Explore
Gaia Soulmates
down  About This Group
What Is Enlightenment?

This Group is for people who wish to engage in meaningful spiritual inquiry about the topic of enlightenment. What is enlightenment? What does it mean to be enlightened, and what comes next? What has your experience been with developing your own awareness, with those who claim to be enlightened, or those that promise enlightenment?

We welcome all...(more)
down  About This Room
If you have an article or link to share on the topic of spirituality or enlightenment, please contribute it here.
down  Room Activity
exploreTeam : Gaia Explorer
exploreTeam started a new conversation - Enlightenment (Buddhist) ()
1Vector3 : "Relentless Wisdom"
1Vector3 posted a reply to the conversation "Sadhu Stories" ()
Bill : practicioner & free
Bill started a new conversation - Sadhu Stories ()
sourceconnection : Seeker of True Self
sourceconnection posted a reply to the conversation "Enlightenment Teaching" ()
sourceconnection : Seeker of True Self
sourceconnection started a new conversation - Enlightenment Teaching ()
Bill : practicioner & free
Bill started a new conversation - Easy to read short page on Carvaka, Indian nontheist materialism ()
down  Group Grapevine
Siona : Synchronicity Coordinator
Siona Welcome, lovely seekers... :) (6 months ago)
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?
Resultset_previousprevious thread | next threadResultset_next
threaded | unthreaded | newest first


  Laura : Inspired evolutionary

Spirituality, the Path, Relationships...

Laura said Sep 18, 2006, 2:49 PM:

 

This thread started developing in another thread and thought it deserved its own topic…

  craigh : Divine Warrior   craigh said Yesterday, 1:59 AM:

 i also have a request for some articles on relationships.  I know that most masters seem to live a celibate life, but there are some who do not.  Given that most are not monks and nuns, i would be greatly interested to see Andrew Cohen, Kew Wilber and some others speak on this issue.  Someone at WIE recently told me about a retreat with andrew about families.  Being a single father, i would love to read something about the world of children, relationships, and families that i share with countless others.  In the past i was on a celibate path and thought, immaturely, that enlightenment somehow excluded family life; now that my path has changed i am much more interested in a teaching that includes the house holder. 

  Whitewave : Into the Shadow...  
Whitewave said Yesterday, 2:34 AM:

Yeee-ay-yah!  Me too!

When I found out Genpo Roshi was married I nearly flipped out!  Show me how it works!

~Ww

  Tamara : Breathes with Trees  
Tamara said Yesterday, 11:17 AM:

Didn't they have a whole magazine dedicated to the topic of sex vs celebacy a whille ago?
I don't think it included family and the householder, so it might make a good focus for a re-visitation issue.

  ROD : Be Still  
ROD said Yesterday, 4:12 PM:

Yeah I read a lot of those articles on-line as I didn't have a subscription at the time.  There are adequate arguments for celibacy but for the householder I would say Tantra - all the way.   I've been practicing Tantra for over 12 years and it clears up so much sexual messiness and allows sex to be another avenue for union with the Divine.  But, heck, don't ask me…ask my wife…LOL!!!

I love Barry Long's Tantric take.  Really good interview with him in WIE by Andrew Cohen.

  Nicole : wakingdreamer

Re: Spirituality, the Path, Relationships...

Nicole said Sep 22, 2006, 4:43 AM:

 

I thought the recent WIE newsletter had some fantastic articles. One in particular really helped me integrate my understanding of and experience of therapy with spirituality on this whole “ego” issue - good or bad? Read the whole article carefully, and I think you'll gain a lot of insight on why some very spiritual people still have a lot of trouble sorting out questions of sex and power.

Cheers,

Nicole

The 1001 Forms of Self-Grasping 
or …
Do You Really Have to be Somebody Before You Can be Nobody?

An interview with Jack Engler
by Andrew Cohen
 
The following bits from this interview really helped me…

In therapy, one thing you're trying to do is develop what's traditionally called “ego strength.” … So ego, in this sense, is a positive thing. That's the way I think of it in psychology.

