From the archives of some theosophical e-mail lists.
EnglishFrom different lists
From: Katinka Hesselink
Date: Thu Mar 22, 2001
Subject: enlightenment
One of the dutch sites on zen-boeddhism set me thinking today. I wonder what you all think of the following question:
What is enlightenment to you? How do you picture enlightenment and perhaps: How would your life be different if you were enlightened, do you think?
Katinka
From: Ulla de Mora
Enlightenment to me means seeing overall structure, rather
than fragments.
It means being beyond emotions, no love, no hate, no irritations.
Sensing and knowing instantly what has to be done.
All questions receive inner answers the instant they appear..
Seeing beyond ordinary time.
Past present future merging.
Everything makes perfect sense, order in the chaos.
Serenity.
Acquiescense.
Certitude.
Life wouldn't be any different, it is as it is.
Ulla
From: Katinka
Hesselink
Date: Fri Mar 23, 2001
Subject: Re:Re: enlightenment
Hi Ulla,
> From: Ulla de Mora
> Enlightenment to me means seeing overall structure, rather than
> fragments.
> It means being beyond emotions, no love, no hate, no irritations.
Hm, no love? I suppose that is part of the possibility. But well, why act if there is no love? Perhaps you mean the kind of love that is the opposite of hate or fear.
> Sensing and knowing instantly what has to be done.
> All questions receive inner answers the instant they appear..
> Seeing beyond ordinary time.
> Past present future merging.
> Everything makes perfect sense, order in the chaos.
> Serenity.
> Acquiescense.
> Certitude.
> Life wouldn't be any different, it is as it is.
> Ulla
I think life would not be different in the way it looks, but the way I (or is there no I left in enlightenment?) experience it would be dramatically different, I think. As in the kind of things you describe above. Thank you
- especially the first thing you mentioned adds something to how I look at it.
Katinka Hesselink
From: Ulla de Mora
Katinka
I know it sounds weird, and one cannot get to that state without first
understanding love in its fullest meaning. But once you are there,
there is something else going on, something non-emotional.
And that is what I meant.
Here is what Baha'u'llah says about "enlightenment":
This is the realm of full awareness, of utter
self-effacement. Even love is no pathway to this region, and longing
hath no dwelling here; wherefore is it said, "Love is a veil betwixt
the lover and the beloved." Here love becometh an obstruction and a
barrier, and all else save Him is but a curtain.
For this is the realm of Absolute Command and is free of all the
attributes of earth.
The exalted dwellers in this mansion do wield divine
authority in the court of rapture, with utter gladness, and they do
bear a kingly sceptre. On the high seats of justice, they issue their
commands, and they send down gifts according to each man's deserving.
Those who drink of this cup abide in the high bowers of splendor above
the Throne of the Ancient of Days, and they sit in the Empyrean of
Might within the Lofty Pavilion: "Naught shall they know of sun or
piercing cold.
Concerning this realm, there is many a tradition and many a
verse, of broad or special relevancy, but two of these will suffice to
serve as a light for men of mind and heart.
The first is His statement: "O My Servant! Obey Me and I
shall make thee like unto Myself. I say `Be,' and it is, and thou shalt
say `Be,' and it shall be."
And the second: "O Son of Adam! Seek fellowship with none
until thou hast found Me, and whenever thou shalt long for Me, thou
shalt find Me close to thee."
-- Bahá'u'lláh, The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys
I found that these words confirmed what I had experienced
when I was there.
Ulla
From:
"Katinka Hesselink"
Date: Sat Mar 24, 2001
Subject: [US] Re:Re: enlightenment
Hi Ulla,
> I know it sounds weird, and one cannot get to that state
without
> first understanding love in its fullest meaning. But once you are
> there, there is something else going on, something non-emotional.
> And that is what I meant.
I agree with that, but well, now that you gave me a quote by Baha'u'llah, I will give you one from H.P. Blavatsky, from her masterpiece "The Voice of the Silence", URL:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/voice/voice.htm
for extracts on my own site, visit:
http://www.geocities.com/katinka_hesselink/thevoice.htm
Here follows the quote (p. 69-71, part III):
But stay, Disciple . . . Yet, one word. Canst thou destroy divine COMPASSION? Compassion is no attribute. It is the LAW of laws - eternal Harmony, Alaya's SELF; a shoreless universal essence, the light of everlasting Right, and fitness of all things, the law of love eternal.
The more thou dost become at one with it, thy being melted in its BEING, the more thy Soul unites with that which IS, the more thou wilt become Compassion Absolute.
...
Now bend thy head and listen well, O Bodhisattva - Compassion speaks and saith: "Can there be bliss when all that lives must suffer? Shalt thou be saved and hear the whole world cry?"
Now, it seems to me that the tears of the world cannot be ignored. The Voice of the Silence suggests that we have a choice: nirvana, bliss etc. without a thought for the world left or less bliss, because compassion makes us go on trying to aid humanity onward. For HPB the first path is selfish, though in a spiritual way. But in that sense she agrees that enlightenment without compassion is possible, just not advisable or admirable. But I am not sure that is what you meant. You probably meant that emotional, attached love disappears.
