I appreciate Vince Horn’s comments regarding the need to demystify enlightenment. I’d like to make a minor point here. While I think it is true that we often project ‘weird shit’ onto those we regard as enlightened teachers–a longtime Buddhist practitioner once said to me, with a straight face, ‘Tibetans aren’t like us. They can fly’–I do believe the saying, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits’ carries some validity.

Among The Three Trainings taught by the Buddha, morality is just as important as wisdom and concentration. I’ve grown tired of people saying that supposedly enlightened teachers who commit unspeakable acts–who harm others in ways that might shock an average person plucked off the street–have mere ’shadow issues.’ This has started to seem like a somewhat dangerous euphemism to me, valuable and true as the shadow concept is.

In other words, when looking for signs of an enlightened being, we should not demand an Unerring Goody Two Shoes who never gets angry, always wears a kindly smile, etc. But when it becomes clear that the individual in question routinely indulges in behavior that causes harm to others, I do believe that this should give us pause about that person’s level of realization.

Enlightened beings actually should have enough self-mastery that people associate them largely with wholesome states and behaviors, basic goodness and sanity. The strength and goodness of HH The Dalai Lama comes to mind here.

Dear Joel,

I really appreciate your comment and the points you bring up. I thought it would be helpful to respond, so that I could clarify some of my thinking around this topic…

Firstly, I totally agree that morality is an important part of the traditional Buddhist path also. Really, it’s an important part of living a good and healthy life. That said, when I use the word “enlightenment,” I specifically mean the realization that comes through training in insight. And so one can train in insight, attain realization, and then still be a jackass if they haven’t done much in the trainings in morality. And likewise, one can train in morality all day long, everyday, become a saint of sorts, and still not be awake in terms of insight. I tend to think there was both a reason that the Buddha separated these trainings (as becomes obvious when we see the huge disparity between the different trainings in certain people’s practices) and also a good reason he saw them as inter-connecting and mutually supportive. Mastery, or even small gains, in any of the trainings can be used as a support for mastery in the other trainings, but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.

This brings us to another meaning of enlightenment, which is actually Buddhahood, in which we see enlightenment as the perfection of the 10 paramis (or 6 paramitas), which include qualities from all three trainings. I think when people think of “enlightenment” they are often thinking of the ideal of Buddhahood. But I’ll be honest, I don’t think the Buddha was a Buddha. Who can “perfect” a quality of being (let alone 10), and what does that even mean? “I’ve perfected patience”. Does that mean the quality of patience has an endpoint? And what can have an endpoint in the relative world? If that’s the case, I’d have to say this smells a bit of mythic dogma. If instead, the teachings on the perfections (whether there are 6 or 10) is pointing to ideals which we can cultivate, approach, and otherwise work toward, but which we acknowledge don’t have an endpoint per say, then I’m all for it. But when we recognize there isn’t an endpoint to patience, generosity, concentration, etc. then we’re also recognizing this type of enlightenment isn’t possible in the relative world. From this vantage, the 1st definition of enlightenment (certain significant milestones in the training in insight) becomes a much more useful working definition.

So, I’d say that enlightened beings realization should not be judged by their behavior, as insight training can really be done largely independent of the training in morality. That said, as Buddhist practitioners, the ideal, as you say, really is to combine the three trainings as best we can, so that we can live an awake, still, and ethical life. That though, is probably an endless process, and so I think we should give ourselves some credit where it’s due, and also be patient with ourselves as best we can.

How do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it? Who is qualified to serve as judge to gauge whether someone is, in fact, enlightened when clearly those left to label someone as such are most likely not, themselves, enlightened? If it’s also true that one who claims to be enlightened is most certainly not so, how does one know when someone becomes enlightened? Stephen Bodian explores this with Adyashanti in “The Taboo of Enlightenment” in the Fall 2004 issue of Tricycle. Would love to hear what folks think about this.

Interesting questions, though I think many of them are deeply flawed. Let me take a shot at each, by being practical and down-to-earth. Please excuse the rhetorical force behind the responses, but I think Western Buddhists have gone far too long behind childish when it comes to the topic of enlightenment, and so I feel compelled as fellow practitioner and lover of wisdom to be frank…

How do we know what enlightenment is precisely if no one we know has reached it?

If you don’t know anyone who is enlightened, then you probably aren’t looking hard enough. There are many, many people in all sorts of spiritual communities who have had very deep breakthroughs and permanents shifts of identity. By almost all definitions they’ve achieved various degrees of enlightenment. Just ask around, and you will find them… But if you do find them, try not to project all sorts of weird shit onto them. They’re just normal people. Instead, a practical and helpful question is, “How did you do it?” Usually those who are enlightened, woke up for a reason.

