Barriers to Enlightenment

"You are already enlightened." You may have heard Buddhist, Hindu or unaffiliated sages say this on occasion. They seem to be saying that enlightenment is not something to be learned or obtained; it is something we already have.

Yet to the average person this is a puzzling statement. What is it they have? If they have it, why don't they know it?

In this thread I would like to ask the question: What keeps us from our enlightenment? What is the barrier (or what are the barriers)?

In your response, please speak from personal experience if possible. In any case, please do not simply quote some teacher. And please be as specific as you can be, giving examples if possible.

Let's see what we can discover ... and possibly un-learn.

 

Okay, there have been no replies in the past day, so maybe the topic is a bit unclear. Let me see if I can get the ball rolling by giving an example.

One of the purported hallmarks of enlightenment is equanimity. The flip side of that is what might be called judgmentalism. It has been said that to the enlightened person there is no "good" or "bad"; there is just what is.

I have found — and perhaps others will agree — that judgementalism is indeed the enemy of equanimity. Indeed, comparisons in general or (even more generally) labelling of things and events are antithetical to equanimity.

Of course, it is tempting to ask, "If I am less judgmental will I be more enlightened?" but in my experience it actually works the other way around. Deliberately attempting to be less judgmental simply sets up a new standard of behavior which is a kind of second-order judgmentalism. Perhaps this is the sort of thing they refer to when they say that the closer you attempt to get to enlightenment, the further away you get.

 

The body and the brain are part of the illusion. By pursuing enlightenment through our thoughts we sink further into the illusion and widen the gap to enlightenment.

 

First part of enlightenment is meditation. Not simply sitting meditating, but meditating in every action you do, be present in every single task. Then there is no past and no future, just the present. When you are in the present you just think when it is necessary, otherwhise you simply are meditating (your natural state). When you understand it and you feel it through your whole bodie and spirit it becomes your "food". The rest I can't tell you because I haven't experienced.

At the beggining thoughts will come to your head saying always beautiful things or bad things that takes your attention from the present moment, so always ask yourself if the thought is necessary, if not don't judge or keep thinking, focus on your breath and feel your whole body. After some time your focus will be on your breath and in your 3rd eye, feeling the whole energy.

They say that one day the energy jumps from 3rd eye to the top of the head and the state you were trying to keep becomes your main state. I think it's called the enlightenment and the other mistic things come with this state.

There's no way to understand it with mind, it's a state there's no mind, so try it. Don't sit meditating because it can turn into an habbit, do it always you remember. It's best to meditate when you feel that you want, it will be better than meditating 4 or 5 days without really wanting.

Edit: Always remember that what motivates you is the path. The path is your food, your joy. Forget about the goal, focus your whole energy in present.

 

If I learn mercy then I am less judgmental.

What is enlightened is the consciousness that creates worlds through description and appreciation.

 

I see we've had three approaches to the topic, all quite different.

The person named "RealityIsBS" chose to make a flat statement about the way things are, as he or she sees it. This may be the truth, but it does not really help anyone who has not experienced what is being described.

"VansRouge" chose the prescriptive route, explaining some of the standard techniques. I'm pleased to see that he or she was up-front about what he or she has or has not experienced. In the absence of a true Master among us, this kind of honesty is, in my view, essential to our discussion. I've been on far too many forums where a bunch of people speak as if they knew more than they actually do.

"TheDope" chose to focus on a specific, which I appreciate. Indeed mercy relates to reduced judgementalism, though I'm not sure about the cause-and-effect relationship. Personally, I imagine that as judgementalism decreases mercy follows naturally. As for TheDope's second statement, this appears to be a flat statement that may or may not reflect the impressions of others. Personally I am not sure I agree with it, but perhaps I misunderstood.

Thanks, everybody, for helping out. I'll post something else in line with the theme I envisioned for this thread.

 

One barrier to seeing our enlightenment (as I understand it) is something that I might call "dual tracking". Perhaps you'll recognize what I'm describing.

Have you ever tried enjoying a wonderful piece of music but found that you couldn't enjoy it the way you used to? Perhaps you noticed that your mind was comparing it to other pieces, or analyzing some aspect of the music.

