The paradox of enlightenment

[Lumpy]

...is that ultimately there is nothing "you" can do to become enlightened. You, yourself, in fact are the obstacle to enlightenment; an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self. But if you ignore the whole subject of enlightenment and do nothing, you never become enlightened. So how does one become enlightened?

[Captain Amazing]

Are you talking about in Buddhism? What religion or philsophical tradition of enlightenment are you focusing on?

[Chief Pedant]

...is that ultimately there is nothing "you" can do to become enlightened. You, yourself, in fact are the obstacle to enlightenment; an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self. But if you ignore the whole subject of enlightenment and do nothing, you never become enlightened. So how does one become enlightened?
By reading the SDMB, of course...

Seriously, your contention is only valid if one accepts the underlying premise that we are "an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self." Lots of (meaningless) mumbo jumbo there, certainly.

The path to enlightenment is reason. The success of such enlightenment depends on the mind doing the reasoning.

Of course, if you are going to get all Buddhist on us and start talking Enlightenment about some sort of spiritual meaning "deeper" than what science can bring us, you probably need to clarify that up front so we can address the irrationality of such views.

[panache45]

...is that ultimately there is nothing "you" can do to become enlightened. You, yourself, in fact are the obstacle to enlightenment; an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self. But if you ignore the whole subject of enlightenment and do nothing, you never become enlightened. So how does one become enlightened?
You're using one extremely narrow meaning of "enlightenment." If you were really enlightened, you wouldn't do that.

[Indistinguishable]

What is this business of enlightenment? Some state of knowledge, satisfaction, whatever which is vastly different from and superior to that which most people ever attain? Why do you think there really is such a state?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

By reading the SDMB, of course...

Seriously, your contention is only valid if one accepts the underlying premise that we are "an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self." Lots of (meaningless) mumbo jumbo there, certainly.

The path to enlightenment is reason. The success of such enlightenment depends on the mind doing the reasoning.

Of course, if you are going to get all Buddhist on us and start talking Enlightenment about some sort of spiritual meaning "deeper" than what science can bring us, you probably need to clarify that up front so we can address the irrationality of such views.
The Eastern goal or state of "Enlightenment," (Nibbana, Nirvana, Samadhi, Satori, whatever you want to call it) is not irrational or "spiritual" or supernatural or beyond science. It just refers to a real state of consciousness (which has been observed in laboratory conditions) in which the perception of "self" transcends what might be called the "ego" and becomes more universalized, more objective, etc.

It's difficult to articulate in simple language without sounding all cryptic and pseudo-mystical but the most earth-bound way I can describe it is to say that your sense of your own consciousness becomes reoriented. There's realization (or at least a convincing sense of realization) that the center of consciousness which we perceive as our "self" -- that constant, babbling, internal monologue that never stops -- is not really the center at all. We only have the illusion that it is. There is another broader, more objective, and completely detached sense of consciousness which underlies what Eastern mystics call the "ego" consciousness. The ego level of consciousness is the one with all the emotions and the fear and the desire and whatnot. These are distractions from the pure, unemotional, blissed out "Buddha consciousness" which is always just there underneath it all.

This state of mind actually exists. I've experienced very brief glimpses of it. A lot of people have had some sense of it while on hallucinogenic drugs (they might chracterize it is as "God consciousness" or having a "God within").

There is a paradox in pursuing this state of consciousness in that the only part og the mind which WANTS to experience it is the very ego consciousness which we are trying to transcend. Pursuing a method to rid ourselves of it is self contradictory. Alan Watts uses the analogy of trying to see your own eyes or bite your own teeth.

A lot of Eastern teachers and texts will tell you that the experience is essentially spontaneous and can't be forced. You can't make it happen (at least not the first time) but you can do things which will make it more LIKELY to happen and that generally involves removing distractions and practicing self-awareness (meditation).

I'm starting to ramble a little but my point is that the Eastern concept of "Enlightment" does not necessarily involve any woo woo beliefs or claims (some schools have supernatural trappings, others don't). It's beyond dispute that consciouness can be altered by meditation and other techniques. "Enlightenment" just refers to a particular altered state which feels very profound and joyful while you're in it. While a lot of people do attribute magical or supernatural explanations or associations to it, they are not critical to the experience itself. I believe in nothing supernatural or "spiritual" but I have experienced altered states of consciousness which I think are close to what gets described by Eastern mystics.

[Zoe]

Diogenes the Cynic, what you describe is what I experienced once intensely -- with little glimpses at other times. I've used labels and you haven't. You were wise not to. It's really futile anyway.

This state of mind is what I call the "spiritual." That doesn't mean that it is supernatural or "woo woo." It's just my label.

I am really glad that you have described your understanding. Just remember how hard it is to describe and that others who may come across to you as pseudo-mystical may not have your gift with words.

Sorry about the defensiveness. But there it is. My ego is back in town.

The laboratory experiments are of interest to me. Do you know if there are links on the internet or can you recomend some reading?

[Lumpy]

What Diogenes the Cynic said. I was hard put to describe exactly what I wanted to ask about.

[Marley23]

You, yourself, in fact are the obstacle to enlightenment; an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self. But if you ignore the whole subject of enlightenment and do nothing, you never become enlightened. So how does one become enlightened?
That's simple, you stop being "you."

Well, it's simply said, anyway.

[gonzomax]

You can not find enlightenment unless you look. But you can not find it by looking.

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, it sounds awesome and mind-blowing and cool and all, but when a person is in God Mode, can they accomplish anything tangible, like telekinesis or inventing a new rechargable battery or thinking up a way to make universal health care work perfectly? I mean, I'm sure one can get a serious rush by freebasing, but it doesn't exactly allow one to master feats of incredible dexterity or mathematical acumen. I'll hazard a guess that the automotive engineers at Toyota don't get their ideas by journeying within.

[Zoe]

Bryan: I'll hazard a guess that the automotive engineers at Toyota don't get their ideas by journeying within.

And you might be wrong. That would depend of what you mean by "journeying within." Lots of ideas come to people when they manage to be quiet and use their imaginations or pay attention to what they dream or be mindful or what they are doing.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity began when he tried to imagine what things would look like if he could ride on a beam of light. Don't your ideas come from inside your head? Where do automotive engineers get their ideas? Do they pick them up from the sidewalk?

[Kozmik]

Another thing about enlightenment is that you can't know what caused your Enlightenment. Was it the trip to Tibet, the long talk with my grandfather, or day I sat by the lakeshore? And you can't know when you will be enlightened either. So it could be right after returning from Tibet, three months, even ten years.

[Bryan Ekers]

And you might be wrong. That would depend of what you mean by "journeying within." Lots of ideas come to people when they manage to be quiet and use their imaginations or pay attention to what they dream or be mindful or what they are doing.

Yeah, and Isaac Asimov wrote that whenever he got stuck on a problem, he'd go to a cheesy spy movie that would distract his conscious mind just enough to let his subconscious kick ideas around (he describes this in detail in his essay "The Eureka Phenomenon"). He didn't bother delving into issues of Nirvana, to him it's just noting one aspect of how the human brain works. To some it may feel all groovy and spiritual and touched-by-God and whatnot; to others it's no more mysterious than "sleep on it."

