Concepts of Enlightenment

Enlightenment – most Buddhist studies of scriptures, moral norms, and meditational practices are directed to achieving this non-negotiable goal of Buddhism. But the concept of enlightenment has not always been clearly presented to us. This lack of clarity has at times resulted in an array of confusion and pointless debates on the nature of, and the best way to achieve, enlightenment. The concept of enlightenment needs to be better clarified. There have mainly been three different kinds of enlightenment in the history of Buddhism: philosophical enlightenment, nirvanic enlightenment, and enlightenment as seen in Zen traditions.

A clarification of the concept of enlightenment can help solve, or dissolve, some other philosophical problems that may entrap Buddhists in a maze. To start this clarification project, however, we need to trace back the origin of all this confusion. We will try to achieve this goal by addressing the most general philosophical issues of Buddhism. After all, the concept of enlightenment should be illuminated against the backdrop of Buddhism in general.

1. The Buddha, Enlightenment, and Nirvana

The Buddha set in motion the wheel of truth in the Indian subcontinent about 2,500 years ago, and his teaching spread throughout many regions of Asia. Buddhism has also traveled to the West in the past two centuries. The title ‘Buddhism’ with ‘-ism’ is rather foreign to most Buddhists in the East because they have not really claimed that the Buddha’s teaching is the one and only way that reveals the absolute truth to us. In other words, Buddhists do not claim any exclusive right to the truth – even if such an absolute truth existed, which most Buddhists would deny. One does not have to be a Buddhist to access the truth. For the Buddhists of the East, Buddhism is simply the teaching of the Buddha or the way of the Buddha and his followers. Buddhism is in this sense not an ism. It is just that Westerners began to call it Buddhism, and this name was accepted by the Buddhists in Asia too, perhaps because there was no other appropriate English word.

What, then, is Buddhism? We might naturally be puzzled if someone asks such a simple and honest but somewhat abrupt question. We feel we know Buddhism because we are familiar with Zen movies and books, meditation centers, photos of the Dalai Lama, newspaper articles on Tibetan monks, etc. But most of us would find it challenging to give an acceptable definition of Buddhism. Perhaps the most straightforward and quick answer to the question would be, as we have already discussed above: Buddhism is a system of the Buddha’s teaching. We may initially nod our heads for a couple of seconds, but soon we will realize that this quick response begs the question. We will immediately raise more questions: Who or what is the Buddha, and what did he teach?

The person who has been called The Buddha in history lived in the Indian subcontinent about 2,500 years ago. His name was Siddhartha Gautama. The name Buddha is in fact not a proper name given by his parents. It is the honorable title attributed to him after he obtained his enlightenment. The word “The Buddha” literally means ‘the enlightened one.’ So, he was in fact called The Enlightened One.

There is no controversy over the literal meaning of the word “The Buddha.” But we may here touch upon an interesting philosophical problem by asking a quick question: Was Siddhartha Gautama the Buddha? This question may sound rather silly if you know the history of Buddhism. To our surprise, however, there is no quick answer to the question. For the Buddhists in South Asia who follow Abhidharma or Theravada traditions, there is only one Buddha, and the name he used before his enlightenment was Siddhartha Gautama. So, their answer to the question is definitely yes.

But Central and East Asian Buddhists who follow Mahayana traditions believe that there are indefinitely many Buddhas in indefinitely many worlds. These ‘liberal’ Buddhists would not necessarily answer the given question straightforwardly. Their response would be, “Yes, but there are other Buddhas too.” For the purposes of our discussion, though, it is good enough to notice that the word “The Buddha” means ‘the enlightened one.’

The Buddha as the Enlightened One

Let us now assume that Buddhism is a system that conveys the teaching of the enlightened one. This assumption will serve us as a good working hypothesis. Readers of a philosophical mind would, though, like to ask a further question: What is enlightenment? What is it that is so good about this enlightenment that so many people for so many centuries have been striving to achieve it while willingly giving up their wealth, power, privilege, and even family?

