talk about normal everyday experiences that are totally normal and everyday things in a human life. Not to market it in any ways.

But then the problem is, how can I cultivate something that can't be discussed? I don't know. On the other hand I'm sick and tired of "spiritual" traditions and discussions. On the other hand I seem to need intelligent and open discussions on the topic.

Kundun, I still think we're talking about two different experiences here; "enough" is not the same as "done".

What I understood from Kenneth is that nothing other than rigpa suffices ('enough'). I think complete enlightenment in the rigpa sense is when you live in it 24/7.

Your bigger point, if I understood you correctly, is about normalizing enlightenment/awakening/realization/liberation/popping-up/whatever. If this is the case, then you're on the same page with most people here. Please check this link:

dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/1120626/Imagine

Do you resonate with this vision?

Amr

Thanks for your reply, Roomy. However, I know for a fact that life was not all joy back then. Nobody's life is like that. That said, the song in its original context is just a happy little ditty. I hadn't an ironic bone in my body at the time. I referred to it as a concise way to communicate my present sense of enlightenment / morality. I suppose could have just as well have pointed you all to the Uttara Sutta: www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.019.than.html

That's the basics of what I meant. Not exactly that there is no need to be moral, but that a certain kind of morality is inextricable from wanting, the foundation for ignorance (in the Dharma sense of a-vidya, not seeing clearly, not knowing).

If one is really interested in unconditional happiness, then morality might be very different than the commonplace morality. No need to be moral in order to be happy, nor to make others happy. No need to be moral in order to be, in order to have the supposed security of identifying with experience as a separate entity. That's what I meant by "no need for house, no need for bucks."

Cont. below.

Cont. from above.

Certainly no need to be immoral, either, but it seems a mistake to get caught in a fixed view of morality and enlightenment (i.e. Trungpa Rimpoche was an alcoholic and therefore couldn't have been enlightened). I appreciate the wisdom of Daniel Ingram's approach (that morality is the first and the last training). But toeing a moral line isn't the goal of spiritual life, as I see it. Immoral acts might be simply part of what it is to be human, whether one knows the truth or not.

The Mahasaropama Sutta is also a good explication of this. It's the image of a man in search of heartwood, who comes upon a tree. Virtue is not the heartwood, though it is found on the way to heartwood. Here is a link to a lovely reading of the Sutta (MN 29) by Steve Armstrong. I highly recommend giving it a listen.

www.suttareadings.net/audio/index.html

Edit: Added the missing link.

Yes, I think we are talking about two different experiences too - the other one was mine and the other was Gozen's. I am questioning that there is such an experience which needs to be lifted above mundane experiences. I don't think there are anyone who can live in an experience 24/7. You either have the experience right now or then you don't. I think that the thing that is referred with the concept of enlightenment is in fact, in the sense of time, a dot (or point). You have it when you have it and then you don't. Of course there might be experiences that build on it too later in your life. It is also something that is totally amoral. The moral improvement that a character is supposed to have after the experience seems to be just a myth without any reality.

I mean, the experience is important in the moment when it's happening and can act as a cause that has effect on your life. But that's it. What you do after the experience defines what it becomes. And it has social implications too, if you can use it for the benefit of others, it becomes valuable for them too. But it could as easily become something that is seen as a narcissistic behavior in the eyes of the society. How you act on it defines what it becomes. It doesn't have any inherent value itself.

This is why I think it might be harmful to even try to build concepts like awakening. They really become dead concepts at the moment they are formed.

" dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/1120626/Imagine

Do you resonate with this vision?

Amr"

The basic principles resonated with me:

"In general our basic principles and attitudes favor:

-pragmatism over dogmatism: what works is key, with works generally meaning the stages of insight, the stages of enlightenment, jhanas, etc.
-diligent practice over blind faith: this place is about doing it and understanding for yourself rather than believing someone else and not testing those beliefs out
-openness regarding what the techniques may lead to and how these contrast or align with the traditional models
person responsibility: you take responsibility for the choices you make and what you say and claim
-a lack of taboos surrounding talking about attainments
-the assumption that the various aspects of meditative development can be mastered in this life
-the spirit of mutual, supportive adventurers on the path rather than rigid student-teacher relationships
and the notion that the collective wisdom of a group of strong practitioners at various stages and from various traditions and backgrounds is often better than following one guru-type."

Although I must say that the last principle is a bit dangerous, if the group starts to form as an institution. That principle is basically the same behind 12 step movement. The wisdom of the crowds is most often really the stupidity of the crowds as people tend to lean towards common norms which are based on...well...what?

I revisited this thread now when more than a year has passed. I see I haven't changed my views on this topic much, but something that I have started to explore is how that concept of enlightenment is formed.