[Heffalump and Roo]

Alan Watts uses the analogy of trying to see your own eyes or bite your own teeth.
Wow, cool! A cynic that listens to Alan Watts. I pretty much agree with what you said. I like Alan Watts a lot too.
I've heard what you said about meditation being equivalent to self-awareness, spoken by other practitioners. Especially by Buddhists, some who claim that the only way to combat hypocrisy is through self-awareness and that is through meditation. But can one be self-aware without meditation? Or is it that if you're self-aware, then that's automatically a meditative state so the two terms are synonymous?

As to the OP, the way that you wrote it, the way would be to diminish the ego. How one does that depends on the person's beliefs and is the journey of life, if that's what you believe.

You seem to be implying that paradoxes are rare and unusual occurrences. But in my mind, most of life is paradox. If you try too hard to sleep, it becomes elusive. If you try too hard to find love, it too can become elusive. When you try to quantify and obtain happiness, it often becomes more difficult to obtain. So why should enlightenment be any different? I think the best we can do is try to get out of our own way.

ETA:
to others it's no more mysterious than "sleep on it."
I was just watching Nova ScienceNow where they were talking about the purposes of sleep. Some scientists believe that sleep processes memories in such a way that the events of the day get processed through sleep. So by losing sleep, one can lose understanding of the events and therefore wisdom. The concept of enlightenment might be tied to that.

[buttonjockey308]

Well, it sounds awesome and mind-blowing and cool and all, but when a person is in God Mode, can they accomplish anything tangible, like telekinesis or inventing a new rechargable battery or thinking up a way to make universal health care work perfectly? I mean, I'm sure one can get a serious rush by freebasing, but it doesn't exactly allow one to master feats of incredible dexterity or mathematical acumen. I'll hazard a guess that the automotive engineers at Toyota don't get their ideas by journeying within.

Which misses the point of "enlightenment" entirely.

Accomplishing something tangible is somewhat antithetical to the search for enlightenment, and seems completely at odds with the destination. The conscious mind, to the delight and dismay of many, is capable of incredible feats of calculation and imagination. These things are tools to, if not survive, then flourish in the right-in-front-of-you world. The concept of enlightenment comes (at least in Eastern Philosophy and as Diogenes noted) as a reorientation from what you think you know, to what you don't know you don't know. Everything becomes nothing, and nothing everything.

It sounds, as many might say, a bit woo-woo, left of center if you will, however (as Diogenes points out) there is no denial of the existance of the state. Whether that state is anything more than brain chemicals, is, and I suspect always will be beyond our knowledge. What is within our grasp however, is the path to seek the state.

If it is through sitting zazen (meditation) if it is through them labors of daily chores, if it is through walking, it seems to matter not. The path decides when it will be taken and how. If you seek it, you will never find it, as Gonzomax points out, it can only be found by looking, but by looking, you will never find it.

Here are two sayings:

Before a person studies Zen for enlightenment, mountains are mountains, and waters are waters; afer a first glimpse into the truth of Zen, mountains are no longer mountains, and waters no longer waters; after enlightenment, mountains are once again mountains, and waters once again waters.

Everything is based on mind, is led by mind is fashioned by mind. If you speak and act with a polluted mind, suffering will follow you as the wheels of the oxcart follow the footsteps of the ox. Everything is based on mind, is led by mind, is fashioned by mind. If you speak and act with a pure mind, happiness will follow you, as a shadow clings to form.

Perhaps that will not help, but it wasn't meant to.

[Heffalump and Roo]

Everything is based on mind, is led by mind is fashioned by mind. If you speak and act with a polluted mind, suffering will follow you as the wheels of the oxcart follow the footsteps of the ox. Everything is based on mind, is led by mind, is fashioned by mind. If you speak and act with a pure mind, happiness will follow you, as a shadow clings to form.
What is a "pure mind" and what is a "polluted mind"?

Perhaps that will not help, but it wasn't meant to.
Er. . . thanks?

[Bryan Ekers]

Doesn't that just boil down to the mind being able to temporarily mess itself up, with no need for additional chemical agents? If anything, the enlightened monk's continued need to eat, drink, and breathe casually demonstrates that mind alone is insufficient to sustain life. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration of a still-alive yet non-breathing, non-eating, non-drinking enlightened person. Unless enlightenment=death, that is.

[buttonjockey308]

What is a "pure mind" and what is a "polluted mind"?


That is a question to which you already know the answer.

[Der Trihs]

That is a question to which you already know the answer.Somehow I doubt that. One person's "pollution" is another's light entertainment.

[buttonjockey308]

Doesn't that just boil down to the mind being able to temporarily mess itself up, with no need for additional chemical agents? If anything, the enlightened monk's continued need to eat, drink, and breathe casually demonstrates that mind alone is insufficient to sustain life. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration of a still-alive yet non-breathing, non-eating, non-drinking enlightened person. Unless enlightenment=death, that is.

No. What it amounts to is the mind at rest. A painting of rice does not satify hunger, nor does being enlightened remove the physical needs of the human body, and I do not think anyone is suggesting that. For some, enlightenment can come as death does, however that is a decision not made by the owner of the mind.

A story:

Two monks were arguing about a temple flag wavking in the wind.

one said: "the flag moves" the other: "the wind moves"

The arguing continued until the head monk said: "it is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is your mind that moves"

[Bryan Ekers]

Well, as with any religious/spiritual matter, this subject is allowing people to make definitive statements about the undefined.


Q: What is the sound of one spoon bending?
A: It is not the spoon that bends, but you.

[buttonjockey308]

Somehow I doubt that. One person's "pollution" is another's light entertainment.

The answer is not the same for every mind. In fact, the answer is not same for the same mind even one second after the first answer arrives

[buttonjockey308]

Well, as with any religious/spiritual matter, this subject is allowing people to make definitive statements about the undefined.


Q: What is the sound of one spoon bending?
A: It is not the spoon that bends, but you.

That's the issue at hand, isn't it? There are no definitive answers, only more questions that lead to more answers that produce more questions.

[Bryan Ekers]

The arguing continued until the head monk said: "it is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is your mind that moves"

How useful is the head monk's outlook when it comes to, say, rebuilding the flagpole after a storm knocks it over? Or was it a storm at all; it might have been the minds of the monks? Why did they knock that pole over? Mental pole-ution?

[Bryan Ekers]

There are no definitive answers, only more questions that lead to more answers that produce more questions.

You seem awfully definite about that.

[buttonjockey308]

How useful is the head monk's outlook when it comes to, say, rebuilding the flagpole after a storm knocks it over? Or was it a storm at all; it might have been the minds of the monks? Why did they knock that pole over? Mental pole-ution?

You assume there was a flagpole.

[buttonjockey308]

You seem awfully definite about that.

I am absolutely sure that I don't know what I don't know.

[Bryan Ekers]

You assume there was a flagpole.
I assumed there were some monks, too, but that was for the sake of politely addressing the illustration you created in what I thought was an effort to... um... illustrate something.

[Bryan Ekers]

I am absolutely sure that I don't know what I don't know.I'm absolutely sure you're right.

[buttonjockey308]

I assumed there were some monks, too, but that was for the sake of politely addressing the illustration you created in what I thought was an effort to... um... illustrate something.

