Discussion Forum Discussion Forum

Miscellaneous

Enlightenment without phenomena?

Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/7/14 5:14 PM
I'm curious as to the community's views on attaining SE without ever having experienced any sort of what I am calling "unusual phenomena" (i.e. anything out of the realm of one would regard as normal experience).

Daniel makes it clear that awakening is not a mind state but rather a changing of perspective. So does anyone think it is possible to achieve this without ever having a Jhanaic experience, A&P energy event, seeing ones consciousness explode, crazy lights, or the like?

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/7/14 5:28 PM as a reply to Zendo Calrissian.
Yes, indeed. While some people have experiences such as you have described, such as mental light light explosions during the A+P, the A+P could also simply manifest experientially as a mood in which you are very "stoked", or feel like you are totally on the ball, have a ton of energy...

In my opinion, the descriptions of the states experienced on the path of insight described in MCTB verge on the extreme that one might experience on the path. This is no critique of Daniel, everyone experiences these things with varying degrees of intensity, and he seems to be on the more intense end of the spectrum. However, speaking from personal experience, it is somewhat likely that your experience of stages and insights are less dramatic, or toned down.

That said, the path of meditation does often lead to somewhat non-normal mind states as a byproduct, so it would not be unusual to experience something "not normal" by societal standards.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/7/14 5:38 PM as a reply to T DC.
Thanks for the reply. I find it difficult to believe based on my own experiences that someone could attain stream entry and not have noticed some significantly strange events. My practice seems to have a bent towards the concentration side, however, which could explain my perspective.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 12:18 AM as a reply to Zendo Calrissian.
Hi Zendo,

Welcome to the DhO.
Zendo Calrissian:
I'm curious as to the community's views on attaining SE without ever having experienced any sort of what I am calling "unusual phenomena" . . .
So does anyone think it is possible to achieve this without ever having a Jhanaic experience, A&P energy event, seeing ones consciousness explode, crazy lights, or the like?

You ask a very intelligent question for your first post, one that most people might never consider asking. It indicates that you are willing to "think for yourself" and not just accept others' descriptions of things as being the "be all" or "end all" of experience.

T DC is correct when he states: "...everyone experiences these things with varying degrees of intensity..."

What I would add to that is that everyone perceives these transitions as coming from varying points of affective experience (depending upon what one has been told or what one believes or expects is likely to occur). This is why one can read about several different accounts of people's experience of having achieved the same thing. In other words, each psyche processes these events in different ways, depending upon its previous conditioning.

My experience of stream entry was probably different from everyone here, and yet I consider it to have been as traditional an experience as any that has ever been described. Nothing unusual happened in terms of weird or intense phenomena. There was the realization that "this is the path I've been seeking all my life, and now I know I am on it." For me, stream entry was an intellectual realization that "I know this path will work" because 1) it makes sense intuitively and experientially, and 2) I'm not going to stop treading it until I reach my intended destination. I developed an instant bent toward diligence in my practice. No one (and I mean NO ONE) was going to stop me from achieving that goal, and most especially myself.

In other words, I had developed an inner confidence and knowingness about the Dhamma that no one was ever going to shake from me. I had seen first hand that what Gotama taught was true, correct, and lasting. All the main factors that I knew would lead to enlightenment were becoming aligned in my life: mindfulness, investigation, energy, faith, concentration, tranquility, and equanimity. I knew that there was more that I needed to learn, to be able to fulfill these seven factors more completely than I was able, in that moment, to do. The only difference was: I knew I was capable of achieving that goal by staying on the noble eightfold path.

If you can remove all doubt and self-defeating elements from your practice, YOU WILL SUCCEED! No doubt about it. That is the connecting (intersecting) link that anyone who has ever achieved this goal has experienced. Going back to Sariputta all the way forward to Daniel Ingram. The sheer determination to achieve what you know you can achieve. That's what separates the men from the boys – the fakes from the authentic.

The trick is: to stay as grounded in everyday reality as you are able as you undergo the roller coaster of the psychological journey. Don't believe what your mind tells you to believe as you go through these changes. And by that I mean, don't buy into any kind of metaphysical explanation of what it is that you are experiencing. Because things will change constantly, including your opinion and evaluation of where you are at on the path at any given moment and what is happening. At the end of my journey, it took me close to a year of continuing self-evaluation, evaluating every aspect of my mental experience, before I finally allowed myself to entertain the idea that I had reached the end of the road. I needed to see concrete changes first before I was willing to concede such thoughts.

