Author: garyrh
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

Okay it maybe a little presumptious to assume one will get Enlightened.
The question has been prompted from this thread http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/3010017/No+one+goes+unchallenged+at+the+DhO;jsessionid=209D0A4A1D29227ECD14518B3F734218?offset=60&maxResults=20.

bboyYen said "I guess you could say I expected so much more in terms of awakened peoples talking together, like less anger and what not."
to which cmarti noted "Man, if all the Buddhist teachers in all the world would just be who they really are, then we'd all have a lot less shit to drive through before we get to where we want to go."

Some interesting aspects of the question were also being put in the negative in this thread http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2995432/Why+reject+the+%22limited+emotional+range+model%22+of+Enlightenment%3F

My purpose in asking the question is that if one knows what to expect from Enlightenment it will assist in not getting bogged down in irrelevant issues (cmarti's sentiment above).
At DHO there is lots of "map" information that assist in the process to Enlightenment but not a lot of definitive information about what actually changes. I am talking specifically about changes with regards to ones interaction with the "real world" everyday existence as opposed to things like seeing emptiness and energy channels ect.

I am not the one to answer this question but the following is what I consider relevant context.
We all have personal ideals (wisdom, love, compassion happiness) and it seems for the unenlightened these ideals are often (falsely) projected as an offshoot of Enlightenment attainments.

A well known Zen saying "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water; after enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."

So what will "really" change?

Thanks for starting this thread, Gary.

Hi Gary

I'd really like to hear this too.

Totally agree about not getting bogged down in irrelevant issues. It would help determine when we arrive and when we have work left to do before arrival. That's been my challenge lately - what's left to work on, and what's never going to change no matter how long I work on it (horizontal development).

To clarify I believe we're talking theravada 4 path model arahatship here, rather than "enlightenment", which can mean different things to different people. Eg the stink of enlightenment occurs before you're "done" in the zen tradition, so I'm guessing it occurs after 1st path but before 4th path in thereavada 4 path model?

Craig

Author: Adam_West

Hi Gary!

Well, the Zen guys say in a real sense nothing changes - there was seeing, hearing, chopping before and there is seeing, hearing and chopping after. I think this is entirely true and accurate. In another sense, there is a kind of phenomenological difference in the subjective experience of the seeing, hearing and chopping (of wood), and that is, as the zen guys also say, there is seeing without self-reference. That is, there is just seeing what is without constant reference back to a 'me that sees'. Therein lies the difference "after" enlightenment and the relief from suffering that follows. Mostly this non-referential awareness is said to be permanent from then on, and that is enlightenment. This may be so, but would be a higher and more traditional standard of enlightenment than is generally used around here. Certainly there may be few 'public' historical examples of it in the real world either. Certainly there is a lot of self-reference around here. ;-)

[Cont.]

Author: Adam_West

A little clarification. Perhaps we can say to be enlightened, instead of being permanently without self-reference - which does not remove awareness or knowledge of personal needs or one’s place in the world, like some enlightened vegetable – we might say we now have permanent access to this realization at any time. Furthermore, our experiences of the non-dual, while not being permanent, continue to color our experience of the world. So, we may say we can allow ourselves to open to it at any time hence forth. ‘It’ being pure awareness, Rigpa or Buddha-Nature.

Most of our problems in misunderstanding seem to come from people assuming ‘enlightened’ folk to exist at all times in a permanent realisation of our essential nature. I have sympathy for this view, for if you are going to claim enlightenment, this is more in line with traditional standards. However, this may have been a rare ideal at any point in history; one that we each may grow into over millennia to come. A slightly lower standard, yet equally fitting an enlightenment definition is that of having had realization of the non-dual state and thus having one’s perspective and experience of humanness permanently altered, one continues to fluctuate from that point on in and out of self-reference to varying degrees. Growth in stabilization continues. And just as importantly, growth in “depth” of realization of the essential nature of Being continues. A permanent shift has taken place, which is not an intellectual understanding, but something quite real and independent of conditions, yet it is really just a surface glimpse in an ongoing and never ending realization of infinity (emptiness, fullness, openess, pure awareness). They're all the same thing. Terms which carry slightly different nuances that denote a referent that is outside of conceptual understanding or linguistic representation. IT has to be seen for oneself. For the Tao that can be named is not the Tao.