You did not assume there were monks, you were told there were monks, you assumed the flag was on a pole. This is the illustration.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Doesn't that just boil down to the mind being able to temporarily mess itself up, with no need for additional chemical agents? If anything, the enlightened monk's continued need to eat, drink, and breathe casually demonstrates that mind alone is insufficient to sustain life. I'm prepared to be convinced otherwise by a demonstration of a still-alive yet non-breathing, non-eating, non-drinking enlightened person. Unless enlightenment=death, that is.
Who said Enlightment eliminates the need for physical sustenance? It doesn't give you any magical powers, it's just a different cognitive perspective on things.

I once read an anecdote somewhere (I think it may have been told by Watts but it may have been someone else) about a guy going to see some famous, enlightened monk, waiting days to get an audience and then being escorted into the room. The old monk sat on a mat, stared at the westerner for a minute and then lifted up a butt cheek and started scratching his ass. He told the young seeker that he had hemorrhoids. 'I had them before I was enlightened and I still had them after I got enlightened." Those were all the words of wisdom he had for the dude.

[Zoe]

Bryan: To some it may feel all groovy and spiritual and touched-by-God and whatnot; to others it's no more mysterious than "sleep on it."

Ideas, insight and answers come either way. There doesn't have to be a mystery or anything supernatural. Ideas and creativity aren't the point anyway. Sometimes creativity can be part of the process (the "journey") though. Did you ever notice how when you really get involved in doing something that you really like, you seem to lose your awareness of the passage of time?

Sometimes it's not ideas or insight that is the result, it's just a feeling of groundedness afterwards.

Don't let words that sound like so much silliness put you off. As Diogenes said, this is really hard to discribe. Many of those who have experienced it don't talk about it for that reason. They also see what happens to those who do try to talk about it.

There are good reasons why "sleeping on it" is beneficial and that doesn't have to be a mystical reason. But why not tap the same source when you are alert?

I can't remember who asked, but I think there are lots of ways to become self aware.

BTW, meditation does not have to be "religious."

[Zoe]

I know that I have so much trouble making myself understood. I'm sorry for that.

It's late and I have "water to carry and wood to chop."

[Indistinguishable]

I must admit, I was surprised to see Diogenes take the position he did, but this all still sounds terribly "woo-woo" to me (Bryan's spoon parody is right-on, in terms of how some of this comes off). Diogenes mentioned some observation of the relevant mental state in laboratory conditions; I'd like to hear more about that (preferably with cites). I don't doubt that there do exist mental states fairly different from the norm (drugs are a handy way to see this for yourself), but I do doubt that there is anything more to them than one's mind getting intensely twisted up in one fashion or another and then misinterpreting its delirium as moments of brilliance (drugs are a handy way to see this for yourself, as well).

But I will readily submit to controlled observation and scientific evidence saying the opposite (at least, I should hope I would, though I can't be sure what my potential future self will do; I don't voluntarily control my beliefs, and may find I have far too much skepticism on this matter to be dispelled so easily). So let's hear more about those laboratory observations.

[Bryan Ekers]

Who said Enlightment eliminates the need for physical sustenance?
Ah, clearly the repeated use of "Everything" in post #16 needed an asterisk.

In any case, the difference between Enlightenment and the epiphanies experienced by many non-subscribers to Zen, as well as people tripping on various drugs and slipping into altered states of consciousness after going too long without sleep is at best undefined. If you want to claim Enlightenment is somehow more special than any of those, good luck. As far as I can tell, it's just another aspect of the extremely complicated network that is the human brain, built up over several hundred million years of evolution, and of no greater objective significance than seeing patterns in clouds.

[Bryan Ekers]

There are good reasons why "sleeping on it" is beneficial and that doesn't have to be a mystical reason. But why not tap the same source when you are alert?
Interestingly (and I'm being quite serious), that's pretty much Scientology's claim of what happens at the "Clear" level, isn't it? A mental state in which little-used mental resources are fully activated? I just don't see it happening, though - if a Clear or an Enlightened person or a self-aware person (or whatever) could consciously tap these sources and achieve moments of brilliance, wouldn't we see more of them in scientific or philosophical fields? Does enlightenment come with an understanding that using one's gifted insight in measurable ways is irrelevant or wrong or bad in some way? Does the monk in DtC's example ever do anything but sit uncomfortably on his mat?

And of course meditation doesn't have to be religious. But undefined (if not undefinable) claims about what meditation can accomplish and similar claims about what religion can accomplish are effectively indistinguishable.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Ah, clearly the repeated use of "Everything" in post #16 needed an asterisk.
I believe that the "everything" in post #16 was only about perceptions, or cognitive interpretations of external stimuli and of the self (and the imposition of subjective conscious, ego, enculturation, etc. is something that was talked about by Plato), not literally about the material universe
In any case, the difference between Enlightenment and the epiphanies experienced by many non-subscribers to Zen, as well as people tripping on various drugs and slipping into altered states of consciousness after going too long without sleep is at best undefined.I don't think there is a difference. There are lots of ways to get there. I've been there both with chemical assistance and without it.
If you want to claim Enlightenment is somehow more special than any of those, good luck.
I don't want to claim that.
As far as I can tell, it's just another aspect of the extremely complicated network that is the human brain, built up over several hundred million years of evolution, and of no greater objective significance than seeing patterns in clouds.
You're inferring interpretations of this state that I don't think anyone has implied (I know I haven't). I never said this state of mind had any objective significance or importance. I don't believe it does. All I'm saying is that it exists and it has tremendous subjective signficance.

[Bryan Ekers]

I believe that the "everything" in post #16 was only about perceptions, or cognitive interpretations of external stimuli and of the self (and the imposition of subjective conscious, ego, enculturation, etc. is something that was talked about by Plato), not literally about the material universe

Then what about the elder monk who dismisses the flag and the wind? It's the fortune-cookie pointlessness of buttonjockey's posts that I'm happy to ridicule.

All I'm saying is that it exists and it has tremendous subjective signficance.

And I don't disagree. We all have ideas and beliefs that are of tremendous subjective significance.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I must admit, I was surprised to see Diogenes take the position he did, but this all still sounds terribly "woo-woo" to me (Bryan's spoon parody is right-on, in terms of how some of this comes off).
I know. That's why I don't talk about it much. I'm pretty good with words and I'm usually pretty good at being able to describe things in concrete terms but this stuff is tough to do that with because there aren't a lot of frames of reference for it. If you know what it's like to try to describe an acid trip to someone who's never even smoked pot, it's kind of like that. For instance, how do you communicate having experienced consciousness as a physical sensation? It's weird. It's like being a step removed from normal consciousness and suddenly "observing" that what you think of as your normal center of consciousness is largely just a physiological manifestation of biological/emotional needs and desires which are emanating "body" rather than the "mind." The real "mind" lurks underneath that stuff and doesn't get bothered by anything.

That sounds like a bunch of pretententious, pseudo-mystical crap, doesn't it? And yet that's the best I can do at describing it in the most literal terms possible.
I know IDiogenes mentioned some observation of the relevant mental state in laboratory conditions; I'd like to hear more about that (preferably with cites). I don't doubt that there do exist mental states fairly different from the norm (drugs are a handy way to see this for yourself), but I do doubt that there is anything more to them than one's mind getting intensely twisted up in one fashion or another and then misinterpreting its delirium as moments of brilliance (drugs are a handy way to see this for yourself, as well).
You can get authentic moments of insight from drugs too. I'm not claiming there's a difference.
[qupte]But I will readily submit to controlled observation and scientific evidence saying the opposite (at least, I should hope I would, though I can't be sure what my potential future self will do; I don't voluntarily control my beliefs, and may find I have far too much skepticism on this matter to be dispelled so easily). So let's hear more about those laboratory observations.[/QUOTE]
I'm not good at finding this stuff on line but this (http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch1.htm) is a start.