I know that sometimes I can just let music flow over me and become one with it, whereas most of the time, these days, my mind doesn't allow that to happen. Rather, it "dual tracks" such that there is one part hearing the music and one part that is doing something else. That "something else" might be related to the music, but it might be entirely unrelated (like thinking about what I'll have for lunch).

As you may have guessed, it doesn't only have to be a "dual" track; my mind might be working on several things at once. The point is, the music cannot be heard with my whole mind, or my whole soul, or however you want to phrase it.

Yet when I was younger (in my teens, say) it was no challenge or problem to hear music with my entire being. Indeed, the further I go back in my recollection of my life, the more I see that I was able to do this or that or anything, really, with a single track. The older I get, the more my mind does more than one thing at a time, to the detriment of living where and when I am actually living. Life becomes more "virtual", more "at arm's length", and less real.

This phenomenon of multiple tracking strikes me as a barrier to enlightenment. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if that is what Jesus was talking about about he suggested that we be "as a child".

I welcome comments on the foregoing, or on the general theme of this thread.

 

Is there a difference between a "Barrier TO Enlightenment" and a "Barrier to SEEING our Enlightenment". Or, are you asking two questions, one question relating to the barrier(s) TO enlightenment and the other relating to the barrier(s) to SEEING our enlightenment?

One involves something that HAS happened, the other becoming aware of something ABOUT to happen.

But anyway, keep going. I'm interested in seeing where you're going with this.

HTML:

 

My flat response relates to the statement, you are already enlightened. What enlightened thing do we share?,... Our mind.

 

As far as quoting some teacher, we always choose with a guide.

If we stick with the statement that what is enlightened is the mind, then everything is associated with an idea. If everything is an idea then the only thing that can harm us is our thoughts.

The enlightened suffer when we have misapprehended, that is through the miscreant use of mind. I don't mean miscreant in the sense of creating something monstrous, I mean miscreant to the extent that we can believe illusions to be real. So the power of that enlightened mind is the only barrier there is.

The first barrier to enlightenment is the desire to be rid of it.

 

The name of the thread is the shorter "Barriers to Enlightenment" but from my point of view it's really about barriers to seeing the enlightenment that is already there. As I mentioned in an earlier post, many sages tell us that we are already enlightened; it's not something that's about to happen.

Such statements reflect my personal experience. Maybe half a dozen times in my life I have, shall we say, broken through. Each time it has happened, what was there on the other side wasn't an "other side" at all. It was just me, unadorned, unfettered, unelaborated. (What that "me" is, is a more involved issue. Briefly I'll say that, in my opinion, what people consider their "me" is in reality quite unlike what they imagine it to be.)

It seems to me that enlightenment is the removal of something that is added to us, not the addition of something such as a piece of knowledge we lack. But what is that which is "added to us", and how is it added? This I think I know, and perhaps we are the first generation in history who have a way of talking about it. But that's a topic this thread might lead up to — provided we can find people who are willing to look within and report what they see, instead of parroting some teacher or claiming some special received wisdom.

 

Indeed, that general breed of desire is so significant in Buddhism that we are given a special term for it (Vibhava Tanha or "the craving to get rid of"). I assume this is what you are referring to.

 

By setting the conditions to those who are capable of looking inside and making sense out of what they find, you're excluding a lot of people who are seeking but don't have a clue on where to start.

There are those who understand. There are those who don't understand, but understand after learning from someone else, or from great effort of personal endeavor. And there are those who will never understand, no matter how much they hear about it, or try to understand.

I know it seems a bit harsh and absolute to say there are those who will never understand, even though they wish to understand. But for these, their own personal views get in the way. These personal views I refer to are those ideas one condition themselves to based on their perception of what they've experienced on a moment-to-moment basis, are experiencing, and will experience.

I, for one, am not closed to having others quote from someone else, as long as what they quote has resulted in personal experience of the subject matter.

