So I was thinking about one of my goals in life which is attain enlightenment. A question came to mind that I had never asked before. The question was; ‘What is enlightenment?’ Now I started to think, could it be something different for each person? I though it might be possible considering the fact that there are different forms of Buddhism which might have arisen from people reaching enlightenment and it being different for each person. Or is enlightenment the same for everyone and is there more than one way to achieve enlightenment?
An excellent question. I wonder if even the most highly qualified Buddhist practitioners have a solid answer to that. A couple things to point out though, one is the idea of found in vajrayana Buddhism. These are kind of like personality types. So “enlightened” beings aren’t identical, but are fully themselves. On the other hand there are similar characteristics associated with enlightenment. These qualities (such as compassion and wisdom) are said to be naturally and spontaneously present in all enlightened beings.
I think there are many methods conducive to achieving enlightenment. Traditionally, texts talk about the teachings being appropriate to the “dispositions and predilections” of the practitioner. Again though, there are certain characteristics necessarily in common. “Dharmic” (Buddhist) teachings are all designed to reduce ego-clinging. Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche says “The Buddha gave 84,000 different teachings, all of them designed to subdue ego-clinging.”
Enlightenment is man’s struggle toward oblivion.
There’s no way of knowing how it is for anyone else, but there are certainly similarities found in the writings of Buddhist masters and teachers, many of whom could be presumed to be enlightened. I’d suggest first getting rid of it as a goal (just let it go), and see what that does for you. Once you’re able to be present without that goal – ‘liberated’ from it, you might say – you might very well be enlightened, at least in that one teensy little way. I say this because I don’t really know what will happen, but one thing I do know is that holding onto it as a goal doesn’t do much. It’s not something to be desired from afar.
How do you define it? Do you think of it as some future transcendent moment of Truth Revealed that’ll happen when you become somehow worthy? Do you think it’s near or far away? Do you expect that, once enlightened, you’ll become part of a privileged inner circle of sorts, one where everybody knows the mystery? Do you think being enlightened means having an elevated view? And what will you look like when you’re enlightened, anyway? Did you know the Buddha got a bump on his head? 
If you want to tell me what you think it is, I could probably say something about the nature of thinking what it is. But not much about enlightenment.
Or, alternatively, ignore this, because I’ll probably drive you crazy. Concentrate instead on what anon says, it’s too much responsibility for me.
According to Sidarta Gutama, enlightenment was when he reached Nirvana/The Void, and realized that all was one. A vague description, but at least it’s a description. Also, I find the best way to “expand your mind” towards Nirvana would be meditation. Sit down in a quiet, dark room, close your eyes, and try to focus all your thoughts on one thing, the easiest is the rhythm of your breath, take deep breaths. There are alot of paths toward enlightenment I guess, it’s really all relative to what works best for you.
According to Sidarta Gutama, enlightenment was when he reached Nirvana/The Void, and realized that all was one. A vague description, but at least it’s a description. Also, I find the best way to “expand your mind” towards Nirvana would be meditation. Sit down in a quiet, dark room, close your eyes, and try to focus all your thoughts on one thing, the easiest is the rhythm of your breath, take deep breaths. There are alot of paths toward enlightenment I guess, it’s really all relative to what works best for you.
sorry about the double post whoops. 
Why is that?
Never really thought about how I defined it, I looked it up in the dictionary and that didn’t help at all. Yes I did know about Buddha’s bump on the head. I suppose letting go of it as a goal would be the Zen thing to do. As for what I expect from enlightenment, I don’t know anymore. I once just thought it would bring some type of special feeling, but other than that, I have no idea of what to expect or even how to attain enlightenment.
I wonder if letting go of it as a goal really is the zen thing to do - there are subtle distinctions involved. I think Ingenium is emphasizing means over ends. I found this excellent quote about “end gain” on a non-Buddhist website:
[i]“When we end gain, we habitually rush into or continue an activity, often in a driven manner, without due consideration of the means-whereby we are using in order to reach our goal. Very often we will find that the more we try to reach our goal in this manner, the more distressed we become and the worse our performance of the task tends to get. When we do this, we often ignore the warning signs that could draw our attention to the fact that a problem is developing but instead, continue towards our goal. This frequently results in conditions such as poor co-ordination, strains, injury and even illness.”