A lot of my education on this comes from my academic background on this, particularly from a phase when I was obsessively interested in Eastern mysticism. I can remember both from classes and from independent reading at the time that yogic practitioners had been hooked up to EEGs and heart monitors and whatnot and verified significant changes in brainwaves (as well as other physical changes) while the subjects were in ecstatic samadhi states. It has also been repeatedly verified that these subjects can affect some unusal physiological controls such as being able to slow or "stop" their own heartbeats.


I can keep trying to find more stuff on this but I'm nt sure exactly what it is you want prrof for. Fr the record, I'm not claiming anything other than that a particaula state of consciousness exists. I'm not claiming any particular interpretation or explanation for it or attributing any special virtue or wsidom or magic to it. I personally think it's just brain chemistry but it's subjectively a very intense and sometimes authentically life changing experience.

[Bryan Ekers]

Can we link back to this the next time you venture into a thread about Christianity? :D

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Then what about the elder monk who dismisses the flag and the wind? It's the fortune-cookie pointlessness of buttonjockey's posts that I'm happy to ridicule.
That flag and wind thing is actually an authentic Zen proverb. It's not meant to be taken as a claim that the flag and the wind literally don't exis (actually what the proverb says is that the flag aned thw wind don't move). It's a statement that the perception -- the concept of "movement" is a construct of the intellect -- an imposition of consciousness, of meaning, of categorization -- that would not exist without consciousness. It's somewhat similar to the old "tree in the forest" gag. It's got a hint of quantum physics in it too (nothing exists until we perceive it).
And I don't disagree. We all have ideas and beliefs that are of tremendous subjective significance.
We're talking about actual experiences, not ideas or beliefs. Beliefs come into play only when attempts are made to explain them.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Can we link back to this the next time you venture into a thread about Christianity? :D
Sure. For the record, I think that Christian mystic and visionary experiences access pretty much the same state of consciousness. It just gets interpreted differently. William James talke about it as the universal religious experience. The people who really get blown out tend to go beyond specific doctrine and get left with he "we are all one" kind of vibe. Sometimes, both historically and presently, this aspect of the experience has made them reluctant to talk about it becuase it can be seen as heretical.

I also think Jesus was a mystic, by the way. Mohammed too.

[Chief Pedant]

Sure. For the record, I think that Christian mystic and visionary experiences access pretty much the same state of consciousness. It just gets interpreted differently. William James talke about it as the universal religious experience. The people who really get blown out tend to go beyond specific doctrine and get left with he "we are all one" kind of vibe. Sometimes, both historically and presently, this aspect of the experience has made them reluctant to talk about it becuase it can be seen as heretical.

I also think Jesus was a mystic, by the way. Mohammed too.

As long as we are agreed that there is no magic involved, I think your points are well made all along this thread.

It is when the jump is made to something going on beyond the physical processes in the brain that the slide into nuttiness and error begins, regardless of the underlying religion.

One can step back and see that there is a common thread among true believers throughout all successful religions: their greatest leaders and thinkers seemed to have some sort of "deeper" experience than those around them. To an objective observer this is obvious proof that they are all wrong as soon as they begin ascribing any of this deeper experience to anything outside of natural law.

I had the good fortune to be raised on the Indian subcontinent and got to see my share of holy men with assorted backgrounds. They are as nutty as anyone else's Holy Folk. Silly little Zen anecdotes and pithy sayings bear no more relationship to the way the world works than any other religious contribution.

None of this is to say the Enlightened aren't feeling special. Only that their enlightenment is chemically and physically based. It's not an inside scoop on the Real Meaning of the Universe.

[Kalhoun]

You're using one extremely narrow meaning of "enlightenment." If you were really enlightened, you wouldn't do that.
I was just going to say this. There's enlightenment and there's enlightenment. Many unenlightened people are that way because they aren't interested in learning. I know people who NEVER watch the news, NEVER read newspapers (or anything else, for that matter) and have no interest in hearing other points of view. If you're talking about "religious enlightenment"...'nother whole subject.

[lekatt]

...is that ultimately there is nothing "you" can do to become enlightened. You, yourself, in fact are the obstacle to enlightenment; an ego stubbornly clinging to the illusion of self. But if you ignore the whole subject of enlightenment and do nothing, you never become enlightened. So how does one become enlightened?

Enlightenment, Cosmic Consciousness, or the expansion of mind and perception does not belong to any religion. There are some religions that teach their followers to become enlightened through meditation. But there are many ways to become enlightened. I recall the story of the western man who went to Tibet to become enlightened. He found the most advanced Holy Man and asked him to teach. The Holy man said he didn't have the time and sent the western man on to his students to learn. The first student told him he must forget everything he has learned to become enlightened. The second said he must learn everything there is to learn, and the third told him he was already enlightened. Angry and frustrated he went back to the Holy man and demanded to know why the students had told him conflicting ways to become enlightened. The Holy man replied "all the students were correct, "it was your impatience that defeated you."

You don't have to work at becoming enlightened to achieve it. Sometimes it just happens, as it did to Siddhartha, founder of Buddhism, through a near death experience. Saul (Paul) had such an experience on his way to persecute the early Christians. It happens to many through near death experiences. Other spiritual experiences can also achieve enlightenment. If you don't want to wait you can meditate your way to enlighenment.

What is enlightenment? The discovery of yourself, who you really are and what you are doing here.

"Cosmic Consciousness" by Burke.

http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/p04nde.htm

[Bryan Ekers]

That flag and wind thing is actually an authentic Zen proverb. It's not meant to be taken as a claim that the flag and the wind literally don't exis (actually what the proverb says is that the flag aned thw wind don't move). Meh, that's just semantic excuse-making, like countering that there wasn't a flagpole (and if I replied "well, if not a pole, than whatever the flag is hanging on", the response could easily be "why do you assume the flag is hanging on anything?"). No matter what objection someone raises, the illustration is so vague that there's always some "you don't fully understand" escape clause.
It's a statement that the perception -- the concept of "movement" is a construct of the intellect -- an imposition of consciousness, of meaning, of categorization -- that would not exist without consciousness. It's somewhat similar to the old "tree in the forest" gag. It's got a hint of quantum physics in it too (nothing exists until we perceive it).I'd say a more useful interpretation is nothing matters until we perceive it. There could easily be life in Andromeda, but we lack the tools to detect it. Until such time, the matter is utterly irrelevant. If the monks walk over the horizon, they change their sphere of perception and the flag's waving or non-waving (or existence and non-existence) becomes moot to them because they can no longer perceive it.

