enlightenment throughout western history

[gib]

I'm reading The Awakening of Intelligence by Juddi Krishnamurti. The late Krishnamurti was a Buddhist philosopher who claimed to have achieved an enlightenment-like state very akin to the Buddha himself. So far in my reading, he does not claim to be the equal of the Buddha, or that there is such a thing as "perfect" enlightenment which, once achieved, marks the end of one's journey, but it clear that he feels he has achieved that which others are forever seeking and have not yet attained (in fact, he claims that there was never a point in his life when he was unenlightened - or as he put it, "in conflict").

But this is beside the point. The point I want to get at is this which figures into his central teaching: in order to achieve enlightenment, or at least progress along the path towards it, one must learn to "see" in the right way. The way he describes it (in varying articulations) is that one must shed one's self from all cultural influences and conditionings, all one's past experiences and memories, and look at things as through virgin eyes - that is, as though one were looking at them for the first time in life, having never been tainted by society or past experience.

I want to draw a parallel between this and the few moments in western history - two to be exact - when man as a whole seemed to adopt a practice of looking at things uninfluenced by culture or past experience, and see how these historical periods seem, in fact, to have pulled man up to a higher state of awareness the likes of which can only be described as enlightenment, or a progression towards such a thing.

In fact, one of these historical periods is conveniently labeled "The Enlightenment". Even the more archaic period has more recently come to adopt this term in the label "The Greek Enlightenment". Both these periods are uncannily characterized by a resistence to allow ones thinking and knowledge of the world be governed solely by what culture teaches or how one's past experience has conditioned one. In the case of the Greek Enlightenment, it was the discipline of adhering to logic and reason, which eventually burgeoned into the age of Greek philosophy. Philosophers throughout the ages are typically aware of this sort of discipline. It is the exercise of thinking independently of personal bias, cultural brainwashing, superstition, dogma, and the like, and attempt as best one can to think in universally objective ways, or as close as universally objective as humanly possible. If one carefully crafts a clear and logically sounds argument, then the argument comes across as a description of reality as it is in itself - i.e. true awareness, unfettered consciousness, enlightenment.

In the more recent scientific age, the commitment to seeing reality without being attached to social indoctrinations or the biases of one's personal past experiences was practiced through the philosophy of empiricism - that is, the practice of looking at the world exclusively in terms of what the senses tell us. It was the practice of placing sensory experience first, and social teachings and personal biases second, and if ever the twain shall meet, it was the latter that gave way to the former.

So in these two ages, it seemed to be the practice of shedding one's self of the authority of cultural and the influence of past experience over our ways of thinking and experiencing the world that led, over the course of several centuries, to something very much like "enlightenment" for whole societies. In both cases, what was left behind after this shedding process was seen as what must be ultimately and absolutely true of reality - thus true awareness - but they also differed in that, in the Greek case, what was ultimately true of reality was a matter of logic and reason, of abstract notions, and in the European case a few centuries ago, what was ultimately true of reality was a matter of empirical and scientific, observation, of concrete notions (notwithstanding the fact that the latter also featured the resurrection, or the "Rennaissance", of the Greek philosophical legacy, and so an awareness of the universality of untainted logic and reason was still a part of this mass awakening).

But in either case, the result was clear: whole societies became awakened. They became more aware of the true nature of reality, and more enlightened. It didn't happen instantly, of course, but after a few centuries, it could not be denied: society was moving towards an incredible spiritual advance and ultimately bettering their condition.

So I guess the subject matter of this thread is: what do these two historical periods and their outcomes tell us about the nature and effects of the Buddhist practice, or at least what Krishnamurti teaches, of "looking" without the influence of culture or past experience? Is this really the way to enlightenment? And what is enlightenment if these are indeed examples of how one gets there? Another question is: can we say that humanity as a whole is ultimately on a course towards higher and higher enlightenment - perhaps slowly, gradually, even in the face of certain setbacks here and there - and if so, is there a final state of total and perfect enlightenment, or is it always an on-going progression along a path that has no absolute end?

[gib]

So no one's interested in enlightenment?

[Amorphos]

give us time mate!

If I remember correctly the Buddha aimed to be mimicked as a teacher, such that it would be relatively easier for others to attain enlightenment. To that end I don’t know why people cannot just say they have equalled Buddha.

There is a lot of culture crept into Buddhism imho, its quite hard to grasp e.g. the language used in meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, would Buddha not have said that the meanings were important as opposed to the sound structures? If you want to make it easier for anyone to attain enlightenment, then I’d say Buddhism in its purest form would supplant all and every ‘artificial’ barrier.