Enlightenment is arguably the ultimate goal of all Buddhists for all time.^[1] As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, all the studies of scriptures, moral practices, and meditation sessions of Buddhists should be directed towards achieving this goal. There is no doubt that it is the one most important regulative principle of Buddhists in all their philosophical and religious endeavors. But do we actually know what enlightenment is? Are we trying to achieve something that we have clear knowledge of? Can we explain this Buddhist concept of paramount importance to people who have never heard of Buddhism?

It has been, personally, a rather surprising discovery that there has not been much serious philosophical discussion about the nature, or the characteristics, of enlightenment. The lack of philosophical discussion of this topic has often resulted in the acceptance of some non-philosophical, mysterious, and secretive versions of enlightenment that are obscure, elusive, and even deceptive. Buddhists frequently mention the same word “enlightenment” while they are in fact talking about quite different kinds of enlightenment. This conceptual disarray has been contributing to the inescapable confusion, recalcitrant philosophical problems, and futile debates on the appropriate way to enlightenment. I will in this essay clarify the concept of enlightenment with the analytical tools of contemporary philosophy. I hope this clarification will provide a useful conceptual guide for Buddhists on their way to enlightenment.

We have seen above that the meaning of the word “The Buddha” is the enlightened one. Siddhartha Gautama became the Buddha as he achieved enlightenment. We may be able to understand the concept of enlightenment better by asking yet another question: What is it that he was enlightened of? What was he awakened to? One might like to answer these questions rather quickly: Siddhartha Gautama was enlightened of the truth and the realization of this truth earned him the new title, the Buddha.

As we would expect, however, quick answers seldom satisfy any philosophically-minded reader. We should ask further questions: What is the truth that the Buddha was enlightened of? Is it the truth of life, or of the world, or of both? Does anyone’s realization of this truth make him or her qualified to be a Buddha? Or, is a simple realization of the truth itself not sufficient for enlightenment, and should one internalize this truth and change his or her perspective of life and the world accordingly?

Perhaps even a dramatic and radical change of one’s view of life and the world may not be sufficient to entitle one ‘a Buddha.’ We should also be able to remain psychologically disposed to be free from suffering (duhkha). No one would be regarded, however intelligent they may be and however well they are informed of the Buddha’s teaching, as truly enlightened ones as long as they cannot free themselves from suffering. This last sentence requires further discussion.

Enlightenment and nirvana

Strictly speaking, enlightenment and nirvana (being free from suffering) need to be distinguished. Enlightenment (bodhi) was at first regarded primarily as an epistemic achievement. Early Buddhist scriptures frequently report how people got enlightened right after they listened to the Buddha’s lectures. The Buddha himself sometimes announced that the people he taught got enlightened immediately after he completed his lecture. In contrast, nirvana is achieved through the cultivation of character. No matter how knowledgeable we may be of the Buddha’s teaching, we have not reached the state of nirvana unless we have completely freed ourselves from all suffering.

We should pay more attention to this philosophical point that enlightenment does not necessarily bring about nirvana. We are these days familiar with the stories of some smart people who are intelligent enough to understand the Buddha’s teaching of life and the world but still cannot control their excessive desires and attachments. We do not have to mention some unfortunate people on Wall Street, for example. The intelligence of these people does not get them any nearer to nirvana because they keep suffering from their unleashed cravings. Enlightenment as epistemic achievement, and nirvana as achieved through moral and spiritual cultivation, should be understood as different, yet connected, goals of Buddhists.

The history of Buddhism has revealed an interesting twist in the concept of enlightenment, though. “The Buddha” originally meant the enlightened one. As centuries passed by, however, the word came to pick up a new meaning: “The Buddha” came to mean the one who has achieved nirvana as well. To examine and evaluate this change of meaning, all we need to do is conduct a simple logical test. Let me explain the nature of this test with an example. Bachelors are, by definition, unmarried human males. If you form the phrase “a married bachelor,” you will immediately realize that it is logically inconsistent. For a bachelor is unmarried by the definition of the word, and ‘a married bachelor’ naturally results in a logical contradiction.

