BG 229: Enlightenment for the Rest of Us
Podcast: Download
Episode Description:
“You can perform neurosurgery on yourself.” – Kenneth Folk
This week’s episode comes from the recent Buddhist Geeks Conference, where meditation teacher Kenneth Folk spoke about his three pillars of pragmatic dharma: 1) awakening is possible, 2) I know because it happened to me, and 3) here’s how.
Kenneth cycles through each of these pillars, going deeper each time, first exploring what enlightenment is–highlighting the difference between a moment of awakening and enlightenment as human development. He also speaks about why he claims that it happened to him, challenging a taboo in Buddhist culture to not speak about one’s personal experience of enlightenment. He then speaks about attention as the common denominator of all the technologies for awakening, exploring his particular approach to training attention, what he calls the 3-speed transmission.
Episode Links:
Transcript:
Kenneth Folk: There was a time in the early 90s when I was doing a lot of long meditation retreats. And I think my mother felt it was necessary to explain to her friends what I was doing with my life. And she told her friends that Buddhism is not a religion but rather a philosophy, because in our household religion was frowned upon but philosophy was okay. And so my mother asked me is that right? Is Buddhism a philosophy? And I thought about that and replied, “Well Buddhism certainly is a religion. There are people who take Buddhism very seriously as a religion, and it is a philosophy, and it is a psychology, and it can be scholarly pursuit. But for me, the nugget the thing that is really special about Buddhism is that it’s a set of technologies for awakening.” And I would say that everything else is designed to support that. After all the word Buddha means awake.
So we’re talking about awakening, enlightenment. I would like to normalize enlightenment. There’s an opportunity here as Buddhism moves into the West to shake things up a little bit, to change some attitudes. And one of the attitudes that I think is very pervasive is that enlightenment is for other people. It’s for people who wear traditional clothing and/or live in caves primarily. But it isn’t true. Enlightenment it’s an old word, maybe an outdated word for human development. And human development is available to humans.
I’d like to talk about this using a kind of a formula that I only half jokingly think of as the three pillars of pragmatic dharma. It goes like this. Enlightenment is possible, that’s No. 1. No. 2, I know because it happened to me. And No. 3, here’s how. So I’m going to cycle through those three points over the next 20 minutes in a kind of iterative fashion going a little bit more deeply with each iteration to make the case that enlightenment is for all of us.
So this is going to require explaining what do I mean when I say enlightenment. And also, by the way, when I say it happened to me. It happened to whom. If the essential insight is that there isn’t anybody here, why would I say such a preposterous thing? Well there’s a reason why I’m saying it and I’ll explain.
Let me talk a little bit about the technologies that I’m referring to. So what is enlightenment? Let’s start with awakening, momentary awakening. This is where it starts. We are in an auditorium at the University of the West in Rosemead, California which is part of the Los Angeles Megalopolis. And Los Angeles is one of the greatest port cities in the world. There’s a port here at San Pedro. If you listen very carefully, maybe you can hear, maybe we can hear the ships in the harbor at San Pedro. [pauses]
But on the other hand, no there’s no chance. San Pedro is probably, I don’t know, 40 miles from here. Los Angeles is big. We can’t hear these ships. And yet the very effort or the very inclination of the mind to listen for something that is so subtle and in this case undefined does something to the mind. Try it again. Listen for the ships in San Pedro. Never mind that you don’t know what it’s going to sound like. [pauses]
There’s a possibility for a kind of openness and a kind of quiet in the mind where the mind stops yammering at you for a moment. So let’s called this a moment of awakeness.
Enlightenment, I’m using it in a slightly different way, I’m talking about something developmental. So to understand enlightenment as a development or a developmental process, let’s establish two poles. Let’s say over here on your left is not enlightened, totally clueless, the uninstructed yogi, the uninstructed wordling. And over here on your right is no room for improvement. This is the Buddha. And you can imagine a line between these two points. A continuum from not very enlightened to a little bit of enlightenment and more and more. So we have a developmental process. And at each of point along the way as you move this way to your right, you have more of these moments of awakeness in relation to your moments of unawakeness. But does it have to be binary? Is it either totally clueless or completely enlightened to the point where there’s no room for improvement? No, certainly not. And in fact, not only is there an infinite continuum, there is a tipping point.