To which end we get onto cultures as you stated. In our time it seams we are undergoing the greatest removal of humanity from culture, not to mention ego’s and other seemingly fixed elements of personality. We could say that what was mostly personal enlightenment has gone global?

Big questions at the end there!

I’d say that; its not all about Buddhism. It seams more likely that there are many elements to the equation, the Greek philosophers and science for sure ~ though I wouldn’t discount Greek mysticism entirely. I’d also factor in the Egyptian teachings which seam to be a virtual contradiction, but the way everything transmigrates form and function is telling as to its true purpose*.

*lets imagine there were a guiding hand in all of this, then we’d surely see teachings in every religion and spirituality, even if that’s not how the cultures of the day understood them ~ who’d assume to understand god! …using the term metaphorically here, ultimately we are talking about a global human mind or something to that effect [I mean as like the forces of history are to the players in history, rather than an actual mind].
The effects of each part supplant that of the individual.

Now; is there an end? I’d say we are moving to a position where it is or will be far easier for souls born into this world to ascend. I cannot imagine that there shall be a time when we are born ascended, for surely that would contradict samsara ~ we wouldn’t be born in the first place if that were the case. This brings us full circle in part; can our friend juddi have always been enlightened? Perhaps some people are altruistically born in order to help enlighten, yet if there is a mechanism and a hierarchy to transmigration that would be breaking it ~ which makes the whole thing personal rather than causal.
.

[gib]

give us time mate!

If I remember correctly the Buddha aimed to be mimicked as a teacher, such that it would be relatively easier for others to attain enlightenment. To that end I don’t know why people cannot just say they have equalled Buddha.

Juddi may actually believe that. He just hasn't said it.

There is a lot of culture crept into Buddhism imho, its quite hard to grasp e.g. the language used in meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, would Buddha not have said that the meanings were important as opposed to the sound structures? If you want to make it easier for anyone to attain enlightenment, then I’d say Buddhism in its purest form would supplant all and every ‘artificial’ barrier.

Yes, I think it goes without saying that even if a certain spiritual movement (or mover - i.e. Christ, Buddha, Juddi) began free of culture and bias, it would eventually become its own culture and give way to bias. Juddi says this will always be the result of putting the enlightened state or the way towards it into words. Words create a belief system in the mind of the listener, and he eventually becomes bound to that system - thus, not free. Juddi says that ultimately, enlightenment is not something that can be explained. One has to experience it for himself. And he says there is no method to attain it. One simply has to "realize" it (or "look").

To which end we get onto cultures as you stated. In our time it seams we are undergoing the greatest removal of humanity from culture, not to mention ego’s and other seemingly fixed elements of personality. We could say that what was mostly personal enlightenment has gone global?

It certainly seems like it when you consider the two "enlightenments" in the history of western civilization.

Big questions at the end there!

I’d say that; its not all about Buddhism. It seams more likely that there are many elements to the equation, the Greek philosophers and science for sure ~ though I wouldn’t discount Greek mysticism entirely. I’d also factor in the Egyptian teachings which seam to be a virtual contradiction, but the way everything transmigrates form and function is telling as to its true purpose*.

Agreed. I don't know if you read my take on the relation between Christianity and Buddhism in the thread "why truth is bad", but I essentially said that Christianity is the goal of Buddhism without knowing the way there, and Buddhism is the way there without knowing the goal.

*lets imagine there were a guiding hand in all of this, then we’d surely see teachings in every religion and spirituality, even if that’s not how the cultures of the day understood them ~ who’d assume to understand god! …using the term metaphorically here, ultimately we are talking about a global human mind or something to that effect [I mean as like the forces of history are to the players in history, rather than an actual mind].
The effects of each part supplant that of the individual.

Now; is there an end? I’d say we are moving to a position where it is or will be far easier for souls born into this world to ascend. I cannot imagine that there shall be a time when we are born ascended, for surely that would contradict samsara ~ we wouldn’t be born in the first place if that were the case. This brings us full circle in part; can our friend juddi have always been enlightened? Perhaps some people are altruistically born in order to help enlighten, yet if there is a mechanism and a hierarchy to transmigration that would be breaking it ~ which makes the whole thing personal rather than causal.
.

I'm not familiar enough with the Indian concept of the transmigration of souls. Maybe you could enlighten me.

[Amorphos]

Yes, I think it goes without saying that even if a certain spiritual movement (or mover - i.e. Christ, Buddha, Juddi) began free of culture and bias, it would eventually become its own culture and give way to bias. Juddi says this will always be the result of putting the enlightened state or the way towards it into words. Words create a belief system in the mind of the listener, and he eventually becomes bound to that system - thus, not free. Juddi says that ultimately, enlightenment is not something that can be explained. One has to experience it for himself. And he says there is no method to attain it. One simply has to "realize" it (or "look").

