What is Enlightenment

For those who just can't pass up a discussion or for those who take their thoughts and beliefs seriously, I offer this essay "What is enlightenment, no, I mean really, like what is it?" by Steven Norquist, available here: www.spiritualteachers.org/norquist_article.htm . Have at it.

I think there is a lot of value in the piece. Anyone who is on the way to the realization that Mr. Norquist describes in this essay will likely benefit from the pointer. According to the footnote, though, the essay was written some years ago:

"Six years after writing this essay, Stephen Norquist published, The Haunted Universe. A revised edition [of the Haunted Universe] was published in 2010 and is a marked improvement over the original."

One of the wonderful (and exasperating for an author) things about insight is that it continues to evolve. I would be curious to know if Mr. Norquist would still express his realization in quite this same way, having had this time to steep in it.

I bought Steven's book when it was first published. And resold it fairly quickly, as it had little to add over his essay. Give his book a try if you're interested.

Here's a link: www.nevernothere.com/steven-norquist-sig to a ~90 minute video of Steven Norquist at SIG 2010, where he talks on the topic of enlightenment. Some here may find it interesting.

Just my opinion, but I don't think this guy is fully enlightened. I've seen this before in the Adya community and related neo-Advaita communities--the cognitive insight is there, but very little else is. He's defensive, there is fixation on emptiness, which leads to a kind of relatively immature dissociated and shock and "punk dharma." No penetration of enlightenment through the bodily vehicle, no manifestation of spiritual love. Then again, he was clearly not prepared and never had a teacher, so that is a risk.

Apropos of this, I just finished reading Bernadette Roberts who describes a similar loss of self. But she clearly views that as an intermediary step towards something more complete--knowing as God knows Himself she would say. She calls no-self the great passageway. If you read both her and this fellow the level of emotional maturity and skillful means in her vs. him is at another place altogether. She's just one example, of course.

Edit: Not saying this won't be useful to some people. Just saying that I definitely don't think this guy has the final word.

Mark

I stumbled across his site, with couple more essays, and forward to that essay:
hauntedpress.net/What_is_Enlightenment.html

Most interesting parts to me about how the universe emerges spontaneously, is perfect, and every event necessary, and makes one quite lazy, and you feel like you are just playing along in life. This seems a no free will type conclusion. Not that I am against that as the possible truth, but few people hold that kind of view due to finding it disturbing.

Hi Nick,

If this was the truth, how could you possibly be for or against it - i.e. what difference would that make? Would it be less true, for example? Is there a choice to be made between "views" and "truth"? What effect would the choice have?

Here's a thought - not as a pacifier for the yearning for truth, but as a motivation to find out once and for all (if you are into that kind of thing):

The "free will" vs "no free will" debate rests on countless assumptions, such as: that these are the only two possibilities; that there is such a thing as freedom, and such a thing as will (what do these words mean?); that free will can be owned or claimed (what does it mean for the "free" in "free will" to be owned?); that there is someone in the first place to have or own free will (i.e. who am I? What am I?), and so on. Find all the assumptions, see them clearly, debunk them (or disembed from them, if you prefer the word - this is disembedding from thoughts/being mindful of mind stuff) - arrive at the truth.

This is not an intellectual thing, even if questions like "what is truth" look like something to form or hold an informed opinion about. Knowing truth is something completely different from knowing all about truth.

This is a practice I found very useful - YMMV, obviously. Experiment, find out what works for you. In the end, regardless of the method(s) employed, paradoxical stuff like "free will" will lose the capacity to captivate (i.e. fetter) you.

Cheers,
Florian

"Here's a link: www.nevernothere.com/steven-norquist-sig to a ~90 minute video of Steven Norquist at SIG 2010, where he talks on the topic of enlightenment. Some here may find it interesting.
"

I found this a good presentation. I thought his answers to questions were very good and conveyed how difficult this experience is to explain. The experience deepens over time and different people emphasize different qualities or aspects of the experience - compare with Shinzen Young - a guy that is I would guess 30 years or so into it - or Richard of AF - or Bernadette Roberts - on and on. They are all speaking of this experience in their own way and from their own depth of the experience. Some focus on what is gone and the disturbing aspects, others on what is discovered, others on the process and path.

One common thread is that no one is saying that they would ever want to go back to the way things were before.

"If this was the truth, how could you possibly be for or against it - i.e. what difference would that make? Would it be less true, for example? Is there a choice to be made between "views" and "truth"? What effect would the choice have?" -monkeymind

This is a sweet and welcome attitude, Florian. Jacques Derrida would be proud.

www.iep.utm.edu/derrida/

"One common thread is that no one is saying that they would ever want to go back to the way things were before." -Chelek

What an important point, Chuck. It may be hard to reconcile the seemingly contradictory views of folks who say they are awake, but I don't hear anyone complaining that they were better off before they snapped out of their deluded funk!

edit: typos

"This is a sweet and welcome attitude, Florian. Jacques Derridas would be proud. "

Hi Kenneth,

Heh. While I can't claim to know much about Derrida's philosophy to any real extent, I had done some rather shallow reading of 20th (and 19th) century philosophers (and a few pre-Socratics) prior to my interest in Buddhism.

Sometimes, I think Derrida was doing to Western thought what Nagarjuna did to the Indian philosophy of his time. It's that using-the-system-against-itself subversive attitude towards scholarly (and other kinds of) tunnel-vision and so on. Apparently, Derrida even managed to annoy Chomsky, who complained about the lack of clarity in D.'s writing. That is so deliciously ironic.

Speaking of books, how's yours coming along?

Cheers,
Florian