5. The Taboo of Enlightenment
Podcast: Download (17.7MB)
We’ve gone for the big one this time, Enlightenment, the end of the search and not to mention a pretty cool chat-up line. What is it? How do you know you’ve got it? And should you say you have it? We mention a Bill Hicks sketch which you can watch for yourself here. Music is provided by Tom, the song is called Angi and was composed by Bert Jansch. As far as we can tell this isn’t an often discussed topic so we’d love to hear any feedback you have about it.
March 16th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Ok so I tried my best but this was a fairly frustrating listen. I’m a little confused since Tom seems to have a questioning attitude but Mike comes across as completely secure in his neo-advaita understanding and speaks with the voice of someone who is settled in his view and definitions. Perhaps he’s withholding something about his own experience and practice which may help contextualise this, I don’t know.
Re: the whole “I am awake” thing…the Buddha did it and if he hadn’t done then I would probably not be writing this comment nor you have created the website. So you may not be into people saying that they’re awake but I personally am glad that they do.
Your main issues seem to be the hangups on misunderstood models of awakening, for which I’d just refer you to Daniel Ingram’s extensive and excellent outline here. Your discussion feels a bit too binary for my view and lacks a bit of the necessary nuance that is needed in this area.
May 11th, 2010 at 9:23 am
“It depends on what they mean by ‘I am enlightened.’”
I thought this was an interesting point Tom. Qualifying the phrase enlightenment, and what people mean by that phrase seems crucial for this discussion. I think that’s why I appreciate Rohan’s point about clarifying our “models” of enlightenment. Clearly in this conversation you guys are reacting to some old-school models that have to do with perfection. Some people use the phrase enlightenment or awakening however, and don’t mean that. Now, this changes the conversation doesn’t it?
Also, I have some questions about the whole point around “no one” being enlightened. This seems like a slightly confused view in my experience. I would say it’s more accurate to say that “enlightenment doesn’t belong to anyone” because if it did that would make it an object. Even to say “it” an object already makes it sound like we’re talking about an object, doesn’t it? Shit, I can’t help it. ;-D
But anyway, saying that enlightenment doesn’t belong to someone is different from saying there isn’t anyone to be enlightened. That sounds like you are discounting are genuinely real experience of person-hood. This is confusing since we clearly have an experience of being a somebody, even if that somebody is a pattern which is changing and somewhat transient. Still, it is also completely real and can’t be overlooked. To do so is to preference the absolute over the relative, don’t you think?
I would try and bring together things by saying something like, though enlightenment doesn’t and can’t belong to me, still my personal reality is effected by the understanding of that, and it directly changes and impacts me. In that sense I can speak about being awakened and about the changes therein, but only from a relative perspective.
Also the question of authority is an interesting one. In part, it’s a little embarrassing for you guys to be asserting this, because it implies that you have a deeper understanding about this topic than others. You’re asserting that you have a direct understanding of this topic (just as I am in this comment) by even having this conversation. Doesn’t that contradict your relativistic stance that there is no authority on this? Again, I think there might be a confusion in your conversation of the universal and relative here. And I’m claiming to have some authority on this by challenging you. ;-D
Love what you guys are doing. Keep it up.
May 12th, 2010 at 5:36 am
Hello Vincent Horn!
A very pleasant surprise to read your response here. I agree that it really boils down to qualification and authority.
For me at least, even to say that Enlightenment doesn’t belong to anyone still blurs things somewhat. Enlightenment (if we use that loaded word) simply IS. For me, Its obviousness and clarity – its fact, is what needs to be pointed to rather than whether or not it belongs to a person or not.
‘Personally’ speaking though since my teens I have never really believed I was a separate person. I always had the hunch that somehow, I was not myself. This caused much panic on many occasions and later when I began to ‘see’ it. Now (at least in this moment) I see that there is no person here. There is a personality, undeniably, but there isn’t and never was, a nugget of personhood.
Now, I see that there is life ‘life-ing’.