Who is qualified to serve as judge to gauge whether someone is, in fact, enlightened when clearly those left to label someone as such are most likely not, themselves, enlightened?

Again, why do we assume that there aren’t those that are enlightened walking around right now? That’s, to me, one of the most disempowering (and frankly untrue) beliefs one could have. Of course, it depends on what you mean by enlightenment (if you think enlightenment = a super being who can’t do any wrong, then you probably won’t find any enlightened people). If instead, you use a working definition of enlightenment that has to do with radically diminishing the sense of fundamental duality, in their real-time experience, then I think you’ll find 100’s, if not 1000’s of people who have had those kind of shifts. Ask any authentic teacher if their students are getting enlightened. If they say, “no”, run the other way.

In terms of assessing other people’s degree of awakening, that’s a little trickier. By virtue of having actually experienced the terrain of awakening, an enlightened person has a much better shot at seeing similar patterns in other people’s practices. They can use various maps to try and aid in their assessment (there are many helpful one’s that the traditions have provided), but having a map doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to map the complexities of reality. People are just too varied and too complex, for one map to fit all the possible experience and descriptions out there. And humans are constantly making assessment errors, even if they do have good maps and have the experience themselves.

Of course, we musn’t forget that our own internal models of what enlightenment is, will always shade our assessment of other people’s realizations. Those internal beliefs need to be subjected to inquiry as well, and if we find that our internal beliefs lead us to think that no one could possibly be enlightened, that probably means we have poor beliefs, not that enlightenment isn’t possible.

If it’s also true that one who claims to be enlightened is most certainly not so, how does one know when someone becomes enlightened?

Why would saying, “hey, I think I’m enlightened, because of x, y, or z…” automatically disqualify me from being enlightened? Does enlightenment somehow limit the words that can come out of our mouth, or the thoughts I can have? By that very same faulty logic the Buddha himself couldn’t have possibly been enlightened (not to mention the 1000’s of respected figures throughout time who have made similar claims). Come on now folks, just because we’re talking about enlightenment, doesn’t mean we need to regress to pre-rational modes of thinking. Rationally is still very helpful…

Personally, I think Adyashanti has done much to demystify a topic which historically has been so shrouded in shoddy and magical thinking. Part of the problem has to do with the very way the traditions have talked about it, but the other part has to do with us as pretty smart Western people completely buying that bullshit hook, line, and sinker. Just because someone from the East said it, doesn’t make it so. We need to use our own discerning mind, do the practices set out by the Buddha and all the multitude of people since him, and find out for ourselves what enlightenment is or isn’t. Then, we can speak about it with authority, instead of asking silly questions. I appreciate Adyashanti for doing just that, and think more should follow in his footsteps.

I find that somehow, by shifting the focus of attention, I become the very thing I look at and experience the kind of consciousness it has; I become the inner witness of the thing. I call this capacity of entering other focal points of consciousness – love. – Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

I heard that quote from Nisargadatta, the famous advaita sage, on a recent month-long retreat. I found it significant, because at the time I was working with the enquiry question, “What is Love?” and had started to come to the same realization. So, when I heard the very simple description of love that Nisargadatta gave, of the capacity to place one’s consciousness on something, I thought to myself, “Exactly!”

When I first started working with the question, “What is Love?” my initial experience was of feeling the connection between all things, almost like seeing the subtle, but pervasive, effect that each atom had on each other atom in the universe. But then, the answer began to change, and for some time, each time I asked the question, “What is Love?” almost immediately a huge amount of fear, anxiety, etc. would arise. At first I thought that I must be doing something wrong, but as I continued to ask the question the same exact thing kept happening. Before I asked, everything would be even, clear, etc. and then BAM all sorts of intense and difficult emotions would arise. I began to get interested in this fact, and decided that it’s arising couldn’t be an accident, but rather was exactly what should be arising. And so I shifted to just being with, and seeing clearly, all of it as it arose. Much as I would do with vipassana practice, I gently explored and relaxed into the experience. Eventually, as all experiences do, it faded, and I had the sudden and shocking realization that this was an answer to the question, “What is Love?” Love is the capacity to be present with something. When I shared that with my teacher, Trudy Goodman, she acknowledged that yes, that is what is meant by Love. And she also mentioned that it kind of trips people out to see that, because it really doesn’t carry with it all the charged emotionality that people assume it should.