[cont.]

Author: Adam_West

In case anyone is wondering, I have no realization of either definition of enlightenment. However, in my glimpses of Buddha-Nature, I have seen this essential lack of self-reference, and thus, think these Zen, Adviata, Dzogchen guys were onto something. :-P

In kind regards,

Adam.

"Eg the stink of enlightenment occurs before you're "done" in the zen tradition, so I'm guessing it occurs after 1st path but before 4th path in thereavada 4 path model?"-Craig

Hi Craig,

I actually don't think the 5 Ranks of Tozan can be directly correlated with the 4 Paths model. For me, that would be shoehorning one model into another. That's because the 4 Paths model is linear and the 5 Ranks are not. I think of the 5 Ranks as more of a spiral. And frankly, while the 4 Paths, being linear are hard to refute (i.e. 4th Path is higher than 3rd, which is higher than 2nd, etc.), the Five Ranks are cultural. In other words, the Advaita model would place Ramana Maharshi at the top of the enlightenment ladder even though he was clearly manifesting the stink of enlightenment by Zen standards. Does that mean Ramana was not enlightened? Not at all. It just means that Ramana's culture valued what the Zen people do not, namely the full-on expression of the cosmic bliss-out. If Ramana were a Zen practitioner, he would have been indoctrinated and acculturated to manifest his enlightenment very differently. Imagine Ramana shouting at people and hitting them with sticks, for example. It's a funny image. By Advaita standards, the archetypal feisty Zen master, with his unabashed expression of the full spectrum of human emotions might not be considered enlightened at all. The Advaita masters might tell him to go back to his cave until he can learn to behave in a properly chilled-out manner. In summary, if you took two practitioners who were at exactly the same level on the hypothetical Enlighto-meter, one from the Advaita tradition and one from Zen, each would consider the other unenlightened. The perception of others as enlightened has a large cultural component.

Hi Adam,

One of the few things I might quibble with in your fine assessment of the situation is in this part:

"A permanent shift has taken place, which is not an intellectual understanding, but something quite real and independent of conditions, yet it is really just a surface glimpse in an ongoing and never ending realization of infinity (emptiness, fullness, openess, pure awareness)."-Adam West

It need not be a surface glimpse. If we imagine a continuum with complete delusion on one end and full Buddhahood on the other, there is no point at which it would not be possible to have a *full* glimpse of our essential nature. That's because the essential nature of everything is the same: there is only buddha-nature. This is a crucial point in Zen, Advaita, Mahamudra, and Dzogchen. There is no more Buddha-nature in a Buddha than in an ordinary worldling. The only difference is that the Buddha recognizes this. In fact, for the word Buddha, as a noun, to have any real meaning, this person would have to recognize Buddha-nature 24/7. Contrast this with Buddha-ing, which is a verb. In any given moment, there is nothing but Buddha-nature. To recognize this is buddha-ing. So, anyone, at any level of attainment can recognize this, and in so doing manifest perfect and un-excelled Buddha-nature for that instant. This point is so important if we are to understand what the non-dualists are pointing to. Having accepted (and experientially verified) this point, we can then model a continuum with *no* recognition of Buddha-nature on one end and 24/7 recognition on the other. The more moments of recognition in a day, the more enlightened one could be said to be. It does happen in practice that going higher on the linear 4 Paths model supports one's ability to access rigpa/Buddha-nature at will, so these practices reinforce each other. But the rigpa of the beginner need not be any less profound than the rigpa of a Buddha.