It’s not a particularly Buddhist way of expressing it of course, but I hope its not ANY particular way of expressing it. What I refer to as ‘This’ or ‘Thisness’ is always unique, always fresh and shining, and this fundamental and undeniable Is-ness is what I’m interested in (and more, in love with).
For me at least, my “journey” (bleurgh!) towards seeing what I am involved a complete negation of Me as a separate individual doer. I know this isn’t everyone’s emphasis but I can only speak from my own experience.
This doesn’t mean that I discount someone’s individuality. But for me what helped was to deconstruct the idea of a separate individual doer, and see what remained. What was left was freedom. Personality is beautiful, but it doesn’t belong to a person.
I also have problems with the absolute vs. relative debate. Can we define relative and absolute? Relative is what we know; the bits, parts, details – but the absolute? What is it? Well, not an It.
There is no absolute apart from the relative, no relative part which is not simultaneously the absolute! For me, making this divide complicates the simple. There is no relative and no absolute. Just This, and This is undeniable (and needs no concept).
The question of authority is very important. I keep coming back to Socrates who said that ‘All I know is that I know nothing’. For me this statement is not one of ignorance but of awakening and follows on from understanding the meaning of the inscription at the temple of Delphi which instructed: ‘Know Thyself’.
To know oneself is to be oneself. To realise what one is. This is-ness, is its own silent authority, and yet paradoxically it doesn’t need anyone to claim it. The authority of what we are is so obvious and clear that it remains silent. Authority Is.
Thanks for pointing out our precarious and embarrassing position of talking about ‘Enlightenment’ ;-)
This is one of the reasons we wanted to talk about this. I think that true authority (being) speaks for itself. Others, who may see awakening as the product of good karma and general worthiness may raise their voices and attract crowds. Others – as you point out – might use the word ‘Enlightenment’ without any of the traditional baggage attached to it, whilst others still may not even be aware that they are awake.
But these days, the word ‘Enlightenment’, which was once so precious and serious to me, has become a kind of joke. An old friend, a rogue. It makes me smile every time I hear it.
Thanks again for your reply Vince,
Lovely to see you here, welcome for a cup of tea any time ;-)
Mike.
May 13th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Thanks Vince,
I’m reminded of the fact that ‘anatta’, commonly mistranslated as ‘no-self’, is more accurately rendered as ‘not-self’; a subtle, but crucial difference I feel. It’s not that there is no self, but more that we cannot attribute any thing with the stamp of “this is the self”. There is a self but it cannot be isolated down to any one object.
March 17th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
Interesting, thanks. Some thoughts while listening:
Intellectually, it seems very hard to find a point of entry, to ‘engage’ with someone that says “I am enlightened”.
How does it help me to hear someone say I am enlightened? Sounds quite final in that context – rather than something that happens. Which I think it does, all the time.
Personally, I am used to my dad using the phrase fairly casually, when he works something out, or when things become clear. Of course, he doesn’t mean “ah, I have it, the answer to everything, I am free”, but that his attention, his quality contact with the world has just become ‘sorted’, which is pleasing (for a bit).
So yeah, I guess the word means a million different things to different people at different times – maybe because it is forever happening between us. Not done and dusted…
March 17th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
@Rohan: Hehe! Thanks for trying :)
Mike and I certainly have different approaches, which I think is part of the reason we have so much to talk about. I’d hope that those differences continue and that in fact, through our friendship, we can even encourage each other to become more individuated and confident in each of our expressions.
You know, that never crossed my mind about the Buddha’s assertion of his attainments, he was pretty outspoken about it wasn’t he! Hmmm, so I guess he has set the example for others to follow then.
By ‘binary’ do you mean that we just haven’t covered enough of the traditional interpretations of enlightenment, or that Mike and I don’t come to enough agreement about it.
@Steve: “Not done and dusted” exactly! Oh dear, but now you see I tempted to say that, because you said that, that you are enlightened :s
My opinion is definitely along these lines, that you just can’t define it and that it happens on big and little scales all throughout your life and even within the length of a day.
