What is Enlightenment?

[bomohwkl]

Those who strive to attain personal enlightenment and help others light their lamps are the true leaders of the human race.

What is enlightenment anyway?

For example, if you travel and meet your higher-self at the end of the tunnel, do you mean that you have enlightened? Buddha is said to have achieved enlightenment. And I think Tom has achieved that (if not he would be able to write the 2 books).

For me, it looks like enlightenment is the state of understanding something. Hence, that's why Tom can communicate his understanding through his 2 books.
It looks like there are a series of enlightenments which a person has to undergo.

[Vesko]

I think enlightenment is a particular stage in spiritual development. It does not matter what the stage is, although the term is used primarily for people who have attained the higher stages or the highest stage. I do not see how enlightenment does not hold, for example, for a drug addict who manages to overcome their addiction. The greatest enlightenment, from a physical human's perspective, is joining God, possible only after lower stages have been attained.
If I were able to meet my Higher Self, I would get that as an indication of *a bit of enlightenment*, but I would not classify myself as enlightened for the same reason that "no one [on Earth] should ever adopt a position as a master" (chapter "Who was Christ?", page 146). Christ has said the same in the Bible -- you are only brothers and sisters, no one among you is a master, I, God's son sitting next to him, am the master.

[Lena]

I feel my process of enlightment started as soon as I recognized the book as truth. from there my spirituality and ken have continued to matured greatly. so, even though I am far from being perfect or knowing everything, I still feel as though I'm "enlightened" because at least I know what direction I'm supposed to go in and why.

[Alisima]

The first time someone hears about the possibility of enlightenment is also the start of the path towards it. At the end of that path you finally understand what enlightenment actually is, and thus, gained enlightenment.

To me there is no enlightenment, there is only the idea of it. That same idea keeps you from seeing the Reality. So, we create the disease (ignorance) and then create the cure (enlightenment), while in fact, there is no disease. Evenso, our imagining of the disease, is the disease ITSELF. While at the same time, there is only our imagination, and thus, no disease.

So, being enlightened is like taking reality as reality IS, and not projecting your imaginations on it.

It is much like achieving lucidity in a dream. Before the lucidity you think the world around you is real, you make assumptions, make effort, and even suffer. After lucidity you understand that there is no distinction between the dreamer and the dream and see the dream-world for what it is.

There is this great Zen saying about enlightenment, although I don't exactly know how it went, it was something like this: "Before enlightenment, I drank, I ate, I worked and I slept. After enlightenment, I drink, I eat, I work and I sleep."

[bomohwkl]

Alisima wrote:

There is this great Zen saying about enlightenment, although I don't exactly know how it went, it was something like this: "Before enlightenment, I drank, I ate, I worked and I slept. After enlightenment, I drink, I eat, I work and I sleep."

Surely, I think that great Zen master hasn't achieved any enlightenment.


Tom has once said

2. When explicitly asked about The Light, many gurus quote the statement of one of their ancestors:

"before enlightenment: chop the wood and carry water,
after enlightenment: chop the wood and carry water."

By repeating and promoting such arrogant and ignorant statements about The Light gurus totally DEGRADE the process of Enlightenment. Isn't it obvious that statements like the one above imply that there is no point whatsoever in seeking Enlightenment and The Light? By discouraging individuals from seeking The Light "gurus" in fact reinforce darkness and ignorance and keep people confused and misinformed for centuries, if not for millenia.

The motive for promoting "chopping wood" statements seems simple to determine: can you imagine what would happen if correctly instructed and inspired people begun to reach and communicate with The Light before their gurus do? Precisely the same motive is a basis for creating/reinforcing all belief systems and religions without exception...

Of course, Tom is referring his conscious encounter with the higher-self as a pivotal point of enlightenment.

[Alisima]

"before enlightenment: chop the wood and carry water,
after enlightenment: chop the wood and carry water."

Yes! that is the one.

I think that if one doesn't understand the Zen saying, one easily comes to conclusions similar to Tom's. Although I still find his conclusions a bit farfetched. Not everyone is trying to suppress humanity. Tom, with all his understanding, should perhapse take a less paranoid statement.

The motive for promoting "chopping wood" statements seems simple to determine: can you imagine what would happen if correctly instructed and inspired people begun to reach and communicate with The Light before their gurus do? Precisely the same motive is a basis for creating/reinforcing all belief systems and religions without exception...

First of all, the saying is not about promoting "chopping wood". It only mentioned the wood and the water to illustrate that activities DON'T change after enlightenment. And thus trying to say that enlightenment does not resides in one's activities but rather in one's understanding thereof. Secondly, the gurus, in this case the Zen masters, would absolutly LOVE to see there disciples advance. Making such false statements clearly indicates a lack of understanding about Zen.