Reflecting on this a little later, it occurred to me that any practice that allows one to be with experience more fully is itself a practice of Love. All of the vipassana practice that I’ve done, seeing clearly the nature of phenomenon and the mind-body-self process, was strengthening Love. And now I really don’t see a difference between the practices that more emphasize surrender and love and those that emphasize awareness and attention. For me, they converge in the simple act of “shifting the focus of attention” to include whatever it is. And what happens when we are able to do that for the whole of Reality, just as it is? For me, that’s when things start to get interesting!

I couple months ago I began engaging in Robert Kegan’s¹ Immunity to Change process, which is designed to unearth hidden “core assumptions” related to one’s current “order of consciousness” (a fancy way of saying “development”). Once these core assumptions are surfaced one begins a process of testing these assumptions, first with small tests and then with larger ones. The tests are meant to reveal data about whether or not those assumptions are true. And if they aren’t, then they allow one to loosen their grip on said assumptions.

In my own case, I unearthed several very interested assumptions. Some of them I was already starting to become aware of, and so wasn’t that surprised by—though I will say that seeing them in writing for the first time did kind of surprise me. But there was one in particular that really knocked me over. And it was that, “I should be able to resolve all paradoxes and contradictions that I encounter.”

For at least a few years now, I’ve had it as one of my main aims to take in as much information as possible. The information itself comes not only from reading or taking in other media, but also from direct experience: from interesting discussions, and from all sorts of practices (psychological, spiritual, and otherwise). As a result I’ve “learned” more and more and have really built up quite a robust model about the way things are. I always considered that this model was dynamically evolving, and that by running into paradoxes and contradictions I’d be able to learn from them and integrate (or perhaps a better word would be “assimilate”) them into this constantly growing model. When I tell many of my closest friends this (hey guys!) they say, “Oh, yeah that makes perfect sense buddy.”

Then I tell them that, as a result of unearthing this assumption, I’m now starting to question this entire approach. Should I really be able to resolve (or integrate) all of these disparate pieces of information? Often their interest is piqued, and I think like me, they begin to question (perhaps for the first time) this approach to reality. I haven’t completely finished with this process, and I still have much difficult work to do, to see where it leads. But for the first time, I’ve started to see that resolving paradox and creating an ever-evolving model of reality might not be the best (or at least only reasonable) approach to reality.

I don’t know is, but I am committed to following this thread of inquiry and to do my best to see where Kegan’s method takes me. I have a feeling it’s going somewhere important, if only because I see some of my deepest held assumptions crumbling down around me. It isn’t pleasant, and it isn’t winning me any friends at the moment, but what else can I do?

1. For those of you who don’t know about Robert Kegan, he is a developmental psychologist at Harvard university who has been studying adult development for over two decades. His last book, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life is a great introduction to his developmental theory.

This gathering was focused almost exclusively on discussing, in a transparent fashion, all sorts of dharma-related stuff. The amount of heavy hitting, high level dharma that was touched on was astounding. It became clear to me that this wasn’t just a group of people hanging out, with common interests, but that this was a whole new way of engaging the dharma. In short, I think it could be part of a larger movement toward a more empowering and transparent way of engaging with contemplative practice. I think that still remains to be seen, but I definitely saw the potential there.

Fortunately, being the geek that I am, I helped to record one of our marathon conversations. You can find them here. In this discussion five of us explored the distinction between “Doing it” and “Getting it Done.” Doing it is what most people are doing, they are doing something in their practice, but it isn’t always something which is leading to actual awakening and realization. In many cases what they’re doing isn’t actually all that helpful. Getting it done refers to actually gaining traction on the spiritual path, making real and measurable progress, and in short getting enlightened. It’s what the Buddhist path is designed for. Anyway, we discussed why some people are “doing it” but not “getting it done” and we went into a whole lot of detailed discussion around what getting it done means, and what it means for us personally. I ended up sharing a lot of personal details about my current edge in practice, and received a lot of helpful advice in the process.

Just be warned, these aren’t the kind of discussions you are going to hear in public dharma scenes (not any that I know of). They contain some definitely controversial points of view. But, if you like hard-hitting, transparent dharma you should take a listen and let me know what you think.

When considering the semiotics of enlightenment, we can see that the word enlightenment is the signifier and the conceptual understanding that we have of what enlightenment is, is the signfied. The object then is enlightenment itself (i.e. the direct 1st person understanding of “it”). One of the famous sayings in the Zen tradition, makes some use of this distinction, when pointing out that the finger that points to the moon is not the moon. In this analogy that the moon is itself enlightenment and that the finger represents the signifier and signified combined. The finger is both the word “enlightenment” and all the possible notions one may have about it. The assumption here is that by looking beyond all relative notions of enlightenment we can more quickly experience it for ourselves. Zen is rife with this understanding of enlightenment.

