>>
>>There have been so many posts lately about not knowing what
>>enlightenment is, whether you have it or not, and the lack of
>>defineability it carries. I have to wonder where this confusion comes
>>from. Having been mostly looking at the Pali texts for the past
>>couple of years, I notice a definate lack of confusion in those texts.
>>
>>The Buddha certainly wasn't unsure of whether he was awake or not, and
>>he wasn't shy about telling others that he was awake. He makes the
>>claim outright throughout the canon. He knows when he goes from an
>>unenlightened state to an enlightened state and says so:
>>
>>"Then what sort of being are you?," Dona had asked.
>>
>>"Brahman, the fermentations by which ق if they were not abandoned ق I
>>would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, like
>>an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not
>>destined for future arising. The fermentations by which ق if they were
>>not abandoned ق I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being:
>>Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, like an uprooted palm
>>tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future
>>arising." -AN 4.36
>>
>>There is some notion out there that it's a Bad Idea to want
>>enlightenment to occur. But the Buddha wasn't unsure about what he
>>set out to do either. He was pretty clear that his goal was to attain
>>awakening and everything he did, for better or for worse, after that
>>pronouncement, was for the attaining of that.
>>
>>Upon leaving his first two meditation teachers, he stated pretty
>>clearly that the two states of mind taught by them (the last two of
>>the formless attainments) "This Dhamma leads not to disenchantment, to
>>dispassion, to cessation, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to
>>Awakening, nor to Unbinding" (MN 36) So it seems pretty clear that he
>>knew the difference between a deep meditative state and awakening.
>>
>>After his awakening he didn't seem to have problems defining awakening
>>in both the positive:
>>
>>"This is peace, this is exquisite ق the resolution of all
>>fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of
>>craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana."
>>
>>ق AN 3.32
>>
>>and in the negative:
>>
>>"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor
>>fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor
>>dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of
>>nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception;
>>neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there,
>>I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing
>>away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support
>>[mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress."
>>
>>ق Ud 8.1
>>
>>He was also pretty clear on the sorts of individuals who claimed
>>awakening, and why they weren't. He actually encourages people
>>actually to test him in the Vimamasaka Sutta: [
>>
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/047-vimamsaka...
>>] in order to determine whether he is going to be any use to them as a
>>teacher.
>>
>>Of course this is not to say that the experience of awakening can
>>conform to any familiar terminology or concept. It is precisely
>>becuase it is unconditioned that concepts don't stick to it like a
>>tennis ball doesn't stick to a brick wall. But liberation is
>>liberation from something. Most of the people who I have seen claim
>>awakening are using some vague concept that allows them to justify
>>pretty much any behavior. They are free to be hostile, free to be
>>lacking in civility, free to be assholes, free to babble incorent
>>gibberish, and free to treat with insults and contempt. I don't know
>>who's version of enlightenment that is, but it's not something I want
>>anything to do with.
>>
>>-M