One has to understand that the same people who were talking about "chopping the wood" and "carring the water" were ALSO instructing people on how to meditate, and handed out concentration exercises.

However, Tom does have a point, there are many false guru's who do it for the money, instead of helping people find themselves. But this Zen statement is definitly not from one of them.

A very interresting book, which I highly recommand any "seeker", is the book "Zen and the brain." It is about, you guessed it, Zen and the brain. Written by a neurologist who undertook a rigorous Zen practice.

Of course, Tom is referring his conscious encounter with the higher-self as a pivotal point of enlightenment.

That is quite a high statement. I don't know whether they are your words or his, but I assume them to be yours.[/quote]

[Vesko]

So you really say "activities DON'T change after enlightenment"? And "enlightenment does not reside in one's activities but rather in one's understanding thereof"? In my opinion, that is completely wrong. I think understanding and actions are equally important because they depend on each other, and old actions (activities) must change to follow new understanding, otherwise there isn't any point at all in achieving that understanding in the first place. Why make an effort to achieve something if you will still be the same / doing the same things after you achieve it? Knowledge for knowledge's sake leads to nothing. Whatever true enlightenment the quoted gurus have achieved, such statements of theirs are certainly not stemming from it.

[Alisima]

So you really say "activities DON'T change after enlightenment"? And "enlightenment does not reside in one's activities but rather in one's understanding thereof"? In my opinion, that is completely wrong. I think understanding and actions are equally important because they depend on each other, and old actions (activities) must change to follow new understanding, otherwise there isn't any point at all in achieving that understanding in the first place.

Ofcourse, activities can change, but it would not matter. The point is that actions have NOTHING to do with enlightenment. It is not that when you, after enlightenment, would smoke you would somehow be downgraded. It is not about What you do, How you do it but it is about WHY you do it. Your motives, those are important, not your actions.

Why make an effort to achieve something if you will still be the same / doing the same things after you achieve it?

Today I breath, tomorrow I breath. I do the same thing, but in a different way altogether.

[bomohwkl]

"Before enlightenment, I drank, I ate, I worked and I slept. After enlightenment, I drink, I eat, I work and I sleep."

This statement is ,at best, confusing. As you said,

Ofcourse, activities can change, but it would not matter. The point is that actions have NOTHING to do with enlightenment. It is not that when you, after enlightenment, would smoke you would somehow be downgraded. It is not about What you do, How you do it but it is about WHY you do it. Your motives, those are important, not your actions.

As you agreed, it is WHY you do it which is important. The enlightenment changes your motive. Yet the statement by Zen master about enlightenment doesn't convey such important message. Don't you think the statement should be clearer?

Before enlightenment, I drank, I ate, I worked and I slept. After enlightenment, I drink, I eat, I work and I sleep with a greater purpose.

Above statement ,at least, illustrates the change of motive.

[Vesko]

I absolutely cannot agree that motives are important, not actions. True, one needs to have the best motives. But it is also equally important to act on those motives when the situation requires it. If you see a rapist attacking a victim and it is possible for you to help the victim, according to your statement it will be perfectly acceptable just to say passively: "Oh, I'm enlightened, I understand that raping is absolutely wrong, but I am not going to do anything to help the victim because it is my motives that are important for my enlightenment, not my actions." To help the victim both your motives and actions are important. To illustrate:

good motives + non-action = bad result (victim not helped)
bad motives + non-action = bad result
good motives + bad action = bad result
bad motives + bad action = bad result
good motives + good action = good result (victim helped)

There's one more combination:
bad motives + good action
but it is impossible to occur because you cannot have good action stemming from bad motives.

You see how there is only one case when the victim is helped.

You say "The point is that actions have NOTHING to do with enlightenment". Clearly wrong, too. I am sure that acting in the wrong way or NOT acting at all when the situation requires it is surely going to unenlighten you.
And smoking is going to downgrade you for sure. Read about smoking and mental health: http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact15.html.

[Aisin]

Motive and action are not mutually exclusive of one another. Neither do they represent all that is in a person's spiritual progress. There are more aspects than just motive and action. The other very important component is speech.

Most of the time, they do not need to be linked sequentially. However, I've recently come across an interesting notion of how they form a complete circle:

good motive -> good speech -> good action -> good habit -> good personality

Of course, the above is not necessarily true all the time, at times when there's only motive and speech, or only motive and action. but it's worthwhile to notice that the big picture (personality) is made up of the small thoughts and actions.

It's customary in some Buddhism sayings to refer to 'enlightenment' as attaining a very high level of spiritual advancement that the enlightened person is freed from endless cycles of reincarnation. From what we read in the book TP, to be freed from reincarnation process is not easy. That should be the ultimate stage of enlightenment, although enlightenment is not achieved in 1 day.