“An interesting exploration of learning not to end-gain, albeit from a Buddhist perspective, describes this process in archery. The student is aware that ‘drawing the bow is a means to an end and I cannot lose sight of this connection’ to which the Zen master replies ‘The more obstinately you try to learn how to shoot the arrow for the sake of hitting the goal, the less you will succeed’.”[/i]
I don’t know exactly what enlightenment is either - how would I? But I personally proceed from this point of view: We are not inherently “bad”, “deluded”, or anything similar. We are what we are, and this is a “good” thing. The suffering we experience in life comes from two sources - emotional defilements and mistaken intellectual views. Reality works a certain way, and when we don’t work with it, we suffer the consequences. So an “enlightened” person has removed or purified these obscurations and obstructions to his or her basic goodness - ennabling an existentially unencumbered relationship with the world. It might be thought of as the complete eradication of the sense that the world is somehow a burden to us. In my own experience, a certain amount of sustained study and regular meditation practice is enough to realize the truth in this - that these changes are possible, they do occur, and they come not from fabricating a false reality, but from tuning in to reality as it is. Though “enlightenment” may be simply a theory or hypothesis, it need not be blindly held. And in that sense letting go of many types of goals (which typically take us away from reality as it is) is the Buddhist approach.
Buddhism points out various about life, and how these facts conflict with our basic psychological make-up - our underlying beliefs and attitudes, which are based more on habit and assumption than on a clear sense of how things are and how they arise. For instance we think of ourselves as in some vaguely felt state of permanence. Though we know that everything is impermanent, we still act as if they are permanent. We think of the passing of time as something that pecks away at our existence, when time and impermanence (and death) are in fact the very basis of life. The only type of existence is impermanent and contingent existence. There is no other type of existence. So the task of taking these truths to heart - integrating them with our very being (we’re like icebergs - our professed beliefs are only the very tip of our being) - is a “Buddhist” task, and to my mind a very worthy goal.
Are you looking for good meditation instruction? I can post a few links if you want - it’s a start.
Interesting. Yes that would be helpful(the meditation links).
Ok. Here’s a few:
He also wrote a very concise and easy to understand book on basic meditation practices called “Turning the Mind into an Ally”, which I recommend if you’re interested.
<Just the 1-2-3>
This is very simple mindfulness meditation instruction, step by step. But it appears to be essentially “correct”.
I haven’t read through this, but it appears to be very helpful. I’m not sure if there are subtle differences to the Zen approach to meditation practice or not. You might know more than I do about that if you read through all this.
Not instruction per se, but an excellent brief yet comprehensive overview of the “view” of Buddhist meditation practice - what it’s all about.
No doubt there are plenty of other online sources of quality instruction, but there is also more crap than you could possibly sort through yourself. It’s mind boggling actually.
I will say that in-person instruction is very helpful, maybe even essential - especially with regard to posture, if that causes problems for you. But I know I started with instruction from a book (it was one that had a variety of instructions from various people and traditions) and it was certainly a good enough place to start.
Okay, thank you!
Many people who claim to have reached so called “enlightenment” also had a nervous breakdown (an episode of a severe psychosis) right before that.
Something you should take into consideration when evaluating the so-called enlightenment phenomenon.
My suggestion is if you come across an “enlightened” person, read their biography, and pay close attention to circumstances that lead to their enlightenment.
Anytime.
Good point. Personally, I wouldn’t trust anyone who claims to be enlightened. Even the Dalai Lama makes no such claim.
I’m not sure what else enlightenment could be other than becoming aware in some way of what one is. Which I guess would mean a discovering of what mind itself is. The reason I say that is because it’s said that the mind is the barrier yet there is no getting around the fact that mind is all we have to use in the search. I’m not sure that it would be possible to know what we are before knowing why mind is the barrier.
jamielynn, i think you’re onto something
but then again, something tells me part of knowing what one is, is at the same time a not knowing
an enlightened view is full of paradoxes
there is duality, and then that third thing which stands as the observing relation between the two
the difficulty lies in becoming and remaining fully what one already and ultimately is, that third thing
for the record, i am not enlightened
i see enlightenment, indeed see, feel, and almost taste it
it beckons and plays with me, even teases me as it watches me flail and flutter about
all it wants is my cooperation, but i always find myself either ahead or behind it
always ahead or behind the summit, which is to say always beneath it
i always find myself beneath enlightenment like a slobbering troll underneath a bridge
I think it’s better to talk to those who claim to be enlightened if you want to be enlightened, whatever it is, for some reason.
I mean, do you trust someone who isn’t enlightened for your enlightenment training?
Would you learn to fly in actual airplane from someone who isn’t a pilot?
Also, a person with specific quality may not have the ability to instruct/guide you to attain the same quality.
For example, I know bunch of good pilots who wouldn’t be a good instructor.
And when you new in the given field, you don’t have lots of information to detect the quality of instruction. You can get sick and even die by doing meditation. If it’s powerful/potent enough to change oneself, it can also be powerful in other ways that may cause lots of suffering.
On top of these, there are lots of frauds.
Among millions of Buddhists who have been seeking enlightenment, how many have actually attained it? 50%? 5%? Less than 0.05%?
In all religions and schools that pretend to teach enlightenment, I don’t know any that have produced lots of results (even in their own claims).
That’s probably because he isn’t enlightened (by their own standard) and he knows it.
I tend to think of it as: a temporary state of mind caused by a new found knowledge or understanding/epiphany that causes the mind to be free of suffering or atleast content with suffering.
