Hi all,
It is an interesting question, the 'enlightenment verses nothing to get' debate. It is a corollary of the 'to practice, not to practice/meditate' paradox. I think it is pretty clear that there is a difference in one's realisation, one's experience of self and reality, prior to the dawning of what is commonly referred to as enlightenment and after.
It would seem that after one has such a realisation, one then directly perceives that nothing has changed, that I was alway enlightened, hence there was or is no need to meditate and nothing to get. Yet it seems to me that it would be inaccurate to suggest in some form or another nothing is different. The precise nature of the change is open to speculation perhaps just cognitive, a shift in point of view. Perhaps it is much more profound than this, that one's entire cognitive structure has been transformed, energetically and possibly even manifesting physiologically in the nervous system and atomic structure; perhaps not and anywhere in-between.
UG seemed to go through a profound experience and in my interpretation of what he said, his perception of reality is radically different than what is considered normal. Indeed neurologists and psychiatrists would likely have diagnosed him with some acute psycho-neurological dysfunction. It seems clear to me, there was something different before and after his process. Also it should be known that UG did indeed spend years in meditation of various types and achieved various levels of Samadhi. However it was not until he gave it all up and several years had passed before the realisation of his essential nature burst upon his awareness.
I am no Buddhist, but it seems obvious to me the Buddha had a realisation of something, or did he just give up and say well there is no enlightenment to be had, just live in the now and really experience your life. That is a great insight, one that is nothing more than cognitive and considered desirable for good psychological health ascribed by many psychologists today. It’s not the same thing as what those of us who meditate and feel some kind of intuitive penetration into an ill-defined meta-cognitive state/reality.
The nothing to get argument and no need to practice position, seems to serve a purpose in relaxing into our true nature, in getting out of our own way. Indeed if we are practicing/meditating what we are in fact doing, amongst other things, is creating a space where we suspend our habitual cognitive patterns, thus allowing the realisation of our non-dual nature. In my interpretation the 'no need to practice' position as a path, is in fact a practice; possibly the highest practice. From my perspective, what is operative within the non-dual ‘no practice’ tradition, is the undermining of the social conditioning which supports the patterns of habitual cognition at the very foundation of “I” centred duality consciousness. In this way we can see it is the same process which takes place within meditation.
The no-process / process contradiction, is one of those interesting paradoxes within philosophy, where one could say within the narrow delineation of the facts something has changed at the cognitive/energetic level of the personality. Yet in the broad delineation of the facts, nothing has changed at all, I have always been, eternally unmoved and unchanged, there was nothing to get. So there is no contradiction, rather as philosophers love to point out, merely an equivocation.
In kind regards,
Adam.