I guess the alleged wisdom of the elder monk continues to escape me. His position may as well have been expressed in solipsism argument we had a while back - an assumption that everything is (or may be) just an illusion is useless.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Meh, that's just semantic excuse-making, like countering that there wasn't a flagpole (and if I replied "well, if not a pole, than whatever the flag is hanging on", the response could easily be "why do you assume the flag is hanging on anything?"). No matter what objection someone raises, the illustration is so vague that there's always some "you don't fully understand" escape clause.
No. It's not like that at all. There's no question of physical existence in the story. No one in the story says the flag or the wind don't exist, and it's not really intended to be an observation about the flag at all. Its intent is to use the mpving flag illustration as a tool for triggering a cognitive change. It tries to get you to look at something in a different way, from a different angle, which will cause a reorientation in consciousness. All Zen koans are like that. None of them are really about what they're about. On the surface, they always seem nonsensical. To use an analogy, they're kind of like those magic eye puzzles. It's all just colored dots until you change the way you look at it.
I'd say a more useful interpretation is nothing matters until we perceive it.
That's a good way of putting it. A Zen master would then tell you that the next step is to realize that personal perceptions don't matter.
I guess the alleged wisdom of the elder monk continues to escape me. His position may as well have been expressed in solipsism argument we had a while back - an assumption that everything is (or may be) just an illusion is useless.
That's not what the monk is saying. Nothing is being called an illusion in this particular koan. There is no attempt to argue that anything isn't real. The intent is to trigger a change in consciousness.

[Bryan Ekers]

Then I'm fully enlightened because I understand (at least on the level of an educated lay person) the interaction of light on coloured cloth, reflected and absorbed by the eye and converted to electrical impulses that trigger elaborate sensing mechanisms in the human brain.

Heck, I grasped that as a child when I understood that light has a finite speed and when I looked at my mother across the room, I wasn't seeing her but rather how she was some nanoseconds in the past, and even that was just light reflected and altered. In practice, though, it was easier to just treat this illusion like it was, in fact, my mother. I suppose the fact that I still remember this insight decades later means it was a small-z zen moment, a zenette, if you will.

In any case, I've never met a Zen koan that was nonsensical in the sense I found it utterly confusing. I've met many that were useless, though, and prompted the teller to add additional qualifiers when the conditions of the koan were analyzed ("well, if you want to know if the tree makes a sound, can we agree on a definition of what 'sound' means?") or simply reply that any effort to analyze the koan was pointless, which strikes me as mighty convenient.

[buttonjockey308]

Then I'm fully enlightened because I understand (at least on the level of an educated lay person) the interaction of light on coloured cloth, reflected and absorbed by the eye and converted to electrical impulses that trigger elaborate sensing mechanisms in the human brain.

Heck, I grasped that as a child when I understood that light has a finite speed and when I looked at my mother across the room, I wasn't seeing her but rather how she was some nanoseconds in the past, and even that was just light reflected and altered. In practice, though, it was easier to just treat this illusion like it was, in fact, my mother. I suppose the fact that I still remember this insight decades later means it was a small-z zen moment, a zenette, if you will.

In any case, I've never met a Zen koan that was nonsensical in the sense I found it utterly confusing. I've met many that were useless, though, and prompted the teller to add additional qualifiers when the conditions of the koan were analyzed ("well, if you want to know if the tree makes a sound, can we agree on a definition of what 'sound' means?") or simply reply that any effort to analyze the koan was pointless, which strikes me as mighty convenient.

Adding a qualifier to a koan means that the teller either does not believe in your ability to understand, or his (presuming) ability to convey. In either case though, the koan i proffered isn't about a flag waving in the wind, but, as Diogenes so eloquently pointed out, a method to realign or reposition the mind to see where it did or could not see before.

You understand the "the interaction of light on coloured cloth, reflected and absorbed by the eye and converted to electrical impulses that trigger elaborate sensing mechanisms in the human brain" because it can be explained in texts and in lectures and with enough empirical evidence to convince you.

What you don't know is if the light exists because of the cloth, or the cloth because of the light. Seeking enlightenment, as hard as it is to explain in words or write in text, shows that there is an answer to those questions and others like it. The knowledge of the answer changes you fundamentally, but does not effect you in the least (see the hemmorhoid example).

[Bryan Ekers]

Adding a qualifier to a koan means that the teller either does not believe in your ability to understand, or his (presuming) ability to convey. In either case though, the koan i proffered isn't about a flag waving in the wind, but, as Diogenes so eloquently pointed out, a method to realign or reposition the mind to see where it did or could not see before.
Well, heck, if you can put yourself in that frame of mind, any idea will seem to make perfect sense. Red is blue, fish is cat, the yellow pride of ostrich harm, etc. Flashes of insight are certainly useful when trying to overcome a specific problem, but how the waving of a flag demonstrates this in any useful way is unclear. I prefer Asimov's description of Archimedes' Eureka moment.
You understand the "the interaction of light on coloured cloth, reflected and absorbed by the eye and converted to electrical impulses that trigger elaborate sensing mechanisms in the human brain" because it can be explained in texts and in lectures and with enough empirical evidence to convince you.

What you don't know is if the light exists because of the cloth, or the cloth because of the light.
Well, actually the light exists because of fusion reactions in the sun, or the plasma of a burning torch or a incandescent light-bulb filament or other light source. Since these effects are predictable and replicable, that's what I'll bet on.
Seeking enlightenment, as hard as it is to explain in words or write in text, shows that there is an answer to those questions and others like it. The knowledge of the answer changes you fundamentally, but does not effect you in the least (see the hemmorhoid example).
Well, it's an answer in the sense that is satisfies the person and leaves no lingering doubt, but so does the "doublethink" concept described in Orwell's 1984. Toss all rules and preconceptions (empty your teacup, as it were) and anything goes. Maybe that feels empowering, which is why it persists as an ideal to be actively sought.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Then I'm fully enlightened because I understand (at least on the level of an educated lay person) the interaction of light on coloured cloth, reflected and absorbed by the eye and converted to electrical impulses that trigger elaborate sensing mechanisms in the human brain.
Enlightment isn't knowledge. There isn't anything to know. Like I keep saying, it's a state of consciousness...or maybe it would be better to say it's a level of awareness about our own consciousness. There is no information involved. You don't know anything you didn't know before (except maybe about yourself). Buddha means "awakened" and I think that works somewhat as a reference point. The cliched comparison is to say that it's a state of super-awareness which is to normal consciousness as normal awareness is to dreaming awareness. I think that overstates it. It's more like the difference between being awake and alert and being half-asleep.

Have you ever played a sport or a musical instrument or engaged in any serious creative pursuit? Athletes will often talking about being "in the zone." They will have short periods during gameplay in which they talk about an elevated level of awareness and a dropping away of conscious thought where they speak of being "in the moment," "reacting without thinking" and similar phrases. It's that night where a basketball player can't miss a shot or a hitter at the bat sees a ball as a big as pumpkin moving in slow motion. They can't make these moments come, but they all know what each other is talking about when they talk about it.

Musicians can get this too. I would get nights on stage where it seemed like my fingers were moving by themselves, where I had an acute awareness of what everybody else in the band was playing and solid, intuitive knowledge of what every note was going to sound like before I played it. I wasn't thinking about what came next when I improvised, I just did it.

I think most everybody probably gets periods like this when they're really engrossed in some kind of creative activity. Nobody can ever make it happen on demand but I think everyone kind of knows what being "in the zone" is.