In peace,
Ian

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 4:37 AM as a reply to Ian And.
An interesting response, Ian. You stress the importance of the need to " "think for yourself" and not just accept others' descriptions of things as being the "be all" or "end all" of experience. ". Yet for you, the turning point on your path was the complete and unconditional acceptance of what the Buddha taught as being "true, correct and lasting". For you, it appears it wasn't weird phenomena, but the full emergence of religious faith. Faith is the foundation of the determination and confidence that comes when all doubt is vanquished. This is what separates the "men from the boys – the fakes from the authentic.".

So Zendo, you just need to believe.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 11:16 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
Sawfoot, it appears you overlooked/misunderstood this part
For me, stream entry was an intellectual realization that "I know this path will work" because 1) it makes sense intuitively and experientially, and 2) I'm not going to stop treading it until I reach my intended destination. I developed an instant bent toward diligence in my practice. No one (and I mean NO ONE) was going to stop me from achieving that goal, and most especially myself.



Thanks, Ian. Somehow your response was exactly what I needed to hear right now. Just a week ago I renewed my determination along the same lines as you. Your post has inspired me to keep up my practice no matter what.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 11:21 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

Yet for you, the turning point on your path was the complete and unconditional acceptance of what the Buddha taught as being "true, correct and lasting". For you, it appears it wasn't weird phenomena, but the full emergence of religious faith.

Sawfoot, you have completely misread what I wrote, and are only seeing what you "believe" it is that I wrote. You have put words in my mouth that I did not speak (or write). I would caution you to read more carefully in the future.

Nowhere did I say or even imply that "the complete and unconditional acceptance of what the Buddha taught" was the "true, correct and lasing" end for me. What I was saying was a confirmation of the Kalama Sutta which is to test things out for oneself (to think for oneself) before accepting something as being true and conducive to wholesomeness.

Nyanaponika translation:

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go by oral tradition, by lineage of teaching, by hearsay, by a collection of scriptures, by logical reasoning, by inferential reasoning, by reflection on reasons, by the acceptance of a view after pondering it, by the seeming competence of a speaker, or because you think, 'The ascetic is our teacher.' But when you know for yourselves, 'These things are wholesome, these things are blameless; these things are praised by the wise; these things, if undertaken and practiced, lead to welfare and happiness', then you should engage in them."


Here is another translated version of that same passage, the version that I first came across and was initially impressed by. I came upon it in the book Three Ways of Asian Wisdom by Nancy Ross Wilson:

Although the Buddha went forth personally to teach his doctrine of "mindfulness" as the way to enlightenment, he never failed to stress the necessity for freedom from all sacrosanct religious authority. "Believe nothing," he said to his followers, "just because you have been told it, or it is commonly believed, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your Teacher tells you merely out of respect for the Teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings — that doctrine accept and engage in and take as your guide."

sawfoot _:

Faith is the foundation of the determination and confidence that comes when all doubt is vanquished.

So Zendo, you just need to believe.

There is a difference between faith, on the one hand, and belief, on the other. Alan Watts once wrote in his book The Wisdom of Insecurity something I found to be true in my experience, also. I will share with you what he wrote:

"We must here make a clear distinction between belief and faith, because, in general practice, belief has come to mean a state of mind which is almost the opposite of faith. Belief, as I use the word here, is the insistence that the truth is what one would 'lief' or wish it to be. The believer will open his mind to the truth on condition that it fits in with his preconceived ideas and wishes. Faith, on the other hand, is an unreserved opening of the mind to the truth, whatever it may turn out to be. Faith has no preconceptions; it is a plunge into the unknown. Belief clings, but faith lets go. In this sense of the word, faith is the essential virtue of science and likewise of any religion that is not self-deception."

A wise man once said: "Belief is the boobie prize. Belief is a disease." What he meant to imply by that comment was that only first hand experience (only what you know directly from your own experience as being true) is acceptable to accept as the truth. He went on to emphasize that: "The problem with a belief is that we take it to be truth -- and get stuck in it. That means that most of us persist in thinking and doing what we learned from our acculturation, rather than acting out of our experience in response to whatever is happening now."

If you bother to read the discourses of the Buddha, you will find these same ideas being taught there, too.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 12:14 PM as a reply to Ian And.
I am not entirely convinced that I have misunderstand anything, but it has raised some interesting discussion.

The point was that you were saying determination is key, but I was suggesting that what underlined determination was key. For most people, getting the necessary determination is a combination of desire, either due to promised reward (happiness) or escape (from an unhappy life), combined with the belief/faith that a particular path can give you that salvation.