For instance, cogito ergo sum. Though I've been exposed to this saying, I cannot agree with the sumation of the statement, nor the idea imparted by what others say "he" (the author) was saying. However, I have found a truth to the statement in a way that agrees with the teaching of Buddhism. That being in the form that "Thoughts CREATE Reality", that what one thinks, they literally become. So that in thinking (i.e., I Think), one becomes what they think (i.e., I Am). That by thinking they are what they think they are, they become it. Even if they are not at all what they think they are, just by thinking it they become it.

A rather interesting thought experiment on this:

1) grab a hold of something within reach
2) hold it up in front of your face so you can see it
3) ask yourself, "With my EYE, What do I see IN my hand?"

There is only ONE right answer to this experiment, given the parameters of the question. It is guaranteed that the one conducting this experiment, without actually receiving any training will say what they THINK they see, and not what they see at all.

I would like to step out on a limb, so to speak, and say that I can guarantee that even you, Neo, do not know the answer to this thought experiment. And if you do, then I will apologize for coming to this conclusion without having the privledge of knowing you personally.

So, what is enlightenment? Many do not know the answer to this question, let alone how one comes to the point of experiencing enlightenment, or having to attained a result of enlightenment, or having experienced the conditioning of enlightenment.

Plain and simple ... it is the elimination of ignorance. In the matter of Buddhist practice, it is the complete freedom from ignorance. Not so much freedom from suffering, as suffering is CONDITIONED BY IGNORANCE. One can become free from suffering by eliminating any of the factors that are conditioned directly or indiretly by ignorance, yet enlightenment would still not be achieved. It isn't until one has removed or eliminated ignorance altogether one can say that there is enlightenment.

HTML:

 

Vibhava (pronounced we-bha-wa) Tanha means, Craving for Non-Becoming.

While it's easy to think it is what you have said it is, I feel this is one of those instances where you have stepped outside the boundaries your own rules of this thread and quoted someone else's intrepretation.

One can "crave to get rid of" eating foods that make them fat, this has nothing to do with what Vibhava means which is "non-becoming" or "non-being". Again, one can "crave to get rid of" fear of water in order to learn how to swim, and again, this has nothing to do with "non-becoming".

Vibhava tanha is one of three types of Craving (Tanha). Kama tanha, which is craving for sense pleasure; Bhava tanha, which is craving for existence (becoming, being); and Vibhava tanha, which is craving for non-existence (non-becoming, non-being). In the teaching of Buddhism called the Second Noble Truth, Samudaya (the arising of Dukkha):
Ignorance conditions action (avijja paccaya sankhara),
Action conditions consciousness (sankhara paccaya vinnana),
Consciousness conditions name-and-form (vinnana paccaya namarupa)
Name-and-form conditions the six base (namarupa paccaya salayatana)
The six base conditions contact (salayatana paccaya phasso)
Contact conditions feelings (phasso paccaya vedana)
Feelings condition CRAVING (vadana paccaya TANHA)
Craving conditions clinging (tanha paccaya upadana)
Clinging conditions BECOMING (upadana paccaya bavha)
Becoming conditions birth (bavha paccaya jati)
and, Birth conditions death (jati paccaya jara)

It is this Tanha mentioned in the Second Noble Truth being mentioned, which has three aspects (craving for sense pleasure, craving for becoming, and craving for non-becoming).

HTML:

 

I didn't know that. I am not very good with names, I was just looking in myself.

 

A barrier to enlightenment is ego.
You see the world the way you want to see it, if you're a negative person you will see the world in a negative light. But that can change, because it's a choice it's a way of thinking.
If you close your eyes and imagine yourself, and everything about you is fixed.
You see you, tumbleing down into yourself, into an enlightened you.
What is different?
Seeing what's wrong, for example greed, confronting the problem and creating a more balanced self is part of walking the path of enlightenment.
Because if you don't change anything within yourself you stay the same.

It's about feeling all the things your body needs to feel. hatred, jealousy, anger, resentment. and then popping out of that. being free. understanding that you don't need to feel that way.

and it's on a moment to moment basis. things will occur in life that will make you feel those emotions. you don't have to feel that way in the long term. you don't have to be stuck.

