Open Enlightenment

Bravo, Alan!

That is all

- Chris

Nice work.

insight is easier than morality.

I really enjoyed this post, Alan. I’ve been reflecting on the relationship between ego-self and Awakening a lot recently, and have come to similar (if not identical) ways of expressing it as you have here.

For me (coming from a Buddhist point of view), all of this falls under the category of View (or Ground). This is especially true when trying to articulate a realization of Emptiness at whatever level is available to one’s experience. Emptiness can mean “no self as thing,” (Hinayana) but it can also mean “lacking inherent existence” (Mahayana – Madhyamika perspective). When speaking of the Absolute (or Original Nature), Emptiness can mean, “empty of other” as it does with some Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions based on Yogacara philosophy – which includes some Ch’an/Zen, Tibetan, Japanese and Thai lineages. In surveying the traditions, one may conclude that clinging to any one of these views of Emptiness is a potential setback to true realization.

In short, the Emptiness thing isn’t as cut and dry as we’d like it to be. As you alluded to above, a misreading of any view of Emptiness can preclude serious emotional and behavioral side affects. Being open and honest with others about our experience may be the best cure.

We can readily identify the sickness by considering perhaps the most essential (no pun intended) concept of Buddhism: No-Self.

Great article, Anal. Another piece in puzzle (for me) of why the Buddha chose to put the four noble truths in terms of the unsatisfactory characteristic, instead of the not-self one.

I doubt that replacing not-self with empty self will help. The tendency to wish for solid ground, dependable refuge and so on, is just too deeply ingrained. Also, it’s Been Done Before, by the Buddha-Nature schools of Buddhism, for example. In the end, they’ll just make “empty” mean something other than it means.

Your unenlightenment score: U.G. Krishnamurti is still unsurpassed, to the best of my knowledge.

Cheers,
Florian

Oh no! Alan, I mis-spelled your name in my last post. Please edit, and accept my apologies.

Florian

Hi Alan

Enjoyed your CMT book

Yeh “enlightenment” is only slightly more capable of multiple meanings than “love” in the english language.

You may have come across it but if not Genpo Roshi has spoken a lot about this “denial” of the ego which “does and doesnt” exist. A recent Buddhist Geeks makes it clear and also his great interview on conscious.tv … esp his Big Mind stage makes a lot of sense … I reviewed about a dozen Advaita teachers over the New Year period … many of them seemed stuck at that level and hadnt made the Big Heart level yet (Tozan ranks 3 & 5). Interesting to read of the aspertions cast on Ramesh Balsekar in this context.

Taking the Buddha as the model .. none of us know do we? Did he really walk round with an imperturbable countenance 24×7? Or is that fantasy projection? Did he sit down grumpy at the end of the day and say “blimey these guys p*ss me off?”.

I buy into this new strand of “standing up and being counted” re spiritual progress … (eg you and DI) … however I think this model of englightenment (small e) is (by definition) then only one (very important) milestone on the “spiritual path” which as you say *continues*… its *not* “job done” (after all)?

enlightenment (sic) must (I feel) include opening not only to the wisdom aspect (“oh thats what I am”) but also to the compassion aspect (“poor s*ds”) to (a) “be real” and (b) have any social meaning … and so surely one ends up with *more* desire to not impact harm/abuse others??

Otherwise I suspect one is talking about the Stage 3 (tozan) and then backsliding due to all those nice young acolytes (insert sex as you require)…

Peace man.

H

I would suggest adding an item to the “treatment” list: energetic cultivation, e.g. spinal breathing pranayama (http://www.aypsite.org/41.html) or Chi Kung. It really is easier to be less needy and selfish, in the common sense of the word, if you can invoke arbitrary amounts of ecstatic pleasure at any time you wish to do so. This is not only possible but not too difficult to attain (and from what I can tell so far, it feels pretty-damn good).

‘AN ANAL CHAMP’

Heh, heh! Thanks Florian! I owe you one!