Now, combine “Buddha” with “suffering” and see whether the concept of this combined word contains a logical inconsistency. If the new concept results in a logical contradiction, it is evidence that “the Buddha” now has as a part of its meaning the one who has freed himself or herself from all suffering. As we would agree, “a suffering Buddha” is logically contradictory; it is at best an oxymoron. The Buddha, or all those Buddhas in Mahayana traditions, are all and always in nirvana being completely free from any sort of suffering. No wonder all the paintings and statues of Buddhas have subtle and mysterious smiles which indicate that they are always in nirvana.

‘The enlightened one’ is the etymological meaning of the word “The Buddha,” and we still honor this original meaning as a part of its current meaning. However, all Buddhas remain, with no exception, in nirvana. This is why “a suffering Buddha” strikes us as an outright logical contradiction. I believe we have to accept that the concept of enlightenment now includes the concept of nirvana. This is just how it is with the current concept of enlightenment, and it is not relevant or productive to discuss whether this change has been something desirable or not.

Buddhism has existed in the vast areas of Asia for two and a half millennia. It is in a sense natural that the meanings of its many important concepts have undergone a series of changes. The meaning of “enlightenment” has also had some dramatic changes over the past millennium or two. Perhaps the starkest example of this change is the concept of enlightenment in the Zen traditions of East Asia. We will discuss the Zen concept of enlightenment later in this chapter.

Concepts of Enlightenment

Now that we have asked a series of questions on the concept of enlightenment, let us go back to the question we raised at the beginning of this essay: What is enlightenment? A quick and easy answer is not possible. But we are now in a better position to see the reason. It is because we can ask several separate questions about various kinds of enlightenment. The word “enlightenment” has been used as a blanket term that covers a wide range of different kinds of enlightenment. To understand the concept of enlightenment more clearly, therefore, I believe we may as well draw a new map that helps sort out varied uses of the word “enlightenment.” As I see it, there are primarily three different kinds of enlightenment: philosophical enlightenment, nirvanic enlightenment, and enlightenment in Zen traditions.

2. Philosophical Enlightenment

Siddhartha Gautama earned his title of the Buddha when he was enlightened of the truth. But, let us ask again, of what was the truth that he realized? We may give a humorous response that begs the question: He was enlightened of the truth of Buddhism, which in this case must be the early teaching of the Buddha. Sitting under a tree all night, when he had regained his stamina after the extreme exhaustion which resulted from his six-years of self-mortification, Gautama could finally see the very nature of life and the world. He realized the truth of non-self (anātman) about life. Arguing against the predominant view of Brahmanism in his time, he denied the existence of self which is, or is supposed to be, the essence of a given person. There exists no such thing that makes a given person the person he or she is, according to the Buddha. This view was a revolutionarily new idea in his time, and it presents itself as quite a radical view in our time as well.

On the nature of the world, the Buddha saw the truth of dependent arising (pratītyasamutpāda). Everything comes into existence, abides, and passes out of existence depending on conditions; everything changes depending on its conditions. This is the truth that the Buddha realized about the world of existence. As we will see later in this chapter, dependent arising applies not only to things in the world but also to persons. The concept of dependent arising will be shown to logically include and explain the point of non-self. Legend also has it that the truth of dependent arising is what the Buddha was entertaining in his mind at the very moment of his enlightenment. The majority of Buddhists actually regard dependent arising as the one most important truth that sustains the entire system of the Buddha’s teaching.