I see. So the created culture is not correct in its assumption that sound structures mast be specific, that they are not translatable.

Agreed. I don't know if you read my take on the relation between Christianity and Buddhism in the thread "why truth is bad", but I essentially said that Christianity is the goal of Buddhism without knowing the way there, and Buddhism is the way there without knowing the goal.

I haven’t as yet no. I must be misunderstanding you as that sounds patronising towards Buddhism, though I cant imagine thats so lol...

Edit; I think I see what you mean after reading the thread, though I’d say that Christians ‘knowing’ their goal is somewhat presumptuous.

Emptiness is the goal of Buddhism, it doesn’t have a god or Christ because it doesn’t need one, its way is the removal of everything that goes into such concepts.
I think this is implied in the notion of ‘colour’ in some Buddhist thinking, it’s the same as culture or personality, self, ego etc. it’s the removal of all state to the end of statelessness [though I am confused by the idea of bliss being the respective state of statelessness for a Buddha-’being‘], as I say I think its incomplete as are all other religions.

I'm not familiar enough with the Indian concept of the transmigration of souls. Maybe you could enlighten me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%E1%B9%83s%C4%81ra

from wiki
Samsara means "to flow on", to perpetually wander, to pass through states of existence. literally meaning "continuous flow", is the cycle of birth, life, death, rebirth or reincarnation within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Sikhism, and other Indian religions.
------
‘Flow-on’ means to transmigrate.

Karma = bad actions, and they bring the soul/spiritual body [bodhisattva] back down to the world. Dharma is designed to negate ones karma. Samsara is the world and its devices which include karma as the causal connection between souls and earthly bodies. If say we desire bodily form [sex] that will marry the soul up with an unborn child in the world, it’s a like attracts like thing.

Some Buddhist monks apparently choose to come back* as I say altruistically in order to help others become released from Samsara.

*from the intermediate state [underworld] back to the world after death.
.

[Trajicomic]

I'm interested, but I don't have time to focus on long forgotten history right now... the future is calling.

[gib]

Edit; I think I see what you mean after reading the thread, though I’d say that Christians ‘knowing’ their goal is somewhat presumptuous.

Emptiness is the goal of Buddhism, it doesn’t have a god or Christ because it doesn’t need one, its way is the removal of everything that goes into such concepts.

Which I believe, IMHO, is how Christ lived. The mistake Christians make, again IMHO, is to think the way to the goal is simply to mimic Christ - his kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and ultimate his martyrdom. What they don't realize is that one doesn't just "try" to act like Christ - one must practice something much like the Buddhists - a detaching of one's self from desire, values, beliefs - in your own words, an emptying - emptying one's mind, one's soul, of all things that keep one attached to earthly thing. The catch, for the Buddhist, is that in order for this approach to work, one must give up the goal - give up the desire to attain happiness, or peace, or enlightenment - for that constitutes yet another attachment. One must not want the goal one is trying to attain, one must not "try" at all. This is the catch-22, the reason Krishnamurti says that there is no method and that one can't be taught enlightenment. It is also the reason I say that Buddhism is the practice without the goal. But if one is like Krishnamurti, or the Buddha, and finds himself somehow walking the path - genuinely, sincerely, authentically - he does end up achieving the goal, and when he does, he finds himself living life much like Christ did - with compassion, forgiveness in his heart, and a willingness to martyr himself if such an act is called for.

[Bob]

Edit; I think I see what you mean after reading the thread, though I’d say that Christians ‘knowing’ their goal is somewhat presumptuous.

Emptiness is the goal of Buddhism, it doesn’t have a god or Christ because it doesn’t need one, its way is the removal of everything that goes into such concepts.

Which I believe, IMHO, is how Christ lived. The mistake Christians make, again IMHO, is to think the way to the goal is simply to mimic Christ - his kindness, compassion, forgiveness, and ultimate his martyrdom. What they don't realize is that one doesn't just "try" to act like Christ - one must practice something much like the Buddhists - a detaching of one's self from desire, values, beliefs - in your own words, an emptying - emptying one's mind, one's soul, of all things that keep one attached to earthly thing. The catch, for the Buddhist, is that in order for this approach to work, one must give up the goal - give up the desire to attain happiness, or peace, or enlightenment - for that constitutes yet another attachment. One must not want the goal one is trying to attain, one must not "try" at all. This is the catch-22, the reason Krishnamurti says that there is no method and that one can't be taught enlightenment. It is also the reason I say that Buddhism is the practice without the goal. But if one is like Krishnamurti, or the Buddha, and finds himself somehow walking the path - genuinely, sincerely, authentically - he does end up achieving the goal, and when he does, he finds himself living life much like Christ did - with compassion, forgiveness in his heart, and a willingness to martyr himself if such an act is called for.