[Alisima]

As you agreed, it is WHY you do it which is important. The enlightenment changes your motive. Yet the statement by Zen master about enlightenment doesn't convey such important message. Don't you think the statement should be clearer?

Before enlightenment, I drank, I ate, I worked and I slept. After enlightenment, I drink, I eat, I work and I sleep with a greater purpose.

Above statement ,at least, illustrates the change of motive.

NO, you missed the point. Your brain wants to see 'purpose', 'meaning', 'causality' and more of that. But those are things Zen is trying to unlearn you, to uncondition you.

But lets stop here. If you fully wish to understand the above mentioned saying, and perhapse more of Zen, I urge you to, at least, read a few books about the matter. I could recommend several of them. It won't cost you much but it gives you much in return. Although I do understand most of Zen's sayings I am not in any position to explain them, that is something you have to do for yourself. Just delve into books and it probably gives your more insight into the matter.

I absolutely cannot agree that motives are important, not actions. True, one needs to have the best motives. But it is also equally important to act on those motives when the situation requires it. If you see a rapist attacking a victim and it is possible for you to help the victim, according to your statement it will be perfectly acceptable just to say passively: "Oh, I'm enlightened, I understand that raping is absolutely wrong, but I am not going to do anything to help the victim because it is my motives that are important for my enlightenment, not my actions."

We can both agree here, that is a wrong motive.

To help the victim both your motives and actions are important. To illustrate:

good motives + non-action = bad result (victim not helped)
bad motives + non-action = bad result
good motives + bad action = bad result
bad motives + bad action = bad result
good motives + good action = good result (victim helped)

Non-action is also action.

If you have a good motive for not acting, don't act. If you have a good motive for acting, act. It is that simple.

You see how there is only one case when the victim is helped.

There is only one way to help, that is to free one of further need for help. Besides, don't you agree that the rapist needs equally, if not more, amount of helping?? Since HE is the one doing something 'wrong'. If you were to help all rapists up to the point that they are no rapists any more, there would be no victims either.

You say "The point is that actions have NOTHING to do with enlightenment". Clearly wrong, too. I am sure that acting in the wrong way or NOT acting at all when the situation requires it is surely going to unenlighten you.

Who, or what is going to 'unenlighten' you?? Don't you know that enlightenment only exists when there is delusion and ignorance. If there is no delusion and ignorance, there is no enlightenment. So when you trance-ended delusion and ignorance, and thus also enlightenment, how can you in any way become delusional and ignorant again??

And smoking is going to downgrade you for sure. Read about smoking and mental health: http://www.ash.org.uk/html/factsheets/html/fact15.html.

Smoking may downgrade my body, my brain, my nervous system or my mind, but since I am not all that, how is it going to affect me?

b.t.w. I don't smoke. It was just an example.

[Vesko]

I absolutely cannot agree that motives are important, not actions. True, one needs to have the best motives. But it is also equally important to act on those motives when the situation requires it. If you see a rapist attacking a victim and it is possible for you to help the victim, according to your statement it will be perfectly acceptable just to say passively: "Oh, I'm enlightened, I understand that raping is absolutely wrong, but I am not going to do anything to help the victim because it is my motives that are important for my enlightenment, not my actions."

We can both agree here, that is a wrong motive.

Ok, but don't you think that your statement "motives are important, not actions" makes it clear actions are not as important as motives, and that my counterexample proves it to be false, since a desirable outcome of the particular situation I have described occurs solely when an action is taken as well, i.e. actions are clearly important in this case, from which it follows that "motives are important, not actions" is false. If I were you I would admit the statement is indeed false, you cannot logically escape here.

Non-action is also action.

If you have a good motive for not acting, don't act. If you have a good motive for acting, act. It is that simple.

If you mean that a non-action is always an action, I do not agree. If you mean that sometimes a non-action can be considered an action, I agree, but there still exist true non-actions that are not actions.

You see how there is only one case when the victim is helped.

There is only one way to help, that is to free one of further need for help. Besides, don't you agree that the rapist needs equally, if not more, amount of helping?? Since HE is the one doing something 'wrong'. If you were to help all rapists up to the point that they are no rapists any more, there would be no victims either.

Just preventing the attack is still a way of helping, and often it is not at all possible to completely free the victim and/or attacker from the need of further help while the attack is in progress. Although less ideal than the ideal help you described, one must act on it, regardless.

You say "The point is that actions have NOTHING to do with enlightenment". Clearly wrong, too. I am sure that acting in the wrong way or NOT acting at all when the situation requires it is surely going to unenlighten you.

Who, or what is going to 'unenlighten' you?? Don't you know that enlightenment only exists when there is delusion and ignorance. If there is no delusion and ignorance, there is no enlightenment. So when you trance-ended delusion and ignorance, and thus also enlightenment, how can you in any way become delusional and ignorant again??