March 18th, 2010 at 6:42 am
“Not done and dusted”
This is why concepts are so misleading. A label is finite, and the mind thinks it ‘knows’ something when it just knows the label it has itself produced.
Then the mind chases its own creations and suffers when it can’t find them.
Steve, I like what you say about ‘Enlightenment’ happening every day. I’d like to suggest that everyone of us experiences ‘Enlightenment’ upon waking up each morning, when, just for a few precious seconds, there are no names, no thoughts, just clear-namelessness.
March 21st, 2010 at 9:53 am
Pointing at leaves on the ground does help little to see the tree from which they came. But it helps nonetheless.
Yet the meaning of the utterance “i am enlightened” is not the same for the one who utters and the one who hears the utterance. When Al-Hallaj said “I am Truth” he got hung by his contemporaries who understood heresy only, while perhaps what he meant was “i am life and i cannot be what i am not, therefore i am truth as God”.
But without the experience there is no meaning to “enlightenment” it is meaningless to one who does not experience something which he can label “enlightenment”, it is simply “the thing i need to get in order to be free and all knowing”.
Better even, enlightenment is not about experience, but rather the foundation of all experiences. The “what is it?” koan is amazing. It is indeed the answer because it is held by the answer, without the “it is” there is no question in the first place, the “what” in the question only emphasises the conscious aspect.
But words matter little in this. Whether you say, “i am enlightened” or “i like French cheese” does not make much difference. If you know knowing as the micro-cosmic reflection of being, then there is no need to discuss this with any one, no need to argue except for fun. It is just as true and self-evident as “i am” and there is no need to prove “i am” to any one. Similarly there is no proof any “other” exists, discussion are irrelevant in this matter.
Finding now enlightenment by imitating or following another is pure derision. It is like finding a door in a dream to come back to the waking state.
March 21st, 2010 at 10:14 pm
No, no. Even this is too much. Enlightenment is the absence of bullshit. En even though, the concept itself is a distraction. What matters is not enlightenment (which sounds like a state to be achieve and held onto by an individual) what matters are not the words, but the ink and paper they are written onto, and the common support for both of these. What matters is not the utterance of “truth”, not even the insight from truth, it is truth itself as it is beyond words. Truth or enlightenment has no needs for words and no need for anyone to find it.
March 24th, 2010 at 3:36 am
These questions of freedom, enlightenment, ‘seeing’ (theatre – to see), sounds awfully like the continental divisions between British empiricism and European continental discourses. Buddhism seems a rudimentary ruse to talk ‘beyond’ the difficult knots that have already been produced by Western discourses.
The suggestion that no one can claim authority or discourse or concepts refutes all of the Kings and Queens and leaders and religious concepts that purvey throughout our history/s.
Though nevertheless you’ve both got great radio voices and are interested in attacking philosophies, linguistics and ideologies to their core concepts – bravo for doing so, may we hear you both on the wave lengths shortly.
Thanks,
Peter
March 25th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
Thanks Pete :)
March 24th, 2010 at 9:24 am
@Pete
Theatre = To See!
Great. Life’s a play and we’re all players eh?
“The suggestion that no one can claim authority or discourse or concepts refutes all of the Kings and Queens and leaders and religious concepts that purvey throughout our history/s.”
Yes, authority is only an idea in the mind. If we want to know what we truly are then it involves rejection on a grand scale. Not this, Not this. Stripping away all of our cherished thoughts and truths. Only the brave tread here.
Then, once naked and innocent again, we perceive what we really are, beneath all the thoughts and methods and practices and Gods and religions and politics that cover it like thick smog.
What can be written about this nakedness?
Nothing, our smiles will say it all.
March 25th, 2010 at 1:25 am
@Mike
I would suggest that if we want to know who we truly are then rejection of conceptions of obedience to authorities, laws, social regulations etc. sounds like a fetishist disavowal of the regulating forces (internal and external) that shape and frame both our ‘reality’ and our fantasies. The Buddhist wager that ‘reducing’ back to essences reveals a denial of both reality and fantasy as illusory – however there is clearly truth in the relationship between the two projections that shouldn’t be cast aside as fictions acting as truth. Isn’t the action itself, the gap between the ‘real’ and the ‘fantasy’ the middle path as Nagajuna suggests? Don’t they ‘regulate’ the ‘truth’ of the middle way? Isn’t Siddharta’s own spiritual ‘enlightenment’ revealed only after experience of both the exceptionally rich and fundamental poverty? Is not his truth based upon a rejection of the ‘lack’ in both of these voids, and finds his path through these realms based on empiricism?