Siddhartha Gautama was enlightened of the truth of dependent arising and became the Buddha. This was primarily an epistemic achievement. Let me name it philosophical enlightenment. It is the kind of enlightenment that one can achieve with a philosophical understanding of the truth of dependent arising. As we noted above, early scriptures of Buddhism have a good number of stories that describe the enlightenment of the Buddha’s disciples and students that happened right after they listened to the Buddha’s lectures. All enlightenment was originally philosophical enlightenment. It was sharply distinguished from nirvana. Nirvana is the state in which all the fire of one’s suffering is blown out or extinguished, and he or she is thus completely free of all suffering. To remain in nirvana is not an epistemic/cognitive achievement, and we have yet to explain its relation to philosophical enlightenment.

The Buddha’s teaching of non-self and dependent arising constitutes the very core of philosophical enlightenment. In order to understand the nature of this enlightenment more clearly, we need to examine the philosophical arguments that support the Buddha’s theses of non-self and dependent arising. Let us first focus on the Buddha’s dramatic claim of non-self. Early Buddhism presents a variety of arguments for this thesis. I will only briefly introduce a couple of these arguments^[2]:

In Indian traditions, one’s self (ātman) is believed to be something that is immutable, indestructible, and permanent. It may well be compared to the soul in the Western traditions. However, a person is, according to the Buddha’s analysis, made up of five aggregates: body and four kinds of psychological states – feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. Neither the body nor any of these four kinds of psychological states is immutable, indestructible, or permanent. None of them remain the same; they change constantly. None of these five aggregates are exempt from eventual destruction. And there exists in the given person nothing other than these five aggregates. Therefore, there is no self.^[3]

Let me introduce another argument that supports the Buddhist claim of non-self. One’s self is that which makes a given person the person she is. It is supposed to provide the person with her essence. However, none of these five aggregates can satisfy this job description of self. The body is not her essence, nor is her feeling, nor is her perception, etc. Neither can all of them combined do the job. The individual essence of a person cannot be had by the combined parts – the whole – when none of the parts has it.^[4] Neither any of those five aggregates nor all of them combined provides an individual essence for the given person. But the individual essence of the given person is supposed to be what the person’s self is or what the self gives – but of course only if the self exists. Therefore, there is no self in the person. We are persons empty of selves. We are empty persons.

Fundamentally more important for enlightenment is the realization of the truth of dependent arising. The truth of dependent arising implies the truth of non-self, but not the other way around. According to the Buddhists in the Abhidharma Traditions of South Asia,^[5] the Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising was originally meant to point to the omnipresence of causal relation in every corner of the universe. Nothing arises, lasts, and ceases to exist independently of its conditions. Everything is within this causal network of the world, and nothing exists outside of it. I suppose this view would have an intuitive appeal to us all who are, after all, living in the 21st Century dominated by the causal perspective of natural sciences.

As time passed by, however, the concept of dependent arising began to invite more comprehensive interpretations in Mahayana traditions. These traditions came to adopt quite a liberal interpretation of it to the point that they even claim that everything arises and ceases to exist only depending on everything else and that in this respect everything is related to everything else.^[6] The nature of this relation has not been clearly defined, but it certainly embraces non-causal connections that include spatial relations. The Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising is now viewed as the thesis that everything is conditioned and that, depending on the schools in Mahayana traditions, the scope of this conditioning is understood to be extended to everything else in the world.^[7] In these traditions, for example, it is possible, even necessary, for us to see and comprehend that a drop of morning dew at the tip of a grass contains the entire world.

Perhaps less dramatic examples may help clarify the point better. Teacher and student, husband and wife, parent and child, right and left, up and down, east and west … Each one of every pair in this series arises only dependently on the other in that pair. It is tricky to specify and define the nature of this dependent relation, but you get the point with these examples. Now, if you keep pushing this point further in the same direction, you will begin to see everything arise and cease only in dependence on everything else.

The Mahayanist principle of emptiness (śūnyatā) derives, as Nāgārjuna clearly saw, from the Buddha’s teaching of dependent arising.^[8] If everything (every object and event) arises, abides, and ceases only dependently on other things (objects and events), nothing can exist on its own. Whatever nature it might have, therefore, comes from other things. Nothing can have its own intrinsic nature. For nothing can have its own essence when it cannot even exist on its own. In other words, everything lacks its own-being (independent existence) and self-nature (自性). Everything is empty of essence (intrinsic nature).

