WHAT IS ENLIGHTENMENT? ~ Shinzen Young
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- FOR MORE INFO ABOUT SHINZEN & HIS TEACHINGS: www.shinzen.org (Retreats, Speaking Engagements, Writings, Home Practice Program = live monthly phone teachings & Life Practice Program = live 45 min of Shinzen guiding someone for help in their lives)
FOR the CORE FREE INTRO to UNIFIED MINDFULNESS:
unifiedmindfulness.idevaffili...
Shinzen young one of the best most clear teachers out there. Great work he did
yeah adya is a boss playar too
I find they complement each other in the way they communicate and teach. Adya is very mystical, Shinzen is very technical. Adya is not very good for practical advice but great for inspiration, Shinzen is very good for practical advice and fairly good at inspiration (although Adya is better).
prana prana adya is strange. I once participated in an online satsang where we were specifically asked to send in questions beforehand. I spent hours and hours over several days trying to put my question into words for him. Not to mention that I had to get up in the middle of the night when the broadcast went live. And when it finally did he immediately announced that he wasn't going to answer ANY questions or even remotely address anything from the letters. That experience has left a bitter taste in my mouth. Also adya likes to be very dramatic and strange at times. His books are totally useless to me. Safe to say the shortest time I ever spent absorbing a teaching was with Adya. With other teachings I have spent over a decade now.
Unlike sadhguru..that hindu dude is bs
[TRANSCRIPT]
Q. Can you tell me what enlightenment is?
A.So moment by moment, you probably noticed that you have thoughts right? Is that correct? And moment by moment, you probably noticed that you have body sensations. You also probably noticed that as soon as a thought arises or a body sensation arises, there's a tendency to say, this thought is me, that this sensation is me - is that correct? Nothing mysterious so far.
The next part you have to sort of use your imagination. Imagine that you still have thoughts and you still had body sensations, but they no longer immediately trapped your identity, So your identity is free. Free to be inside your mind and body like it was before, but free also to move outside your mind and body, to inhabit, briefly anyone's mind and body. To merge with them. Or to embrace the entire universe. Or to abide the still point of the turning world, beyond time and space, the nothingness that precedes the big bang, so to speak. Metaphorically speaking
So after enlightenment, people's identity becomes elastic. And the mind and body is no longer a place that you're locked in. It's a home you can comfortably abide in, but you can leave any time you want. And that why we also call it liberation - being set free
David Wu Thank you :)
Amazing and inspirational.
How do you leave
Direct, precise, clear 🙏
If anyone fucks with Shinzen, I'll take care of them
I understand now ❤💯
I'd love to be a fly on the wall if Daniel Ingram, Upasaka Culadasa and Shinzen Young ever got together to talk about meditation.
And Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff. Their theory of mind has potentially vast practical implications for enlightenment.
Shinzen's a badass!
Close but no cigar!
I prefer the video I cannot find: where h e says spontaensously:
'Stream -entry'; or the seeing that there is non 'me'/thing-'self'. SEEING that is all we need to realise it, it is the main catalyst...
🙏💙
I really like Shinzen Young. His explanations of the different meditation techniques are really clear and have really helped me improve my meditation practice.
But his explanation of enlightenment is so vague. It sounds like he is going for the Mahayana Buddhism version of enlightenment (as opposed to the Theravada one)? But I still don’t know (even conceptually because yes I know I couldn’t experientially understand this point yet) what it means to be “free to be inside your mind and body like it was before, but free also to move outside your mind and body, to inhabit, briefly anyone's mind and body. To merge with them.”
What is your “identity”? How can it move out of you? Why is transferring its location to something else beneficial? If I could move my identity into, and merge with, my door, what does that even mean? And more importantly why would my roleplaying as a door free me from suffering?
Even if it’s not possible for me to understand what this means conceptually, I don’t see how this will eliminate suffering?
Also, he says “Imagine that you still have thoughts and you still had body sensations, but they no longer immediately trapped your identity, So your identity is free.”