@Duncan – The Universe made me do it!

Great article Alan !

I must say that I am always amused to see that many Buddhist translate anatta by selflessness or egolessness, which is completely absurd and even funny. As mentioned by a friend of mine, D.T. Suzuki was right to translate anatta by insubstantiality (we could also say empty self or insubstantial self). Proof of it, the fact that:

“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is suffering; that which is suffering is egolessness (anatta); that which is egolessness is not mine, I am not that, that is not my ego. Thus must this be viewed with perfect insight as it really is” (S. iii. 45).

doesn’t make as much sense as the following translation of the same passage where anatta is translated by insubstantial,

“Bhikkhus, form is impermanent; that which is impermanent is suffering; that which is suffering is insubstantial (anatta); that which is insubstantial is not mine, I am not that, that is not my substance. Thus must this be viewed with perfect insight as it really is” (S. iii. 45).

Then, according to the Cula-sihanada Sutta, having completed the path, the Arahat understands: “birth is destroyed, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming to any state of being”.

In our post-modern nihilist age, it seems difficult to understand that the “no more coming into being” actually meant liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Liberation from embodiment after entrance into Parinirvana is the end of suffering (at least it was for early Buddhists).

Now who gains liberation? Certainly not the physical body. The Arahat is not anymore identified with body and mind. He cannot see them as his true self. Yet, the human body of the enlightened being will continue to do its human thing even after enlightenment. The Buddha had headaches. Dudjom Rinpoche knew that his wife was sleeping with young American hippies. Life goes on…

This is certainly the reason why Dogen considered that right practice is not only a means to get it done, but also a way of expressing one’s enlightenment even when “what had to be done has been done”. What you are saying Alan is also that ‘expressing one’s enlightenement’ is also a preventive treatment against the raging epidemy of post-awakening IBS syndrom, right?

-Alex W.

is it automatic that
a being who is enlightened
can recognise another?

I’ve heard it said that one of the reasons Westerners often have trouble seeing results from their meditation practice is because they wallow in content, doing a kind of psychoanalysis rather than meditation.

How does this hold up after enlightenment? Can the process of “wallowing in content” during meditation be used for psychoanalytic purposes once the main realization of enlightenment has occurred, to clean up and realign the ego, so to speak?

Alex W, thanks for that little snippet! Suddenly some difficult stuff falls into place! Nice one.

@Ian: Having had experience of both psychoanalysis and enlightenment, here’s how I’d describe it.

It seems that what Freud called ‘libido’ the Buddha called ‘attachment’, and what Freud called ‘castration’ the Buddha called ‘emptiness’. At enlightenment emptiness is realised and attachment seen through. In a psychoanalytic cure, however, the fear of castration is mitigated or diverted, which allows the patient to re-attach themselves to more appropriate objects. Therefore psychoanalysis is about the forming of ‘appropriate’ attachments rather than seeing through attachment.

Given this, I would say that ‘wallowing in content’ can be used effectively for psychoanalytic purposes even *before* enlightenment. ‘To clean up and realign the ego’ is certainly a goal of psychoanalysis, but is beside the point in terms of enlightenment.

That said, however, after enlightenment the ‘personal’ aspect of ‘personal stuff’ is seen through, and it simply doesn’t command the respect it used to. This might give a person who has experienced enlightenment an edge when it came to re-aligning their relationship with their personal stuff, but it doesn’t guarantee insight. The unconscious stays unconscious after enlightenment.

The work of psychoanalysis is basically morality practice – and that work continues!

@Zac: I don’t take a renunciatory approach to morality; I’m more of a Dzogchen man (‘Great Perfection’). I’ve written a little bit about morality here:

http://openenlightenment.org/?p=210

And I’ll probably post something else on the topic shortly.