Eastern enlightenment is kind of about achieving that mental state -- that level of awareness -- all the time.
Heck, I grasped that as a child when I understood that light has a finite speed and when I looked at my mother across the room, I wasn't seeing her but rather how she was some nanoseconds in the past, and even that was just light reflected and altered. In practice, though, it was easier to just treat this illusion like it was, in fact, my mother. I suppose the fact that I still remember this insight decades later means it was a small-z zen moment, a zenette, if you will.
No, just an intutive grasp of physics...which might be considered Zebn itself, I guess.
In any case, I've never met a Zen koan that was nonsensical in the sense I found it utterly confusing. I've met many that were useless, though, and prompted the teller to add additional qualifiers when the conditions of the koan were analyzed ("well, if you want to know if the tree makes a sound, can we agree on a definition of what 'sound' means?") or simply reply that any effort to analyze the koan was pointless, which strikes me as mighty convenient.
The koans aren't supposed to be analyzed. They don't have answers. They are intended shock or confuse or flip the mind into a different level of awareness.

[Indistinguishable]

Things have moved on a bit, but let me just note that, if Diogenes isn't claiming that enlightened states aren't any different from the kind of moods one gets into with drugs, then I guess I have no disbelief. As Chief Pedant said, I know it's possible to get into states where one feels really special, but beyond the feeling, I don't think there's anything to it; i.e., I don't think one really is tapping in to any deep mysteries of the universe by doing so. Though it's a bit unclear, now, to me, whether enlightenment is something you hit now and then and then come back down, or something you gain and stay in for life.

Incidentally, the yoga/meditation/etc. research you linked is really interesting, though I still have trouble swallowing my skepticism about parts of it. Some bits seem more plausible than others. I'll have to look more into it.

[lekatt]

Enlightment isn't knowledge..

I liked your post. You have a lot of understanding.

"A Course in Miracles" has a workbook full of small mediatations aimed at breaking through thoughts.

[Indistinguishable]

Hm. Overnegation and the edit window's gone. Alright, let me reword, and add a little more in: "if Diogenes isn't claiming that enlightened states are any different from the kind of moods one gets into with drugs, nor that they are concretely, categorically superior to normal consciousness, then I guess I have no disbelief"

[Bryan Ekers]

I think most everybody probably gets periods like this when they're really engrossed in some kind of creative activity. Nobody can ever make it happen on demand but I think everyone kind of knows what being "in the zone" is.

Eastern enlightenment is kind of about achieving that mental state -- that level of awareness -- all the time.

And do they succeed? I mean, if one can accomplish complex feats without thinking about it, I'd expect Zen Buddhists to dominate the Olympics and chess tournaments and, yes, the music industry.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

And do they succeed?
Sometimes. Usually not.
I mean, if one can accomplish complex feats without thinking about it, I'd expect Zen Buddhists to dominate the Olympics and chess tournaments and, yes, the music industry.
Why would you expect that? It doesn't give you talent. It just allows you to express it better.

[Bryan Ekers]

Why would you expect that?
Doesn't it follow? Buddhists are about 6% of the world population, ~60 million people. There have to be some athletes and chess players and musicians in there who, we might expect, would dominate their fields.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Doesn't it follow? Buddhists are about 6% of the world population, ~60 million people.
That's a pretty small minority and Buddhist practice is not going to make anybody bigger or faster or stronger.
There have to be some athletes and chess players and musicians in there who, we might expect, would dominate their fields.
Michael Jordan practiced Zen meditation.


I don't know that very many Buddhists play American sports but they dominate martial arts. I don't know how many play chess but they're very good at Go. It sounds like you're expecting Buddhists to not only excel at a level beyond the norm for non-Buddhists but that you're expecting to excel at sports and arts outside their own culture. A few other Buddhist adherents or practicioners of Eastern meditation include the Beatles, John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins, Phil Jackson (9 NBA titles), Leonard Cohen, George Lucas, Michael Stipe, Oliver Stone and Tina Turner. I'm sure there are other, but I'm not a catalogue. A lot of athletes employ meditation or yoga but they're not necessarily Buddhists. I never specified Buddhism anyway.

Basically, if you already have some talent or ability, meditative or consciousness altering techniques can help ypu express them better but it won't give you talent which isn't already there.

[Zoe]

Bryan, the responses you are getting from Diogenes express much better than anything that I could say what I would like to say. We differ only in that I was eventually able to see religious meaning in my experience. And it changed how I interpret Christianity.

Another thing that it changed was that I am more receptive to what I could learn from the teachings of other religions -- mainly Buddhism. And I've barely begun to scratch the surface.

While I was trying to describe to you what it is like to draw on your inner resources from a quiet, relaxed, mindful and alert state -- which is only just what I said it is -- somehow that sounds like Scientology. It sounds like Thoreau at Walden Pond to me, and a small group of monks living in Grenoble, France or my dad fishing on his one week a year vacation.

Inner resources = creativity, originality, inventiveness

At any rate, there is not much that I know that isn't answered much better by DtC, so I'll pass unless there is a question for me.

I still think you are fuuny as hell.

[Bryan Ekers]

It sounds like you're expecting Buddhists to not only excel at a level beyond the norm for non-Buddhists but that you're expecting to excel at sports and arts outside their own culture.
No, I'm asking for evidence of some of the claims being made. If Zen were as useful a tool as being vaguely implied, I'd expect more than a handful of celebrities who have dabbled in it - I'd not unreasonably expect practitioners to be disproportionately represented at the peaks of various Zen-improving pursuits.

[Bryan Ekers]

I still think you are fuuny as hell.
Thanks (in your face, moderator-boy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8786951&postcount=25)), though I'm trying to give Diogenes much more serious treatment than buttonjockey, because the former somewhat deserves it and latter somewhat does not.

Ultimately, I guess, I'm giving the claims about Zen the same scrutiny other members have given lekatt's claims about near-death experiences, though I'm not expecting to lose patience and start lashing out in frustration, as lekatt often inspires.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

No, I'm asking for evidence of some of the claims being made.
What claim do you think I'm not supporting?
If Zen were as useful a tool as being vaguely implied
No such implication was intended. It's utility is --such as it is -- is rarely more thn incidental. My claim was not intended to say anything about deliberate practice but to point out an example where the state of consciousness I'm talking about occurs spontaneously in just about anybody. Just about all professional athletes know what it's like to be in the zone. Whether they're Buddhist has nothing to do with.
I'd expect more than a handful of celebrities who have dabbled in it-
It's not a western practice so it should not be expected that you would see much practice by western celebrities. You DO see it in Eastern celebrities
I'd not unreasonably expect practitioners to be disproportionately represented at the peaks of various Zen-improving pursuits.
Why would you expect it to be dosproprtionate. Meditative techniques are only one tool that can be used to improve performance. It's not a magic elixer.

Oh...I just remembered someone else. Tiger Woods practices Buddhist meditation (his mother is a Buddhist). Is he dominant enough for you?

[Bryan Ekers]

It's not a western practice so it should not be expected that you would see much practice by western celebrities. You DO see it in Eastern celebritiesWell, that's why I asked originally about the Olympics and chess; international competitions.
Why would you expect it to be dosproprtionate. Meditative techniques are only one tool that can be used to improve performance. It's not a magic elixer.Does it allow a, say, ten percent improvement over time (lest this be unclear, I'll specify that an already-talented person fully versed in Zen will see a 10% lower failure rate)? Five percent? Anything that can be quantified?
Oh...I just remembered someone else. Tiger Woods practices Buddhist meditation (his mother is a Buddhist). Is he dominant enough for you?
Hey, good for him. Has he made any public statements about Zen that you know of? Interesting, if anecdotal, reading. Incidentally, is Buddhism now relevant? You seem contradictory on this point ("I never specified Buddhism anyway."), or perhaps I'm not sufficiently enlightened.