But why does your identity being “trapped” (again, not clear what this even means) cause a problem? I get that using language like “trapped” and “free” makes it sound like all of this is going to liberate you or something, but it is just too vague for me to comprehend.
If it helps you in any way, some words trying to show where the issue could be.
You are trying to understand with the mind, something that belongs outside of the mind, no logical thinking can get close. The mind thinks in terms of duality, and enlightenment is the end of duality. The mind thinks in concepts, and enlightenment is the end of concepts. The mind tries to put everything into language, and enlightenment cannot be described by language because language is dualistic in nature. Still through language one tries to help.
The nature of Consciousness is free and unbound, but due to habit and continuity, it identifies itself with a body/mind and believes it is 'trapped' inside that person, and that there is a world out there, separate from the body/mind limited identity. Through meditation and practice, what is 'trapped' becomes liberated, and enlightenment happens. When one becomes liberated, the Consciousness that was once 'trapped' inside the body/mind, realises that it was always one with everything, that the seeming identity was an illusion, that there was no person, no self, only one big ocean of Consciousness (existence/awareness) getting to know itself through different 'seemingly separated' points in space. There is only one life, one being, it is infinite, it is eternal, and it is impersonal. Enlightenment is that realisation through direct experience. It happens to every being when the physical form 'dies', therefore, to become enlightened is to die before one dies.
Hope these words helped somehow. Love and light!
Your asking the right questions! An enlightened person would not be able to talk ‘metaforically’ and abstract about something thats a lived and current experience . In other words, some might like to ‘think’ they know what enlightenment is. But, any thought is just that, a thought..what remains..who is the witness of that? Hm, the answer is a mystery that can not ever be bound by the logical thinking mind. Keep searching you might find your answer yourself!..cant go ever wrong on ramana maharishi ‘s teachings . I enjoyed reading your message , made me reply :) all the best
I agree, Shinzen's definition of enlightenment does seem to be different than that of many teachers I've heard. It doesn't appear to match the 'self and world disappearing' descriptions of the Void I've heard from people like Adyashanti or others whose teachings I've listened to that are more in line with the classic systems.
He uses words like 'seeing no-self', but his very detailed description of his experience of enlightenment in one video also doesn't match more 'classic' descriptions, so to speak. It seems he still has a self at the core of his being and his boundaries have dropped away ever more over the years, which is one level of enlightenment, but honestly in my many years of listening to various teachers, it seems as though Shinzen has his own definition of stream entry.
Obviously, people use different language to describe these things, and people are at different levels of enlightenment as well. Shinzen has certainly reached a certain level, but that doesn't mean he is a boddhisatva or enlightened to the same depth as x or y teacher.
Amazing said!
I would like to offer a friendly criticism, and hear what other people think about it. And, I'll just preface by saying that I have deep respect for Buddhism and great interest in it as a philosophy and religion, so this comes from a place of good will and genuine curiosity. This criticism applies not just to Young but also to many other Buddhist teachers who tend to say this same thing when asked about enlightenment or the self that I find really strange and dissonant with my own experience. It's the line where he says that we take thoughts and bodily sensations to "be me". Now, I suspect that this way of talking has its roots in the Sutras/Suttas, but it strikes me as a peculiar and implausible description of how the average person relates to their thoughts and bodily sensations. It seems inaccurate to say that we take those mental phenomena to "be ME"; instead, it seems more fitting to say that we take them to "be MINE". This is not mere semantic quibbling. There is a significant difference in taking the relation of identity and possession. It seems just plain wrong to say that one takes, say, the sensation of their feet in their shoes to be or even the thought of what to eat for lunch as a part of their identity. I might take those mental phenomena to be MINE but not ME.
Now, there is a complication here, because some types of thought play an important part in the felt sense of our identities. For example, if I take being a philosopher to be a part of my identity, then those thoughts that arise that are about philosophical issues might contribute to my identity, but that's quite different from saying that I take the thoughts to be ME. Take another example, I suspect that most people take their bodies to play an important role in their personal identity, especially if one is physically active. Based on the way most people talk, they see themselves as having ownership over the body without being identical to it. And should one tragically loose a limb or become paralyzed, they might experience a change in identity, but is that because they thought "I am my arm" or is that because having an arm enabled them to do things that they took to contribute to their identity.