"I am talking specifically about changes with regards to ones interaction with the "real world" everyday existence as opposed to things like seeing emptiness and energy channels etc."-Gary

This practice is ultimately about happiness. If it works, you get happier. If you don't get happier, it's a waste of time. In my experience, it does work and you do get happier.

For some people, happiness comes from being more compassionate. For others, it comes from finding out the truth. For some people, happiness comes from freedom. For others, it comes from finding refuge.

This practice leads to the happiness that has no opposite, the happiness that is not dependent upon conditions.

There is one aspect of my emotional range that has become limited: I don't get depressed anymore. That's huge for me, because my entire adult life had been marked by periods of crippling depression... right up until the day five years ago when my depression lifted and did not return. I don't understand the mechanism for this, but apparently when you are happy it's harder to get depressed. :-)

The happiness that does not depend on conditions is breathtaking in its scope. It suddenly becomes possible to be happy even though you know you will never be a great guitar player, or a millionaire, or irresistible to women. You can accept the fact that you are fat, or you can accept the fact that you can't accept yourself. You're fundamentally happy either way. If you get angry and behave badly, you feel remorse and shame, but you're still happy. If people accept that you are enlightened, you are happy. If they don't, you're unhappy about that, but fundamentally happy nonetheless.

All of this happiness is simply the result of seeing that this moment, as annoying as it may seem, is fundamentally perfect. The fact that it isn't happening to anyone also helps.

Author: Adam_West

Hi Ken,

Yeah, I think that was a really good and important clarification to make! So at any time we can have full and complete realization of our essential nature or Buddhahood, be us beginner or advanced practitioner. Very true. Which supports the instant, non-progressive, non-linear model of enlightenment also. The kind of intuition I am alluding to in the surface metaphor is the vastness of infinity that can be both completely realized in an instant, and yet in a sense is never exhaustively realized. Perhaps a complete horizontal realization in an instant, and an unending vertical depth of realization that is progressive. What I mean by this is there may be ongoing cosmic levels of growth in realization; not growth in Buddhahood, but ongoing 'realization' or discovery of it that is somehow different from its complete and instant realization outside of time.

What ya think? Has your realization further developed over the years? Assuming continuity of consciousness, how will your realization of being be different in a million years than it is now?

In kind regards,

Adam.

"What ya think? Has you realization further developed over the years? Assuming continuity of consciousness, how will your realization of being be different in a million years than it is now?"-Adam

Wow, Adam. What a wonderful, unanswerable question. On the one hand, this perfect moment, being both outside of time and not reducible to conceptions of size, can't be said to change. But that doesn't do it justice, as it is infinitely dynamic in its expressions. So, while Buddha-nature is no more or less complete in any moment of rigpa, even over a period of years, the implications of "The Great Perfection" as the Tibetans call it, are ever deepening, with no end in sight. Each new day brings the excitement of discovery as the recognition of the essential nature of all things seems to seep into the cracks of this conditioning and soften it just a bit. In a million years, this Great Perfection will be as complete as it is now... and this ball of conditioning that is Kenneth will have softened all the way.

Author: Adam_West

Yes! That's it! The progressive dissolution of conditioning - that is where the progress lies. Nice one indeed!! :-P Resolution of apparent paradox. Great example of progressive clarification through the synergy of practice, dialectic and intuition.

In kind regards,

Adam.

Author: telecaster

I think my idea of "enlightenment" is seeing non-dualism, no-self, emptiness and thus my true nature so clearly that I understand completely that there is nothing uttimately to worry about when it comes to "me" and my existence. And, I think something close to that is possible.
I also have a strong desire to "see" myself and the world I'm connected to as it really is -- but don't really know what that means exactly, you know?
I'm fascinated by the different ideas of enlightenment in different cultures and disciplines, and love the point kennethfolk made about the differnt epxectations of enlightened behavor between a Zen master and an Advaita master.

I'd like to bring everyone's attention to an honest, down-to-earth, and enlightening discussion between Caroline and Florian on Caroline's profile page:

http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/account/Carojo95/thread/3019734/oh+boy

"I want enlightenment to fix everything!"