Is not the thick smog you describe the frame in which we discover truth? Without the smog, how are we to discover the ‘real’ from the ‘fiction’?
“Yes, authority is ONLY an idea in the mind.”
Only? What authority decides the authority within the mind? Or indeed, which authority to derive truth from the smog.
To put it another way, we all know we’re all naked wearing masks. Is the truth the flesh or the mask that protects it?
March 25th, 2010 at 1:49 am
Pete, you surely love to write a lot of words don’t you?
How could truth not encompass all? Isn’t a dream truly a dream?
Eventually all this talk is beyond help. The debate on “enlightenment” is base on the idea that there is a self (painful and/or sinful) which needs redemption, practice or knowledge to find peace, happiness, wholeness, etc.
The idea that this kind of discourse is more important than another is self-centred and biased. It’s doctrinal at the source, one needs to accept some premise to enter the debate.
What i am suggesting is to look not at the debate, but simply relax and see what is, see how the debate itself is a shadow of Life, the essence of “isness”. This is self-evident and needs no opinion at all, no practice, no idea, it needs not self, nothing. It’s already here, it’s already full, it’s expressed even as tension, contracted self-sense and pain. There is no mask and no nakedness for both are inseparable.
March 28th, 2010 at 12:19 am
@Ben
I’m a little confused by your paradoxical response Ben; you speak as if there is a ‘whole’, that the ‘isness’ is self-evident, that words and talk are beyond help yet you engage with the debate nonetheless. Which doctrinal premise are you engaging with the debate from? I can’t counter your arguments that this debate biased, beyond help, and ‘is’, as they are completely ideological premises without an evident ontological basis: if it, this whole you describe is self-evident and already here, why would you feel it necessary to interpellate as such? And as for writing about the pointlessness of writing seems like a contradiction on such a massive scale that I’m curious whether you’ll take the time to ‘enlighten’ me as to what you mean.
And I do have a fanciful attachment to writing and communication. I hope you’ll take the time to tell me why it is beyond help.
March 28th, 2010 at 3:36 am
Hi Pete,
I also had to ask myself the same question after writing, and there is not justification to for my writing but its very existence. (I would like also to point at the fact that my first sentence was not meant sarcastically but just a way of teasing you–this is how i make friends ;) )
Now as to explain why the debate is beyond help: the debate revolves around the idea of a being (as a substance) and whether this one has certain qualities, such as enlightenment and whether these qualities have an effect on other qualities this individual may have.
Eg. Can a being be enlightened and is the enlightened being compassionate, is he righteous, does he know order or chaos etc.
Now this kind of debate is beyond the point of enlightenment because the very enlightenment which is talked about is not a quality and the being is not a substance. I would take a big risk in engaging further, but the reverse might be closer to the actuality, i.e. enlightenment is the substance and the individual is the quality. (Here again it is a risky proposition which also is untrue in absolute.)
What is meant with the above is that there is not enlightenment to be obtained by an individual, the concept is itself corrupt, but rather light is all there is (by light, understand perception, phenomena, being, love) and this light appears as individuality. Enlightenment is the knowing or seeing of the very substance of which the individual is made: the individual is (understood as) light, hence “enlightened”.
So once enlightened, there is no discussion of qualities of that individual, there is just light (words are inadequate) there is just “this”. The debate is irrelevant.
I am not engaging in the debate, defending either quality of the individual, i am at the tangent of the debate (passing by and waving) inviting you for a tea and a lot of fun :).
