Open Enlightenment

I love this, and I agree. Isn’t integrity really the secret to life in all its aspects? On a deeper or perhaps more abstract level, integrity is ontological transparency, a dedication to seeing clearly, the push to constantly reveal. It really is the light that gets you where you need to go, the receptive attitude behind all the searching.

After my last particularly strong acid trip, I started scribbling lots of notes down as some record of what I’d realised, and it was “integrity” that ended up smack bang in the middle of the whole mess. That “insight” has stuck with me ever since so it’s great to see you write this, and I think you’re right on the mark. Either that or we’ve both done way too many drugs.

Hi Alan, I like your blog, but I do disagree with you on your ideas of enlightenment. To me, saying “I am enlightened” is an oxymoron. The very definition of enlightenment (to me) is the end of an identification with a personal self (ego). The ego still continues as a function of the being but it is seen as just that, a function, not anything in and of itself. What I think you are experiencing is an enlightened ego, which is different than so-called “enlightenment”. Have tou ever read “Perfect Brilliant Stillnes” by david carse? Facinating and very very challenging book. I will continue to read your blog with interest.

I like this a lot as well.

The idea of integrity, of being one whole and complete person, has been something of a path for me as well. In working towards resolving differences/contradictions within myself, I find that the more I do so, the easier and more joyful my life becomes.

The more I bring together those separate parts of myself, the more I see that most of what I’ve thought would make me happy is not actually what I want. So what do I want? Simply to be whole and complete (which I am already) and also be able to act from with that understanding of my own completeness.

These words ring so true for me. In my own practice, the most helpful moments have been where I honestly assess myself, or hear it from someone else (rude awakenings!) This has been a major guide in my life, so far. Glad to hear it from someone else too!

I’m down with this integrity thing. I’d also call it ” a bias toward self-correction” or maybe “willingness to admit error and accept coaching.”

Cool stuff, and I think it does matter as much you you assert here, Alan.

Alan,

excellent. i generally agree with your enlightened expression on this post (no pun intended )

for me, integrity is a crucial quality/attitude/intention people should have who are serious with the idea of enlightenment (or any life endeavor worth pursuing).

however, allow me to make a few exceptions.

there are people who don’t have the basic mental faculties to pursue (or even entertain the idea) of enlightenment (e.g. mentally challenged people due to stroke of genetic bad luck, psychopaths due to neurological disorders, etc). so what’s your view on this?

also, there are people who experienced radical awakening without practice or even a conceptual model of enlightenment. it just suddenly hit them. so integrity is not a factor in these instances. (some would attribute this to past life, but let’s not open that can of worms for now.) so, what’s your view on this?

based on the exceptions i mentioned above, it seems to me that there are other factors for enlightenment. i think this is where the concept of Grace comes in.

as much as i agree with the integrity factor, imho, from a bigger perspective Grace (or serendipity, or you can call it luck) trumps integrity. that’s why Grace is number #1 enlightenment factor on my list closely followed by integrity and effort or our “illusory” selves.

my two cents.

~C

P.S. enlightenment has become diluted as the word “God”. people with different world views has a different take on the “enlightenment” word. i think it would be helpful if you would provide your definition of enlightenment. do you mean enlightenment as classical enlightenment experience (e.g. kensho)?, do you mean it as “full” enlightenment? (satori) what’s your definition of “full” enlightenment? different schools of buddhism have different twists on this. so it’s better to clarify your definition before riffing on such loaded concept.

that said, my *working* definition of enlightenment, is the same as my teacher’s definition of enlightenment “as a multi-faceted jewel” http://bit.ly/Shinzenlightenment

correction: in my previous comment it should read: “that’s why Grace is number #1 enlightenment factor on my list closely followed by integrity and effort of our “illusory” selves.”

keep on kicking ass!

Thanks Alain. Don’t you think that one of the side effects (or marks) of enlightenment is that the initial concern for techniques, models and maps is replaced by a concern for moral (or ethical) values, like integrity?

The idea of integrity as a core spiritual value came to me through Julius Evola. If I cannot share some of his political ideas, I have always been impressed by his amazing level of personal integrity. I have met many gurus and spiritual teachers and found that the acid test is to check their behaviour as far as integrity is concerned.

I would therefore go as far as to say that integrity is not only the secret of enlightenment, but also the secret of moral perfection after enlightenment.

Kind regards,

Alex

@C4Chaos: Yes, grace is fundamental to enlightenment, but I think it would be ill-advised to simply sit around hoping that one day it might arrive. Grace is not something a person can ‘do’, and is therefore not a ‘secret’ I can advocate exercising as such. Furthermore, the extent to which it is of benefit to the individual and society rests on integrity, and although it may be true that maps and descriptions of enlightenment are not necessary and sometimes do not help with actually achieving enlightenment as an event, I think it is of great importance to do our best to study all the models at our disposal and improve them as best we can (I get the impression that this is a big concern for Shinzen too), whether we have experienced enlightenment or not.

Enlightenment doesn’t end with enlightenment, and that’s why integrity is the key to a successful spiritual practice and career. So in terms of what I mean by enlightenment here (whether peak or full, whether arahat or Buddha, etc) is inconsequential: I believe integrity applies to them all.