A romantic, utterly human but tragically unrealistic notion. This makes me very sad.

Hi Chris,

I think Caroline is just giving voice to something that we all feel to varying degrees, but don't often say aloud. I had the impression that she said it in a self-mocking way, and that her rational mind knows very well how unrealistic it is. I linked to this discussion because it's so real, and because it's so relevant to what's been happening on the threads lately. There's a lot of good discussion about shadows and expectations and about the disappointment we feel when our expectations are not met. And, as Caroline points out, we often act like petulant children when things don't go our way, whether we are "enlightened" or not. Bringing all of this out into the light of day is, I believe, an important aspect of shadow work. The understanding that we are all in this together, and that we share a common palette of emotions is part of growing up in the dharma, both as individuals and as a culture. Of course we want to imagine that there is some magic elixir that will make all the pain go away! But it isn't true. There is no escape. There is no need to escape. It is possible to be happy and human and imperfect, all at the same time. Awakening is about accepting things as they are at the very deepest level. Accepting things as they are at the level of human relations is an excellent start.

"The happiness that does not depend on conditions is breathtaking in its scope...."

- close enough?

Author: garyrh

Hi Kenneth,
From my and perhaps other unenlightened folks perspective what you have said here and in that includes the whole post is hard to place. I understand I may have to wait to realise fully what you meant, so I am not wanting to push you beyond what you are comfortable with, but I gotta try .
Realising the emptiness of self (without being Enlightened) makes me happy because nothing really "sticks". I never have been one to get depressed for any length of time but for some commonality we can talk about between each other I will use this as an example. I get that depressed feeling, interested I hold the feeling to find what it is acting on it does not exist, it is then just a feeling with no where to go. Sorry for this "self talk" but I wanted to give the detailed context.
Enlightenment is portrayed as an event you were not and now you are, but because I think I am relating to the happiness you are talking about (and I'll let you judge this from my description) pre enlightenment there is a conflict in placing what you have said.
So :-
1 - does someone suddenly become more happy after Enlightenment or
2 - does the happiness perhaps take on a different quality not known before Enlightenment
3 - does the happiness just keep increasing until Enlightenment
4 - all of the above.
The other thing I realise is that in your answering the question what matters in the "real world", is ultimately what matters to Kenneth looking back having arrived, is not what matters to Gary trying to get there. Also Gary's priorities when he does look back are not neccessarliy Kenneth's priorities when he looks back. Hence my detailed examination above will no doubt frustrate you
Cont....

Author: garyrh

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Enlightenment appears a very human thing very much integrated into our humaness. So I expect when I am Enlightened I will not be able to walk thru walls.

Gary

Author: garyrh

"one continues to fluctuate from that point on in and out of self-reference to varying degrees".

Hi Adam,

The self referencing point is an interesting one. I have read of at least one non-dual practitioner definitively claiming no self referencing. (If no one can throw more light on this I'll try and dig it up the details).
Although (as you mentioned) Enlightenment with no reference to the illusionary self does not seem to fit our observations on DHO. Are you suggesting there is a permanent shift that can take place beyond the models we now work with?
At the moment at least, it seems our humaness is very much here to stay. It would be interesting if anyone could withstand the scrutiny to say otherwise of themselves!

Gary

Author: garyrh

@telecaster: "I think my idea of "enlightenment" is seeing non-dualism, no-self, emptiness and thus my true nature so clearly that I understand completely that there is nothing uttimately to worry about when it comes to "me" and my existence. And, I think something close to that is possible.
I also have a strong desire to "see" myself and the world I'm connected to as it really is -- but don't really know what that means exactly, you know?"

Hi Micheal,

You have said it all in two sentences! The exciting bit is it seems this journey is to take us to places that we cannot yet even imagine.

