2026-06-13 what is enlightenment

So what questions would I actually want an answer to?

Either now, or for some edition of my younger selves.

What is enlightenment?

  • Is enlightenment a permanent state? i.e. once you have it (at least "full" version) you stay in it. Or do you have to maintain it? Can you lose it? And, even, is it more a descriptor of particular moments or actions rather than any kind of ongoing condition? (cf Suzuki: there are no enlightened beings only enlightened actions)
  • Is it more a spectrum than a distinct state?
  • Does it combine waking up (e.g. pure dwelling in emptiness) and cleaning up (skilful action and non-reactivity in the world)
  • What is relationship of (physical) brain, mind (thoughts) and awareness?
    • How does attention fit in?
    • [Major aside: is their "free will"?]

Can you actually get enlightened, permanently?

On one side we have an (implied) yes: eg.. Buddha's story (he awakened under the Bodhi tree) plus a bunch of zen stories suggest enlightenment as a distinct before and after event. The master did X or Y and student Z was enlightened. [#todo dig up some examples]

On the other side we have a "no": many modern zen teachers, especially those with more "honest" tone, tend to suggest that enlightenment, in the sense of perfect equanimity, zero reactivity etc, is an never-ending process – a mountain with no top. e.g. Charlotte Joko Beck in Nothing Special, personal conversations with e.g. Doshin Roshi, Kornfeld in After the Ecstasy, the Laundry - They'll say things like: "Enlightenment would be like this … but I've never actually met someone with these qualities" - Or: even if you have experience X you'll still at some point experience anger, resentment or other forms of reactivity. - [#todo dig out quotes: Charlotte Joko Beck …

So it makes me wonder.

I also wonder about the relation of "waking up" to "cleaning up". It often seems in much zen practice literature that there is an implied relationship of the two.

also cf FWB stuff.

Notes to self

Observable characteristics of deepening of awakening / enlightenment

it's really worth distinguishing, I think, between, on the one hand the classic stages of meditation waypoints in evaluating progress, relating to eg unwavering attention or concentration, and deepening of that or the jhānas and even the insight processes, and on the other hand, external manifestations, or, I would say, observable manifestations in the world: do you get reactive in arguments? How skillful are you? How little, or how much reactivity is there? What I might call behavioural metrics (if I can use that term) of awakening.

And I'm wondering how related they are. You could say the inner concentration is related to waking up, whereas the other is related to more cleaning up. Though it's funny that, obviously, in most Zen guides and similar work, they seem to imply that they would be related. That as you wake up, you would become less reactive and therefore you would have cleaned up.

This question of how waking up and cleaning up are distinct or the same is definitely a general question (I have). Sense that it is perhaps a bit confused in much of the e.g. zen literature. Take Nothing Special again: there is a bit of a confusion here. Or perhaps that's a bit of a strong word, because I think Joko Beck is aware of, for example, psychotherapeutic ideas about anger. As I read it, it seems to be saying or implying that Zen practise is working at multiple levels and that the awareness work allows you to unpick reactivity and your childhood traumas. See, for example, the baseboard story, which is basically a metaphor for habit energies and patterns of reactivity from root fears of childhood.

The question i would i raise from my own experience and reading is whether that simple "holding feelings/emotions/reactivity" in awareness is the best (or only) way to address these patterns. Definitely can be useful (it has been for me) and i'm not sure if it works that effectively, at least for most people.

Excerpts

Nothing Special

Read this as enlightened person would have no reactivity:

An enlightened person would be willing, second by second by second, to be the sacrifice that’s necessary to break the cycle of suffering. [they would] … get to choose whether to snap at somebody. …

Full quote:

What does this have to do with oneness and enlightenment? An enlightened person would be willing, second by second by second, to be the sacrifice that’s necessary to break the cycle of suffering. Being willing to be sacrificed doesn’t mean being “holier than thou”; that’s merely ego. The willingness to be sacrificed is simpler and more basic. As we sit, as our knowledge of ourselves and our lives increases, we get a choice about what we are going to do: we get to choose whether to sacrifice another person. For example, we get to choose whether to snap at somebody. This may seem like a little thing, but it’s not. We get to choose how we relate to the people we are close to. It’s not that we become martyrs; choosing to be a martyr is actually quite self-centered. And it’s not that we give up fun in life. (We certainly don’t want to be around people who never have fun.) The main point is, to become aware of our feelings of having been sacrificed and then to begin to see how we sacrifice others.

Edit this page