Persons are certainly not exceptions to this principle of emptiness. Take, for example, Donald Trump. Is there anything about him that he has as his own alleged nature which has not come from other things – which has not dependently arisen from other things and thus cannot be surrendered? Take a look at his body first. Every single part of his body is, fundamentally, just digested food. All the parts have come from food which was not Trump himself. And these parts will cease to exist sooner or later. Every single psychological state he now has also has come from somewhere else, if we attempt to trace its origin. Is there any single meaningful word that he was born with? No, every vocabulary and every thought he possesses has come to him from somewhere else. And they are constantly changing – no fraction of his thought remains completely intact at any moment. Even his DNA has come from his biological parents’ genes. It did not originate from himself. And we also know that all the molecules in his DNA sequences are constantly being replaced with other molecules.^[9] Trump cannot claim that he has anything of his own that cannot be separated from himself. He does not possess anything of his own that makes him himself.

A person’s self is, if it exists, supposed to be what is, or what gives her, her own individual essence. Since no one has her own intrinsic essence, she is empty of her self, the thing that is supposed to be her own essence. This is why the realization of dependent arising implies the realization of non-self. In Mahayana traditions, philosophical enlightenment takes place only when one is enlightened of the truth of dependent arising. Mahayana traditions claim that, since both persons and dharmas^[10] arise only depending on conditions, they are empty of any intrinsic nature.

3. Nirvanic Enlightenment

Suppose someone has achieved philosophical enlightenment. This person understands the truth of non-self and dependent arising comprehensively. She is certain of the empty nature of everything that there is. She interprets everything she experiences effortlessly in light of the truth of dependent arising and emptiness that she has realized. From the epistemic point of view, it is only fair to admit that she is completely enlightened.

However, it is possible, or actually rather normal, that even with her impressive achievement on the cerebral level of enlightenment she might not have been able to put out her burning desires/attachments and get rid of her suffering (duhkha). She might still be disposed to feel and act in such a way that she brings about suffering to herself as well as to others. For instance, she might still have a very bad habit of filling her stomach with an excessive amount of food being unable to control her stubborn appetite. We are well aware that there are very intelligent people who can fully realize the truth of emptiness but still are unable to reduce their food or alcohol intake.

Also, being unable to follow the teaching on Right Speech in the Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path, one might not have been able to eliminate her tendency to use harsh words to others and hurt their feelings. She might still enjoy sadistic pleasure from this habit of mean speech. She may also be unable to overcome selfishness and laziness, continuing to avoid assuming any responsibility in an organization she belongs to. And so on. She could not free herself from all these cases of craving and suffering in spite of her impressive epistemic achievement in the philosophical version of enlightenment. We would then not like to regard her as an enlightened one in the sense that we nowadays understand and accept it. Again, ‘a suffering Buddha’ would be logically inconsistent, after all. Philosophical enlightenment is no longer sufficient for the full-fledged version of enlightenment. Enlightenment, as we accept it, requires more than its philosophical aspect.

What I mean here is, again, the enlightenment as we have understood and accepted for the past millennium or two. As we discussed earlier in this chapter, there is textual evidence in early Buddhist scriptures that enlightenment was understood as a purely epistemic achievement. In other words, only philosophical enlightenment was accepted as enlightenment. A different kind of enlightenment that involves moral and spiritual cultivation, which I will call nirvanic enlightenment, was understood simply as nirvana, not as enlightenment. However, I do not think we can deny that for the past two millennia the concept of enlightenment has been extended to, and come to include, the nirvanic version of enlightenment as well. Enlightened ones will no longer be regarded as enlightened unless they are free from suffering.

