What is enlightenment?

[CharlesSwann]

I paid a touristic visit to the Big Buddha in Hong Kong a few days ago and there was a hippy dude sitting in the lotus position apparently in a trance and oblivious to the crowds thronging crowds about him. Apart from the fact that I found this lack of consciousness in a public place vaguely unsettling, it got me thinking.

 

I always assumed enlightment equated with truth, but I'm coming to think that it's merely serenity - a refuge, which involves a flight - and (correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm no Buddhist) the process involves the annihilation of the consciousness.

 

To my mind, enlightenment should not be the annihilation of consciousness but the very opposite - the attainment of a rational system of thought that produces the most objective truth. That requires consciousness. It seems to me that the greater consciousness you can sustain, the shriller the truth. This is not calming, but searing and barely sustainable. In this scheme, enlightment is not serenity, but clarity. The achievement is in the objectivity of the truth achieved. Of course, there is some serenity in the satisfaction of having found a workable 'system of thought', but at no point does it involve the annihation of consciousness.

 

Am I inventing a new religion here, or have I always misunderstood 'enlightenment'?

[simple1]

Sometimes described as the highest level of Consciousness. Textbook definition...

 

the awakening to ultimate truth by which man is freed from the endless cycle of personal reincarnations to which all men are otherwise subject

 

Hinduism:

 

Merging of the metaphysical Self (Atman) with the Universal Self (Brahman)

 

e.g. from my signature: Om Tat Sat - All That Is

 

http://www.world-religions-professor.com/atman-brahman.html

[Brucenkhamen]

Statues are usually unconcious and oblivious to their surroundings, thronging crowds or not.

 

The way you've described what you expect enlightenment is pretty on the mark as far as I'm concerned, at least in terms of how the Buddha taught it.

 

It's not a trance, escape, or annihilation of conciousness.

 

[nausea]

Trying to fix Nirvana in concepts is like trying to carry water in a sieve. 

[connda]

The 'truth' is that their is no 'you'.  What you perceive as 'you' is simply feelings, thoughts, perceptions, and instance of mind arising and passing away.  The illusion we live in is a 'grasping' that make all of that into what we believe we are: A 'You'. 
Enlightenment is going beyond that illusion and seeing feelings as feeling, thoughts as thoughts, perceptions as perceptions, and instances of mind for what they are - no 'you' but just conditioned phenomenon arising and passing away.  So 'enlightenment' is the ultimate in letting go.  Which are just words.

Perhaps you've heard 'enlightenment' described in terms of annihilation of self or consciousness.  It's a description and only as accurate one can be when describing a non-dualist state from within a dualistic state. 
This gets really convoluted when you attempt to describe something that is beyond the concept of 'you' from a place the necessitates that there is probably a You that is attempting to understand from that perspective.  That's why Buddhism in all it's flavors and textures is rife with conundrums and paradoxes and riddles that on the surface don't seem to make sense. 

So here's a paradox to consider:  You'll never get 'there' though intellectual analysis or reading or though the experience of others.  You only 'get it' though direct experience. 

Ok, so how do you get 'direct experience'?  Back to the spokes of a wheel analogy.  Many path go to the same place.  You pick one and stick with it.  My own 'path' is a rather unadulterated form of Theravada Buddhism and the technique is fairly simple:  Morality and meditation.  They are connected.

Now we just stick to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Sonchai

Morality: I grabbed these off the Internet.  They're good as any.  You'll find the 5 percepts of a layman worded differently.  Don't get hung up on the words.  Think of these 'rules' as being conducive to 'letting go'. 
Abstain from taking life
Abstain from taking what is not given
Abstain from sensuous misconduct
Abstain from false speech
Abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind

Meditation: There are probably libraries of books describing different meditation techniques.  Imho, the KISS approach is anapanasati, or awareness of breathing, and as confusing as it may be you'll find meditation teachers teaching different forms of breath meditation.  So pick one and stick to it.  Consistency is the key.  Meditation allows you to enter subtler and subtler states of mind.  In those states are you 'unconscious' or actually fully conscious?  Meditation can lead you to states of what I'll call supraconsciousness where you are fully conscious but completely cut off from the perception of the five senses.  Is that 'unconsciousness'?  Back to conundrums and paradoxes and riddles.  But it's the act of completely letting go.  In that letting go is where you would experience what you called, for better words, the 'annihilation of consciousness', though these are just words - a description - with all it's limitations. 

You only 'get it' though experience.  Morality and mediation facilitate that.  Try to analyze it, and you'll never 'get it'.  Look for 'it' and you'll never find it.  Let go, and it's 'right there'. 

Confusing? Yep.  Simple? Yep. 

Edited June 10, 2018 by connda

[nausea]

These are just guidelines. Bhuddism has nothimg to do with morality.