But a lot of people who come to me for therapy don't think of ego that way. They think of ego in a spiritual context, where it's a bad thing.But talking about ego in a spiritual context, to me, is even more problematic. It gets talked about almost like it's an alternate personality within me that is bad; it gets reified as some part of me that I have to battle with, that I have to transcend.

If you ask me what I think ego is in a spiritual sense, I guess I would say it's our attempt to grasp ourselves. It's the myriad forms of self-grasping that are doomed to endless frustration and disappointment…The core of it seems to be this attempt to grasp the self and fix it. Or fixate it, that's a better word. And where does the self-grasping come from? I think it mostly comes out of fear, out of this core, chronic, anxious sense that we don't exist in the way we think we do.

AC: Okay. So we could say that ego in this sense is positive and would be the self-organizing principle that obviously has to be in fairly good working order if one is going to be able to do any serious spiritual practice. And just to put it in a simple way, the other definition of ego is negative, which we're roughly calling “narcissism.”

JE: There is a core narcissism that is much more universal and much deeper, which underlies all personality structure. So if we're talking about narcissism in that sense, then I would agree with your definition.

AC: You are well-known for your statement, “You have to be somebody before you can be nobody.”

JE: In a general way, I would still stand by it—that you have to be somebody before you can be nobody, although it's a provocative way of putting it. What I had in mind when making that statement was that if you are going to go to the depths of Buddhist mindfulness practice, which I was talking about, it requires certain psychological capacities, what in the psychoanalytic tradition would be called certain basic “ego strengths.” And those ego strengths form around some stable sense of who you are, some stable sense of identity. And I still believe that's true…

One of the main things I was responding to, though, when I wrote that article was something I had seen in myself and was seeing in a lot of people I was working with, which was an attempt to use meditation practice to do an “end run” around normal tasks of human development. Thinking that spiritual practice alone can substitute for normal psychological development; that somehow by going deep in practice and getting enlightened, that's going to solve all the nagging neurotic problems that have continued to plague one. So, “You have to be somebody before you can be nobody” was also meant as a cautionary statement to pay attention to all basic tasks, not just spiritual ones….

Well, personal work has to do with our own individual life history, our own individual narrative, and whatever unfinished business we're carrying from that. It has to do with personality and social functioning, relationship issues, work issues. These issues come up in Buddhist mindfulness practice—and probably from time to time in all practices. The different traditions work with them in different ways, and some don't work with them at all. Zen doesn't, for instance. And that's fine for the goals that Zen sets itself. The ultimate spiritual goals don't have to do so much with personality and personal functioning. They have to do with liberation from all those deep-rooted causes of suffering in the mind—in all of our minds. These universal causes of self-generated suffering—fear, greed, anger, self-deception, shame, doubt—get filtered and expressed through personality and personal history, but they exert an influence at a level prior to their elaboration in individual behavior. They are universal; they're not unique to any one particular individual.

But facing universal issues means facing personal and particular issues. As I've understood it in my own work and as I've seen it in clients who come to me for therapy as well as students in the meditation hall, it basically means, in the simplest possible way, facing whatever we haven't been able to face. Spiritual practice demands that we do that in one way, and personal work and therapy demand we do it in another. To the extent that anything hasn't been faced, it's going to continue to plague us and cause problems for ourselves and others. …

Let's take the case of trauma. Some very traumatic events happened—sexual abuse, let's say—and had very real consequences that deserve our compassion and our understanding. All of that was true. Did it happen to me? In some ultimate sense, no, of course not. But then, nothing does insofar as that “me” doesn't exist absolutely and independently. If what you're asking is: Does that shift in perspective substitute for therapy or does it shift the relationship to experience enough so that other kinds of therapeutic work become unnecessary? Well, I've never seen that.

