Enlightenment is not needing to die a good death

I'm a believer in the Five Minute University equivalent of book reading. If you're not familiar with Father Guido Sarducci's Five Minute University, congratulations. You're nowhere near as old as I am. Sarducci was a thing back in the ancient days of 1970's/80's comedy.

His brilliant idea, which is hard to argue with, was to charge $20 for a diploma from his college, which only takes five minutes to graduate from, since five years after someone graduates from a regular college, all they can remember about what they learned could be regurgitated in five minutes. For more details, here's a video:

When I read a non-fiction book, I have a similar approach to it. If I can come across just a couple of ideas that I'll remember a couple of years after I finish the book, I consider that my time reading it was well spent. 

Today I came across a quotation in Jean Tollifson's book, Painting the Sidewalk With Water: Talks and Dialogues About Non-Duality, that struck me as meeting Sarducci's criterion. I think I'll remember these words, because I resonate with them so much.

"Enlightenment is not dying a good death. It is not needing to die a good death."

Tollifson said that these were the words of Katagiri Roshi when he was dying of cancer. She went on to say this in a brief chapter, "You Can't Get Any Closer to Here than Here."

The egoic mirage always wants to look and feel good -- be calm while the plane crashes, smile benevolently on my deathbed, meet everything with total equanimity, never get angry or anxious or depressed. But the One Reality includes everything.

So what difference does it make? Obviously it's more pleasant one way, but life is not always pleasant by its very nature. The suffering is in the thought that this is "my" reaction, and "I" want it to be spiritually correct. It all seems very important and very serious.

So here we are at the Yoga Center and the mind is busy plotting what to do if there is turbulence on the plane flight home tomorrow. It's so human, and it's quite funny, isn't it? As Mark Twain once said, I've been through lots of terrible things in my life, but fortunately most of them never happened.

...You will do whatever you do -- but there is no executive at the helm calling the shots. And nothing you do will get you anywhere other than right here, where you always are. And when consciousness goes, either in deep sleep or in death, all your progress is gone. The whole movie of your life vanishes like last night's dream.

Enlightenment is seeing this. Delusion is not seeing this. When enlightenment is here, we see everything as unicity [a single entity]. When delusion is here, we imagine enemies who need to be vanquished, internal enemies or external enemies. Enlightenment sees no boundary between internal and external, and it sees no enemies.

It sees only God.

Tollfison isn't referring to a personal God here. In fact, I don't believe she is referring to anything at all, except unicity, oneness, the "uni" in our universe.

She also isn't saying that enlightenment is something permanent. It comes and goes as we bounce back and forth between viewing ourselves as a separate "I" and, in our wiser moments, seeing ourselves as inseparable from everything in existence.

I really like the notion of not needing to die a good death, or indeed, of not needing for anything to be other than what it is. This takes the pressure off.

It relaxes me. It makes me more accepting of my faults and weaknesses. It helps me look upon pain, disappointment, fear, and other disturbing emotions as simply something that's part of life, rather than as a cancer that needs to be excised from my mind.

Comments

[Ron E.]

In a troubled and confused thought dominated world where the everyday realities of the world either go unnoticed, ignored or overlayed by extraneous thoughts and beliefs, it really makes me feel quite optimistic when I come across some of the ‘down-to-earth’ writings from people like Joan Toliffson that there are people around who understand and cut through the mass of mis-conceptions regarding meditation and spirituality.

After reading the above post from Brian I opened one of Joan’s latest postings from her substack which I include below - I appreciate and am heartened by such simplicity: -

Joan Tollifson: Right Now, Just As It Is.
“The kind of meditation that has interested me is not about concentration or trying to control the mind. It’s about discovering what happens when we stop all our usual activity and all our efforts to control the uncontrollable, when we drop out of the thought-realm into silence and stillness—doing nothing, going nowhere, simply being this vast unbound awaring presence that we are—hearing sounds, feeling sensations, seeing the beauty everywhere, feeling the energies and currents of life, deepening and opening into listening stillness—being and beholding this whole happening in ever more subtle and surprising ways.
This isn’t about trying to stay in some thought-free state all the time, which would be impossible. In-stead, it’s simply noticing how thinking bubbles up, how it captures the attention, how it hypnotizes us, how we naturally wake up from it—noticing how it feels to be lost in thought and how it feels to wake up from the thought realm and be fully present to the sensory world and the spaciousness of this open awake presence that we are, the unconditional love that beholds everything, the vastness of right here, right now.
Meditation is seeing how we turn away from this simple being and get drawn into the world of con-ceptual thought—the story of me and all the stories and concerns about ourselves, our loved ones and the world—the conflict, the opinions, the beliefs, the identities, the upset and suffering, the confusion—all the efforts to understand and grasp and get somewhere and be somebody. It’s not about going to war with all this, but simply awaring it, seeing it for what it is. “

[um]

@ Ron E.