@Jackson: Nice comment! I think it is often unappreciated just how many meanings a Buddhist word can have (still trying to get my head around the three diferrent kinds of rigpa in the Bon tradition). Just a quick note: What I mean by original nature is not the same thing as emptiness or the absolute (although I can see that how I used the term in the post doesn’t make that clear). For me, original nature is something I only fully recognised at full awakening, whereas emptiness is something I was experientially familiar with for a number of years; and so emptiness – in whatever way we might define it – is original nature, but (bear with me) original nature is not emptiness.

Granted, that probably makes little sense, so I’ll post something on what I mean by original nature soon too!

@Monkeymind: Ha ha! You obviously had something else on your mind when writing that comment…;)

@Hawklord: I listened to the Genpo Roshi interview on BG, and I think I might have a new found respect for him!

Can you say a little more on the comment you made about Balsekar?

@Bruno: There’s nothing quite like a nice dose of bliss, and that’s one of the virtues of cultivating shamatha jhanas (bliss at will), but I think we should be careful unless we end up ‘jhana junkies’. Reminds me of those experiments in the 50s when they wired up a guy’s pleasure centres to a button. He sat there for days pressing it over and over…

@Alex: Bingo! Great comment as usual.

@Happyseaurchin: No!

@Ian: It’s not just Westerners who have a problem ‘wallowing in content’! (I’m shocked and appalled at the state of most Eastern schools and their teachers/students.)

I think the strict division between form and content is a bit artificial; during my process of awakening, I went through a lot of what can only be described as therapeutic healing, and my investment in a lot of personal content aided me in my practice and my understanding and view of enlightenment. I think so long as we don’t find ourselves endlessly distracted by content when we are meant to be practising, progress is easily made.

So I’ve never found the process of insight to be strictly about insight, and my psychological work to be strictly therapeutic; I think they impact each other a great deal. Problems only arise if we believe insight leads to the goal of psychotherapy, or psychotherapy leads to the goal of insight. They are not the same thing, but they can go hand in hand.

@Alan: dirty little secrets… satori pr0n…

@Alan: The mental bliss described by the jhana crowd all sound very nice, but it is _not_ what I am talking about. Mental bliss is concentration on specific faculties of the brain, which is fine, but “energy cultivation” is something different.

It would be accurate to say that it is the cultivation of the sexual function, but that really makes it sound much less sophisticated than what it actually is. If you pay careful attention (vipassana-vibratory-quality-like attention) during genital orgasm, you will find that climax is a pull of energy in the perineum which is then directed towards the genital organ. This pull of energy that the perineum can do, much more than the genital sensations themselves, is what I mean by “sexual function”, and it is this aspect of sex that is developed in tantric sex, rather than genital orgasm.

Cultivation of this area, known as the root chakra, will make this “pulling” of energy happen more smoothly, constantly and intensely. If instead of directing it towards the genitals we lead it through the whole of the spinal chord (and then there are other channels, but I’ll spare you the details), this energy is brought to nourish every part of the nervous system, as well as muscles and organs, and also including your brain (and yes, that includes the jhana aspects, visionary experiences, etc). I have confirmed this by Direct Experience. “Kundalini awakening” is the initial opening of the root chakra.

Eventually, I am told, this circulation develops into permanent, whole-body orgasmic ecstasy, which also progressively becomes more subtle and refined, so it is not accompanied by the usual “rush” of genital climax. It is not even a matter of stimulating the pleasure centers over and over again, it will simply happen by itself. By all reports it feels f*cking great

So do not confuse jhana cultivation with energy cultivation. I have bought and read your wonderful book “Advanced magick for beginners”, where you mention that any chakra system will more-or-less do the trick, that it is merely a matter of belief. My direct experience tells me that this is not the case, as I have had “energy” experiences in specific parts whose name and function I only later read about.