I think one of the great myths of Buddhism is that idea that it involves founding out the truth for oneself. Of course, compared to other world religions, it is fair to say that experiential understanding is prioritised. And that is surely a good thing, overall.

Where does that lead?

"In other words, I had developed an inner confidence and knowingness about the Dhamma that no one was ever going to shake from me. I had seen first hand that what Gotama taught was true, correct, and lasting."

So you start off not accepting everything you read, you experiment, you see how the theory matches up with your experience, gradually it starts to make sense, your confidence in the teachings grows, your "belief" in them gets to the point of being unshakeable…You reach the stage of being a believer (in the sense Alan Watts uses it).

Now, belief and faith are indeed different words. I take "belief" to mean having the state of mind that a state of the world is a particular state. It is pretty innocuous. And as such, I would disagree with nearly all of that passage from Alan Watts, though I think he is using the words differently to how most people would. My conception (and I think this is pretty common) is that faith involves belief without evidence. In this sense, faith is the enemy of science, and seeing faith "an unreserved opening to the truth" a rather odd statement. I don't want to completely knock faith, as without faith, determination to some amazing things wouldn't be possible. But faith can also lead one to do some pretty horrible things too. As can beliefs, of course.

But then, you might argue, that my (sic) belief in Buddhism is not faith, as it arises from evidence, from my experience. But I also entirely disagree with this statement: "only first hand experience (only what you know directly from your own experience as being true) is acceptable to accept as the truth.". A most obvious example where this goes wrong is reincarnation/rebirth, which some Buddhists end up believing in being true through their direct experience.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 12:50 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
I don't really see what you're driving at, Sawfoot. This seems like an unnecessary quibble over word usage.

I can only speak for myself here, but I think Ian would agree.

Here's how I understood Ian: Buddhism is a set of clearly defined techniques that bring about certain results. In this sense, Buddhism is an experiment; Buddhism is scientific (see this essay for the complete argument along these lines http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5261745). For success to follow, the experimental protocol requires that one suspends or eliminates doubt, disbelief, self-defeating behavior, etc. To do this one must sufficiently convince themselves that the experiment will work. In Ian's case, the experiment made sense to him intuitively, and he verified some of its predictions experientially. At that point, for practical purposes, Ian removed the blocks to the experiment and conducted it as per instruction. I agree with Ian on these points. Furthermore, people have been conducting the experiment for thousands of years with success. In fact, many on this forum have completed the experiment.

If no one had sufficient confidence in Einstein's results to attempt to reproduce them it would have been unfortunate indeed.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 12:50 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

But then, you might argue, that my (sic) belief in Buddhism is not faith, as it arises from evidence, from my experience.

What is your experience?
How does it relate to the OP?
Thanks,
~D

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 1:07 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
I am not entirely convinced that I have misunderstand anything, but it has raised some interesting discussion.

It is not discussion that you want. It is misrepresentation. And some sort of egocentric desire to argue.

You have no one to argue with but yourself, and your deluded ideas about what I wrote.

You have totally misunderstood (and twisted) all that I wrote to align with your preconceived ideas about what it is you think I wrote. And have made an attempt to hijack this thread. I will not be a part of this travesty.

sawfoot _:

So you start off not accepting everything you read, you experiment, you see how the theory matches up with your experience, gradually it starts to make sense, your confidence in the teachings grows, your "belief" in them gets to the point of being unshakeable…You reach the stage of being a believer (in the sense Alan Watts uses it).

These are your words, your misrepresentations, your misperceptions of what I wrote. They are yours, not mine. You own them. Not I.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 2:26 PM as a reply to Ian And.
Droll:


I don't really see what you're driving at, Sawfoot. This seems like an unnecessary quibble over word usage.



Ian starting with the quibbling. I joined in. I will try explaining again the driving below.

Droll:


Here's how I understood Ian: Buddhism is a set of clearly defined techniques that bring about certain results. In this sense, Buddhism is an experiment; Buddhism is scientific (see this essay for the complete argument along these lines http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/5261745). For success to follow, the experimental protocol requires that one suspends or eliminates doubt, disbelief, self-defeating behavior, etc. To do this one must sufficiently convince themselves that the experiment will work. In Ian's case, the experiment made sense to him intuitively, and he verified some of its predictions experientially. At that point, for practical purposes, Ian removed the blocks to the experiment and conducted it as per instruction. I agree with Ian on these points. Furthermore, people have been conducting the experiment for thousands of years with success. In fact, many on this forum have completed the experiment.

If no one had sufficient confidence in Einstein's results to attempt to reproduce them it would have been unfortunate indeed.



