Enlightenment Redux
Posted: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:52 pmEnlightenment Redux
The notion of enlightenment has once again come up. I think this is because once again I have come full circle, passing through spiritual and philosophical notions and returning to essential Zen.
When I first encountered Zen over 30 years ago, I took notes, and did the same from Castaneda's works later, as well as from "Illusions". Those notes I've maintained in the front part of my notebook which comprised my hand written journal prior to having a PC available for daily writing. The notes are now yellowed with age and all have had three hole reinforcements applied, some stained with by coffee or beer.
In the thread on "change" I posted one of those Zen excerpts from long ago, which now seems finally to have really come home to roost. The essential comment was, "...in reality there is no such thing as awakening. In the end, the notion of awakening turns around and deludes people."
The comment has to do with the notion of enlightenment. The interesting thing about essential Zen is that it openly states several things that are confounding. First, it denies there is any such thing as Zen. Second, it states flatly that meditation will not make a Buddha of anyone. Then it says there is no such thing as awakening. What it does not say is why people become enamored of any of these things, why especially the notion of enlightenment grabs hold of them and won't let go.
What I find further of interest is that even though several threads have explored the notion of enlightenment, and even though it has been a frequent topic on chat, no one yet has adequately defined it, nor have those who claim to have experienced it been able to describe it. Jed McKenna states flately he has achieved it, yet nowhere in his books does he say really what enlightenment is.
There is, of course, the usual excuse that true enlightenment is a state of being that is beyond words, and further, that if you have experienced it, you know it and as well, recognize those few others who also have achieved it.
What has become curious to me is twofold, the first being my own notion, the second being a notion Kim has brought up several times and to my knowledge has never been dealt with nor discussed.
My notion: why does anyone seek enlightenment? In its most basic guise, enlightenment represents a "better" way of being. If that is true, that implies a judgement has been made that the known, or current way of being is not good enough and requires fixing, or upgrading, or making better. It seems to me this is the essential reason for the existence of psycho-therapy...that is, a person has come to the conclusion there is something wrong with themselves and repairs are required. In effect, the teachings of Don Juan could be looked at as sort of advanced psycho-therapy. Truly, the business of recapitulation is exactly that. In my opinion, learning about the programs of society, consensus reality, etc, is really a matter of maturity, and is not related to becoming an enlightened being. The same is true in re learning about the energy body and how to manipulate it, and in re other "advanced" achievements, such as "seeing", "heightened awareness", et al. Enlightenment, perhaps, is the culmination of all those things.
Kim's notion, or question: does achieving enlightenment have any impact on a potential afterlife? If so, what? If not, why bother?
The notion of enlightenment has once again come up. I think this is because once again I have come full circle, passing through spiritual and philosophical notions and returning to essential Zen.
When I first encountered Zen over 30 years ago, I took notes, and did the same from Castaneda's works later, as well as from "Illusions". Those notes I've maintained in the front part of my notebook which comprised my hand written journal prior to having a PC available for daily writing. The notes are now yellowed with age and all have had three hole reinforcements applied, some stained with by coffee or beer.
In the thread on "change" I posted one of those Zen excerpts from long ago, which now seems finally to have really come home to roost. The essential comment was, "...in reality there is no such thing as awakening. In the end, the notion of awakening turns around and deludes people."
The comment has to do with the notion of enlightenment. The interesting thing about essential Zen is that it openly states several things that are confounding. First, it denies there is any such thing as Zen. Second, it states flatly that meditation will not make a Buddha of anyone. Then it says there is no such thing as awakening. What it does not say is why people become enamored of any of these things, why especially the notion of enlightenment grabs hold of them and won't let go.
What I find further of interest is that even though several threads have explored the notion of enlightenment, and even though it has been a frequent topic on chat, no one yet has adequately defined it, nor have those who claim to have experienced it been able to describe it. Jed McKenna states flately he has achieved it, yet nowhere in his books does he say really what enlightenment is.
There is, of course, the usual excuse that true enlightenment is a state of being that is beyond words, and further, that if you have experienced it, you know it and as well, recognize those few others who also have achieved it.
What has become curious to me is twofold, the first being my own notion, the second being a notion Kim has brought up several times and to my knowledge has never been dealt with nor discussed.
My notion: why does anyone seek enlightenment? In its most basic guise, enlightenment represents a "better" way of being. If that is true, that implies a judgement has been made that the known, or current way of being is not good enough and requires fixing, or upgrading, or making better. It seems to me this is the essential reason for the existence of psycho-therapy...that is, a person has come to the conclusion there is something wrong with themselves and repairs are required. In effect, the teachings of Don Juan could be looked at as sort of advanced psycho-therapy. Truly, the business of recapitulation is exactly that. In my opinion, learning about the programs of society, consensus reality, etc, is really a matter of maturity, and is not related to becoming an enlightened being. The same is true in re learning about the energy body and how to manipulate it, and in re other "advanced" achievements, such as "seeing", "heightened awareness", et al. Enlightenment, perhaps, is the culmination of all those things.
Kim's notion, or question: does achieving enlightenment have any impact on a potential afterlife? If so, what? If not, why bother?