Since I’ve never seen any mention of “permanent full-body orgasms” in Daniel Ingram’s MCTB, my conjecture is that insight tradition people are missing out on some of the fun. Again, I suggest you check out the free lessons in http://www.aypsite.org. An insight-yoga dictionary would say: Silence or Shiva = Subject or Observer; Ecstasy or Shakti or Kundalini = Object or Phenomena; Marriage of Shakti and Shiva = Union of subject and object = (your very own experience of) Enlightenment.

@Bruno: I’m not saying the jhanas are the same as subtle energetics, just that bliss or pleasure – whether from a drug or sex or a button – is all fine and good, just that we should be mindful of not becoming addicted to it. Sorry if you thought I meant otherwise.

Re. energy points, I would keep in mind the other half of my magical theory: means of manifestation i.e. the world we inhabit. Experience isn’t just belief (in fact, that’s kind of the crux of my book, and why it isn’t really about CMT ), and so of course subtle energetics really do exist. However, we can of course deeply shape the way in which we experience those subtle energetics using belief (adopting a 5 chakra model instead of 7, etc.).

Hope that makes sense.

@Alan: I guess that might be so; I have some experience in how interpretation changes reality.

But on one hand this Yogani fellow makes it clear that the whole energetic development thing takes off on its own, until you are permanently in a powerful and subtle form of ecstatic bliss. So there isn’t much room for addiction, since there is no specific behavior to pursue in order to feel this ecstasy. Risking an analogy: does it make sense to be “addicted to emptiness”?

On the other hand, my first point was that this “energetic development” part should be added to the list of “cures” of a difficult enlightenment experience. I could be wrong, it is just an intuition I get from my post stream-entry experience of the kundalini processes.

For instance, today I did an activity which habitually triggers feelings of “frustration”. As expected, there it was, stream-entry changed nothing in this regard, and I began to feel frustration. However, by focusing on it, I saw that the “feeling of frustration”, albeit interfering with what I was trying to do, was just a pleasurable vibration. Feeling it like that, rather than stopping what I was doing, I did a short pause, enjoyed my frustration, and it eventually dissolved itself, leaving me invigorated! Then I focused on being “enthusiastic” about what I was doing. The invigoration changed into enthusiasm, pronto!, and I proceeded with what I was doing. This kind of thing is a completely new experience for me, but it has been happening with loads of things for the past few days. Impatience turns into incitement, sadness into beauty or compassion, frustration into invigoration, etc, and anything, absolutely anything, feels blissful!

So I think you are right that one should “show some integrity” and try to harness one’s most unfortunate traits, such as pride, in the best possible way. What I am suggesting is that cultivating the energetic aspect of the nervous system gives you a very powerful tool to do exactly these things.

@Bruno: I absolutely agree that there is a big energetic aspect to the awakening process. I’ve had a lot of ajna chakra action in the past, and Duncan’s chakras seem to kick off whenever he has an insight. That transformation of the passions sounds a lot like tantra, and tantra is certainly a path to liberation!

@Bruno: thank you for mentioning Yogani’s website. His book Advanced Yoga Practice is brilliant and his system works as far as I can tell (a kind of semi-sexual ecstatic bliss starts to irradiate one’s spine and nervous system after a few days or weeks of dedicated practice). Furthermore, what he calls ‘deep meditation’ is almost identical to Contemplative Prayer and therefore to the method used to gain Knowledge and Conversation with the Holy Guardian Angel, which is one if not the core practice of Alan & Duncan’s magical system.

@Alan: Yes, as I understand it, Yogani used a powerful blend of Mantra Yoga, Kriya Yoga and advanced Hatha Yoga. The result shares great similarities with the yoga of the early Nath Sampradaya, in particular that of Gorakhnath and Matsyendranath. It is therefore tantric in nature as it involves the dual cultivation of emptiness and bliss to gain Bhoga (extatic bliss) and Moksha (liberation). Needless to say, Tibetan Mahamudra is historically closed related to the tradition of the Nath Mahasiddhas.