My view is currently that spiritual traditions are more about generating a common language and culture of discourse around topics like "enlightenment". So it's never so much about producing the experience than it is about producing the language, the discourse of spirituality.

I made a decision to dedicated this year to the spiritual search as the last year was more about getting rid of all that.. I have left the tradition I followed for more than 7 years and I finished my teacher-student relationship too. So in practice I'm independent practitioner now. That feels really good - I'm totally free to experiments and experiences, spiritual discourses and practices.

So what's your opinion about all this? Could it be that the development of language and discussion culture (ie. discourse) is more important for us in the spiritual communities than the actual experiences that are beyond all traditions and techniques?

Insofar as "spiritual practitioners" who form "spiritual communities" are by definition interested in something which transcends or escapes all discourse, yet which is ironically the very topic of spiritual discourse-- "enlightenment", "awakening", pick your rough synonym-- then spiritual communities face a unique danger of elevating the institutional aspects-- roles, rules, identity, conformity, and how these coalesce as discourse-- above the emancipatory purpose of the group.

In other words, the purpose of the group being to facilitate the direct insight into that which transcends language and concept, convention and conditioning, experience as a whole;--- the group of practitioners has a special need to cultivate a sensitivity to the quality and structure of the group's discourse, and how that seems to be affecting various parties in terms of whether the discursive norms are facilitating or inhibiting the purpose of the group in each case.

So on the whole, we practitioners cannot avoid the facts of institutionalization which automatically accompany any grouping of people under a shared purpose.

Look:
Discourse cannot be avoided, but it can be ignored. This is the crux of the matter.

If seen and tended too, it may even seem like a bigger part of our experience than if we ignore it. Yet while we don't want to obsess on it, we need-- IMO-- to be able to explore it as a community.

A problem with this is that in considering the modes of discourse which prevail in a community, we by definition render all elements of the discourse- the power structures, the roles, the rules, the whole structure which has evolved- open in the context of the critique. The very nature of these things is to resist change! So...?

Really clear insight to the discourse and the groups, thank you jhsaintonge. One thing that didn't come clear to me is what does it mean, in your opinion, to ignore the discourse? As I see it, it can't be ignored. One can be unconscious of it, but it still affects him. If one is conscious about it, he can't be unconscious about it anymore.

So I think that if one is conscious about the discourse he doesn't have any other choice but to participate to it. It might mean opening that discourse for critique or just using the knowledge of that discourse in the interplay of the power games amongst the group. So in that sense the ignoring of the discourse would just mean the latter: One doesn't open the observations he has made about the discourse to discussion but he still utilizes that knowledge in his own gestures of communication.

In fact, I think that the role of the guru is often given to the ones who has the best knowledge of the discourse as then that person is able to steer the discourse in a directions where he will maintain the power. It is only after some revolution that changes the conversations when the guru is put out of job.

Yes, I think when the discourse is being ignored-- or insights into it aren't part of the general discourse, but are reserved as you say by individuals-- then power games, miscommunication, and so on are inevitably reinforced.

Bringing the critique into the open and therefor making an open inquiry into the discourse part of the discursive culture will both require and reinforce a more peer-to-peer attitude, and will always tend to emphasize the egalitarian, collegiate aspects of group dynamics while leaving the discourse unquestioned will tend to emphasize the stratification of perceived authority.

It's certainly no coincidence-- or mystery-- that the most dysfunctional groups will have a discursive culture in which addressing the discursive culture is a taboo.

"So what's your opinion about all this? Could it be that the development of language and discussion culture (ie. discourse) is more important for us in the spiritual communities than the actual experiences that are beyond all traditions and techniques?" -Kundun

Hi Kundun,

I would say that the important thing for someone who is dedicated to waking up is neither "experiences" nor discourse; it is the waking up itself. In order to wake up, one has only to apply the tried and true techniques for doing so. If there is special value in a spiritual community (beyond the obvious value of any ordinary human community), it is in the sharing of technologies for awakening. In short, if you want to accomplish something, it's never in the talking, it's in the doing. There will always be those who would rather talk than do the hard work necessary for transformation. Don't be fooled and don't be drawn in; if you want to awaken, put your head down and meditate. That does not mean that you should ignore other human beings or your responsibility for participating in your life. It just means don't be distracted by the discourse. The discourse is infinite, and if your priorities are not clear you can find yourself at the end of a long life having talked a great deal and none the wiser for it.

Hi Kenneth, my purpose for the word "experience" was to differentiate something we "live through" from abstract conceptualizations within discussions. So waking up would fall to the category of "experiences" rather than "verbal abstractions".

I agree that the most value for spiritual searchers (or e.g. carpenters) in a community comes from the discussions about "what to do and how to do it". But it must also be noted that the instructions and sharing of experiences are also in a context of discourse. How else would we do something, if we don't first start to trust that it is good thing to do? It's important to have skepticism so that we don't fall to some dangerous cult for example.