Maybe it was not that simple for her to begin with or for each and everybody, to bypass, calm down, that part of ourselves that is "responsible for survival" in both nature, society and culture .... when that part is screaming ..do something, your this and that is at stake.

The first time I discovered the power of thoughts when driving and was faced in an urge to turn the wheel. I had to grab the wheel and hold on to it in order not to react and I had to hold that grip until the thought, vanished in the same way as it had come. There and then i understood .. in a rather brutal way ... what is known in Zen about thoughts as clouds and also how it is almost impossible to not be caught by its magnetic power

AFTER ... one has discovered these things, one can easily say what she writes about that calmness of being here ...John Butler in the UK describes it as PRESENCE and he advices people to become aware of it by standing still in nature. .....But it was a long and painfull road before he discovered it ..or .. was forced .. to discover it.

Everything comes at a price. ..I suppose Tolifon had to pay the price also as butler did and all the others.

[Appreciative Reader]

“Enlightenment is not needing to die a good death”

I’m not sure I follow. What’s a “good death”, in this context? Does Tollifson spell that out? (If she doesn’t, maybe you could share what that term means to you, Brian, in context of this post?)

All of this post makes sense, in general. Just, that specific bit, which of course is central to the post, I didn’t quite get. I didn’t quite get why not being enlightened (as defined here*) means you necessarily hanker for a good death, and why being enlightened (as defined here*, and in those terms I suppose both you and I are enlightened) means that that hankering goes away. I mean, I don’t think I want a death that’s painful, or messy, either as it relates to me, or as it relates to others, particularly those near and dear to me --- and yet I guess I’m enlightened, basis how that term seems to have been defined here*.

I think clearly understanding what a “good death” means, in this context, is probably central to making sense of this.

.
----------
* That’s a pet quibble of mine, actually, diluting the term “enlightenment” to this homeopathic extent, I mean to say. After all, enlightenment is defined in way more grandiose terms in all traditions, well maybe Zen excepted. Rather than redefining the word like this, might it not make more sense to simply state that enlightenment is a myth, that enlightenment as discussed by all of these traditions is not a thing at all, and that this milquetoast thing is the best that we can get? That sounds more straightforward to me, rather than trying to co-opt that term like this, and in the process redefining it beyond all recognition. ….But that’s by the bye, and I didn’t want to detract from the question I was actually interested in here --- the “good death” thing --- and hence I’ll limit this observation to this footnote here.

[Appreciative Reader]

As far as the footnote, and separately from my actual “good death” question above, and separately from this post and this thread: I’ve just now said that, basis the milquetoast definition of enlightenment presented here, I think I’m enlightened. Maybe it might be interesting to have a discussion around whether we do believe we’re enlightened, we personally, each of us, and around our explanations around why we think that (that we’re enlightened, or that we’re not enlightened). You, Brian; and me as well; and um; and Ron; and umami, and sant64, and the rest, everyone here who might want to chip in. And also if we believe there’s anything more that’s left for us to do now, in terms of our spiritual quest, and our spiritual whatever-it-is; or if we’re all good and done now, already, without nothing more that we’d like to do or try or understand or attain to, as far as this spiritual business.

I think such a discussion, focused on how each of us thinks this applies to us personally, might be interesting, and more importantly it might be useful in helping us sort out our understanding of this idea out clearly and fully. (Again, “enlightenment” as defined here in this thread. Basis just that definition, and none other.)

[sant64]

Thinking about Chogyam Trungpa. I never met this guru, but did meet one of his famous disciples, John Steinbeck Jr. At the time I was a complete neophyte to Buddhism, and Steinbeck's brief encapsulation of the gospel of no-self left me non-plussed. He turned to me and smiled "And what do you have to say about that sir?" I was in awed wonder at this brave new world. Like those chaps upon that peak in Darien, I could only be silent.

And so there is this thing, "enlightenment." It's an idea that has captivated me and it has millions over the ages. The only problem with enlightenment is that it's a lie.

Why is enlightenment a lie? Well, to be clear, enlightenment isn't a total lie. But the idea of enlightenment is a fantasy, for no one ever has demonstrated they live an enlightened life. We don't live like enlightened beings. We live more like pack animals. We follow the herd, we follow our pack, and our fond ideas that we're rational free thinkers is simply a story we tell ourselves. A quite meaningless story.