Spinal breathing is also one of the best methods to charge the chakras and awaken the kundalini in a smooth and safe manner. Warmly recommended, even to those who follow another path. As an example for our Theravada friends, generating ecstatic bliss (Piti in Pali) combined with one pointed concentration is wonderful to cultivate the Jhana factors to rise up smoothly though the Jhanas which can then be used as a springboard for Vipassana, in particular from the fourth Jhana.

Finally, I would say that Yoani’s booklet on ‘Self-Investigation’ is faithful to Adi Shankaracharya’s Advaita Yoga and is a good complement to the system for those who might otherwise get stuck in Jhanic states, concentrating exclusively on deep meditation and ecstatic bliss.

@Alan: “so emptiness – in whatever way we might define it – is original nature, but (bear with me) original nature is not emptiness.”

I think I’m on board with you here, Alan. In my above comment, I was referring to a way of understanding emptiness as an intrinsic characteristic of the Absolute (Original Nature). I often intentionally refrain from taking sides in the “What is the Ultimate Reality?” debate, which I may guess has been going on since beginningless time. For most Buddhists, it’s a debate between Shunyata (Emptiness) or Tathagatagarbha (Buddha Nature) as the highest Truth. And it isn’t a Hinayana, Mahayana, Vajrayana issue. The dichotomy appears on its own within each “yana”. Very interesting stuff, but I digress…

Writing a post on what you mean by “Original Nature” is a good idea. I’m looking forward to reading it.

I especially appreciate step three. Now back to practicing compassion and loving-kindness….

Hi Al

Not an expert in “naughty gurus” but eg http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/ramesh_balsekar.html (which has this nice idea of conventional truth/psychic truth/ultimate truth). About halfway down is a section “On the Ramesh Balsekar scandal of 2004-5″

Yeh I liked the “dont give a sh1t” comment … nice to hear spiritual teachers not trying to stick to prissiness

Anyone interested in GR angle on the two-fold process should check out a great video interview on conscious.tv (direct link is http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid46208169001?bclid=46630805001&bctid=9995707001 )

Actually, I think Zac really hit on something there – it seems to me like a lot of the things Alan pointed out in his original post are a direct result of how insight is emphasized so highly in most people’s contacts with the dharma, whereas morality usually is not.

Of course, this kind of makes sense, in a way. Insight practice tends to produce fairly dramatic experiences, which many people tend to value highly, to make no mention of the fact that it’s all stuff we experience directly, which a lot of people also like. Instruction in morality oftentimes feels like someone telling me what to do and I just have to take his word for it, or learn myself through the school of hard knocks that it just doesn’t work as well for me to do things my own (immoral) way.

Add on top of it the fact that most (if not all) major systems of morality currently out there confuse cultural norms (no homosexuality, no meat, women take a back seat to men, read this book not that book, etc) with morality (no stealing, tell the truth, don’t initiate violence, etc) and it’s easy to see why a lot of dharma teachers gloss over morality and focus on insight.

I think, too, that a lot of it has to do with some perhaps unrealistic expectations that insight-based enlightenment will somehow lead to a complete moral enlightenment as well. While peoples’ morality *does* sometimes undergo drastic revision post-enlightenment, it oftentimes is an incomplete revision at best (which, again, makes sense – it’s usually insight training, not morality training, that leads to the enlightenment of the being in question!) However, this isn’t really recognized or spoken about too much, because of the aforementioned problems with so few people being willing to come out and say, “Yes, I have been enlightened, and no, that doesn’t mean I’m perfect,” so we wind up getting a lot of people teaching enlightenment but acting in immoral ways (taking advantage of students, letting unskillfull emotions get the better of them, promoting dangerous practices, etc) because there’s this spoken or unspoken assumption that if you’re enlightened (or even teach spirituality, for that matter) that must somehow mean you’ve mastered all the other aspects of a given spiritual path, as well. (Not to mention, you now know all about cosmology, the afterlife, nutrition, small motor repair, and pretty much every other thing that one could possibly hope to know about!)