So what seems to happen is that we end up inevitably to having discourses about these things. Some people will try out concrete practices and then develop language about hose - or just pick up the existing language for the things and start to talk about the things. That is beneficial in a sense that then people will start to make sense about whether the whole thing that is advocated is BS or something that one should invest time on. But at the same time it is possible (and inevitable, I'd say) that people will start to use that discourse as a means for power games. In those games it is not important whether the statements are even true in a sense of "experiences", the important thing is whether people buy it or not. In reality both are probably present at the same time - I mean within discussions it isn't possible to talk about these things very accurately; we can't be sure how our advises, experiences and gestures are understood by others.

So when one is forming priorities and goals the discourse will affect it - without it it wouldn't be possible to form the goals in the first place.

"HIBut at the same time it is possible (and inevitable, I'd say) that people will start to use that discourse as a means for power games. In those games it is not important whether the statements are even true in a sense of "experiences", the important thing is whether people buy it or not. In reality both are probably present at the same time - I mean within discussions it isn't possible to talk about these things very accurately; we can't be sure how our advises, experiences and gestures are understood by others.

So when one is forming priorities and goals the discourse will affect it - without it it wouldn't be possible to form the goals in the first place."

Hi Kundun. Yes, I think when you use the word discourse you seem to be doing so with an awareness of its-- for lack of better phrase-- post-modern connotations, as opposed to simply using it as a synonym for "talking". You seem to be clearly drawing attention to the sociological and institutional implications of how people use language in forming groups, even if the group is consciously focused only on the practical elements of language.

Your last point reminds me of the way that our view about what a practice is meant to do, and therefor of what we are and what we can/should become via the practice, has profound effects on how we implement the practice and the results we eventually see. In a sense, there are no practices without such views because without assuming there's something particular that's "wrong" with us, you can't "fix" it with a practice.

"Your last point reminds me of the way that our view about what a practice is meant to do, and therefor of what we are and what we can/should become via the practice, has profound effects on how we implement the practice and the results we eventually see. In a sense, there are no practices without such views because without assuming there's something particular that's "wrong" with us, you can't "fix" it with a practice."

You hit the nail here jhs, this is exactly the point that I'd like to have a wider discussion about.

I agree that the discourse affects both the implementation of practice and thus the outcome. But I also think that even if the implementation wouldn't differ the expectations of the practice would produce similar type of experiences because the interpretation of phenomena has profound effect on how it is experienced. This is one interesting point to consider: How much is it really about the practical practices and how much it is about socially constructed reality?

Hi Kundun-- and feel free to call me Jake!
My current understanding is that experience-as-lived-through is always partially constructed, partially conceptual. It is arising as a mixing of present sensations with processing structures. The processing structures help shape the meaning of the present impressions. These structures are conditioned by multiple factors: sociological, discursive, bio-neurological, and so on.

I would distinguish between experience-as-lived-through and live experience-- as in, the simplicity of what is, here and now. Constructive activity is, here and now. Present sensations are, here and now. Even the totality of experience-as-lived-through, with all its conditioning factors, is completely unconditioned in live experience. Each thought, feeling, sensation and perception shares a basic is-ness which is utterly complete and perfect and which in no way violates or supersedes the uniqueness of each.

People may live-though experiences which touch on this; that is, pick up some of the "glow" and simplicity of this is-ness, through the filtering activity. That will fade, even if it leaves some deeper lasting changes in its wake.
People may also "learn" how to live more from this is-ness as the basis, rather than living from the memories and assumptions of the processing structures as a basis. My experience is that this shifting basis can indeed be stable to one degree or another.
I don't live from is-ness in every moment-- but I do in more and more moments, due to this "learning", which for me is the heart of practice-- more of a non-practice, but even so...
I can extrapolate from my current experience and say, "It seems reasonable to me that one could live from is-ness completely, and totally drop living from the filtering structures." But the more at ease I find myself flowing from the is-ness-- It's like the closer I get, the less I want it!

"- It's like the closer I get, the less I want it!"

not too surprising, really: [from my ancient Webster's] " Want: [fr OE *wan* = deficient] 1) to be needy or destitute. 2) to be necessary or needed. 3) to desire to come, go, or be..."

Lovely! that's just it!

Ok Jake,

The move you make now in the discussion is to go somewhat deeper, or more detailed, level of talking about experience. Here in this level I feel that more experience is needed to be able to understand what you are saying. That probably means that the toppics of discussion are closer to the experience - live or live-through - and thus there are less previous discussions about it existing. This is why you seemed to invent new words or concepts to describe it.