 

I'm sorry, I can't see people always trying to understand it with mind, the mind is the illusion, it gives you 1000x1000 reasons to not stop thinking, saying you need to do something to realize, forget about it. What you need to "do" is forget everything.

I'm sorry for quoting a master but you really need to see this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pS_wPeDxDQ

P.S- Search whatever you want, when you see that it doesn't help you, stop searching and live. (Take care, this searching can lead into obsession).

 

If I may grease the skids of conception.

So the question is asked, what is enlightenment and one answers emphatically the end of ignorance. Perhaps we might then wonder, what is ignorance.

If we are going to do anything about the state of ignorance, then we must classify ignorance as an action. Ignorance is not looking or not apprehending. Why does this happen, form is defined by negative space. We could imagine enlightenment then, to be the illumination of the negative space that delineates form. Lighting the shadows.

What causes shadows, the upholding of some substance between the light and what the light illumines. What substance, what substance are you reaching for?
A substance that is desired above other substances could be called "special".
Specialness then is an obstacle to equanimity.

 

In this being the case, then, we MUST also classify ignorance as consciousness. Also, we MUST classify ignorance as name-and-form (namarupa). We MUST classify ignorance as the six base [senses]. We MUST classify ignorance as contact. We MUST classify ignorance as feelings. We MUST classify ignorance as craving. We MUST classify ignorance as clinging. We MUST classify ignorance as becoming. We MUST classify ignorance as birth. And, we MUST classify ignorance as death.

Why did I even reply this way?

Because Ignorance CONDITIONS Action. Action CONDITIONS Consciousness. Consciousness CONDITIONS Namarupa. Namarupa CONDITIONS the Six Base. The Six Base CONDITIONS Contact. Contact CONDITIONS Feeling. Feeling CONDITIONS Craving. Craving CONDITIONS Clinging. Clinging CONDITIONS Becoming. Becoming CONDITIONS Birth. And, Birth CONDITIONS Death.

Seeing how Ignorance conditions one and that conditions the next, then to say that we must classify ignorance as an action is the same as saying we must classify ignorance as the other conditions.

Taking into consideration this discussion is on a Buddhist forum, then I think that the discussion must be investigated from a Buddhist perspective. That perspective being the teachings of a Buddha, that being the Four Noble Truths, that including what was mentioned above, i.e., Ignorance conditions action, action conditions ... death (which, by-the-way is the Second Noble Truth). Then it is this consideration where I cannot agree that I MUST classify Ignorance as AN Action, without also considering classifying ignorance as the other conditions.

In all seriousness, I can't really classify ignorance as an action since ignorance conditions action. This doesn't mean that ignorance IS an action, rather that by continually perpetuating ignorance one begins to act due to the continual presence of. One single instance, moment or occurance of ignorance does not necessairly classify as an action.

Just because I like the way you think, doesn't mean I have to (or must) agree.

HTML:

 

No, I am not saying we must classify ignorance as other conditions. There is another way to regard the term ignorance, and that is as the refusal to look.
With all respect, you classify the way you do because you were taught the way.
What I said was, if we are to do anything about ignorance.
Doing is acting. You say ignorance conditions action, does truth also condition action? The word condition itself is formed of syllables meaning to "speak with".

What is ignorance then, by English definition, a lack of knowledge or the unawareness of something. What causes someone to be unaware of something. Is it because it is hidden, no, there is nothing hidden that cannot be uncovered.

No, you need not agree at all. But the reason I am calling ignorance an action
is that there are no idle thoughts. The reason ignorance conditions action is we always choose with a guide. If that guide be truthful, then the mind is wholly kind, but if that guide be ignorant, then anxiety follows because ignorance betrays everyone as an active assailing of the truth.

The reason I say must, is not to say the only way, it is to keep consistent with the premises of the statement, it is not a requirement of the whole.
The reason I am giving the thoughts I am giving is not to be in contention with buddhism but am responding to the following,

"This I think I know, and perhaps we are the first generation in history who have a way of talking about it. But that's a topic this thread might lead up to — provided we can find people who are willing to look within and report what they see, instead of parroting some teacher or claiming some special received wisdom."