Yes, Mark, this does not mean that enlightened people are perfect moral beings or that they will always act on what they sense or what the universe is giving them in this instant.

My experience has been that insight and morality are deeply intertwined but not in the way most people think. Deep insight makes it clear what needs to happen in any given instant. Morality is generally a “do this, not that” kind of prescription that is authority based and varies depending on the authority and on the receiving person. Deep insight leads to an innate sense of how the universe runs, is run, must run. This is not your father’s morality but is far, far superior (that’s just my humble opinion) in that the “moral imperative” is woven into the fabric of existence and doesn’t require memory, training or any outside influence to be effective.

This is what is best meant, I think, by the word “skillful” in Buddhism. In the deepest sense, morality is insight, and vice versa. Any other version is making a false dichotomy with concepts. Even enlightened people may not be skillful people. Whiel you may have access to this you are not forced to pay attention to it or to use it.

Good article. However:

While it is always weird to quote one’s own work, I offer this just to counter the notion that there is “no one [who] wishes to address” this issue, as some of us have been trying for many years, albeit not on nearly a large enough scale to make all that much difference, unfortunately. This is one small drop in that larger bucket, as reform efforts have been going on for 2500 years, actually. It is good to lend your voice to that small tide, but it is not the only one, as you unfortunately suggest.

From MCTB, page 319:

“While I wish to promote the shift in perception that I call awakening and other names, I don’t want to make out that somehow this will save anyone from stupid actions or make them somehow always know how to do the right thing or avoid screwing up. Such views are a setup for massive badness and huge shadow sides, as anyone who has spent enough time in a spiritual community knows all too well. As Zen says, ‘The bigger the front, the bigger the back.’
The list of highly enlightened individuals who have bitten the proverbial dust by putting themselves up on high, screwing up and then being exposed as actually being human is remarkably long, and the list of spiritual aspirants who have failed to draw the proper conclusions about reality from the failures of the enlightened is even longer. ”

And on page 329:

“Further, it is oh so easy to imagine that the teachers on the front cushion couldn’t possibly be as neurotic as we are, and before you know it we have the breeding ground for massive shadow sides, exploitation, isolation, and scandal just like we had with the models that purport emotional perfection. The Jet Set culture of teachers popping in, getting up on the front cushion, spouting their beautiful ideals, and jetting off to somewhere else before anyone can see them as the humans they really are only goes to reinforce these dangerous notions. It is just so easy to project all kinds of wondrous qualities on to them when the dream is so nicely laid out and the opportunities for reality testing so few. Clearly, that suits most of them just fine, or they would go more out of their way to counter those notions, but, as they quickly learn, countering those notions just doesn’t sell, and getting caught up in that sort of transference feels mighty friggin’ nice.”

The articles that appeared on DhO that Hokai had referenced regarding modern Zen “Masters” and communities also did much to expose these issues. These are just a few of many possible examples.

I would add to your cure: read everything on psychological transference and counter-transference you can find until you get it. Psychotherapy literature has been dealing pretty well with this for years with some success at times.

Good article otherwise.

Thanks for the feedback regarding psychology, been a while since I could check back in here.

Alan, I definitely agree with you on the way psychological healing seems to come along as part of the insight process, and that form and content are interdependent (or at least, not entirely separate). Who can be without content, and what’s the use of enlightenment that doesn’t know how to relate to content?

Duncan, I find your take on this really interesting. Freud’s fear of “castration” then, would make him equally afraid of enlightenment, yes? Brings to mind your article over at the BH about Jung, and I’ve noticed similar things in regards to Jung after looking over an exhibit of his Red Book. There seems to be something incomplete about western psychoanalysis. If anything, its content work that can’t (or won’t) take enlightenment into account!

Anyway, if “libido” = “grasping” and “castration” = “emptiness”, then how does the Buddhist and Freudian concepts of “ego” fit into the equation? Are they are at all comparable?