5 hours ago, connda said:

You only 'get it' though experience

Very true. There are three religious experiences - one is based on text, one is based on rationalism (more treacherous than the oracles of the ancients), the third is based on experience. I tend to go with the experience one until I find something better.

[poanoi]

the realization that existence sux @$$ and you wish

for nothing but it all end.

as buddha put it, life is suffering.

 

the great monk drukpa kunley took an entirely different take on it tho http://badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=176117624362

Edited June 12, 2018 by poanoi

[VincentRJ]

On 6/12/2018 at 11:07 AM, poanoi said:

the great monk drukpa kunley took an entirely different take on it tho http://badassoftheweek.com/index.cgi?id=176117624362

If I were new to Buddhism and read that, I wouldn't have a bar of it. Ridiculous!

One should be aware that the religion of Buddhism was not created by Gautama Buddha, but by others who interpreted his teachings in accordance with their own biases and cultural conditioning.

[fusion58]

When, at the tender age of 16, I first discovered Buddhism, I thought enlightenment meant the dissolution of ego.

 

I've since come to understand it as the dissolution of egocentrism.

 

 

[VincentRJ]

On 7/6/2018 at 1:13 PM, fusion58 said:

When, at the tender age of 16, I first discovered Buddhism, I thought enlightenment meant the dissolution of ego.

 

I've since come to understand it as the dissolution of egocentrism.

 

 

Intersting perspective. Would you agree with the following definition of the differences between the two?

 

"Egotistical" means to think very highly of one's self, usually understood to mean unrealistically highly. "Egocentric" means to think only of one's own problems or concerns, or someone who doesn't care about other people."

 

I must admit that after reading about basic Buddhist principles, and contemplating and meditating on such principles, I tend to view human behaviour in general, as depicted in the news media and in fictional movies, and in novels, as confirmation of these basic Buddhist principles, that foolish behaviour results from vanity, greed, ego and attachment to impermanent things.

 

However, one might question if the construction of a giant Buddha statue is the result of some egotistical motivation. Perhaps the answer is 'yes', but not an egocentric motivation.

 

Am I egotistical or egocentric to think that I am above the continuous squabbles and conflicts that beset humanity? Since I have compassion for others, I would say definitely not egocentric, although I might still be egotistical to some degree. ?
 

[fusion58]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Intersting perspective. Would you agree with the following definition of the differences between the two?

 

"Egotistical" means to think very highly of one's self, usually understood to mean unrealistically highly. "Egocentric" means to think only of one's own problems or concerns, or someone who doesn't care about other people."

 

I must admit that after reading about basic Buddhist principles, and contemplating and meditating on such principles, I tend to view human behaviour in general, as depicted in the news media and in fictional movies, and in novels, as confirmation of these basic Buddhist principles, that foolish behaviour results from vanity, greed, ego and attachment to impermanent things.

 

However, one might question if the construction of a giant Buddha statue is the result of some egotistical motivation. Perhaps the answer is 'yes', but not an egocentric motivation.

 

Am I egotistical or egocentric to think that I am above the continuous squabbles and conflicts that beset humanity? Since I have compassion for others, I would say definitely not egocentric, although I might still be egotistical to some degree. ?
 

The meaning of "egocentrism" I have in mind refers to the psychological condition in which the ego is experienced as the center of the psyche. In this state, one becomes identified with the ego to the exclusion of other contents of the psyche. In such an identification, these other contents are split off, resulting in a lost sense of psychic wholeness.

 

In other words, I identify with a superficial idea or image of who or what I am, rather than the holistic reality.

 

In this view, egocentrism is to human psychology what the geocentric model of the solar system is (was) to planetary science.

 

Perhaps "egocentric consciousness" would be a better term.

 

 

[Brucenkhamen]

On 7/9/2018 at 10:46 AM, fusion58 said:

The meaning of "egocentrism" I have in mind refers to the psychological condition in which the ego is experienced as the center of the psyche.

 

In other words your original statement "I thought enlightenment meant the dissolution of ego... I've since come to understand it as the dissolution of egocentrism." was about originally thinking that enlightenment was the dissolution of an entity, and now understanding it as the dissolution of a psychological state.

 

If so I concur.

[drtreelove]

On 6/10/2018 at 10:12 AM, connda said:

The 'truth' is that their is no 'you'.  What you perceive as 'you' is simply feelings, thoughts, perceptions, and instance of mind arising and passing away.  The illusion we live in is a 'grasping' that make all of that into what we believe we are: A 'You'. 
Enlightenment is going beyond that illusion and seeing feelings as feeling, thoughts as thoughts, perceptions as perceptions, and instances of mind for what they are - no 'you' but just conditioned phenomenon arising and passing away.  So 'enlightenment' is the ultimate in letting go.  Which are just words.