March 30th, 2010 at 3:21 am
Hi Ben,
I must draw a sword here and hack away at your tangent and tea party. Your esoteric description of the ‘enlightenment’ debate which refutes the possibility of discourse is not only foolish, presumptuous and patronising, but absolutely indifferent to the ideals that you (seemingly unconsciously) represent. The apparent ‘risk’ that you are taking in engaging in the debate (whilst refuting actual engagement) ignores the presents of the massive differences that I mentioned earlier in Siddartha’s own socio-political journey. MY (an I completely understand that I don’t exist, can’t, will not, isn’t, negate the possibility of my own inane potentially insane question) QUESTION is why does there happen to be such a massive gap between rich and poor, and if Buddhism or nihilism or whatever are so indifferent to the ‘enlightenment’ debate to retreat from answering with anything but a wry smile, should anyone pay anything but lip service to their staunch indifference?
Or is this question of ‘enlightenment’ (the unattainable conception of absolute) better answered by other philosophical paradigms? Apologies for my confrontational nature but this apparent lack of commitment to the potentiality of discourse to answer questions through a refusal to state a position when asked is giving me the shits. The “JUST ‘this’” is JUSTICE, and is the ruling ideology and either must be accepted as IS or ISN’T! STATE (In the full meaning of the “isness” of the ruling neo-liberal global capitalist acceptability of the ideological status that you ‘believe’ to be irrelevant) YOUR POLITICAL STAKE IN THE HEART OF THE ADHERENCE TO YOUR BELIEF THAT THE ABSOLUTE IS ALREADY HERE.
Because I believe you’re bluffing.
Tea?
P
March 25th, 2010 at 8:14 pm
If you were truly enlightened, why would you need to tell anyone about it?
If you told someone who wasn’t enlightened, they wouldn’t get it, and surely someone who was enlightened would already know?
March 25th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
Perhaps motives are not self-centred only. Clouds move on a keep raining though i doubt they have a sense of self. The so-called realisation is not about the annihilation of self but rather in seeing it from various angles, just as you can see the leaf of a tree is indeed a leaf but also the tree, the idea of leaf only exist in the mind, but it is nonetheless true in perception and as an idea. Seeing the leaf on the tree is a tree is the tree does not make all leaves disappear, they keep falling and sprouting each year. In the same way, seeing the self is part of the whole does not annihilate the self, it just give it its right place.
The so called enlightened being (which does not exist) would not see anyone as enlightened or not, in as much as he would see no one as such, but also because all people are perception-only, there is no enlightened perception versus non-enlightened perception, for perception itself is enlightenment.
But even to say all this surely is a lot of sh*t.
March 25th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
I don’t think we are disagreeing, just describing the same thing from different perspectives, and therefore demonstrating the infinite and varied manifestations of God/the Is/Life, the Universe and Everything.
(Another view could be that talking about enlightenment is like screwing for virginity :o)
March 25th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
@Smoo: Good point, I hadn’t thought of it like that.
@Ben: That’s some good shit!
March 26th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
@Smoo: Yes. If you finally got all the answers to the puzzle worked out, why bother letting anyone else know? If its all a dream then who cares? Let the dreamers dream!
This may seem reasonable, but I think the lived reality of this is a paradox. Upon ‘Awakening’ it is really only the mind which becomes ‘empty’ as it no longer clings to concepts in order to understand ‘this’. ‘This’ is self evident.
It is really the heart which then opens into fullness and abundance. You know its all a dream, you know we’re all dreaming, but the heart commands you to love and in loving you can attempt to wake them up.
If your loved one is writhing in bed from a nightmare, we would naturally wake them to end the suffering they take to be ‘real’.
Love is natural.
I think this paradox of emptiness and compassion is where we can start talking about the Bodhisattva idea.
Awakening is not dry, arid and aloof. It is the raw heart of life itself, and its tenderness wishes to wake the world from its self-imposed dream.
It asks us all to wake up.
March 26th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Well i would not want to make association with the concept of Boddhisattva which in my view was not so much ontological as a mere means to “modernise” Buddhism in order to assert its function as a religion.
Except for this word what you said sounds really relevant.