Besides, how not being tripped up by one's own self-consciousness is linked to trees falling the in woods remains unclear.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Thanks (in your face, moderator-boy (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8786951&postcount=25)), though I'm trying to give Diogenes much more serious treatment than buttonjockey, because the former somewhat deserves it and latter somewhat does not.

Ultimately, I guess, I'm giving the claims about Zen the same scrutiny other members have given lekatt's claims about near-death experiences, though I'm not expecting to lose patience and start lashing out in frustration, as lekatt often inspires.
I'm not claiming anything paranormal or supernatural. I'm only claiming that a.) teher exists an empirically verified, heightened state of awareness/altered consciousness which has a subjectively pleasant to profound, even life-changing effect on the subject (it ranges in intensity) and b) many (if not all) religions have developed various methods for both accessing and interpreting this state of consciousness. No religion or belief or method is required, however nor can any belief or method guarantee that it will happen.

I don't think it's magic, I think it's brain chemistry but that doesn't mean it's not subjectively postive or that it can't be personally illuminating.

[Bryan Ekers]

I don't think it's magic, I think it's brain chemistry but that doesn't mean it's not subjectively postive or that it can't be personally illuminating.
Fine, but why does it have be described in such cryptic terms as one hand clapping?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, that's why I asked originally about the Olympics and chess; international competitions.
I don't know anything about the Olympics or chess. I don't follow them. I have no idea how Buddhists perform at them I am sure, however, that top Olympic performers will tell you they know what the "zone" is.
Does it allow a, say, ten percent improvement over time (lest this be unclear, I'll specify that an already-talented person fully versed in Zen will see a 10% lower failure rate)? Five percent? Anything that can be quantified?
I doubt that anyone has ever tried to study this but looking for the correlection between performance and belief practice would be a mistake. The beliefs/practices won't necessarily put anyone into that heightened state of consciousness, and the heightened state happens all the time to people who lack such beliefs or practices altogether. If it were possible to identify when an athlete was "in the zone" and monitor his performance during that altered state of awareness, I think you'd see a quantitative difference but as of now, I believe the evidence is all anecdotal.
Hey, good for him. Has he made any public statements about Zen that you know of? Interesting, if anecdotal, reading.
He practices Thai Buddhism, not Zen. He does comment on it occasionally and says it keeps him calm. He also wears a small gold Buddha on a chain around his neck (I think it's usually under his shirt, though). If you google "Tiger Woods Buddhism" you'll turn up a few odd quotes or references but I don't know if he's given any extended discourses about it.
Besides, how not being tripped up by one's own self-consciousness is linked to trees falling the in woods remains unclear.
The flag koan is intended to knock you out of your normal state of awareness and jar you into looking at things from a different cognitive perspective. It's not meant to brng about an intellectual realization but an actual physiological brain change. If it doesn't work, that's ok. Koans usually don't truly work for anybody, even serious students of Zen. The flag koan doesn't really work for me either. I understand the kind of angle it's supposed to jar me into but it doesn't really get me there. My realizations or "glimpses" or whatever have never really come from koans. The people who really "get" the "sound of one hand clapping" or why the question of whether a dog has a Buddha nature is answered with "Mu" are the exception rather than the rule. Zen doesn't promise Enlightenment, only that zazen sometimes works for some people (it's still a useful practice even if you don't get enlightened, though. I do it myself).

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Fine, but why does it have be described in such cryptic terms as one hand clapping?
The way I understand it, koans are designed to force the intellect to sort of break down. The hope is that the analytical mind will short circuit and cause the brain to default to more abstract or intuitive cognitive affect. You're brain gets tired of trying to solve the riddle intellectually (you're supposed to meditate on these things for days on end), it sort of gives up and then BAM,another level of awareness breaks through. Since the analytical, intellectual part of the brain is the obstacle to a more objective, "higher" level of awareness, the koan is designed to confound the intellect and neutralize it. It's a monkeywrench in the wheels.

[Marley23]

The way I understand it, koans are designed to force the intellect to sort of break down.
Right, and I think that can be very useful. Meditation and koans can force you to reconsider what you do know and how you know it. People in general - and, I think, Dopers in particular - have the tendency to want to lock the facts down and be very sure of what is going on. Something that disrupts that certainty, and the assumptions it rests on, can be very helpful.

[Malthus]

Fine, but why does it have be described in such cryptic terms as one hand clapping?

The Zen koan is best thought of as a sort of tool designed, not to have any meaning in and of itself, but to help others achieve the proper state of conciousness.

Personally, I think it isn't necessarily a very useful tool in our particular culture. Its use seems to me to derive from the great respect teachers and masters are accorded in Japanese society - so that being presented by such a master with a seemingly "unanswerable question" causes lots of stress on the student, and (ultimately) a psychological breakthrough leading to the enlightenment state.

Since in the West we tend not to accord "teachers" and "masters" such intense respect, the koan is less likely to produce the same effect. We need other tools to get us there.

[buttonjockey308]

The flag koan is intended to knock you out of your normal state of awareness and jar you into looking at things from a different cognitive perspective. It's not meant to brng about an intellectual realization but an actual physiological brain change. If it doesn't work, that's ok. Koans usually don't truly work for anybody, even serious students of Zen. The flag koan doesn't really work for me either. I understand the kind of angle it's supposed to jar me into but it doesn't really get me there. My realizations or "glimpses" or whatever have never really come from koans. The people who really "get" the "sound of one hand clapping" or why the question of whether a dog has a Buddha nature is answered with "Mu" are the exception rather than the rule. Zen doesn't promise Enlightenment, only that zazen sometimes works for some people (it's still a useful practice even if you don't get enlightened, though. I do it myself).

And that was really my only point (thank you for helping me make it, Diogenes). I did not mean to become the joke I have by injecting the "fortune-cookie nonsense" that the flag koan inspired in Mr. Ekers.

In early study, this koan caused the exact reaction it was meant to in me, and for someone like Mr. Ekers, who seeks answers, I figured this might be a good place to start.

As you and Malthus both point out though Diogenes, koans are less than effective in our society where respect for teachers and masters is not as profound as it is in Eastern cultures (for two reasons IMO, one is because they often behave in ways that prove they do not deserve the respect, and two because westerners are madly self-obsessed).

The concept of being "enlightened" is not one of absolutes Mr. Ekers. In as much as there are finite laws and rules that govern a goodly portion of the known universe, the ability of the mind to expand into and beyond its' known borders or limitations is at the absolute heart of the search for enlightenment.

No one with any credibility at all claims supernatural powers or abilities exist post-enlightenment, but rather on the extreme end, claims of a sort of "hyper-control" of the body using the strength and depth of the mind are often proven (and often disproven too, because frankly, it doesn't always work). The wood and water koan is an excellent illustration of this, however I will spare you that, lest I be further ridiculed.

The facts of enlightenment are plainly evident to those who seek them and are willing to accept the mind has more capacity and ability than previously conceptualized or understood, even outside of scientific circles. You wish to place the concept you have of enlightenment into a small sterile compartment where it is easily examined, probed and deconstructed. I submit to you that because of the variables that exist within the mind, not only from person to person, but within one mind, that this cannot be done.

The circumstances that lead to enlightenment for, say, Diogenes will be different than they are for me, and different again than they are for anyone seeking enlightenment. You cannot reproduce the circumstances that lead one person to enlightenment, and expect those same things to work on someone else.

