27. The Line Of Enlightenment
Podcast: Download (Duration: 8:58 — 4.0MB)
How is Enlightenment actually defined? Does it exist in and of itself outside of the general consensus of a few experienced people? This might be a somewhat provocative subject but I feel it raises some important questions.
October 20th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Sorry, but here is more evidence of spooky-ness… from this year’s sig retreat. apparently I am stumbling upon these things regularly now and sharing them…
http://www.viddler.com/explore/selfinqu/videos/26
October 22nd, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Well it’s interesting because before Mike and I started doing podcasts, the site was called “Sheer Uncanniness”. The uncanny is a bit spooky right?
I mean the sheer fact that existence exists at all is, uh, odd, well, weird, isn’t it!?
February 8th, 2012 at 9:33 am
Yeah it is, it’s weird AND very beautiful. Thanks for the beautiful answer. What a weird coincidence :D And sorry for the very long delay in my reply hehe… I sort of avoided it to tell the truth. I felt like I was being a pretentious dick for some reason. The mind played a trick on me again and now I went back and found this beautiful answer. I donnu… it really went to show me how the mind bullshits me, out of nothing(!), and builds up these imaginary walls of anxiety and fear. So, thanks. Really made my day. Or evening (I’m the evening dude, right?) I’m sort of on a mission to erase or rule out all of the hiding places in my life, all of the possible places of inadvertence. I don’t know if this is what is referred to as shadow work. Who cares what the label is, it just feels necessary. Anyhow, keep up the brilliant and truly enlightening work. I have a lot of shows to catch up with. The new ones look interesting! =) Cheers /Johan
October 26th, 2011 at 9:46 am
“Line of Enlightenment” I too wonder about this as my own powerful experiences from 1969-74, while practicing Zen methods in combination with Yogic breathing, did not save me from making some incredibly stupid mistakes later in life. It seemed that though I could see into situations and people, my behavior was still incongruent and self destructive. I have spent the past many years wondering about this as I lived out the resulting Karma. I have been tempted to drop all and seek a teacher, but I have felt that membership in the club was suspect. In meeting “teachers”, I have scrutinized them in order to try to see what was so special, while at the same time desiring their confirmation. For this reason, I have not joined a particular “way”.
It is lonely not to be included in the group, having to live out the contradiction of “seeing reality” but rarely being able to share what I see. It would be gratifying to have some sage to say, “come on in, you are now one of us”. But what difference would it really make? The Dharma would still be the Dharma.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:03 pm
Hey Steve,
You sound like a very sensible and down to earth person. I think you give a very honest appraisal of your experiences and view. I resonate with you, I too have had significant spiritual experiences and wonder where they fall on the spectrum, but as you say, what difference would it really make if I knew? The Dharma would very much still be the Dharma!
It be lovely if you wanted to get in touch, email us if you fancy chatting more :)
November 7th, 2011 at 6:59 am
I like what you said at the end about having compassion for the enlightened, that is a striking sentiment. As for definitions of enlightenment, the two basic definitions appear to be having a sudden and momentary realisation of one’s true nature in ‘satori’ or whatever, with the other stronger definition being that one ‘abides as that’, which summarises the notion of ‘sudden’ and ‘gradual’ paths. The former enlightened one still experiences delusion and suffering until they ‘abide as that’, where ‘satori’ is obviously a line in the sand, but ‘abiding as that’ is a continuum that ranges from likeable silly billies such as Tony Parsons up to cutting-edge major force like Nisargadatta. It seems that when one ‘abides as that’ the claim to be enlightened takes on less importance and is virtually a synonym for ‘saw it once or twice though deluded again now, but working on it’. Of course, let us not forget that many who claim to be enlightened are just deluded full stop.
In general, it’s quite possible that some who call themselves enlightened haven’t seen their true nature at all, while others who have just can’t be bothered to stick an advertising billboard on their foreheads about it. As for ‘abiding as that’, being a continuum it is likely to be a shaky affair at first but later may become quite solid. Fundamentally though, the bottom line has to be whether you’ve seen your true nature or not, not whether you are subsequently quite forgetful of it or see nothing but.
November 9th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Thanks Joel. I find it hard to come up with a solid opposition to your definitions, I think you’re right that there appear to be 2 categories. I guess my only struggle is this whole thing on what we all actually agree on as ‘seeing it’ is.
November 10th, 2011 at 4:51 am
Does it really matter whether another’s seeing of it is the same as one’s own seeing of it? How could you ever know, save by realising that there is no other except in appearance?
November 10th, 2011 at 8:05 am
Well I certainly think it’s important to be able to share our experiences and see where they overlap and I do very much believe there are many significant themes. My worry is that we get into situations where those who come to hold power lay more claim to what enlightenment is and isn’t. Enlightenment is no more definable than ‘love’ and ‘beauty’.
November 10th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Those who hold power only hold the power one gives them. Definition is always going to be an interpretation, but that’s not to say that some interpretations can’t be nearer the mark than others. But one wouldn’t decide that on the ‘power’ of the claimant, rather it would be done on whether what they said resonated with one’s own experience. The only ones who could possibly be swayed by the power of others would be those who had no experience of their own to compare, but surely that doesn’t stop them being sensible enough to regard what they hear as a tentative expression only, until they see for themselves.
November 14th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Yeah, some interpretations are certainly going to be nearer the mark than others. And you’re right, I use my own benchmark’s of experience to validate them. Though I know I have very strong biases and tendencies to distort and skew my judgements.
So are you saying that there very much is something to be seen, in the spiritual sense. That there is unambiguous realisation, that we can call, for want of a better word, enlightenment?
November 15th, 2011 at 4:30 am
I am saying that self-realisation is unambiguous, yes. You are the unchanging background presence that is never absent. That’s all this is about. There are many names for it, but none of them matter.
November 17th, 2011 at 11:17 am
In my view, self-realization is the clear seeing/experiencing that one is not the mind and body as previously thought but instead a timeless awarness that is not confined to anything in particular, eventhough vision still happens through one’e eyes. As to how ‘enlightened’ one is..i think that the majority of us who have (recently) awakened still experience times of doubts and questioning and also some self identification, but a very small fraction of what it was. Maybe those disapear with time. And yes, maybe this integration takes time for some. Maybe there are different degrees of ‘abiding with it’. Maybe some people never have any more doubts and never question how enlightened they are..but that wouldnt the majority imho.
November 18th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Just reading this great thread and thought i’d give my two cents worth.
I’d agree with Joel here.
Enlightenment is not an experience.
Liberation is not found within form.
Total freedom is formless, it is your everyday effortless awareness in which ALL experiences arise and fall.
To recognise this is liberation.
Liberation from all experience whether mystical or mundane.
If you believe that your so-called “Enlightenment” needs to be improved or evolved, controlled or even maintained, then you haven’t understood what Enlightenment is in the first place.
November 18th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I hear you Mike. I guess i was refering to Rupert Spira who i remembered said that the ‘integration’ of enlightenment takes time often as some old patterns still arise. But this is just one man’s view, but i do respect the man’s words.I cant speak from my owm experience since The realization is new to me. All i can say is that from my experience, comparing etc with other ‘awakened beings’ still happens at times in my mind, which at times brings doubts to how ‘complete is the awakening’, how detached i am from the self etc. Yes, one could say that those doubts are still happening in IT etc, but thats not what feels true to me at that point in time. But time will tell. Anyways, nothing to complain about. Enjoying life and everyday to the max. Give thanks! : )