It’s not an original question. Immanuel Kant asked “What is enlightenment?” in an essay published in 1784. I don’t think Kant had Buddhism in mind, but still, it’s a question worth considering.
In a previous post I wrote about The Island: An Anthology of the Buddha’s Teachings on Nibbana, by Ajanhs Pasanno and Amaro. Nibbana/nirvana is a state of being that is often described as the deathless or the unconditioned. It is a state where there is no more suffering of any kind. It is the cessation of becoming.
As I understand it, the Buddha woke up to Nibbana, making a transition between one state to another just as a person transitions between sleep and wakefulness each day. The Buddha, however, remained in Nibbana until his death, and he was not born again into the cycle of life and death known as samsara. The Buddha’s awakening took six years of focused preparation (not to mention many lifetimes of perfecting the virtues necessary to making the transition from a bodhisatta to a buddha). The conventional expression of the Buddha’s experience is “enlightenment.”
There are two kinds of enlightenment: spiritual and intellectual. Spiritual enlightenment is what happened to the Buddha on the night of his awakening. Intellectual, or secular, enlightenment is what The Age of Enlightenment was all about. Ajahn Punnadhammo, abbot of Arrow River Hermitage, writes about the difference here.
Patrick Kearney, in his essay “Still Crazy after all these Years: Why Meditation Isn’t Psychotherapy,”* suggests that were it not for The Enlightenment, we would not be using “enlightenment” to describe the Buddha’s awakening.
“I have never been able to find any Pali or Sanskrit word which corresponds to the English word “enlightenment.” This word was selected some time late last [19th] century by English translators as a label for the goal of Buddhist practice because of its resonance with the 18th century ideal of the Enlightenment. The European Enlightenment was a movement which idealised progress, science and reason – the “light” in “Enlightenment” refers to the light of reason. In Victorian Britain, sympathetic English scholars wanted to present Buddhism in as favourable a light as possible, and they did so by portraying the Buddha as the perfect Victorian gentleman. He was presented as rejecting the priestly mumbo-jumbo of the brahmins (who for the Victorian English corresponded to the Roman Catholic clergy) in favour of a religion of reason and morality (Almond: 70-4**). The only thing that spoiled this picture was undeniable evidence in the Buddhist texts that the Buddha taught and practiced some kind of bizarre self-hypnosis or cultivation of trance states – what we today call meditation. The word “enlightenment” referred to a state of enlightened reason attained by the Buddha which, however, existed only in the imagination of Victorian scholars. Unfortunately the word has stuck, and with it the confusion.”
Assuming it’s true that the use of the word “enlightenment” grew from a desire to make Buddhism more palatable to the Western mind, it presents three problems. First, it shows how easily words can be used to manipulate public opinion. This is nothing new, of course. It happens every day in advertising, politics, and religion.
Second, it shows how words evolve and how, over time, they can come to mean something other than what they meant initially.
Third, it suggests that Buddhism is changeable, something that can be molded to fit the circumstances of its surroundings.
A teacher I know has said many times that Buddhism changes every culture it touches, and Buddhism is changed by every culture that touches it. This is undeniably true on the surface, but it’s not a justification for the manufacturing of a new kind of Buddhism, a “Western” Buddhism – which is what the teacher was endorsing.
Certainly there are cultural differences in the ways Buddhism is practiced in, say, Sri Lanka and Japan, because each of these forms developed in different cultures separated by space and time. So to assume there is just one kind of Buddhism is a mistake. To assume there is just one kind of Japanese Buddhism also is a mistake. “Zen” and “Buddhist” are not synonymous.
Even though people have found many different ways to practice Buddhism, there remain four inescapable truths regarding this human world we all are a part of. Without each one of these truths, Buddhism is meaningless. The fourth truth – a very precise path of practice – is not something that can be changed to fit our varied lifestyles and beliefs.
If it’s a mistake to assume there is only one kind of Buddhism, it’s also a mistake to assume there are many different means to realizing the goal.
As Ajahn Pasanno writes in The Island:
“There are many ways of practice but some of them may, in actuality, not accord with the teachings or the true Way. They may be popular or comfortable, but yet not be Dhamma [emphasis mine]. For practice to yield results, it must conform to truth or correct principle.” (p. 288)
The eightfold path – the Middle Way – is very specific. You either practice Dhamma or you don’t. The law of conditionality can’t be skirted. Living in a cloud of delusion has a major drawback: delusion. It’s not easy to discern what’s skillful, especially when people – teachers and students alike – tinker with meanings and practices to suit themselves.
“Enlightened” was used to (incompletely) describe the Buddha to Victorian England as one who behaved with reason, logic, and morality. But the Age of Enlightenment is no longer part of our social psyche. We – as a culture – are as far removed from reason, logic, and morality as social guides as those enlightened 18th century Europeans were from the Dark Ages of the 15th century. Instead, we use “enlightened” to refer to (among many other things) all manner of blissed-out states that incorporate – in the spirit of diversity – anything and everything spiritual.