@Ian: ‘Content work’: yes, that’s my view of psychoanalysis too… There is no possibility of ‘transcendence’ (‘fruition’, ‘insight’) in psychoanalysis, because – due to Freud’s materialism – the ego is identified as the self. However, I think the Buddhist and Freudian concepts of ego are still oddly compatible. In Freud’s earlier writings, particularly, it’s clear that the ego is composed purely of defences against and reactions to perceptions and impulses – in other words, ego has no substance in itself but is empty and relative. This means psychoanalysis can still prove very useful to people coming at things from a Buddhist perspective. Ultimately, however, Freud was a dualist: he sees the ego as relative to the unconscious or id, which he regards as another agency within the mind. A healthy psyche is always a ‘balancing act’ for Freud between competing internal agencies. There’s nothing outside or beyond this, as far as he is concerned. But as Freud himself admitted (a bit regretfully, perhaps) he never had a religious experience in his life. It might also be said he went out of his way *not* to have one! – I touch on this briefly in my book *Occult Experiments in the Home* which is supposed to be out by now but is still at the publishers!

@Dan: Your quotes and the rest of the material about the behaviour of enlightened folk do not address the points raised in this article (and I have never come across anything that does). Namely:

1). The Dirty Little Secret is that not even the sense of the subject disappears with awakening. And:

2). A particular brand of behaviour is encouraged through what I call the Ignorant Bliss of Selflessness, which in turn arises from a bad view of enlightenment (see point 1).

Finally, I find dramatic statements make for a better read (after all, this is just a blog).

Otherwise, glad you enjoyed the article!

“A healthy psyche is always a ‘balancing act’ for Freud between competing internal agencies. There’s nothing outside or beyond this, as far as he is concerned.”

That feels incredibly claustrophobic to me.

The Dirty Little Secret is that not even the sense of the sense of the subject disappears with awakening

How do you mean? Do you mean “experience” in the sense of sensory phenomena as mediated by the body (touch, sight, sound, mind, &c), as opposed to ther assumption that “I” am something “In here”? Or do you mean something else?

You don’t know the Guru you only know his performance.

After chatting with Alan yesterday at the satsang, he did indeed clarify that he meant the “sense of the subject” in terms of experience as mediated by a system of body and mind (as I recall).

I suppose what you might say is that the sense of personal self-hood is seen to be impermanent. I’ve not had this happen myself (that I remember; I have of course slept), mind.

To me, it would seem to be a case of confusing the planes, in terms of one of the three characteristics, ie: anatman. The popular conclusion of the lack of self-hood makes sense if and only if you confine it to one plane; eg: the intellectual, or physical. However, from the point of view of the total being this is a truncated viewpoint; as it’s still dependent on the subject object dichotomy (as the witness, all of these phenomena are empty).

And in fairness, whilst this pretence to a lack of a subject maybe doesn’t stand up in terms of Alan’s experience, it might be worth bearing in mind that, the Buddha’s primary focus wasn’t in Enlightenment itself, but the ending of suffering. So, from that point of view, then “selfless” generous behaviour property integrated can be really helpful. The path and the fruit are naturally going to be dependent on the ground out of which it grows.

I suspect that a large proportion of the problems you’re countering on this blog to a certain extent rise out of the more-or-less protestant culture in which we live within; where you’re encouraged to think for yourself, rather than trusting an authority. However, this only works if you complete the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, synthesis).

Can the end of suffering be separated, or pursued separately, from enlightenment, Ceri?

well, as far as I know, the buddha never used the word ‘enlightenment’. the words he did use translate better as unbinding, liberation, awakening, cessation, or to extinguish.

the sensations that compose the subjective self or sense of the personality only go away to the extent that you either train them to go away (which you can do ), or focus on something else, which everyone does some of the time.

so yeah, you only become ‘selfless’ in the sense most people mean, if you train yourself to be, and that training is a different training than insight generally is. but if you mean the illusion of self-in-phenomena, then yes, you can eradicate that proclivity by learning to dis-identify with the sensations that compose the subjective self.

everything you experience is a field of pixels thrown up by your brain interpreting the environment, and the conditions in your nervous system. depending on how you focus, you could distort that in any way conceivable.