Certainly, this was true for the Trungpa followers. There was Trungpa himself, who banged every gopi he could and drank himself to death at 47. If his sangat had been rational, they'd have learned from their mistake, choosing to follow a more competent guru. But they followed Osel Tendzin, a worse human being than Trungpa. The next guru they followed is Trungpa's son. But he's found to be his father's son, ie, not so much the enlightened Buddha but a guy who really digs spending money and having boom boom with the female bodhisattvas.

No doubt most everyone in the Trungpa org felt they were at least halfway enlightened. Despite that, they continued to pledge their allegiance and money to really bad guys posing as fully enlightened gurus. Why was that? Why did a mostly enlightened community continue to make the same bad choices over and over again?

Well, it can only be because enlightenment isn't real. When successive gurus who claim enlightenment are all revealed to be corrupt, then it follows that anyone who thought authentic enlightenment was a play must be said to be a victim of delusion.

You see the same thing playing out in other venues. I'm thinking here of another religion where the guru was thrown out for being incompetent and daft. Did the followers then choose a better guru, ie someone very competent and intelligent? Nope. Inexplicably, they chose one of the dumbest and most incompetent people in their church to be successor. And she chose as her second someone quite as dumb and incompetent as her.

You'd think the enlightened brethren of this church would voice their displeasure at these developments. But you'd be wrong. For like the Trungpaists, the people of this church see themselves as enlightened and their church as enlightened, their nitwit shenanigans notwithstanding.

And that's why "enlightenment" is just a silly word and nothing more.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

What I learned in my highschool was how a fight off a principal, then received high honors.

At my university, I picked up what it meant to never be a cheater.

In the streets earlier I had already learned, what respect meant, as my life depended on it.

But only from Charan Singh Ji Maharaj did I learn the most valuable thing any school of hard knocks could teach you; the Teacher (today Baba Ji) is most valuable component

[Ron E.]

"Enlightenment is not dying a good death. It is not needing to die a good death." This applies to the state of mind that being enlightened puts one in a permanent state of smiling, blissful equanimity – even at death, and let’s be honest, many seekers believe/think/hope that such enlightenment will do just that.

As um made reference to maybe it’s not that simple and there’s something in that, although I don’t think it’s anything to do with ‘paying the price on a long and painful road’. It maybe that other interests and perhaps biological demands take precedence – particularly for young people – and why not? Can you imagine developing young people with raging hormones and various ambitions being interested or even mindful of something described as ‘present moment awareness’ etc?

Yet I do recall that although being a typically developing young man, there always seemed to be an equally urgent other direction – often ignored or not fully realised.

Anyway, to get back to now, I don’t believe (although fun, interesting and perhaps even stimulating) that one can think or debate into the bones of the inquiry re enlightenment. It seems to me that it comes down to a question of what is real and what we can actually know, and all I can come up with – similar to Toliffson’s: - “Whenever there is confusion or seeking, return to what is impossible to doubt. What do you know beyond all doubt? You know that you (as this boundless aware presence) are here, that present experiencing is showing up. You cannot doubt present experiencing and aware presence. It requires no belief. It is inescapable and obvious, this ever-changing and ever-present actuality of just this.”

And, we can debate this forever, continually introducing various thoughts, opinions and ideas that in effect merely overlay the present moment or just this, with mind created concepts. Remembering that the mind, self and thought etc. are merely words attempting to describe mental processes, processes that have evolved to aid our survival – and in our ‘big-brained’ case have been usurped by the ‘I’ or ‘me’ aspect of our thinking ability to primarily maintain and protect the fragile ego/self. After all, to be honest, with most aspects of our lives, and perhaps especially with the spiritual inquiry, it’s basically all about ‘me’.

Also, it’s pertinent to say that in Zen and Chan, devices such as ‘just sitting’ and particularly ‘koans’, appear to address the ever present conceptually thinking mind to the effect of exhausting its ability to ‘work things out’ in order to bring one to present moment reality, or just this.

[Ron E.]

And a few annoying quotes: -

Enlightenment is not something removed from you, a particular thing you have to get. It’s not some-thing to get an idea of or to figure out. In fact, it can’t be figured out. Nor is enlightenment some-thing hard to experience. You’re experiencing it right now, though you may be ignoring the experience.
--Steve Hagen

Enlightenment is simply being awake to this moment however it is. There is no finish-line in the living reality Here / Now, and there is no beginning and no end to awakening—it is always unfolding now.

Instead of trying to get somewhere, or attain something, or get rid of something, what if we simply stop and notice how it is, right here, right now?

What if we don’t try to define how it is (label it, analyze it, explain it), but instead, what if we simply let it be as it is? How is it? That isn’t a question to answer. It isn’t calling for a label, a description or an explanation. It is rather an invitation to be awake in this moment – to stop, look and listen – to be fully present, fully alive, to discover what is revealed. And this revelation is without end.
--Joan Toliffson.