Buddhism has little to do with Science, so I don't think the analogy works. And Einstein is primarily known as a theoretical physicist. But anyway, you make the point I am driving at yourself:

"To do this one must sufficiently convince themselves that the experiment will work".

To what extent is this faith in the experiment working necessary for it work? The less interesting aspect is the determination and motivation aspect. So you need the determination to success in order to put the work in. Without that you probably won't get very far, so we can take that as a given. The more interesting aspect is the faith that it will work, and how that links to "enlightenment".

dream walker:

"But then, you might argue, that my (sic) belief in Buddhism is not faith, as it arises from evidence, from my experience."
What is your experience?
How does it relate to the OP?
Thanks,


To bring it more explicitly in line with the OP, in my experience (though obviously, being pre SE, my opinions are worthless and should be safely ignored), I have found that "unusual phenomena" is conducive to changing of perspective (and an increase in faith). Now why is this? I think one interesting line of explanation is that such states can enhance plasticity in the brain. And it seems that "unusual experiences" AKA mystical or spiritual experiences lead to dysfunction in our belief systems, such that we have an exaggerated sense of "knowing" or certainty (where doubt gets vanquished). Based on my willful distortions, misrepresentations and misperceptions of what Ian wrote, it seems you can still get that kind of dysfunction without direct proximity to those unusual experiences. By the way, I mean to use the term dysfunction in a non-pejorative sense, in that this kind of dysfunction can be pretty useful for achieving particular goals.

So Zendo, I agree with Ian, that it is an interesting question, but I don't think you are going to get much of answer as I don't think anyone around here has much of a clue about what stream entry is. It is a concept that points to particular experiences, yet it may be that those experiences have enough heterogeneity that the question turns out not to be a sensible one.

---------------------------------------------------

Ian, you know, is it just me, or do you have an egocentric need to argue and have misunderstood (and twisted) all that I wrote to align with your preconceived ideas about what it is you think I wrote? Because if so, that would be a horribly ironic travesty.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 4:07 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
(...) I have found that "unusual phenomena" is conducive to changing of perspective (and an increase in faith). Now why is this? I think one interesting line of explanation is that such states can enhance plasticity in the brain. And it seems that "unusual experiences" AKA mystical or spiritual experiences lead to dysfunction in our belief systems, such that we have an exaggerated sense of "knowing" or certainty (where doubt gets vanquished).


Just following this tangent for a sec...... this can work both ways. People respond differently to unusual experiences. A lot seems to depend on personality and temperament.

E.g., two starkly different types:

1) I thought I understood reality before, but I really didn't. Now I do.

Resulting attitude: This, now, is the way things really are.

(Until it happens again, at which time the response is the same).

2) I thought I understood everything before; then X happened and it showed me my understanding was wrong or incomplete. This has happened a few times now; maybe it'll happen again. It's unlikely that my current understanding is THE correct/ final/ ultimate one.

Resulting attitude: Keep the experiences, but hold the interpretations lightly.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 4:46 PM as a reply to John Wilde.
John Wilde:
sawfoot _:
(...) I have found that "unusual phenomena" is conducive to changing of perspective (and an increase in faith). Now why is this? I think one interesting line of explanation is that such states can enhance plasticity in the brain. And it seems that "unusual experiences" AKA mystical or spiritual experiences lead to dysfunction in our belief systems, such that we have an exaggerated sense of "knowing" or certainty (where doubt gets vanquished).


Just following this tangent for a sec...... this can work both ways. People respond differently to unusual experiences. A lot seems to depend on personality and temperament.

E.g., two starkly different types:

1) I thought I understood reality before, but I really didn't. Now I do.

Resulting attitude: This, now, is the way things really are.

(Until it happens again, at which time the response is the same).

2) I thought I understood everything before; then X happened and it showed me my understanding was wrong or incomplete. This has happened a few times now; maybe it'll happen again. It's unlikely that my current understanding is THE correct/ final/ ultimate one.

Resulting attitude: Keep the experiences, but hold the interpretations lightly.


Just to rehash what I said earlier, while personality and temperament are no doubt hugely important, I am suggesting that the "this is the way things are" attitude is linked to "unusual experience" - in the sense of brain dysfunction (AKA mystical experience). e.g., you often hear in reports of spiritual experience of having a greater sense of knowing or certainty than they ever have had before, such that it can be life changing. And in response to the second attitude, there is still an implicit assumption in your wording that there is such a thing as A correct/final/ultimate perspective. Spiritual seekers tend to be looking for this.