@Chris: I can’t imagine that it would be possible to do so given the framework given here. I didn’t mean to imply they were somehow mutually exclusive. One suspects more reading on the historical context of Shakyamuni is required for one’s self.

Ceri, I aksed the questoin because I believe what the Buddha called the end of suffering to be… enlightenment. The other “stuff” we pile up on top the term “enlightenment” is just concepts and models. Alan’s contributuion here (I’m a huge fan of this) is to point that out, over and over again, from different perspectives. Daniel Ingram does that, as does Kenneth Folk. I hope this is a trend among serious and realized teachers. TELL THE TRUTH!

Yea, before enlightenment you have a middle finger. After enlightenment, you still have a middle finger. And that finger can still flick the bird.

Well, seems that short of dissolving into Source completely, without any form on any level, there remains the individual “gesture” of beingness.

So even an enlightened “gesture” (individual) will still have a unique character, body, habits, moods, whatever . . .

The difference is the thinning of the overall mental chatter for that individual, and also the rather laser like insights and experience of the “is-ness” of it all ongoing (i.e.: non-duality).

I read the post and not all the comments. I agree that the ego does not disappear, and can even rear its uglier side in the event you do not remain centered or let the mind lead your consciousness for a moment.

But the real definition of ego (which is different from what modern day psychology teaches) is that it simply is “the mind’s definition of self”. It’s the laundry list of things your mind points to when it tries to answer the question “Who are you?”.

So you never really lose it. The mind always tries to have a definition of what it believes to be you. What actually happens post-enlightenment is that the ego is altered to include the experience of… and new knowledge included within… awakening. From your ego’s standpoint, you are not who you were yesterday because a new understanding exists. But at the same time you somewhat are the same, as that some of the details have not changed… just the core… with a drastically different understanding of the true nature of your self.

It is unfortunate that some “gurus” let themselves be led of the path by desire and attachment after awakening. I think these are the people who do the most harm in leading people astray in their spiritual development.

Peace,
-From a Non-Buddhist Buddha

“So even an enlightened “gesture” (individual) will still have a unique character, body, habits, moods, whatever . . .”

I like the way you describe this, shanti. It’s easy to confuse uniqueness with having a self. All we are is a bundle of uniqueness (perspective, mind objects, and so on) but with no permanent essence…. not a self to be found in there.

Moral and immoral behaviour has to do with the effect actions or speech have on other people. “Do not intentionally harm” is a sound guideline, but then again, some stupid cows just need a whack to wake up from their stupor. And are angry afterwards of course. But more often than not, immoral acts or speech are done unaware of the effects they have on others, and becoming aware is the first step in correcting your wrongdoing. Guideline # 2: Be honest with yourself and others. If you see mistakes, correct them, if someone else tells you you made a mistake – listen carefully.

What seems to be missing in this discussion is how, “with a little help from my friends” you can become aware (if that needs be) how your behaviour, or the things you say, do harm to others. Playing the guru-thing can be a hell of a lonely job; constantly being admired can lead to some pretty ridiculous self-admiration. Having friends who can give you some honest critique is needed most as an antidote for immoral and selfish acts.

Long lasting intimate relationships can help too. It’s usually your girlfriend who’s the least impressed with your new status as an “enlightened one”, since she also discusses with you the things that need to be bought at the grocery.

Morality is within the field of human interaction.
It is therefore open for discussion, dependent on circumstances and interpretation, history and intent. It has no indisputable absolutes. It is far removed from the pristinity of emptiness and enlightenment.

It’s where self meets others. And this is not being resolved by calling it the acts of no-self.