Unfortunately, enlightenment as a state of mind (as with most state of minds) is fragile because it is based in the ego (the simple act of being aware of your own enlightenment causes it to be connected with the ego). Unless an enlightened individual was not aware of the fact that he/she was enlightened, in which case they wouldn’t realize that they were enlightened until after the enlightened state of mind had transitioned to something else (“you don’t know what you’ve got until its gone”).
Ego related matters, when contemplated, can just as easily be negated as they can be supported. So, once an individual claims enlightenment, and assuming that this is based in their ego, then the mind automatically begins subconsciously defending the claim as if it were a title. Then, once an event arises that conflicts with or contradicts their conclusion (one example would be if other people were to doubt the individual’s claim of being enlightened, or if the enlightened individual doubted it himself) then the “enlightened” state of mind would likely fade away.
Some Buddhist monks have noted that whenever an incidence arose where they believed that they had achieved enlightenment, the state of mind lasted only for a few hours or days at most before disappating. Because of this, some have concluded that enlightenment is unreachable, and is instead only a temporary feeling similar to hypomania or grandiosity.
Then an entirely different way of looking at it is thinking that enlightenment is not a positive feeling, nor is it a negative feeling. It is actually the lack of feeling at all - and its only experienced after death when the cycle of reincarnation has ended and the individual simply ceases to exist. This is a very pessimistic acknowledgement to the fact that “only suffering is guaranteed in life” and it is in part fueled by the belief that the suffering in the world exceeds the pleasure in the world, to the point of life not even being worth living. This is also followed with a teaching that "moderation is the key to mitigate suffering while you are here and living. Do not indulge in desires, and do not deny desires, instead moderate your desires - hence “The middle path”
It is also worth noting that believers in Nirvana and enlightenment do not think of it as a “once youre enlightened then you are set and you don’t have to worry about anything anymore”… Most just consider enlightenment the goal, and acknowledge the fact that it is unreachable, but it still must be worked towards. It’s like the saying “You don’t win, you just do a little better each time”. This would be viewing enlightenment more as a means of a motivation for self-improvement.
Also, what the feeling of “enlightenment” is going to be will vary from person to person - its a very subjective thing. There isn’t some innate mechanism in the human brain that triggers enlightenment - it isn’t the same for all human beings. Depending on the variances of personal experience, enlightenment could be something as simple as becoming content with your life, or overcoming a personal obstacle… or it could be something as complex as achieving a higher state of consciousness.
For me? I’d say that from my own definition of enlightenment, I was enlightened at one point. And by that I don’t mean that “I’ve ended the cycle of reincarnation” or any of that type of stuff, I just mean that at one point in my life suffering was at a minimal and there was a high sense of clarity with everything. Whether it was just an illusion I had created for myself, or an actual state of enlightenment, I don’t know… but it felt real. It lasted for a few months.
Hello amor-
I’m familiar with the description not knowing. I hesitated before typing “becoming aware in some way”, but was at a loss as to another way to word it. Becoming aware, or knowing, as well as their counterparts unaware and not knowing are all dualistic descriptions. I use the word neither a lot because of this. What you are calling the third thing is what I mean by neither.
At this point in time I am of the opinion that becoming aware of what we are does not change anything as far as being that third thing. Nothing happens when we become aware that we are that third thing. The reason I say this is because that third thing is neither so does not manifest or appear as either (meaning any half of any pair). So in a sense what we are does not appear, is neither something nor nothing, yet there is the paradox of appearance still appearing. How can that be? We are still left with the dualism of appearing and not appearing. Appearance has to be that third thing, there cannot be a third thing apart from anything.
I’ve conceptualized that third thing as neither but that got me nowhere but stuck. Neither is a useful concept when dealing with the dualities but doesn’t help at all when faced with the problem of how does anything appear if each half of every pair is supposed to be illusory, is not that third thing? The way I see it right now is that there cannot be anything that is illusory. Every single speck of anything and everything has to be that third thing, which is the same as saying anything and everything is what we are so there is no third thing, there is no neither, there is no oblivion. Knowing that and experiencing that are two different things though.
I mentioned mind in my post and how it’s said that mind is the barrier. I think the why is because thought cannot occur in the neither format. Understanding that leaves one quite blank! 
Thought turns in on itself and sees the limitation and that can drive one quite mad, to the point of despair. One understands the implication but does not experience it because mind is still looking. Mind the tool that had been so useful during the journey becomes the enemy but cannot destroy itself. All hope is lost and complete surrender occurs, one knows they cannot do anything to reach enlightenment. It’s up to the fates. For me a lot of rage resulted.
But I think the understanding that mind is the barrier and the dropping of mind as a tool, which naturally results from the realization that mind is useless, leaves one open for something to snap. I think that is the doorway and that there is no path leading to the door because the path is neither, is not something seen or unseen.
I hope I made some sense.