Nice to see that someone else has this take on Christianity ...

Take Care

[Amorphos]

What they don't realize is that one doesn't just "try" to act like Christ - one must practice something much like the Buddhists - a detaching of one's self from desire, values, beliefs - in your own words, an emptying - emptying one's mind, one's soul, of all things that keep one attached to earthly thing.

The catch, for the Buddhist, is that in order for this approach to work, one must give up the goal - give up the desire to attain happiness, or peace, or enlightenment - for that constitutes yet another attachment.

Interesting POV. Detachment delivers the goal where that is the removal of all things which attach us to the world. Happiness is exactly what in the Christian ‘desire’? what are we trying to attain in heaven or an eternal earthly form [?] ~ in the resurrection? The very act of wanting such things is that which marries the mind to their earthly counterpart. It’s a like attracts like thing, the act of desiring e.g. love and or children/family literally joins those thoughts in ones mind with those things in the world, and by this we are reborn into endless Samsara.

Tbh I think Jesus makes attempts at Buddha like wisdom but never quite gets there, we have to realise how very real and literal the correlations/connections are, that there is nothing between the thought and the object.

On the other hand I may have Jesus completely wrong, that is; I don’t understand what his kingdom is and indeed it would seam no others have. This is why we have vague and fanciful ideas of heaven, hell and the resurrection. When Jesus appeared after his death perhaps we have yet to realise what that meant? An earthly resurrection would not make Jesus anything like the Buddha, that is not what the aim is et al.

food for thought.

[gib]

When I think about famous holy figures in history, I usually demythologize them. I'm skeptical that Jesus ever did literally rise from the dead, or that the Buddha took 7 steps right after his birth and said "this is my last birth". But I do believe in a state of mind that can appropriately be called "enlightenment" and leads one to talk, act, and live in such a way that it gives others the impression of "holiness". I don't think is needs be supernatural.

Where the Buddha and Christ overlap is in their having attained this statement of mind, I believe.

[Amorphos]

When I think about famous holy figures in history, I usually demythologize them. I'm skeptical that Jesus ever did literally rise from the dead, or that the Buddha took 7 steps right after his birth and said "this is my last birth".

agreed.

But I do believe in a state of mind that can appropriately be called "enlightenment" and leads one to talk, act, and live in such a way that it gives others the impression of "holiness". I don't think is needs be supernatural.

Where the Buddha and Christ overlap is in their having attained this statement of mind, I believe.

If enlightenment can be found on earth [in samsara] why does ‘Buddha being’ equate with the attainment of nirvana? Why teach about desires and earthly attachments?

What kind of earthly holiness and enlightenment do we mean, apart from that we can see something holy in people, something divine and not of the earth, something such people connect to ~ a glimmer of the eternal light.

Would such a person live forever, have families, make love, desire comforts for their offspring, not to mention immortality for them.

I don’t know I am just asking, I am just having problems with equating divinity with anything earthly, though its an interesting idea as I also have problems with duality, …one would expect there to be no iron ceiling to heaven [and hence divinity], thus perhaps there is a link to it in the world. I’d expect that to go with a certain kind of life [e.g. like that of Jesus] but its not one humanity can have unless we wish to not exist [have no children].

[gib]

My demythologizing includes the splitting of the world into the 'earthly' and the 'heavenly'. Enlightenment to me is not a supernatural state, not something that connects you with another plane of existence (not necessarily). To put it in the most down-to-earth way I can, enlightenment is knowing how to be above it all.

[anon]

My demythologizing includes the splitting of the world into the 'earthly' and the 'heavenly'. Enlightenment to me is not a supernatural state, not something that connects you with another plane of existence (not necessarily). To put it in the most down-to-earth way I can, enlightenment is knowing how to be above it all.

I'm reminded of the common use of the lotus as a Buddhist symbol:

Just as the lotus arises from the bottom of a swamp, so buddhas were former humans, immersed in the negative thoughts and actions in which all ordinary beings engage: the strife, wars, petty jealousies, and hatreds to which all humans, animals, and other creatures are subject. Through their meditative training, however, buddhas have transcended such things, and like lotuses have risen above their murky origins and look down on them unsullied by the mud and mire below.