Taking this conception of signs a bit further, I’d like to point out and try to some degree to remedy a confusion which appears obvious in the Western Buddhist tradition. That has to do with the confusion surrounding the term enlightenment, as well as other terms that “point to” the goals of Buddhist practice (nirvana, arhant, BuddhaNature, emptiness, luminosity, satori, etc.). The confusion has to do with the observation that people often have very different, and sometimes directly competing, notions of what is being signified by these terms, not to mention the variety of signifiers which seem to be pointing in similar directions.

Daniel Ingram has done an excellent, albeit cursory, exploration of some of the different notions or models that people have when they think about or use these terms. Check out the section of his book, The Models of Enlightenment, for more information. These ideals and notions often come from divergent sources, including one’s tradition, one’s teachers, books (both ancient and contemporary), other practitioners, other religious traditions, etc. In a very real sense we often map our hidden assumptions (many of which are culturally generated) onto these terms and go around assuming that these what is now signified by the term enlightenment is universally understood. In short we confuse the signified with the object of enlightenment and we take our idea of what enlightenment is, to be enlightenment itself. We often don’t realize that there are many possible signifiers (or interpretents) that people will have in regards to enlightenment.

The first thing to do then, is to recognize that this is the case. Then, we can examine our concepts of enlightenment (and perhaps others) and see which actually hold up to reality-testing, and more pragmatically which actually lead to the goal. Of course, the question arises here, what goal? As soon as we ask this question, and start exploring, then we’ll see that there actually be several different possible goals. Traditionally the Buddhist tradition has used the distinction of the 3 trainings–ethics, concentration, & wisdom–to define three different areas that we can train in. Each of these lead to different goals, and there are in fact different goals within each of these areas (ex. in concentration practice we may attain an initial level of concentration that helps us stay with changing objects of attention, or we may attain a deeper degree of concentration absorption that has very different qualities.)

So the next thing we can do is create a clear language of signifiers, that can accurately describe subtle differences in experience. Being clear about what we mean, when we say what we say, and having a rigorous contemplative language can be much more helpful then running around with only a few, vaguely defined terms. I would argue that much of the confusion, frustration, and argument surrounding the term “enlightenment” has to do with the lack of clarity regarding the semiotics involved. Let’s get clear about what means what, when, and to whom. And let’s do it in the service of awakening to the many dimensions of freedom that have been pointed to in the Buddhist tradition!

Check out this great talk with Professor James Hughes and Professor Mike LaTorra. Both James and Mike have been guests on Buddhist Geeks, and they are also both Transhumanists. Their talk is an interesting mixture of Buddhist and Transhumanist idea, particularly aimed at exploring the future of our economic system and the potential results of having “structured unemployment,” particularly as it relates to self-actualization and spiritual growth. This talk was given at the recent Convergence08 conference.

“I teach a dharma which is good in the beginning, good in the middle, and good in the end.” – The Buddha

I’ve written about the stages of insight leading up to the important spiritual event, which in the Theravada school of Buddhism is called stream-entry. In Zen it might be called kensho and in the Tibetan tradition it’s often referred to as the 1st bodhisattva bhumi. In any case, it’s a pivotal event that marks the first real taste that one has of emptiness or nirvana.¹ So, why is stream-entry so important?

It’s often called “stream-entry” as one is said to enter the stream of awakening. The goal in this case is to cross the stream, which is a metaphor for samsara, and get to the other side. The interesting thing about this metaphor is that it hints at why stream-entry is so important, and the reason is two-fold. One is that the stream-winner has touched the water, they’ve had a glimpse of absolute reality, though it hasn’t been completely integrated into their experience (far from it actually). The other interesting thing in this metaphor is that once one has entered a stream they will be impacted by its momentum. In a sense, they are carried by the stream. One of my teachers talks about how stream-entry has to do with the opening of the “dharma eye,” which means that one has seen the truth of the dharma for themselves, but also means that they are now fully open to a process, that is more “doing them” then they are doing it.