August 4th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I really enjoy listening to you both exploring through conversation the most important and interesting subject to speak on!. It does feel like ‘comeing out’ when telling people about this wonderful news, Ive told 3 friends since this realisation and the responses to each have been as different as the veiw in which they ‘see’ ‘me’. 1 friend I dont think beleives me and thats cool. The second friend was interested in hows? and whats? of it all, and that was an interesting conversation, but the last ive had with her on the subject, I was surprised that she hadnt shown more of an interest that I thought the news might generate. The 3rd friend I told, as I was beaming into his face saying,’I have such good news’ said to me ‘are you getting married?’ and hes known me for years and knew I didnt even have a lover. This message is so out of this world (to the mind) it sends the mind into a bit of a frenzy, trying to grasp the meaning of it through what it knows (which possibly couldnt touch). The 3rd friend then studied me for a while as we sat in silence (he seemed to be looking for something signs of fraudulence or something to go on) and admitted that the mind becomes a detective when someone makes such a big claim, and then he said ‘so what makes you feel like you need to tell it’ I said ‘because you are my friend and this is good news, your here now and it came up’. But yes he did beleive me, which is lovely for I can share in greater depth with him and his partner (also a close friend).
There was a sence that people may not beleive or understand what I was saying so it was clear that the wording had to be just so, so I went with ‘Ive realised the great illusion, that reality as I knew it has been a dream’ something like this anyway. Its definately like ‘coming out’ because its a sort of birth of something that didnt seem to be there before (or more to the point, wasnt seen before) and wow it changes the veiw on the world and changes ‘others’ veiw of ‘you’ and then also in relation to ‘them’, man doesnt the mind complicate things!.
Thanks for the site guys it has been an aide in awakening for me, keep it coming.
Rieka xo
September 27th, 2010 at 10:48 am
OMG (I kno how immature it sounds but lazyness is a friend of mine during non scholarly activities so ima keep it real.. spelling reeallllly matter as long as yu get mah point which DOES matter damn the nay sayers yet i love yu all sayers, besides usin your brain ta fill or switch letters shouldnt b hard for an intellectually hungry group such as yourselves ..but back to the good stuff though) YES!!! I throughly LOVE an open forum where intellectual concepts are examined to the point of leaking everywhere its like tha most beautiful work of art, indescribable really, ESPECIALLY on my FAVORITE of subjects.. I stumbled upon notions of enlightenment during a transitional state of my life, emerging from the early years of “not quite being able to grab intense concepts”…but my mind has aged fast i really reallly dont wanna sound cocky i find it hard to spend time with such a group of people because i have to get my damn shovel out to find them. with that said i understand some misinterpretations of this egotistically outward flaw. Growing up a slightly disadvantaged as a true intellect inside is not a fuckin walk in the park, during our youth i believe we all are a little lost victimized by misinformation, fucking ageism, and that whole the worlds going to shit approach many people settle on not realizing the amount of prejudice behind such a thought process. any way if i have to sit here and sound cocky by telling you my ability to grasp concepts is above par frankly i dont give a fuck any more : ) i said it… i digress from my hooplah and now will get to the situation at hand, Enlightenment has had a seriously influential affect on my life for years and ever since i read of it, it stuck and i wanted it to do more than just be on my brain as a goal, having no tatoos i wished for that to be a visible reminder (terrible memory i have) for whats truly important to me. it took a little time of reflection and some more ancient text to realize it may not be attainable. but if you see me eventually i will have ENLIGHTENED on one arm but PERCEPTION on the other, and if you ask me about it i will tell you “that is my perfection and if i dont get it on this world i hope that maybe just maybe those inked ashes i leave behind will help me achieve it in the next…” p.s LONG LIVE THE BRAIN
September 27th, 2010 at 10:51 am
I forgot that last one i posted should have started with @EVERYONE because maybe i have too high of hopes and dreams but a movement would be nice
September 29th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
@Tyler: thanks for the comments boss. Really pleased you like our stuff. Nice one on the tatoos, good reminders. Keep up the good work and long live the brain!