Enlightened ones should be able to have, and continuously maintain, the mental state of philosophically enlightened ones. They need to be always keenly aware of the truth of non-self and dependent arising. They should be able to understand themselves and their places in the world in terms of emptiness. However impressive this epistemic achievement might be, though, it is only a necessary condition for enlightenment; it is not sufficient for the comprehensive version of enlightenment. A truly enlightened one should be able to remain free from suffering – completely free from it once and for all. She must be perfectly disposed to have no craving, hatred, or ignorance; she must be able to effortlessly follow the Noble Eightfold Path and other moral guidance laid out by the Buddha. Enlightenment, therefore, cannot just be a matter of intellectual achievement. A different version of enlightenment, which requires the attainment of a fully developed disposition to stay free from suffering, must also be achieved. This kind of enlightenment may well be called nirvanic enlightenment.

I have been arguing that philosophical enlightenment can be achieved without an attainment of nirvanic enlightenment. For those who have some philosophical training, philosophical enlightenment should not be too difficult to attain. It is not really a serious intellectual challenge. It is the nirvanic enlightenment that presents more obstacles to overcome. Is nirvanic enlightenment achievable, then, without the attainment of philosophical enlightenment? Can anyone enter nirvana and remain there free of any kind of suffering without accepting the truth of non-self and dependent arising? Most Buddhists would respond to this question with a negative answer. But other religions and philosophies could of course disagree. Let me set this issue aside for another occasion. It is time to move on to a different kind of enlightenment.

4. Enlightenment in Zen Traditions

There is no question that Zen has been the most influential form of Buddhism in East Asia for more than a millennium. It has spread throughout many cultures in the West for the past century or so, and its popularity has grown continuously. It is not clearly known to most of us, however, that the kind of enlightenment favored in Zen traditions is significantly different from what other traditions have taught about enlightenment. For a better understanding of the concept of enlightenment, we need to discuss further the nature of this new type of enlightenment in addition to our previous discussion on philosophical enlightenment and nirvanic enlightenment.^[11]

Zen masters have traditionally refused to accept philosophical enlightenment as a genuine, or the ultimate, form of enlightenment. Philosophical enlightenment relies on the conceptual understanding of the truth, but according to Zen traditions, the ultimate truth cannot be verbally expressed or conceptually grasped. Any well-educated intelligent person may get enlightened of the truth of non-self and dependent arising without too much efforts. However, Zen masters believe that ultimate enlightenment can be attained only through some particular experience that typically happens after an extended period of intensive meditation practice. Nirvanic enlightenment is not the ultimate enlightenment either unless it comes with a mysterious and ineffable experience of awakening. Simply remaining free of suffering does not get one genuine enlightenment, according to Zen traditions.

To attain ultimate enlightenment, one must be able to experience something mysterious and ineffable through a variety of meditation techniques and training. I believe, however, that the enlightenment (or, awakening) that Zen masters have been teaching might not be reasonably recognized as enlightenment for a number of philosophical reasons.

It is in principle impossible for us to objectively and publicly confirm the existence and content of each other’s private experiences of, say, sensations. As has been repeatedly emphasized in the history of Western philosophy, one is the only audience in the theatre of her mind where no one else is allowed. Let me give a couple of examples to illustrate this point. We are familiar with the reports on some color-blind people who cannot tell red from green. The way these two colors appear to them seems to be different from the way they appear to the rest of us. Color-blind people and the rest of us have no way of grasping how red and green appear to the other group of people. Each group of people are in this sense denied access to the sensory experience of the other group.

Let us now push this point a little bit further and extend it to the ordinary sensory experiences of people. Tom sees a ripe tomato and says that it is red. Jim responds to him by saying that it surely is red. It is possible, though, that the colored patch that pops up in Jim’s mind when he sees a ripe tomato might be of the same color that appears in Tom’s mind when Tom looks at a cucumber. As long as Tom and Jim say consistently that ripe tomatoes are red, however, there is no way we can tell that they are experiencing different colors in their minds. Since they have no direct access to each other’s mind, they can never find out whether the very colored patch popping up in each other’s mind when they see a ripe tomato is of the same color – even though they say they see the same color. It is even possible that there are people in this world whose color-experiences are 180 degrees inverted on the color wheel of the other people’s experiences. But we would never be able to tell that this is the case.