Gary

"I think my idea of "enlightenment" is seeing non-dualism, no-self, emptiness and thus my true nature so clearly that I understand completely that there is nothing uttimately to worry about when it comes to "me" and my existence. And, I think something close to that is possible."-telecaster

That's it, Michael. That's the happiness that does not depend upon conditions. And it is possible.

The implications of it are very subtle and profound. It doesn't mean you won't get stressed out dealing with your life. And you might devote your entire life to trying to relieve suffering for others. Or you may not. You might spend all of your time working on your own psychology, or your physical fitness, or the mastery of your chakras. Or you may not. Having the ability to see, in any moment, that this whole manifest world is simultaneously arising and disappearing within pure, uncompounded awareness, leaving not a trace, you will be happy.

And that kind of happiness frees up an enormous amount of energy to do good in the world, should you be so inclined. When you see that you are a fiction, everybody wins.

Kenneth

Author: garyrh

She speaks for everyone whenever they want anything to be something other than the way they are. Our reality is built one illusionary layer on another, the truth is found removing the layers and it would seem we have to start from the top layers. The frustrating part is when you know there is an illusion an you cannot get to it because of the shit on top.
Gary

Author: pookee

You will be happy. Your suffering will end. I imagine that without the distraction of suffering one could achieve almost anything, truly reaching the full potential of their mind and body. In the absence of ego, discourse can become precise, and utterly tailored to the recipient, to whom one now begins to truly listen. One knows what to say to reach the listener, and generally improve them and the state of the local world. I imagine that they would not say much, but what was said would be impactful.

I also believe that enlightenment can be sensed. One key quality is that such a one is totally comfortable in their own skin, totally present, and totally aware of why they are doing what they are doing. This last point can't be stressed enough: so much misery is caused because people lose sight of the context of their actions. Relaxed, comfortable, confident - although certainly this doesn't mean slow or weak. I can easily imagine an enlightened person darting across a street to save someone from getting hit by a car.

It can be hoped that such a one would also be aware of their own strengths and weaknesses as a person. They may be at their full potential, but everyone has a different potential. It may not, for example, be wise to share the fact of enlightenment if you felt that sharing would do more harm than good.

Enlightenment is not simply the subjective experience of something, some pattern of lights. Meditation does indeed give these experiences, and they are neat, but they are utterly without importance. The impact on your life is the important thing.

Mind you, this view makes me into something of a minority in these parts. For example, it makes no sense to me to say an enlightened one would say "I am unhappy, but still happy." Pain without suffering and pleasure without mania, that I understand. But happiness without happiness? That is nonsense. Either your happy or your not.

Maybe a bit tacky to quote myself but so it is. I know what cmarti is saying – and there is truth to what he says – awakening will not 'fix' 'any' 'thing'. It won't remove suffering from the dualistic world we create moment to moment. It will however show us – most directly – how we are creating that suffering ourselves 'moment to moment' – and the solution which is self evident at that point – (stop doing it).
Kenneth's post (#8): "The happiness that does not depend on conditions......If people accept that you are enlightened, you are happy. If they don't, you're unhappy about that, but fundamentally happy nonetheless.”

This really speaks to my own experience. It says it really well. I want to say 'It does fix everything!' Not the way we imagine it will, but it does nevertheless – and in a way that remains mysterious.

Kenneth: “If you get angry and behave badly, you feel remorse and shame, but you're still happy”

Where I think Kenneth and I differ (perhaps) is that I feel this process continues and there is more work to be done. That underneath that feeling of 'remorse and shame' are deeper truths yet to unfold. I think it is the interior experience of these so called 'negative' emotions that is important to consider. If I fall into them allowing myself to get caught up in destructive, unskillful behavior (just like the old days) then there is more work to be done. If they come up and I integrate them, use them to fuel my own growth and benefit others then that's very different. In the second case, I feel that it is fair to say that these negative emotions no longer exist – as we have integrated them as part of our growth and development.

I love this thread! There. I feel better.