Somebody who’s been doing this practice and has gotten to this tipping point, this is what I’m calling enlightenment, the official enlightenment point. Now notice this person isn’t yet a Buddha. And it seems like there’s a lot to go here. And yet something very significant has happened. At the tipping point it’s as though you’ve been riding your bicycle uphill for some period of years usually, decades and sometimes the wind is in your face and sometimes it’s at your back but you’re generally riding uphill. At the tipping point, you’ve crest to the hill and you’re riding downhill. So here again sometimes the wind is in your face and sometimes it’s at your back but you know you’ve got this. People often say at this point it may be that even if I didn’t practice this would continue to unfold. It so happens that people do continue to practice at that point because the momentum is so strong. So that’s what I’m talking about as enlightenment, as a continuum and as a tipping point.
So I’ll go to the second point: It happened to me. This is why I’m confident telling you about it and why would I say that? Why would I say that in the face of the taboo against saying it? I don’t think the taboo is helpful. It may have served at one time but I think now… I think transparency is good. So if I think I’m enlightened I should say so. Now I may be wrong, and if I’m wrong then the rest of you will point it out and hopefully something good will come of that because I will get more enlightened through the interaction. I think the more we talk about this the better we get at teaching it and the better we get at learning it. What about this question of to whom does it happen? I don’t know to whom it happens. So I’ll move on to the third point here’s how. [Laughter]
There is a Zen koan that I think is kind of cute. When I think of Zen koans I often, when you hear the exchange between the student and the master, I hear the voice of little Kwai Chang Caine from the kung fu television show talking to Master Po, the blind master. So in this one the student says, “Master what is the most important thing?” And the master says, “The most important thing is attention. Yes, master but what is the second most important thing.? The second most important thing is attention. Yes, master but what is the third most important thing? The third most important thing is attention.” What is the common denominator among all of these technologies for awakening? Tt is attention. And there are lots of ways to apply attention; lots of things to apply attention to.
Something Shinzen Young said in an offhand remark years ago got me thinking about a way to categorize all of these different practices from different traditions. Shinzen said, when things are difficult, he will downshift to mindfulness of the body as kind of first gear. So I took that ball and ran with it. I think of this as being divided into three gears, a kind of three-speed transmission. First gear is looking at the objects of awareness, the changing phenomena of mind and body, so vipassana is first gear. Second gear is to turn the attention around and ask the question to whom is this happening. So that would be Advaita Vedanta or certain kind of Zen, Hwadu.
And third gear is to recognize, as Tibetan Buddhists might say, the essential nature of mind. To recognize what is always already done. This moment is perfect as it is and you need only recognize that. So that’s the three speed transmission. And one way to approach it is to go to third gear first. If you can see that this moment is perfect as it is, well I would just look at that. If that’s difficult, if you’re not able to get traction then you can downshift to second or first gear.
Let’s go back to the beginning. What is enlightenment? There’s a 2007 University of Toronto Study that used fMRI scans to look at the brains of meditators. They posited two modes of attention, which I don’t think they made up. I think this goes back to William James at least. Two modes of attention: experiential focus and narrative focus. Experiential focus would be paying attention to something that’s going on. You’re engaged in what’s going on. Vipassana would be a good way to do that or even just listening now to the sound of the air-conditioner will move your mind into experiential focus. And narrative focus is when we’re telling ourselves a story about our experience. These are two very different ways that the mind works.
Your essential job in order to get enlightened is to change the mode from the narrative, which is the default focus, to the experience. If you do this consistently, you will change the wiring of your brain. This is what the study in question found, that the brain structure and functioning change and this is what these fMRI studies continue to find. You can perform neurosurgery on yourself by again and again shifting the mode from the narrative to the experience. This is not easy because the default is the narrative. This is how human beings are set up.
Enlightenment is possible. It’s a realistic goal for everyone in this room. It’s a realistic goal for everyone. I know because it happened to me at least to the tipping point. I haven’t yet gotten to no room for improvement. And here’s how: Attention. And by the way, this room is filled with people who know how to do this, know how to teach this. Thank you.
Author Info
i love this talk. i especially like his clear metaphor for the spectrum of enlightenment and its "tipping point". a lot of the confusion out there is the romanticization and mystification of enlightenment.
i think in order to progress, at least scientifically and pragmatically, on re-creating the classical "enlightenment" experience on masses of people, there should be a definition of this "tipping point."
imho, a good definition of this tipping point is the "stream entry" in the Theravada model. from this perspective, enlightenment is an *opening* to the experience of no self as thing. then we can take it from there…
~C
Yeah, I think Kenneth is defining the tipping point as quite a bit further along than stream entry. For him the tipping point is 4th path in Daniel Ingram's model. I tend to agree with him, because while stream-entry is a type of tipping point, it pales in comparison to the change that he's talking about where you know that "you've got this." My personal feeling is that keeping the bar high is good.