An experience of a particular sensation – an experience of a particular quale (qualia) in one’s mind – is intrinsically private. No one has access to any other’s experience of qualia. As we noted above, the mental world is a private theater where the given individual is the only audience and no one else is allowed in. However, Zen traditions have persistently claimed that enlightenment is possible only by way of a mysterious experience of some sensation. It is sometimes compared to an experience of some bright light coming out of the deepest bottom of one’s consciousness. Depending on different traditions, it could be an experience of feeling as though something is being removed out of one’s chest, throat, etc. There have been many other comparisons and metaphors used to describe this experience. But all traditions agree that there is no acceptable way to verbally describe this experience itself. It is fundamentally ineffable. As I see it, our philosophical conundrum with the concept of enlightenment in Zen traditions lies here. Their version of enlightenment is based on a private experience of a specific quale that cannot be verbally described. But then there is no way at all to objectively and publicly confirm that someone is really enlightened by undergoing the appropriate experience of the correct kind of quale.

A quale (qualia) is accessible only from the first-person perspective of the person who experiences it, and this makes any experience of qualia fundamentally private. From a philosophical point of view, however, this fundamental privacy would make it difficult – if not impossible – to recognize the attainment of enlightenment taught in Zen traditions. Simply put, there is no philosophically acceptable way to justify the claim of their enlightenment. As long as the Zen enlightenment is based completely on a private experience of a particular quale, philosophers would find it very hard to go with Zen traditions. It is because, if I may put it in a rather figurative way, a private enlightenment is not an enlightenment at all.^[12]

Further, the Zen traditions face the following dilemma that they cannot escape if their enlightenment is based on an ineffable private experience:

(1) If the same quale, albeit ineffable, exists among all experiences of the Zen enlightenment, this will be evidence that there is an intrinsic nature or essence (self-nature) of enlightenment. But the existence of intrinsic nature or essence goes against the teaching of emptiness.

(2) If the experiences of enlightenment are all different, however, there will be a question of what criterion we can possibly have that makes them all the experiences of enlightenment. We do not seem to have an acceptable answer. On the other hand, if there exists such a criterion, it may have to face the same problem as in (1) because the existence of such a criterion will go against emptiness.

So, the dilemma is that (1) if the experiences have the same quale, it goes against emptiness, and (2) if there is no such a quale, we do not have a criterion to tell whether a given experience of quale is really an experience of enlightenment. It is difficult to accept the Zen view of enlightenment unless this dilemma is somehow solved.

5. Further Issues

I have in this chapter presented three different kinds of enlightenment: philosophical enlightenment, nirvanic enlightenment, and enlightenment in Zen traditions. Although I raised serious doubts on the acceptability of Zen enlightenment, I would agree that this issue needs further discussion in greater detail. But I am hopeful that the distinction I made between philosophical enlightenment and nirvanic enlightenment will help us understand, and possibly solve the problems of, such time-honored philosophical issues as ‘enlightenment and its relation to compassion’ and ‘gradual enlightenment and sudden enlightenment.’^[13]

Review

 Attachment, Suffering, and Nirvana

Attachment, which Buddhism warns us to avoid because it brings about suffering, is, in fact, excessive desire (craving). Buddhists do not criticize our basic desires to meet the physiological needs for survival.

Buddhists do not think that, for example, farmers are obsessed with water when they naturally look for water to drink after long hours of hard work in the field on a hot summer day. Nor do Buddhists believe that workers who missed breakfast and lunch crave food when they eat a little more food at dinner. It is normal to go to bed when you are tired late at night. If someone sees this kind of natural actions as craving, wouldn’t the person be ‘excessively clinging to’ the Buddhist teaching of non-attachment itself?