I have little to add to this. All I can say is that I want everyone on the world to experience the joy of being very alive. It's pretty much exactly what Kenneth describes. It has not eliminated anything that I am or was, and it has not added anything to what I am or was. All it has done is allowed me to be at a level that was buried heretofore by my constant attempts to protect my insignificant little self from harm. I am not enlightened, so take what I say with a few grains of salt, and may you all continue to ask these great questions and help each other as we explore what's really going on, right now.

PS: practice and meditation is a life-long thing. There is so much to explore and uncover I can't imagine an end to it.

Author: telecaster

One of the things that always baffled me about "enlightenment" is Maezumi Roshi. I think that it was considered that he was enlightened. He gave dharma transmission to 12 people, all of whom are probably thought to be enlightened. (I won't go into the whole lineage thing of course but I think the basic myths and misunderstandings are well known here)
Anyway while at the same time acting and being thought of as an enlightened zen master he was a serious alcoholic and died from drowning after a night of drinking. He also engaged in inappropriate behavior with some of his students.
This challenged my more immature thoughts of enlightenment and enlightened behavior:

How could one be enlightened and engage in addictive behavior? If enlightenment means some kind of permenant bliss/happiness, or profound insight into oneself, then why would an enlightened person crave sake?

there are choices here:

1. Maezumi wasn't actually enlightened?
2. He was enlightened once but it wasn't complete?
3. His enlightenment got him a glimpse of his true nature but that has NO effect on personal psychology.

I don't really know the answer.

Author: garyrh

Choice 4 - His enlightenment did not stop (at least some) of his addictive behaviour.

this is exactly the sort of thing this thread is enquiring about. Can one expect addictive behaviour to stop after Enlightenment?
There is the story of another eating chilli (not allowed) . I do not understand how the Enlightened say they are happy leading a double life. This does seem to be a common theme amongst all spiritual leaders, not just the budhist.

Gary

Hi Tele,
Here's my take on the 3 choices you listed:

1. Right = Maezumi was not actually Enlightened. But he did have the benefit of some kensho/insights, so he was not totally clueless. However, some of those to whom he gave "Dharma Transmission" are clueless. That says a lot about the purported value of DT.
2. No = Enlightenment at the Arhat level is permanent and essentially complete with respect to fundamental understanding of the true nature of all experience and the notion of ego-"I" self emptiness. But it's clearly not the end of the road, else there would be no Buddha. And Arhats are definitely NOT Buddhas.
3. Sorta = As I said in point 1 above, he was not Enlightened, but he did have some glimpses.

I can only speak for myself and the perspective that my life experience has resulted in thus far. When it comes to insight and concentration as it has been defined and described by Daniel and to an extent by the consensus thought of the DhO, I have seen it all, I have known all of these states and more than a few others as well - at length.

When it comes to the term enlightenment, I define it simply as throwing the light of conscious awareness on something; a sensation, a thought, a state of mind, a condition or a causal relationship. So one could be enlightened about one thing and unenlightened about something else, as we all know. When it comes to awakening, I define that as the dawning of that light on things as they are; and when it comes to full awakening, I define that as full, entire, complete, no stone left unturned awareness of everything that one is and I consider it necessary for that to be ongoing before I would consider it full, complete and perfect awakening. When awakening to what is within is redirected by then turning that attention outward beyond this mind and body, I define that as forgetting my purpose.

cont. ->

I define my purpose as liberation, unbinding, freedom from further ongoing being and becoming. If I were to define my purpose as becoming a Buddha then I would just go ahead and turn that awareness out and let it go for it, but I don't define my purpose as becoming a Buddha. So I maintain my vigil on the conditions and causes that are arising internally within this body and mind. There is no doubt that a little bit of expanded awareness (beyond the individuated body/mind) is a dangerous thing in terms of achieving one's liberation and a lot of expanded awareness is an even more dangerous thing in that regard.