And from the little I've experienced on this path, I agree with you.
Katinka Hesselink
Enlightenment is a very delicate notion and most probably there is no definite, closed, complete definition to it. For me it's a process (whose "end" we don't know). Searching for enlightenment, I try first of all detachment and acceptation and awareness impermanence. With these, I expect a higher level of sintoiny for my self/soul, and some liberation (until it is complete.................................................................... ............................................................................ .... so to speak completed), of third-dimensional burdens, desires and conditions. Can tell you more if it comes to my mind. This is the basic to me. In Love and Light with best wishes to all,
Simone
From: Katinka
Hesselink
Date: Fri Mar 23, 2001
Subject: Re:Re: enlightenment
Dear Simone,
Yes, for me the notions of detachment and acceptation and awareness come to mind immediately as well. In fact, for me enlightened means something like: being aware at all times, and not running from life anymore. (chocolate, lovenovels etc.)
Katinka Hesselink
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 22:14:35 -0500
Author: Mauri
Subject: Re: enlightenment
The enclosed may have some relevance (somehow, possibly?)
on the subject of "enlightenment." My browser isn't working just now
so don't know if that link is still ok.
Subject:
[bn-study] Atman in Sunyata and the Sunyata of Atman
Date:
Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:35:35 -0800 (PST)
From:
Philip Larson
An attempt to reconcile the alleged difference between
Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta on the nature of the Self
by Bijoy H. Boruah Professor of Philosophy presented
at South Asia Seminar organized by Center for Asian
Studies, UT Austin.
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/pages/AtmaninSunyata.html
[copied at http://www.geocities.com/ondkh/tibet/atmsun.htm]
Excerpt:
Vedanta is metaphysically Being-oriented, specifically the Being of Atman or the true individual self, which is ultimately identical with Brahman or the Absolute Reality. Buddhism is metaphysically oriented to Nothingness or Emptiness, known as Sunyata, so much so that Absolute Reality is identified with Absolute Nothingness. What I wonder is whether there can really be any substantive difference of specific content between a metaphysic of Being and a metaphysic of Nothingness, when both systems subscribe to an ultimate reality conceived in equally metaphysically absolutist terms. The metaphysical "sphere" of absolute Being may coincide with that of absolute Nothingness, and there may not be "internal" content-specific difference between the two.
Mauri
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
Author: Katinka Hesselink
Subject: Re: enlightenment
Hi Mauri,
Yes, this is certainly relevant. I should look up my Subba Row (who was an Advaita Vedantist, and equal to HPB in occult insight, according to HPB) Collected Writings on the subject. What I remember from his Collected Writings (I am reviewing and correcting the manuscript of part 1) is as follows:
He talks about that something quite a lot - calls it Purush-prakriti: it is that from which all else is a differentiation. I do suppose the relation to enlightenment is there, but I was hoping for descriptions that start with the small, the stuff that is still knowable.
Difficulty is that for me it is possible to imagine purush-prakriti as the undifferentiated matter-spirit oneness as the background on which this and from which this visible universe is created. But to imagine that as also the same as my own divine essence, well my imagination is probably lacking, but I find it difficult - as in impossible. I tend to view my highest self as a light, not as the darkness - and purush-prakriti is as much light as it is darkness, and it is more like darkness, according to the descriptions. Maybe I just asked an impossible question as speculation on THAT is supposed to be impossible and fruitless.
Katinka Hesselink
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
Author:Mauri
Subject:enlightenment
To quote Bijoy Boruah:
Sunyata or Nothingness may be understood as the "field
of consciousness" which does not have a "centre" from
which (perspective) one feels living one's life,
ego-centrically, in the world. Our natural tendency is
to exist in that mode of consciousness which is
first-person centred, or ego-centred. There is the
possibility (howsoever hard it may be) of living a
life in the "impersonal" or "decentred" mode of
consciousness. Such a life would be lived in what I
call a "centreless" world --- a world that is not
viewed ego-specifically, but ego-neutrally. A
decentred, impersonal consciousness would be universal
consiousness, and a person whose life is sustained by
universal consciousness may be said to have a "self"
which I would describe as "uni-personal" self.
I would say that an example of universal consciousness
or uni-personal self would be the ego-neutral self of
a sage, or a saint. I am inclined to think that
Mahatma Gandhi in our modern times approximates such a
self. Historically, Gautam Buddha exemplifies this
consciousness or ego-neutral self.
We may get a glimpse of what a uni-personal self is
just by experimenting with ourselves. We all can try
to decentre ourselves from our ego-centred,
first-personally moulded life even by the least degree
of impartial reflection on our earlier conditions of
existence. We may then get a faint idea of what it is
like to be relatively ego-neutral. There is a definitechange of consciousness in this kind of attempt. One
feels one's existence is not "geared" to the
first-person point of view.
========
That might be seen as having some relevance, possibly, to
"enlightenment."
Mauri