The practices to attain enlightenment and nirvana should be neither insufficient nor excessive. It is like maintaining the proper tension on string instruments since the strings do not sound right if they are either too loose or too tight. It is natural even for a renunciant practitioner to enjoy watching cute little children playing. It would be excessive clinging to non-attachment if anyone tries to suppress even such normal, pleasant experiences. Also, it would be an extreme aversion if you insist that you should not read a single line of Buddhist scriptures because you are a renunciant practitioner in Zen traditions that claim that enlightened minds must remain unfettered by linguistic constructs.

Nirvana is, along with enlightenment, the goal of all Buddhists. However, many mystical stories and fantasies about nirvana have distorted the original meaning of the Buddha’s teaching. Nirvana is literally a state in which all the flames of suffering are extinguished. It has nothing to do with eternal life with youth, having a halo over one’s head, or obtaining various psychic powers. Scriptures condemn severely those who brag about supernatural powers that they claim to have obtained after reaching nirvana.

Nirvana refers to neither ‘bliss’ nor ‘extreme happiness.’ Nirvana is just ‘the state of no suffering.’ That’s it, and that’s all. We should not proceed any further. If we wanted to arrive at nirvana to obtain psychic powers or bliss, we would end up having a new suffering because it is to be attached to what is in principle unobtainable. We should avoid this kind of ignorance.

We cannot regard as sages any selfish people who, although they have attained their nirvana, choose to leave this world, which is still full of suffering, as if that was not their problem or there was nothing that they could do about it.

Nirvana

There is no clear answer to the questions from 1 to 7.

Presumably no one would believe that love is the shortcut to nirvana. Strong attachment brought about by, for example, love between man and woman often becomes the main cause of suffering. However, a great love, such as unconditional compassion for suffering beings, is said to have the power to extinguish the flame of afflictions in each of us once and for all. Therefore, a really great love can be the shortest route to nirvana.

Having a degree in higher education and a high salary job cannot automatically get one nirvana, but it is possible that those who have a good education can read and understand the Buddha’s teaching more easily. Also, a financial well-being could provide one with better chances to practice Buddhism for nirvana. Nirvana is not a state of fullness but just a state of non-afflictions. Thus one’s living a life full of happiness does not necessarily amount to one’s being in nirvana. For, suffering might still be lurking deep in one’s mind, along with overflowing happiness.

Nirvana is neither a state of non-deficiency nor a state of all wishes fulfilled. Nirvana is just a state of no suffering. However, as long as the flames of suffering remain extinguished, one is in nirvana even when nothing is lacking or when all wishes have been granted. Happiness does not preclude nirvana. Still, some kind of happiness needs to be excluded if it causes an attachment that generates new suffering later on. Money and power might bring happiness(?) for a moment, but this kind of happiness cannot automatically qualify as nirvana because it is prone to cause suffering.

Zen traditions have considered nirvana the state of consciousness realized in the deepest meditation where the mind is completely empty. Practitioners in this state can be regarded as in nirvana because no afflictions burn within them any longer. However, ‘nirvana’ does not originally mean ‘being in this particular state of consciousness.’ Nirvanic life is attained not just by meditation. The life with no afflictions, which can also be achieved through reading and understanding the scriptures and practicing the Buddha’s teachings with moral conducts, is also a life in nirvana.

It is hard to believe that our current school system, which puts very much emphasis on practical skills, does not really teach the wisdom to control suffering in our minds. As long as you abolish suffering through sincere faith and practice, however, you will be able to attain nirvana even if you do not have much education. And, not only Buddhists but also the followers of other religions need to be said to achieve nirvana if they get rid of all sufferings and obtain their peace of mind in their own ways.

Buddhists believe that the origin of all sufferings is the three root evils, that is, craving, hatred, and ignorance. And since craving and hatred result from ignorance, ignorance is the very root of all afflictions. Hence the process of removing these three root evils is the path to nirvana.