Perhaps you've heard 'enlightenment' described in terms of annihilation of self or consciousness.  It's a description and only as accurate one can be when describing a non-dualist state from within a dualistic state. 
This gets really convoluted when you attempt to describe something that is beyond the concept of 'you' from a place the necessitates that there is probably a You that is attempting to understand from that perspective.  That's why Buddhism in all it's flavors and textures is rife with conundrums and paradoxes and riddles that on the surface don't seem to make sense. 

So here's a paradox to consider:  You'll never get 'there' though intellectual analysis or reading or though the experience of others.  You only 'get it' though direct experience. 

Ok, so how do you get 'direct experience'?  Back to the spokes of a wheel analogy.  Many path go to the same place.  You pick one and stick with it.  My own 'path' is a rather unadulterated form of Theravada Buddhism and the technique is fairly simple:  Morality and meditation.  They are connected.

Now we just stick to the KISS principle: Keep It Simple Sonchai

Morality: I grabbed these off the Internet.  They're good as any.  You'll find the 5 percepts of a layman worded differently.  Don't get hung up on the words.  Think of these 'rules' as being conducive to 'letting go'. 
Abstain from taking life
Abstain from taking what is not given
Abstain from sensuous misconduct
Abstain from false speech
Abstain from intoxicants as tending to cloud the mind

Meditation: There are probably libraries of books describing different meditation techniques.  Imho, the KISS approach is anapanasati, or awareness of breathing, and as confusing as it may be you'll find meditation teachers teaching different forms of breath meditation.  So pick one and stick to it.  Consistency is the key.  Meditation allows you to enter subtler and subtler states of mind.  In those states are you 'unconscious' or actually fully conscious?  Meditation can lead you to states of what I'll call supraconsciousness where you are fully conscious but completely cut off from the perception of the five senses.  Is that 'unconsciousness'?  Back to conundrums and paradoxes and riddles.  But it's the act of completely letting go.  In that letting go is where you would experience what you called, for better words, the 'annihilation of consciousness', though these are just words - a description - with all it's limitations. 

You only 'get it' though experience.  Morality and mediation facilitate that.  Try to analyze it, and you'll never 'get it'.  Look for 'it' and you'll never find it.  Let go, and it's 'right there'. 

Confusing? Yep.  Simple? Yep. 

I like your 'point of view'!  The five precepts issue and the following reaction to the term morality is classic. Morality is just a word, but is often taken to mean a limitation on personal freedoms. But if we accept to follow "Seen ha" the five precepts for laymen, then we already know that these are not a limitation on freeedom, but in fact it's like you say "conducive to letting go" , or an ehancement of Freedom. In that sense, yes Buddhist teaching has an element of "morality".  If we lie, steal, kill, fk around and get wasted, then we are not recognizing and accepting who we really are and the these distractions are just that, limiting to our awareness. If one doesn't like the word 'morality', then we can say that 'seen ha' is just a practical aid to awakening. 

[trd]

Enlightenment is not destruction of the ego. It is disidentification with the ego, knowing that you are unlimited not limited. This is the extinguishing or Nirvana.

 

 

[rockyysdt]

On 1/6/2019 at 4:49 PM, trd said:

Enlightenment is not destruction of the ego. It is disidentification with the ego, knowing that you are unlimited not limited. This is the extinguishing or Nirvana.

 

 

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

[trd]

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

I don't like the word Enlightenment. I only used it because it's in the title of the thread. Full awakening in Buddhist terms is Nirvana (quenching, blowing out) Awakening is less precise because for instance you could say you have awakened to the reality of impermanence or you awakened to the cause of suffering or you have awakened to realizing that wherever you look you will not be able to find an entity that is a self. Or you have awakened through meditation practice to the discrimination between unchanging awareness and changing phenomena of the aggregates. I would consider that more important, but while those awakenings are important it is not liberation.

[Lacessit]

We live, we die. Accept it. We try to do no harm. For me, that's enlightenment.

[Brucenkhamen]

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

Yes

[Brucenkhamen]

On 1/8/2019 at 12:38 AM, trd said:

On 1/8/2019 at 12:25 AM, rockyysdt said:

Is the expression Awakening more apt, Enlightenment being a word whose origin began in the 17th century?

I don't like the word Enlightenment. I only used it because it's in the title of the thread. Full awakening in Buddhist terms is Nirvana (quenching, blowing out) Awakening is less precise because for instance you could say you have awakened to the reality of impermanence or you awakened to the cause of suffering or you have awakened to realizing that wherever you look you will not be able to find an entity that is a self. Or you have awakened through meditation practice to the discrimination between unchanging awareness and changing phenomena of the aggregates. I would consider that more important, but while those awakenings are important it is not liberation.

Good point.  awakening with a small a is relative and adjective you could apply to all kinds of small insights or happenings, Awakening with a capital A is Full Awakening, or liberation, or Nibbana.

Edited January 10, 2019 by Brucenkhamen