[um]

@ Ron

>> s um made reference to maybe it’s not that simple and there’s something in that, although I don’t think it’s anything to do with ‘paying the price on a long and painful road’<<

It has been my observation due to long standing contact with, let us call it, spiritual information, that most if not all people that made it to the media, became went through something of an emotional trauma, a trauma tha produced more or less the same as reported in physical traumas.

Then there are the "successors" people in a lineage of an restricted length until the last had nothing more to give cq was not able or willing to disclose the inner gate to a successor.

And of course the thousands of those that believe, are made to believe or whatever believe, in more or less motivated manner, that they can disclose those doors by a practice.

And finally ..the scribes, ..those that discuss it all and become more or less welknown for their discussions and even manage to become famous and make money from it ... "he thieves."

Based on this observation ..I wrote that everything comes at a price.

[um]

@ Ron

I seldom read commentaries.

The observation is based upon the biographies of those that are considered as "source"
IF ... if the words of these "mystic" does not tell the tale,THAN the comments of others certainty will not do.

[Ron E]

um. To use terms like trauma, successor, mystics, thieves etc. effectively obscures the only undoubted reality of now. Such thoughts or ideas effectively obscure the undoubted reality of the sense perceived present.moment.
They are effectively a screen to shield the ' me' from realizing it's illusionary nature. The me/self will resist til the end.

[um]

@ Ron

What to say?
I heard for example John Butler relate his story up to his opening up to what he calls PRESENCE
I do not see how listening to his story effectively obscures the perception of the present moment. Listening to him and different others has been a help in understanding many things.

[Ron E]

um. Sure, no harm in listening or reading accounts from others. It may perhaps be the catalyst that weakens the hold of the mind/self/thought dominated way we interpret the world and ourselves. But more often than not, such information merely becomes another belief, another link in the armour that protects and further maintains the illusion of 'me' with all it's buffers that overlays now - or presence.

[um]

@ Ron E.

Agreed ..

[Brianna]

Lord knows Shabnam Dhillon didn’t die a good death. But her death was the only way that Gurunder wouldn’t go to prison. So she had to die.

So sad the Indian culture doesn’t care more about women. If they cared about women eve the tiniest bit they would have investigated her death and found the GSD was the cause and he would have gone to prison.

GSD is OFFICIALLY the absolute worst that has ever existed. He’s the scum of the earth.

[Brianna]

GSD’s children would have to totally and completely hate their mother in order to still keep in contact with the fat fuck old guru.

[Brianna]

Actually he’s an extremely short fat fuck with a GIGANTIC nose! I don’t understand how everyone is grossed out just by the sight of him. He’s disgusting. I guess that’s why his ego is so bruised.

[777]

On Elons question on X
about how one has fun
I answered under age name ANKHATON as follows

👏👏👏💞💞💞
Music arouses our 7 Chakras
One at the time or combined
The higher orgasm is in the Highest Chakra
wich is able to have harmony, interference , association
with the Holy Ghost
if we learned Compassion, REAL Compassion
👏👏👏💞💞💞

777

[💞💞💞 💞💞💞]

I forgot the word, the semantic of

RESONANCE

It s important

777

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

Brian,

Do you know the three Great Vehicles in Buddhism?

Charan Singh Ji Maharaj also taught these, but his terminology was different.

Can you remember any version?

[Brian Hines]

Karim, I'm not familiar with three Great Vehicles, either in Buddhism or Sant Mat. I assume these aren't a Mini Cooper, a Mazda Miata, and a Chevy Corvette.

[Karim W. Rahmaan]

"..not familiar with three Great Vehicles, either in Buddhism or Sant Mat."

Posted by: Brian Hines | August 10, 2024 at 10:19 PM

That's ok.

The subject is very confusing. Some sources refer to them as three separations in Buddhism itself. Which makes nonsense at the bat. Why would Lord Buddha conquer and divide himself -right?

So I found the smartest interpretation from a Buddhism for Dummies site. No offense to anyone practicing any lineage of Buddhism, but that particular site had the most accurate description from my studies. It said that one part was the Lifestyle of a Buddhist, 2nd the Lessons and practice of the Dharma. Then 3rd, actual Buddhahood.

Now, these go hand and hand with earlier Sant Mat. We don't hear it much today from Baba Ji basically because he's a Teacher for the new millennium per say. So it's definitely there, but more profound.

Back to that website, they have it close but still with those holes I talked about in other threads related to Buddhism. For one the order of the vehicles are off. As they have Buddhahood last. And in all actually it should be first. But it should say The-Buddha without the 'hood' part. The Teacher should always come 1st.