@Huanshen:

‘Don’t you think that one of the side effects (or marks) of enlightenment is that the initial concern for techniques, models and maps is replaced by a concern for moral (or ethical) values, like integrity?’

It does appear that way, especially in light of your comments on the Zen masters earlier, but the big questions for me at the moment are ‘is this always the case?’ and ‘isn’t there a better way of approaching enlightenment that actually begins with moral concern as the technical aspect?’

‘I would therefore go as far as to say that integrity is not only the secret of enlightenment, but also the secret of moral perfection after enlightenment.’

Exactly! But I also think integrity is the secret to morality prior to enlightenment too.

Thanks Alan.

‘But I also think integrity is the secret to morality prior to enlightenment too.’

Yes, that’s a very good point. I was reflecting on that and realized that the second Yama of Patanjali Yoga is actually Satya, namely truthfulness or integrity. Since enlightenment is basically the discovery of the ultimate truth (‘satya’ or ‘sat’), integrity should logically become the first and most important step towards enlightenment.

Going a step further, we could even consider along with Plato, Zhongmi or Dogen that the nostalgia of our original completeness, or metaphysical integrity, might be the unconscious drive behind our search for enlightenment.

This is also the reason why I don’t see why one should sell enlightenment. Those who seek it with integrity don’t even know why they cannot be satisfied by any other pursuits, and don’t give a damn about solving their relationship or their anxiety problems as a result of enlightenment.

@Alan: “but the big questions for me at the moment are ‘is this always the case?’ and ‘isn’t there a better way of approaching enlightenment that actually begins with moral concern as the technical aspect?’

I don’t have much to say about enlightenment, since I’m not enlightened, but something in the terms of this discussion — technical aspects, moral concern, and their integration — reminds me of something I do know about, which is being a concert pianist.

A lot of people use being a concert pianist as a metaphor for anything difficult but achievable through practice—like enlightenment, for instance. And as I’ve started a serious meditation practice I’ve constantly noticed how well the analogy works. Spiritual practice is an awful lot like musical practice.

Now among classical musicians there’s a lot of talk about “technique” versus “musicianship.” Technique pertains to all the physical things you need to do to make sounds—the speed, flexibility , and accuracy with which you can move your hands and arms, the control of weight and attack, endurance and strength, etc. “Technique” in this sense gets thought of as a kind of form, a container. “Musicianship” is supposedly the “content” that gets poured into that container, the “form” of technique. One common way musicians snipe at one another is to say “well, he’s got a lot of technique but he’s not very musical.” This assumes that there can be content without appropriate form, or form without appropriate content.

When people try to get specific about how to make specific spiritual attainments they focus on technique, obviously, because it’s easier to follow such directions as “follow the breath” than “be loving” and get a specific, repeatable result. As a consequence, results-oriented teachers might treat morality as this other thing that you develop separately. (Like piano teachers who tell you to do a lot of scales and never get around to talking about what the music means.) This is similar to the form/content dualism that musicians often assume. The upshot is that one ends up saying the same sorts of things about meditators as about musicians: he’s done great investigation into bare sensate reality but he’s still a bit of a bastard.

When you wrote about finding the way to make morality the technique it rang all kinds of bells for me. I had the great good fortune to work with a (now dead) master pianist whose entire approach was to make musicianship the technique. He insisted that the foundation of all technique was the ear, just the careful listening to and absorption with the sounds we make. And this was really the most powerful teaching I ever had. It completely changed my playing; “musicianship” and “technique,” considered as separate things, were both transformed when I no longer treated them “musicianship” and “technique.” (Of course it’s a bit more complicated than this but this comment is too long.)

So I guess I’m saying, yeah, go! If you wrote a book on this kind of integral teaching I’d be the first to read it.

Alan,

you said: “Yes, grace is fundamental to enlightenment, but I think it would be ill-advised to simply sit around hoping that one day it might arrive. Grace is not something a person can ‘do’, and is therefore not a ’secret’ I can advocate exercising as such.”

i agree. i don’t view Grace that way. i don’t sit around hoping that one day it might arrive. i do sitting practice whether Grace arrives or not. an important part of having integrity is accepting the fact that our own efforts alone will cut it. Grace reminds me to take a bow to the Divine Unknown and accept that this bodymind’s efforts (even with the best of integrity) is necessary but not sufficient for liberation.

my view of meditation practice and enlightenment is captured by this quote often rehashed by Ken Wilber: “Enlightenment is an accident. Meditation makes you more accident-prone.”

~C

Alan, you hit that one out of the park.

While I flatly refute that there are any qualifications for enlightenment other than being, I absolutely agree that integrity (as you have defined it above) is extremely important (and terribly useful) for pursuing awakening to ones inherent enlightenment.

C4Chaos, re: the Ken Wilber quote – I love that one two, and very much share its sentiment.

Cheers Travis!

What a great, complex list of things that show “lack of integrity”! Every honest, true thing is SIMPLE!

Integrity is the state of being integrated, that’s all. When one’s feelings, thoughts, intentions, and actions are all integrated, one has integrity.

1. Think only about what you have first felt.

2. Intend only what you have thought about.

3. Act only in ways consistent with your intentions.

That is how to live with integrity.