In short, I think that this way of talking about the way human beings relate to their thoughts -- that they are identical to their thoughts -- to be inaccurate and implausible. I don't think the situation is so simple as Young and others suggest -- that we take our thoughts and bodily sensations to "be me". I maintain that there is a significant difference between identity and ownership, between "this is me" and this is mine". I suggest that the role that one's thoughts and bodily sensations play in one's personal identity is more complex than this framework suggests and that we take these mental phenomena to in some way contribute to our individual identity. Additionally, some types of mental phenomena play larger roles than others, and which type of phenomena can vary across individuals. We sometimes see certain possessions are more or less crucial to our identities than others, so it is import to distinguish between ownership and identity.
Hi Dustin,
This is a somewhat interesting distinction, but not paradigm shifting by any means. Most people identify with their thoughts and body, insofar as they identify with a myth of who they fundamentally are based on sensational phenomenon that has been encountered as see-hear-feel, anchored in time. Thoughts can be memories of the past and dreams of the future, and most people take those memories and visions as reality. I think Shinzen means that we identify with our thoughts and body sensations, and it doesn't really matter whether you say it is me or it is mine; The result is a limited scope of identity. Personally I like the metaphor that the journey to enlightenment is the journey of shedding identity structures until there is nowhere left to stand. In this way you are no longer leaning on anything impermanent, and the ground beneath your feet is the void of impermanence itself.
Have a great journey!
For me I was my thoughts, and emotions. I couldn't discern them any different from me. If I thought something bad of somebody, I would either act upon it, or believe it to be true, or believe it's who I am to think that way.
In that sense I would say that I was those thoughts and emotions since they would be the ones have total control on me and my life, never second guessing them or looking at them. It was a huge liberation for me to be able to simply watch them and nort take them for cash. I don't consider myself enlightened since the harder stuff (pain, anxiety, really strong emotions will still get a hold of me)
@@graybacks I imagine, however, that experience caused despair and doubt to leave you. They are such enormous obstacles on the path for me, they are nearly paralyzing. I have other obstacles such as neurochemical imbalances from narcotics withdrawal and energetic problems, but at the root those are the fundamental blockages that keep my life small.
How do you leave ?
I get it now ❤💯💯💯
This is the same answer he gives for the video "What is the Self?" The self and Enlightenment must be the same thing.
“ True self” or the sense of self of an enlightened person.
They are. Just different people use slightly different definitions or contexts, then sometimes they are not exactly equal. Just like with almost all words if you look closely.
We could as well say emptiness equals to self and to enlightenment but it is to be rather experienced than to be spoken about. No object can exist without the space around and in it. You are the space , not the object. In a deeper sense you are the Space and all objects, too. The word space again is used metaphorically because physicists do have an idea how physical space came into existence. But the space or emptiness I pointed to never came into existence, it just is or at least appears to be.
He means the Self, not the self, that is, primordial consciousness, not the ego. The terminology can get confusing at times. Different teachers also have different interpretations and models.
Well, the answers these three replies are gesturing in the direction of something true; however, there are a substantial inaccuracies and a lack of necessary qualifications that are worth making. First, there are currently different schools or denominations of Buddhist thought and practice, and historically there have been a great many of divisions and subdivisions within Buddhism, which have been divided on a host issues like metaphysical questions about the self (e.g., what kind of a thing is the self, do the teachings on no-self mean that the ego doesn't ultimately exist or that no self of any kind exists, etc.) as well as questions about whether enlightenment is sudden or gradual.