whether we set the bar high or low, the important thing is to have an agreement on the definition. it's complicated enough that different traditions with different models/maps don't agree, it's another when there is no agreement within the same tradition or using similar models/maps. in the physical sciences, the disciplines have a set of definitions that they basically have an agreement on (e.g. energy, matter, force, mass, acceleration, etc.) if there is to have a science of enlightenment, there should be at least a general agreement on what the tipping point of enlightenment is–or its basic definition.
that said, i tend to agree with Shinzen. his tipping point (the way i understand it) can be correlated with "stream entry" (or the conscious experience of no self as thing). that's why he always use the term "classical" enlightenment when referring to it.
http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/06/on-enlighten…
~C
alternatively, since "enlightenment" has become a loaded word, we could avoid using the word enlightnment altogether.
as Christopher Titmuss said: "Enlightenment. The word ‘enlightenment’ does not appear anywhere in the Buddhist texts. Enlightenment is a Western concept referring to the modern era in the West where science and reason gradually replaced God who gave out punishments and rewards for human beliefs and behaviour. The word ‘bodhi’ means awakening." see http://www.dharmafacilitators.org/index.php/welco…
although i don't know if this can be done in practice since the word "enlightenment" had been entangled with the goal of Buddhism.
that said, i have no issue calling it "awakening-1", "awakening-2", etc… or even enlightenment-1, enlightenment-2, etc… the important thing is definition and consistency.
~C
I agree – tipping point = 4th path.
Sorry to everyone who was hoping is was totally done and done at 4th, but there is more that happens… (and it's pretty great stuff!)
so how would we define "enlightenment" or "awakening" as a tipping point on the 4th path?
Yeah I see what your saying. The terms are very confusing and part of the reason for that is that they are referring to different dimensions of the same process. Awakening or Enlightenment is sometimes meant to refer to a single event, like stream entry or 4th path, but much more often it is meant to refer to the gradual process that happens over the course of the paths.
It is kind of like the word "education". Is completing the first year of college an education? Sure. So is the second and third and so on. Is stream entry awakening? Yep, it sure is. And so is 2nd, 3rd and 4th path. They are all part of an overall process, and the words enlightenment or awakening get so mixed up in this way.
Great talk. I believe that knowing how far we have to go doesn't make the way shorter but probably helps people to stay motivated (even though I like to stroll effortlessly in the direction that I think is right).
If you look at it from a neuroscientific point of view meditation is just changing / dissolving deeply routed neuronal connections that most of us have.
My wife got raised by very wise and loving parents who never punished her (only used positive reinforcement) and taught her meditation from childhood on as something natural. It is beautiful and inspiring how she is experiencing life today in such a pure and positive way.
It's great to know that a life like this is possible and with some practice possible for all of us.
I like how clear and clean this talk is–reminds me of a Hemingway short story. Kenneth covered a huge amount of territory in about 17 minutes. Really nice.
Kenneth wrote:
"If the essential insight is that there isn’t anybody here"
*****************
Is this really the essential insight? This statement seems like a metaphysical assumption (or conclusion) packaged as an obvious insight to anyone who pushes far on the meditative path.
Thanks
Matt,
"there isn't anybody here" *is* the essential insight in Buddhist practice as well as other mystical traditions. this is not a metaphysical assumption. it is Buddhist (or mystical) experience 101. this is the beginning of insight–that there is no self as thing.
that said, this insight is not limited to Buddhism or mystical traditions. it's also the logical conclusion of insightful philosophers and neuroscientists. see "Being No One: Consciousness, The Phenomenal Self, and First-Person Perspective – Thomas Metzinger" ~ http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=918…
my point: there's nothing metaphysical about the No Self. you/we just have to experience it for ourselves to get it.
~C
Hi. My practice is very secular…yet it produced many experiences common to those of long- term meditators. Context is so important. I assumed that my experiences were to be expected when tbe brain is allowed to "discharge emotion" without inhibition and when attention is purely focused on bodily sensations and on tbe stream of thought, memory, and feelings/ emotion. What i really want to add is…my conclusion has not been "there's no one there" but "everyone is here," human and nonhuman. What are your thoughts?" Thanks.
Depends what you mean by "everyone" and "here"… Sounds like a cheap shot perhaps, but obviously that statement doesn't work in the literal "face value" sense, and all of this can turn into a word game way too easily. So actually whether someone says "no one there" or "everyone here", the only thing to do is to wonder what you're actually insisting on, and why.