Please bear in mind that I'm not here at DhO to define terms or purposes for anyone else. I'm here to learn and share what I've learned just like everyone else. It is futile for me to make claims in this regard, despite whatever I've become aware of, I see only more that needs to be brought to light, accepted and let go of. I note that I must continue to strive diligently not to identify with conditions of any kind, no matter how superior these may seem, to abandon states that are counterproductive, to develop states that are supportive of release and press on with every skill that I can assemble. I do not think it gets easier as you go, I think it gets trickier and that I have to be extremely cautious not to fall prey to my own or anyone else's ideas of what 'enlightenment' might be and simply relax my efforts. I will press on like this until I'm dust.

"I will press on like this until I'm dust."

I admire your commitment immensely, Nathan.

Author: pookee

By the way, what I wrote above is simply the classic Theravada descriptions of Enlightenment, omitting the Powers and reincarnation, in my own words.

The problem of reincarnation was, I believe, of paramount importance to Siddartha the man, and a huge source of his motivation to persevere on his difficult quest and his eventual discovery. I wonder if that superstition wasn't actually essential to his success. I sometimes wonder, too, if the religious trappings of Buddhism don't serve some practical benefit that outweighs the (heavy) cost. For example, perhaps overriding "devotion" and "faith" actually have some effect on the mind that make it more likely to succeed.

This is an important question because if the answer is "yes", secular attempts to walk the path are doomed to failure. If no, then religious attempts are inefficient at best.

Hi Pookee,
You raise some interesting and important points.

In my experience, it quite possible to begin the Buddha Way along the lines that Stephen Batchelor described in "Buddhism without Beliefs", jettisoning any notions of karma and rebirth. At a certain point, though, when some real progress has been made, karma and rebirth appear as if out of nowhere and seem quite obviously to be the case. Your mileage may vary, of course ;)

Just so, the opening of the heart (which may be explained in terms of Kenneth's physio-energetic model) reveals how devotion could become the royal road to Realization -- if and only if that path is rightly-guided, which usually means that a fully-Realized guru is one's teacher (although there are historical exceptions to this rule).

- Gozen

Telecaster,

funny post! Chögyam Trungpa seems to have die of alcoholism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%B6gyam_Trungpa#Death
Don´t know if it´s true but imagine that! I read this some years ago and I still can´t make sense of it.

But I think we just too easily project our own ideas onto enlightened beeings and are confused if they´re no better than us.
On the other side we probably assume that most investment bankers are greedy and when we meet one who has good heart we´re positively surprised.
Morality is the first and last practice as I read somewhere. Probably enlightenment does not imply anything more that recognising one´s essential nature. And that this doesn´t necessarily say anything about other aspects of life.

But, just like you, I can´t really make any sense out of it.

If someone were to gain enlightenment from practicing the 5 precepts, vs someone who gains enlightenment from practicing 8 precepts, vs a monk who gains enlightenment from practicing 227 precepts. Which precepts do arahants keep after enlightenment?

Mahakassapa kept his austere practices - on top of the normal monks precepts, despite the Buddha - seeing his old age - having asked him to live in a monastery, and wear soft robes.

There was a story of some arahants who continued to drink, and the Buddha asked them to stop so as to set a good example. (I couldn't find the original source on the internet, unfortunately)

Then you have a Buddha, who is a Sammasambuddha, who ate meat, when he taught about loving kindness.

It is not because these facts are inconsistent with the teachings. It is because these teachings and precepts are actually training wheels for developing mental agility and pliancy.

There was a tale about some women comparing their practices of precepts. It was easy to keep 4 but hard to keep 5. The women were debating which one of them were better because the ones they maintained. The whole idea is that 5 easy-enough precepts is sufficient to restrain the individual that some insight may arise.

Whatever level of Chongyam Trungpa's attainment, it did not give him sufficient insight to shine on some aspects of his habits prior to enlightenment. If only he had reflected on the dhamma and the precepts he would have been freed.

I don't know if Triplethink (Nathan) is still around much, but you might get a response from him.

Regardless, all three trainings remain of value.