The symbolism may be extended still further, because buddhas do not simply escape the world and look down on others with pity or detached amusement; rather, like the lotus, which has roots that still connect it with the bottom of the swamp, buddhas continue to act in the world for the benefit of others, continually manifesting in various forms in order to help them, to make them aware of the reality of their situations, and to indicate the path to the awakening of buddhahood, which can free them from all suffering.

source

I think the way this is stated is pretty old fashioned, and "religious" though - which is fine. It's classical, but I relate a bit better to a take on it that's less dualistic - more direct. From a talk about Padmasambhava by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (in the context I edited out, he unapologetically sticks to the mythological language):

Trungpa: In some way, being born from a mother and from a lotus are exactly the same situation. There is nothing all that superhuman about it: it is an expression of miracles that do exist. ... Being born from a lotus is an expression of openness...

Student: Birth from a lotus could also mean the negation of karmic history.

Trungpa: That's right, yes. There is no karmic history involved at all. Just somewhere in Afghanistan a lotus happened to bear a child.

From earlier in the same talk:

We go on and on this way. We repeat ourselves. We build something up and make ourselves believe in it. We say to ourselves, "Now I should have faith. If I have faith, if I believe, I'm going to be saved." We try to prefabricate faith in some way and get a momentary kick out of it. But then it ends up the same way again and again and again - we don't get anything out of it. There are always those problems with that approach to spirituality.

In Padmasambhava's approach to spirituality, we are not looking for a kick, for inspiration or bliss. Instead, we are digging into life's irritations and making a home out of that. If we are able to make a home out of those irritations, then the irritations become a source of great joy, transcendental joy, mahasukha - because there is no pain involved at all. This kind of joy is no longer related with pain or contrasted with pain at all. So the whole thing becomes precise and sharp and understandable, and we are able to relate to it.

Maybe these quotes together help to impart something about the nature of "enlightenment" in Buddhism.

[anon]

To the OP - I'm not sure one should "shed one's self from all cultural influences and conditionings, all one's past experiences and memories, and look at things as through virgin eyes - that is, as though one were looking at them for the first time in life, having never been tainted by society or past experience." Compare to:

"According to the buddhadharma, spirituality means relating with the working basis of one's existence, which is one's state of mind. The method for beginning to relate directly with mind is the practice of mindfulness."

"Shedding" and "relating" strike me as nearly opposite in meaning. They at least have very different connotations. And in the very next paragraph from this text (talk):

One must see the straightforward logic that mind is the cause of confusion and that by transcending confusion one attains the enlightened state.

source

My question is this - are "cultural influences and conditionings" necessarily or inherently confused? Does transcending confusion mean transcending history and culture? I went to school and learned some basic logic. Is that confused? I wear western shoes, pants, and shirts. Is that confused? The Buddha lived in India, wore a certain kind of clothing, talked about karma and Hindu gods... was he confused?

On the other hand, to "look at things as through virgin eyes" is something many people value - Buddhists, scientists, painters, writers, parents... There is absolute freshness available in every moment, no matter what kinds of history and conditioning are present - or seemingly present. I believe this is true.

[Amorphos]

^^ Interesting stuff anon!

gib

My demythologizing includes the splitting of the world into the 'earthly' and the 'heavenly'. Enlightenment to me is not a supernatural state, not something that connects you with another plane of existence (not necessarily). To put it in the most down-to-earth way I can, enlightenment is knowing how to be above it all.

The ‘myth’ [sometimes referred to as ‘colour’ in Buddhism] does indeed concern duality, but that only occurs in the gross expressions of mind, hence it is that which needs to be removed, that we need be detached from.
Instead of earthly/heavenly we should be thinking of things in terms of mind/dualistic mind [gross reality] which exist in the same sphere. As such there cannot be duel worlds of any description ~ including one where god dwells [or is in his being].

It’s a hierarchy and gradation of mental aggregate from the gross to the simple, from state to statelessness. The stateless may be connected to state, but when the mind is detached from duality it ceases to be part of that overall equation. We may consider this in much the same way as how statelessness [let us say, like the space in which the universe dwells] does not interfere with state in material terms [universal, causality].

There is no half measure of ‘being above it all’, if we are part of the world we are not part of eternity. that’s not to say one cannot find much wisdom from detachment. Well that’s what I get from the Buddhist message, however I am inclined to wonder if being wise/detached is the learned position not to mention hard earned. There is a kind of ignorance/innocence in the return to the original self ~ where I am assuming that to be the same as eternity/nirvana, not to mention a pointlessness to the path/life.

I have been considering the notion that the learned position is what illuminates eternity, to those whom achieve it a light is lit in the heavens. This appears to quite a universal theme if e.g. we consider the pharaoh’s journey is to create a new star in the heavens. Perhaps the product of the entire effort of universe, life, is to such purpose.

.