C4Chaos,
Thanks for your message. I have experienced what you are referring to and have gone quite far on the meditative path myself. I won't go into all of the details, and there is of course no reason for you to believe me, but I am not a newbie to this topic. I am familiar with Metzinger's work. He is a brilliant thinker.
I come back to the story in the suttas where Sid the Buddha was asked point blank whether there was a self. His response was silence. For me this is quite telling.
"There isn't anybody here" is still, for me, a metaphysical assertion. Language is always tricky in these contexts as Kenneth may mean something completely different than what I infer from that statement.
I am comfortable saying that, based on his descriptions, if Kenneth is enlightened so am I. However, for me at least, the endpoint has not been a conclusion that "there isn't anybody here". I can see how that might be true from one perspective, but somehow that statement still doesn't resonate with me.
Still I would be curious to hear from others if they feel "there isn't anybody here" is the essential insight. Perhaps I am missing something or perhaps I misinterpret.
Thanks
Wouldn't it be great if we could somehow *verify* these claims? Very subjective sounding to me.
I think the idea is that you verify them in yourself – like verifying that ice cream tastes good.
The reoccurring problem within Buddhism is "enlightenment" or bodhi, itself. What I mean by this is, what exactly did Siddhartha or the Bodhisattva awaken to? The answer is perhaps surprising. You even said it. It is the essential nature of mind or the same, absolute substance/tathata. Buddhism can be boiled down to "mind nature teaching" in which our buddha-nature is awakened to by various teaching strategies such as koans, for example.
Gentlemen,
Upon further reflection upon this post and these comments I have drawn some conclusions:
1. The core assertion of Theravada Budddhism is in fact that there is no self or no one there. I do not feel this is the most refined understanding of anatta as it is laid out in some of the eary teachings, but this is the core view of the Theravada. One who holds this opinion or view (or claims that this is the core "realization") would fit the description of a Theravadist.
2. There is a broader perspective that is possible that sees the Theravada, or Buddhism in general, as one particular viewpoint or set of viewpoints.. Meditation aids in the development of this perspective.
3. The way in which we frame enlightened vs. Unenlighteend, arahat, anagami, etc is burdened with elitist undertones. Even speaking of awakening implies a somewhat elitist view that there is something to awaken from and that there are those who are not awake. Better to speak of having had or not had certain experiences. Discussing the developmental process would be clearer if we spoke of experiences rather than states or stages. The whole shebang might be more clearly called the human developmental process as terms such as self realization, awakening, etc. Seem to already be loaded with historical baggage
My two cents
Thanks
I agree with Matt, but we need a better term than the human awakening process. It also has baggage.
1 – There might be a subtle difference between "there is no self" and "no one there", as always depending on interpretation. But regardless of interpretation, nobody gets to choose what they really mean with "self" or "me" etc, no matter what post-rationalizations you stick onto it. This "self" is not there. This is not Theravada teaching, this is not even Buddhist teaching, it's plain and simple observable fact and it is reflected in many traditions, Buddhist or no.
2 – There is always a broader perspective. Point is to see that they're all just perspectives.
3 – The thing to awaken to is the fact that there's nothing (substantial) to awaken to. Merely saying that there's nothing to awaken to is not very helpful if you don't know this first hand. Even if you know it first hand, it's still not helpful if it becomes only a memory. And "experiences" (as something special or some kind of goal) are not the point at all. They are at best side effects of what you call the developmental process. Personally I think it's best to just put them aside, because even with that said, there will be plenty of temptation to latch on to them as some kind of yardstick.
So that’s the case? Quite a rveealtion that is.
Great talk. I love the three speed model. It actually dovetails well with the advice of Advaita mystics such as Ramana Maharishi, who in his talks seemed to be saying that
1. Non-dual silent transmission was the highest teaching
2. But for those who could not penetrate this, self-enquiry was the best practice
3. And for those who could not penetrate using self-enquiry, meditation was the best practice
So he seemed to be saying that meditation, self-enquiry and silent transmission were all valid approaches depending on one's ability.
I think this is the paper Kenneth mentioned:
Attending to the present: mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural modes of self-reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC25667…
I find it hard to see why anyone would think it so important to be enlightened?
To take your attention from the path to trying to get in the right gear seems to may risk you getting out of focus.
Our lifelong path won´t end at getting enlightened. Stay mindful, with a clear mind. Following a man who was awakened by LSD and became enlightned under the influence of prozac do not seem to me to be mindful. Or maybe in a kind of steroid way trying to cheat his way to the enlightend medal.
Don´t run after the silver medal.
"No one saves us but ourselves, No one can and no one may. We ourselves must walk the path, but Buddhas clearly show the way."
Dp. 165