And now, from the entertainment realm, we have the new sit-com, “Enlightened”. The situation evoking the comedy is where “a self-destructive woman…who has a spiritual awakening and resolves to live an enlightened life – which causes chaos at home and at work – after suffering a serious meltdown.” Entertaining, maybe, but hardly enlightening.
I avoid using “enlightenment” as the goal of spiritual practice (my spiritual practice, anyway) because it connotes gaining something magical and mystical (something so Zen) instead of achieving the simple end of suffering. This is my goal. I’ve had enough suffering. I am willing to work for it – I do work for it – but my effort is toward getting rid of rather than gaining something. Unless that “something” is understanding what’s really going on.
Coming to the understanding of reality, however, takes more than reason and logic, says Ajahn Pasanno. It “is direct and intuitive, rather than intellectual or rational, learned from books, memorized from others, or arrived at through speculative thinking.” (p. 296)
It’s not so simple as turning on a light.
*As its title suggests, this lengthy paper attempts to sever any imposed connection between Buddhism and psychotherapy. I don’t recommend it to anyone enamored with the idea of a Western Buddhism. Kearney isn’t kind to a few high-profile teachers who seem to embody the idea.
**Almond, Philip. The British discovery of Buddhism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
4 Comments
Great post, Paul. Thank you. There is much food for thought here, as usual. I especially enjoyed Patrick Kearney’s personal observation that the word “enlightenment”, which he never found a word for in the original languages, is essentially a Western construct as it is applied to the Buddha, and a coarse one at that.
Buddhism is the antithesis of the Western mentality of constant life-long acquisition, with “enlightenment” being right there in that mix of things. Being truly awake, being mindful are traits that take a lifetime, or many lifetimes, to polish and practice skillfully. I’d be curious as to your thoughts on the westernization of Buddhism, especially Shin Buddhism, as practiced and promulgated by the BCA. Perhaps in a future post, or perhaps I just need to search your archived blog posts better.
Your post reminded me of a story that Paul Vielle shared with the sangha this past Sunday in his dharma talk:
It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence.
The man stopped and asked, “My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or perhaps a god?”
“No,” said the Buddha.
“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”
Again the Buddha answered, “No.”
“Are you a man?”
“No.”
“Well, my friend, then what are you?”
The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”
I hope all is well with you and Robin. Have an elightened 2010.
Grrr…I meant “enlightened”. How embarrassing to misspell the primary word of your post.
Greetings, James
Indeed, Buddhism is the antithesis of Western mentality. In fact, I think there is so much about our world that insists that we remain as unenlightened (i.e., deluded) as possible. Politicians, preachers, advertisers, bankers, and on and on all have something to gain through the average person’s ignorance. I do include myself, by the way, in the class of average persons. It’s not a comfortable place to be, and I feel a sense of urgency to do something about it.
You ask “I’d be curious as to your thoughts on the westernization of Buddhism, especially Shin Buddhism…” I will give it some thought. But by no means do I equate Shin with Western Buddhism.
Paul:
I’m just ever so torn by this post. While I agree that you can’t just adapt practices any old way you choose and still really remain true to a genuine tradition, there seems to be here a hint of parochialism, as if there really is only one type of Buddhism, which you perhaps might say is represented by Ajahn Pasanno.
I was recently in China, and at one point the Chinese woman showing us around Beijing made the observation that the Buddhism that was practiced by Tibetans “is not real Buddhism. Is something different. Is not good.”
This is unfortunately similar to what some Buddhists seem to feel about their sister schools of practice. I have heard some Manhayana (greater vehicle) practitioners refer to Hinayana (lesser vehicle) as somehow inferior. In reality, as you probably know, “lesser” was originally meant to refer to the fact that the practice was appropriate to fewer devotees——dedicated monks, rather than the general public. “Greater” was never meant to apply “better,” just “bigger.”
The same thing is true of Hinayana devotees, who aren’t above viewing Zen or Tibetan Buddhism as somehow inferior, or even illegitimate.
All I’m saying is that I’m sometimes a bit disturbed by the faint hint of exclusivity that some schools of Buddhism bring to their views of other schools. This kind of attitude was prevalent in Christianity, which is why I gave up that practice. It therefore disappoints me when I hear it in Buddhists.
That being said, I did once hear the Dalai Lama, who is himself regarded as “certified” in several of the four schools of Tibetan Buddhism, say that he doesn’t blend the protocols, but practices them separately, each in their own way. He would not, however, offer any arrogant opinion that Zen wasn’t Buddhism. He would just say that it’s best to practice either in the Zen way or the Gulag way, not some mixture.