Back to the OP, is it just a matter of shifting perspective? I think for unusual experiences to have a transformative effect on everyday life, you need to have a perspective shift. But there are two ways this can manifest. One is in having a genuinely new perspective on life, which could result from an unusual experience, as an altered state of consciousness. But another is your confidence or belief in an existing perspective, perhaps linked to enhanced insight compatible with that existing perspective - a new angle, and reinterpretations of old data. For me, my experience is of the latter, but over time, confidence or "faith" dissipates. For some, it remains strong.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 10:58 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

Just to rehash what I said earlier, while personality and temperament are no doubt hugely important, I am suggesting that the "this is the way things are" attitude is linked to "unusual experience" - in the sense of brain dysfunction (AKA mystical experience). e.g., you often hear in reports of spiritual experience of having a greater sense of knowing or certainty than they ever have had before, such that it can be life changing.


Yes, I get your point that some "unusual experiences" can inhibit critical reflective faculties and lead to a greater sense of certainty or conviction (while you're in them, and for a while afterwards); but experiencing many such things over the years can lead to less conviction in the absolute validity of any particular experience, or any particular world view based on them, therefore a less dogmatic outlook overall. But people who have this attitude aren't the ones who gain notoriety; we hear more about the ones who embrace and advocate their certainties -- (sometimes one certainty after another) -- and maybe acquire followers/ students on that basis.

(Not to imply that anyone who teaches is such a person; especially not in DhO circles where the prevailing culture tends more towards pragmatism, flexibility in interpretation, diversity and inclusiveness).

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/8/14 11:17 PM as a reply to John Wilde.
Wow. Didn't expect to stir the shit with my first post emoticon

Regardless, I like that this community tolerates open discussion on such matters. Rare on the internets.

And Ian, I appreciate your response. Without going into details as to the motivation for asking the question, what you said was exactly what I needed to hear in this circumstance. Strangely relevant, like you know more about my situation than I provided in my query. Weird.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 10:50 AM as a reply to Zendo Calrissian.
Zendo Calrissian:
And Ian, I appreciate your response. Without going into details as to the motivation for asking the question, what you said was exactly what I needed to hear in this circumstance. Strangely relevant, like you know more about my situation than I provided in my query. Weird.

If my explanation connected with you (despite the distraction provided by sawfoot) then it is because I, too, have had to deal with these same questions in my own practice. Unlike you, though (since you are new to the practice), I have been practicing meditation for nearly 34 years now (the last 14 of which have been primarily influenced by the teachings of Gotama's Dhamma), so I have had the time and the space to contemplate these matters from many different perspectives in order to figure out what is happening.

In other words, I've been in your shoes, I know the terrain that you are traveling over, and therefore, based on my extensive experience, I am able to provide you with the benefit of my experience.

If my explanation resonates with you, then you and I must be on the same page in that regard. There's really nothing weird about that. And certainly nothing "psychic" or "prophetic" about it in terms of the popular understanding of the word "clairvoyance." If you look the word up in the dictionary, it simply means "clear seeing." Nothing in that about being able to predict the future or know things about people that they are surprised that you know about because they've never expressed them to you.

It is simply a matter of having paid one's dues in the practice. I've been there, done that! It's really quite that simple. That is why I am able to describe these matters with such certainty and matter-of-factness. I know what I'm talking about.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 11:16 AM as a reply to Ian And.
Hello Ian And,

In your initial response you wrote that you had reached the "end of the road". I am curious if you could say a little more about what the experience of that is like as well as what brought you there. I realize you have already done so to some extent in the above posts: I guess what I am looking for is what you found to be most useful. Was it scriptural study, combined with many hours of meditation, learning basic methodology and then applying it, awareness of somatic processes, jhana? Most of the previously listed items are my own ideas and not yours, just so there is clarity about that. Thank you.

Bill

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 8:41 PM as a reply to Ian And.
I wasn't trying to imply anything psychic or clairvoyant here. Just a weird coincidence.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/10/14 1:48 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:

dream walker:

sawfoot _:
"But then, you might argue, that my (sic) belief in Buddhism is not faith, as it arises from evidence, from my experience."

What is your experience?
How does it relate to the OP?
Thanks,


To bring it more explicitly in line with the OP, in my experience, I have found that "unusual phenomena" is conducive to changing of perspective (and an increase in faith).

Hmmm...in your experience, you have found.
What "unusual phenomena" have you experienced?
Please share this experience with us if you would be so kind. I am interested in your direct experiences that have led you to your conclusions.
Thanks,
~D