Famously, the Mahayana tradition (the form of Buddhism that is prevalent through out Northeast Asia) interprets the Buddha's teachings on no-self differently than the Theravada tradition (the form of Buddhism that is prevalent through out Southeast Asia). Roughly, the Mahayana says that the ego doesn't exist but a transpersonal self does, a self that you, me, and every sentient creature shares; conversely, the Theravada tradition takes this to be a heretical view, tantamount to Hindu view the Self (Skt. 'Atman') (what the commenter @valar calls "primordial consciousness"). Theravada maintain that there is no self of any kind. All that exists is transient and insubstantial moments of experience (Skt. 'dharmas'; Pali 'dhammas'), without any enduring experiencer or self behind them.
Second, with this distinction in mind -- Theravada vs. Mahayana Buddhism -- we can see two different answers to the question of the relationship between the self (or no-self) and enlightenment. Mahayana (on which the "Chan" or Zen tradition is a part) might describe enlightenment along the lines that these previous commenters have described; that is, in terms of realizing one's "true Self" or "the Self". In other words, they would say (approximately) that enlightenment consists in truly seeing one's identity with "Buddha nature", which they take to be this transpersonal self. Conversely, Theravada would say something quite different. They would say that enlightenment or realizing one's Buddha nature consists in seeing that the self doesn't really exist -- all that exists is fleeting, empty moments of experience. According to Theravada, there is nothing whatever that can be rightly called as self.
Short answer: These above comments reflect what one school of Buddhism says about the self and enlightenment -- Mahayana. However, there are other schools -- Theravada -- that vehemently disagree with those views and take them to be corruptions of the Buddha's teaching.
There is a very good and reasonably accessible book that surveys the differences between the different forms of Buddhism, called "Buddhisms: An Introduction" by John S. Strong.
This is intriguing. " you can leave anytime you want." Then, where do you go?
Yes, it is intriguing. Although when you get to Shinzen's level, it doesn't matter.
I get it when y realize it you will laugh
"The nothingness that precedes the Big Bang...metaphorically speaking." He he..."metaphorically", Shinzen?
;-)
Metaphorically but in quotation marks. Sneaky :)
@@AndreasDelleske I like Shinzen that way. He won't let you know that he lives in the space before the Big Bang, but he'll say maybe he does.
I think metaphorically is appropriate since it acknowledges that this space indeed feels very real even if it's not really real since what we knows that's real is everything composed in the law of physics but how can this then be real.
Well it's like metaphysics except without the discursive thinking and probbably being in no self space is analogous to entering a black hole or before the universe. Not literally but metaphorically or metaphysically perhaps.
@@krishnamadhusudan8370 Yes. It's certainly perceived that way, according those who have had experiences of No-Self or the Void, where the entire universe, including you, disappears and then reappears. It is apparently an _immensely freeing and liberating experience._ (And, unfortunately, very rare, despite those who claim otherwise - for now. I don't think for much longer, the way neuroscience is advancing.)
I certainly don't know if this is objectively true or not but that leads to whether there even is an objective truth, or even a subjective/objective split. Our knowledge of the universe is quite limited and I am in sharp disagreement with atheists like Sam Harris and Yuval Noah Harari who argue that these experiences are 'only' subjective and who seem terrified to ascribe any objective veracity to them at all.
If they acknowledge objective veracity, then what happens to their belief structures? They collapse, of course. So deliciously ironically, for Buddhists. I love it.
complicated and not clear, the normal jargon we listen to every day, No cutting edge, crystal clear definition
Pretty clear to me. As clear as it can get for someone like myself who's never had a liberation experience. Adyashanti is also really good at describing this stuff.
What's your definition then
Very narrow explanation, its actually way more than just elasticity of identity
Please expand?
Every communication has a context and a receiver, there is no way around it.
He's giving us the short version.
You should give us a our take. I agree that impermanence or elasticity of self is a minor aspect.
There is other aspects like crossing into emptiness, cessations, and non-duality, discrete vs continuous mind generated phenomenon, experience machine, beyond thought, formless jhanas.
All related but I guess the definition ask is what is your current custom definition or model you use.
@@krishnamadhusudan8370 Yes, this is a good suggestion. I also find Young's answer limited and somewhat bizarre, but it's a lot harder to give a positive account of what one takes a good description of enlightenment to be.