You see, a lot of the Indian practitioners I met when I was doing research in Calcutta had suffered extreme trauma in their lives, just like many Western students. Really bad stuff. And some of them had reached pretty deep levels of enlightenment. No one claimed or presented themselves as having completed the path, but they had attained fairly deep levels. But it was clear that even with the shift occurring that you described, there was still a lot of personal suffering in their lives that they were going through and that had not been addressed—and was not getting addressed. And we see that in a lot of Western students and Western teachers. They've had their kensho experiences, their enlightenment experiences, and they're going down like flies. They're still misbehaving, sometimes outrageously so. They're still engaging in a lot of misconduct around—what else?—money, sex and power. So there's still a lot of personal work to be done. The only alternative position I think you can take is: Do more practice! Get more deeply enlightened. Go to the end of the path, and then none of this will ultimately be a problem for you. Well, I suppose that's a defensible position. In principle that's what should happen. I've just never seen it. Maybe I just don't know people who've gone to the end of the path. There ain't too many of them around…

I guess the only thing you can say is that, short of full and complete freedom, there's personal work to do. And you either do it or you don't… If you look at what the Theravada Buddhist tradition, for instance, claims happens when one has gone to the end, then yes, what it describes as the final outcome of spiritual practice is that all forms of self-generated suffering end, including personal suffering. But one of the things I've always found very credible in the Theravada tradition is that you don't get full freedom all at once. It comes by stages or increments. There are four different experiences of enlightenment. And the earliest stages are still compatible with a lot of personal meshugas [craziness] and ways in which we can still create problems for ourselves and others. So the ground shifts, and the relationship to self and to experience shifts. But it doesn't shift completely and all at once.

In these four experiences of enlightenment, the path to each is basically the same, but what's different are the “fetters” or the samyojanas that are extinguished in each enlightenment experience. These fetters are the root sources of inner suffering, and a different set of fetters is extinguished in each one of the four enlightenment experiences—extinguished irreversibly, permanently, according to the testimony of practitioners. No therapist, incidentally, would ever claim changes in therapy are irreversible! The progression in extinguishing these fetters fascinates me as a psychologist. The first set of fetters that are extinguished are basically cognitive in nature—what a cognitive psychologist would call “maladaptive cognitions” or “core beliefs.” In extinguishing these misguided beliefs about who we are, our basic understanding and perspective changes. But simply extinguishing basic beliefs and assumptions doesn't automatically shift the underlying motivations, impulses and emotions that can still drive us to act in ways that create suffering. Cognitively, we may relate to our experience differently, yet we can continue to act in the same neurotic ways. Not to the same extent, perhaps, but basically we can still find ourselves acting in unskillful ways that create a lot of problems. The second set of fetters reaches deeper into the psyche, into the affective or motivational bases of behavior. Motivations, impulses and affects are much more difficult to shift than cognitions and beliefs. The last set of fetters is extinguished at the fourth and final stage of enlightenment. The core of this group is called mana or “conceit.” This is a remnant of the tendency to compare self with others—the root of narcissism. The last fetters really have to do with rooting out the final residues of narcissistic attachment to self from the mind. And that's more difficult to shift than the affective or motivational bases of behavior.

The same progression happens in therapy. Cognitions, beliefs, perspectives change first. Core drives, motivations and impulses are much harder to change. Hardest of all to change is narcissistic investment in the self. So when you say that ideally the realization of emptiness should free one from personal neurotic problems, I don't think it's that simple. I think the shifts take place in stages. What the tradition describes and what we've learned in therapy are exactly the same progression. That shift doesn't take place all at once.

I was reading something the other day in Philip Kapleau Roshi's book Zen Dawn in the West. A student asks him a similar question about kensho, and Kapleau replies, ”Kensho doesn't eliminate character. If anything, kensho makes character failings more obvious.” He's talking about his own experience and his experience with his students. But he's also talking about the first experience of kensho. The Zen tradition has always said there can be little kensho and great kensho. The opening can be small or it can be large, but it's still just a first glimpse of enlightenment. My teacher, Anagarika Munindra, used to call it “a little bit of enlightenment.” That first glimpse doesn't shift everything.