Before stream-entry it can take quite a while to traverse the stages of insight, pass through the dark night, and get to the brink of this realization. And if the intensity of investigation and concentration is lessened during that time, it’s not hard to fall back and have to re-trace one’s steps. The journey often takes years of committed effort, and not everyone is successful—though many who really go for it are. But once one has entered the stream, the path really unfolds on its own. Progress will seem to occur—sometimes faster and sometimes slower—but isn’t as much tied to one’s sense of personal effort. Rather, it’s happening just as a result of paying attention to reality. This sense of the path “doing me” versus the other way around deepens from here, but it really finds its beginnings in the moment of stream-entry.

One could liken this process to that of a rocket ship taking off from Earth on its way to another planet. At the beginning of the launch the rocket ship must use most of its fuel to escape the gravitational pull of the Earth. But at a certain point, with enough thrust and momentum, it will achieve what’s called “escape velocity” where the ship is going fast enough and has gone far enough that it has escaped the gravitational pull of the planet. At some point, once it gets far enough into space it takes very little energy and effort to continue moving (as there is much less resistance). Stream-entry is like attaining escape velocity.

In a certain sense, one could go so far as to say that it’s in the bag from here, meaning that full enlightenment is guaranteed once you’ve gotten stream-entry. The traditional descriptions of the various stages of enlightenment have to do with how many re-births it takes until full enlightenment, and for the stream-winner it is said that it will take at most 7 lifetimes. While I think there are a lot of problems with this re-birth model, I do think that there is a hint of truth here, regarding the fact that once you’ve gotten the first glimpse it’s really just a matter of time. The practice from here is about learning to trust, more and more, the process of unfolding spiritual wisdom. The first layer is really the doozy, and though it isn’t always easier afterwards, one can rely more and more on the process of awakening itself.

1. not to be confused with the prior experience called the Arising and Passing Away event, which is much easier to stumble upon and which people often confuse as being enlightenment.

How many hours of meditation would you guess you logged until you initially encountered ‘The Three Characteristics’?

The first time I remember clearly getting into The Three Characteristics was on my first retreat, somewhere in the middle of the retreat. Including the time I spent practicing daily prior to that and the retreat time itself I’d say I stumbled into that territory after around 100-200 hours of practice. From what I can tell it’s not all that difficult to get into this initial territory, and you’ll almost certain run into it on a week or longer meditation retreat if you’re practicing well.

Not to belabor the obvious, but your approach seems to strongly emphasize mindfulness of mind and to some degree bodily sensations. I wonder, though, if The Four Immeasurables of Loving-Kindness, compassion, empathetic joy and equanimity have played a role in your practice?

Yes, my approach has been to put a considerable amount of energy into the four foundations of mindfulness as a vehicle for insight. But I have also practiced with the Brahma Viharas (or Four Immeasurables) and found these practices to be quite helpful. In particular my first solid experience of the 1st and 2nd jhana came during a 3-day metta retreat. I found metta to be a great concentration practice, and it really helped quiet the mind. I’ve also found metta practice an extremely helpful aid while on long-retreats, particularly when I’m going through “difficult” insight territory. It really helps open the heart, despite an acute awareness of suffering, and in many ways I think is greatly supportive to my more “dry insight” approach.

I also think that as a life-long intention to cultivate states of love, kindness, etc. that these practices are great for that. Most long-time meditators that I’ve met see a tremendous value in cultivating these states, as a support both for insight and concentration, but also for living a good and meaningful life (i.e. ethics).

Also, to what degree have you focused purely on honing concentration, or “shamatha”, and if you have – was there a specific “sign” that allowed you to move more into insight meditation?

Initially I focused primarily on shamatha via the mindfulness of the breath. On my first retreat, which I mentioned earlier, then I started doing the Mahasi Sayadaw method of vipassana. The sign which one looks for is “access concentration,” which for me was just being stabilized enough so that I could do the vipassana practice fairly consistently. I found on retreat to be able to do that fairly quickly, so I figured that I had cultivated access concentration, though to be honest I didn’t really think that much about it. Now, I find it a non-issue as I can very reliably begin practicing in a relatively uninterrupted way.

I have, off and on, since that time devoted time to developing shamatha, though I haven’t mastered the 8 jhanas. I have periodic experience with deeper concentration states, but have in large part decided to follow the path of “dry insight” of going straight for Arhantship w/o a whole lot of interest in developing firm mastery of the concentration states. That being said, lately I’ve found myself becoming interested in shamatha again, and have considered doing a 2-3 week shamatha retreat or perhaps one day even going to sit an extended retreat with B. Alan Wallace. We’ll see…

Again, thanks for the questions. I hope that by sharing some of my personal answers to these questions that I can encourage people to be openly pragmatic about their dharma practice.