Not preventing a crime can be considered an act of ignorance. If you had had the knowledge to help but had had chosen not to help in a situation in which you could have had clearly done it, the moment the opportunity to help had had passed, you would have had become worse off spiritually. What do you mean by trance-ending delusion and ignorance?

Smoking may downgrade my body, my brain, my nervous system or my mind, but since I am not all that, how is it going to affect me?

Since you are at least the sum of your body, brain, nervous system, mind, etc., once even one of them is affected, it logically follows that you as a whole are also affected.

[Alisima]

Ok, but don't you think that your statement "motives are important, not actions" makes it clear actions are not as important as motives, and that my counterexample proves it to be false, since a desirable outcome of the particular situation I have described occurs solely when an action is taken as well, i.e. actions are clearly important in this case, from which it follows that "motives are important, not actions" is false. If I were you I would admit the statement is indeed false, you cannot logically escape here.

"a desirable outcome of the particular situation". Who, or what makes up which outcomes are desirable, and which aren't??

The closest thing I can give you is ethics, in other words, the principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.

To put it differently, MAN MADE RULES!!

But they are not bad. And I am not a guy purposely seeking to break those rules. I just want people to see them for what they are.

Anyway, to continue to the discussion, if you can accept ethics and morals just as hollow principles, you could detach yourself from the outcome of the situation. Then, what do you have left?? An action with a outcome of no concern, and a motive. If one were to look at it like this, I would say the motive is of bigger concern than the action or its outcome.

Ofcourse, I know what you are thinking. Something along the lines of, "but that is coldhearted." In that case, let me remind you of how nature does its things. When a lion kills his prey isn't that coldhearted too?? No, we consider that somehow 'normal'. Probably because we think the lion has a good motive. But that is exactly what I am saying, as long a you have a good motive, your action, or its outcome, is good too.

If I have a good reason for NOT helping someone, because that one needs to learn his lesson in this live, or needs to get through it alone, or for whatever reason I may have, I see no reason to help him.

If you mean that a non-action is always an action, I do not agree. If you mean that sometimes a non-action can be considered an action, I agree, but there still exist true non-actions that are not actions.

If sometimes a non-action can be considered an action, describe the non-action which can't be considered an action. For starters, what is a non-action??

Not preventing a crime can be considered an act of ignorance. If you had had the knowledge to help but had had chosen not to help in a situation in which you could have had clearly done it, the moment the opportunity to help had had passed, you would have had become worse off spiritually.

That only workes when you believe in it. Just like walking under ladders won't get you any bad luck, unless you believe in it.

Again, if I have a good motive not to prevent then why would I need to prevent it??

What do you mean by trance-ending delusion and ignorance?

The 'trance-ending' is not mine, it is Stephen Wolinsky's toy. It comes from transcending. It describes the working of transcending. Namely to end a trance.

If you were to end the trance of delusion and ignorance and thus transcend them, you will become enlightened. However, you can only speak of enlightenment if there is delusion and ignorance, for how can there be transcendence when there is no object to be transcended?? In other words, there is no enlightenment by the time you have reached it.

Smoking may downgrade my body, my brain, my nervous system or my mind, but since I am not all that, how is it going to affect me?

Since you are at least the sum of your body, brain, nervous system, mind, etc., once even one of them is affected, it logically follows that you as a whole are also affected.

You say I am the sum of all that, but what am I actually??

[Yothu]

When a lion kills his prey isn't that coldhearted too?? No, we consider that somehow 'normal'. Probably because we think the lion has a good motive. But that is exactly what I am saying, as long a you have a good motive, your action, or its outcome, is good too.

I am Chief of Staff of a McDonald's subsidiary. My motives are clearly good for me - and I truly feel that way - as I provide food for hungry fellows (my good action).

Some will not agree with me that my actions are good despite the fact that my motives could be. Some won't even agree with me that my motives are good. Yet, I am convinced I am absolutely doing right.

That's a trivial problem I see with ethics. What might be good for me might not for anybody else and vice versa. That's the reason why I think it is not an easy task to set "basic rules" for a group of people that want to live together. (I'm not really working at McDonald's)

The 'trance-ending' is not mine, it is Stephen Wolinsky's toy. It comes from transcending. It describes the working of transcending. Namely to end a trance.

If you were to end the trance of delusion and ignorance and thus transcend them, you will become enlightened. However, you can only speak of enlightenment if there is delusion and ignorance, for how can there be transcendence when there is no object to be transcended?? In other words, there is no enlightenment by the time you have reached it.

He, Stephen Wolinsky, relates "trance" to "sleep" in this ^ context, do I understand correctly? Just like the kind of trance that you're in when you're in a shopping mall or watching sales t.v. and some commercials, right?