I feel that I am able to understand what you are saying, which means that I either really have same kind or experiences or then I confuse it to something else. This is where we are now creating a new discourse. We can keep it really simple and equal in the sense of power relations, or then we might start to negotiate the level of understanding we each possess to these phenomena. More people could join it and more power relations could be negotiated. The discourse would start to expand. Or not.

"
I feel that I am able to understand what you are saying, which means that I either really have same kind or experiences or then I confuse it to something else. This is where we are now creating a new discourse. We can keep it really simple and equal in the sense of power relations, or then we might start to negotiate the level of understanding we each possess to these phenomena. "

I'm all for keeping it more equal, and in order to do that, I'm not going to make-- or at least, naively believe!-- any assumptions about whether we are sharing an understanding of something similar in our lives, or the level of understanding each of us possesses in relation to this experience or, better said, quality of experience.

I am using my own words and creating words/phrases because indeed it is little discussed. I find poetic speech more accurate in the vicinity of this quality of experience, precisely because poetic speech doesn't pretend to accuracy, but is content to sort of vibrate between live-experience and the thought-constructions of discourse. So yes, i am attempting to enact a discourse, but one which is transparent to itself. I have no wish to enact a discursive space in which many assumptions are made about what each of us knows or understands, or the relative degree of knowledge in each case. I am content to let a conversation unfold in which the discursive space is unstable or metastable, and in this light, you should understand that I am not making statements of "truth" when I point to these distinctions and create these phrases. I'm just trying to evoke a quality of experience which I find liberating. I find it liberating because the more i rely on it, the more all the patterns of conditioning-- psychological, institutional, cultural, biological-- lose their inertia, and are rendered amazingly light and non-compelling! Karma instantly self-liberates, as they say.

""It just means don't be distracted by the discourse. The discourse is infinite, and if your priorities are not clear you can find yourself at the end of a long life having talked a great deal and none the wiser for it." -- Kenneth"

Yes, indeed, Kenneth. As someone once said:
"When all is said and done, much is said but little is done."

-- Gozen

Yes, I'd definitely agree that talking isn't the same as doing... and practice is worth doing. But I'm really not sure that's what Kundun is getting at. Don't know; we'll see. I'm pretty sure what's being addressed is important, at least to Kundun and I. Nor do I find anything that's being inquired into here as somehow opposed to practice and insight. Dialogue can be a powerful catalyst for insight.

Oh, and again, discourse isn't talking. It's a different concept. Still a concept, but a different one And understanding it will help anyone who's interested in understanding what Kundun's talking about, it seems to me.

"Oh, and again, discourse isn't talking. It's a different concept. Still a concept, but a different one And understanding it will help anyone who's interested in understanding what Kundun's talking about, it seems to me."

This may be my last shot at an offering of something [my cranky, contrarian view] that may very well be distinctly NOT wanted in this context...

But I'm incorrigibly enthusiastic for whatever teaching I encounter that really connects for me, and clarifies areas of confusion. This week, it was my Ch'an teacher saying that study, reading, discussion, writing-- and even vigorous argument between friends-- are all *practices of insight.*

I recognize that this may sit very badly with the dedicated Theravadans here; it may seem that other traditions are forbidden to use that terminology in any but the approved model(s) that prevail here. I'm not intending to merely provoke. As an outsider, it sometimes seems to me that there's a dead-end in very specialized definitions of practice, insight, enlightenment; and in any view that puts mind and body at odds, as if thinking, or emotions, were *necessarily* the enemy of awareness, observation, transformation, or happiness.

Ah yes, Kate, now *that* is addressing "discourse"! Wonderful.... it's ironic to me that people (of all traditions) can so evidently (to me) plunge into the depths of experiencing, yet still have the urge to cozy up with others who will share their way of articulating things. It is a natural human impulse to want to belong, and sharing a discourse-- a whole set of assumptions about rules, roles, as well as vocabulary, assumptions about causality, power, authority, and more-- is a normal way to feel belonging.

But humans who plunge into these depths are capable of much much more, if they are *willing* to look at this tendency to coalesce around such discursive structures. Dismissing attempts to investigate this... may not be so helpful

Personally, I don't want to argue with people about what I am practicing. So I avoid it where I can. It gets boring. I just see all these views out there and I'm really not interested in convincing people of my own view. My view keeps changing anyway with my own experience. And I have critical discussions with yogis all the time but off line. We just don't let it get into a "I'm right, and your wrong" situation.

If people take offense in the way I don't want to participate in discourses on PCEs and Direct mode, its for good reason. People do not want to side with things sometimes. And I do not want to convince anyone. Each to his own. So be it. If people take something away from my descriptions of my practice, that's ok too. I just don't have any desire for that recent craziness to repeat. This is my current lazy state. It is subject to change.