They may work, yes, but they will likely not work consistently, which by itself is evidence that enlightenment is a physical state, reached sometimes by sitting zazen, sometimes by chewing peyote, and sometimes by simply falling asleep.

[Bryan Ekers]

Actually, I wasn't describing the koans themselves as "fortune-cookie nonsense" but statements like: If you speak and act with a pure mind, happiness will follow you, as a shadow clings to form.
...which would seem entirely not out of place printed on a piece of paper contained in a post-dinner sweet. We're intelligent, literate people, here, button. You don't have to describe the benefits of Zen (and/or Buddhism, and/or meditation - please note that I'm trying to cover all bases, here) in flowery terms.

And, frankly, that whole "you assume there was a flagpole" didn't help your case either. Whatever the metaphorical flag was metaphorically hanging from; it had no relevance to my (admittedly irreverent) question.

[lekatt]

Fine, but why does it have be described in such cryptic terms as one hand clapping?

Enlightenment doesn't have to be cryptic. If we look at the men who truly influenced billions of people we can find what enlightenment looks like. Some of these men are: Siddartha, Jesus, Confusus, and Lao Tzu. These men did not found religions, but others did found religions based on their teachings. Enlightened teachings which later became immersed in dogma.

The path of love, compassion, and caring for all others is the path of enlightenment. You can reach enlightenment by walking that path.

The Koans do have a place, in fact anything that will break through the thinking process to get someone to think and perceive in a different way is helpful.

One lesson in the Course that asks the student to look at a telephone and say this telephone has no meaning to me several times.

[buttonjockey308]

Actually, I wasn't describing the koans themselves as "fortune-cookie nonsense" but statements like:
...which would seem entirely not out of place printed on a piece of paper contained in a post-dinner sweet. We're intelligent, literate people, here, button. You don't have to describe the benefits of Zen (and/or Buddhism, and/or meditation - please note that I'm trying to cover all bases, here) in flowery terms.

And, frankly, that whole "you assume there was a flagpole" didn't help your case either. Whatever the metaphorical flag was metaphorically hanging from; it had no relevance to my (admittedly irreverent) question.

Well this quote:
If you speak and act with a pure mind, happiness will follow you, as a shadow clings to form.

Was from the first Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. Granted, it COULD be used like that, but it hardly takes away from the weight of the quote. In attempting to describe Zen, I could have been less cryptic I suppose, but I don't think I was exactly flowery, but I get your meaning.

You're right about the flagpole thing though, it's tempting to engage in those little circular dichotomous exchanges that seem meant to confuse. It's exciting to realize that you have a grasp, albeit a small one, on the seeming vastness of Zen and that you can think as the teachers thought, and create your own puzzles, but if they do not engage your subject, they are, as you point out, irrelevant.

[elelle]

Buttonjockey, post#71 is very nicely put. The concept and mechanics of enlightenment and enhancement of mind *are* being studied at a high level; through the auspices of the Dalai Lama, trained with Tibetan techniques in mastery of mind, but he has a great enthusiasm for Western Science in understanding that mental technology, and is eagerly open to sharing it. Several conferences (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/11/RVGR15V5J61.DTL) with Tibetan teachers and Western neuroscientists have been held in the past decade, with good understanding and dialogue. Here's an exerpt from the linked article:
The mood of the early conferences seemed eager but uncertain, with the participants especially amazed by the Dalai Lama's scientific mind. Scientists exclaiming that his questions anticipated their next area of research, or otherwise demonstrated remarkable analytical acuity, is a recurring theme throughout these books, as is the Dalai Lama often repeating that if science can prove a Buddhist assumption wrong, that assumption should be discarded. Trust is established as the Buddhists find the scientists both forthright and respectful, and the scientists appreciate the sophistication of Buddhist thought, which is based on rigorous training in logical debate as well as introspection.

A site dedicated to that research is The Mind Life Institute, some info (http://www.mindandlife.org/initiatives_section.html) on what is being done there.

My own experience with enlightenment is mere glimpses, and can hardly comment on it as an expert (ha!). I have found, through direct teaching, techniques learned, and experience with Tibetan Buddhist teachers, that they have a realm of understanding the human mind that is just coming to the West, and adapting that teaching to the way our Western minds work, quite generously.

If you read the above links, it's well apparent that the Dalai Lama is greatly interested in Western Science, and enthusiastic about all of us learning what were closely held secret techniques in the last century. Buddhism is good pragmatic technique, sometimes hard then, because it requires self-responsibility, and a cutting reason. What they know, and we don't, is states of mind we just haven't developed as a culture. Yet. But, it's coming, as we share the technique of understanding human mind.

[Triskadecamus]

The path which is written is not the true path.

The path which is followed is not the true path.

The path does not lead to the destination.

One must take the path as one finds it, and seek only the next step.

The journey is the destination.

Tris

[Diogenes the Cynic]

The path which is written is not the true path.

The path which is followed is not the true path.

The path does not lead to the destination.

One must take the path as one finds it, and seek only the next step.

The journey is the destination.

Tris
Have you been reading the Tao Te Ching?

The way that can be followed is not the eternal way.
The name that can be spoken is not the eternal name.

[Triskadecamus]

Have you been reading the Tao Te Ching?

The way that can be followed is not the eternal way.
The name that can be spoken is not the eternal name.Well, not recently, no. But yes, the American English restatement of the insight of Lao Tsu is a very useful thing to keep in one's view of the universe.

Tris

[elelle]

I'm replying to this so that interested folks don't just read and say, "WTF does that all mean?" I'll take a stab at it, and, a small minded attempt at that.

It refers to taking your own capacity of mind, and not just following what someone else says. This is a point I admire about Eastern religions, that a path laid down by an astute, is an example, but not a hardcore way to be absolutely. You still have to do your own personal work; your path is unto you as an individual, so Pay Attention! Your enlightenment is your own work, and follow your heart with it, and be discerning in it, pay attention to your self; utilise, but don't be bound by other's past experience. Use your own Now temporal experience to gain insight and knowledge. This is greatly amplified by good teachers, who encourage individuals to get knowledge within their own abilities.

A good site (http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/lao.html) is this , about Lao Tsu, elaborating on what Tris said.

[lekatt]

I'm replying to this so that interested folks don't just read and say, "WTF does that all mean?" I'll take a stab at it, and, a small minded attempt at that.

It refers to taking your own capacity of mind, and not just following what someone else says. This is a point I admire about Eastern religions, that a path laid down by an astute, is an example, but not a hardcore way to be absolutely. You still have to do your own personal work; your path is unto you as an individual, so Pay Attention! Your enlightenment is your own work, and follow your heart with it, and be discerning in it, pay attention to your self; utilise, but don't be bound by other's past experience. Use your own Now temporal experience to gain insight and knowledge. This is greatly amplified by good teachers, who encourage individuals to get knowledge within their own abilities.

A good site (http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/lao.html) is this , about Lao Tsu, elaborating on what Tris said.


I read the link and enjoyed it. I have not extensively studied every religion, but I believe all religions converge on the same path. I asked my spiritual teacher which religion is right, he replied: "none is right, but Buddhism is the closest to being right." Buddhism was chosen for its peace and harmlessness to all things. I think one can follow the core teachings of any religion and find the Unity of all things. I usually say Oneness.