A new definition of enlightenment?

http://www.wie.org/j30/eternal-declaration.asp

"Because a new definition of enlightenment must express the dawning revelation that
our conscious participation in the creation of the future has become essential to the
unfolding of the cosmos—the shocking recognition that from now on, it really is up
to us."

I agree with Andrew. The wheel [of Dharma] continues to turn…

---o---

From the Nirmanakya Buddha Shakyamuni — Came the Hinayana (the first turning of the wheel) – get off the wheel of samsara! (but what about everyone else?)

To the Mahayana –- keep coming back till all sentinet beings are liberated! Don’t just bliss out in Nirvana! ‘fer cryin-out-loud! (but is orthodoxy and a focus on renunciation the most effective methodology for those of greater capacity?)

To the Vajrayana –- Build on the Mahayana (The Vow is still pre-eminent) but transform the poisons into nectar/assets, use NLP (neuro linguistic programing) to visualize oneself as deity and become so; use the body and its sublte energies, rather than renounce it (but isn’t form emptiness, and emptiness form? Are we getting caught up in the subtle objects of our practice? Are we missing the non-dual shore, somehow, for a subtle attachment/love of the transformative boat?)

To the Dzogchen/Mahamudra/ClearLight Non-dual Pinacle of Vajarayana –- There is no boat/shore, or non-boat/shore, or neither or both. The, thusness, which we are, stradles both emptiness and form (and the Vow remains pre-eminent) yet, when we place weight (conciousness) in form, should we not, as the joyfull play of Lila, continue to mindfully develop the manifest realm until even the rocks are enlightened?

….

Our challenge is to extend *yet preserve* The Lineages and Traditions that have given us the means (life after life) to arrive at this pinacle of development. To me, the Palyul Lineage is my family; the life line, and source of transmission, that has led me to this point. I would no more abandon it for a ‘new paradigm’ than abandon my parents, and sister, and spouse (even more so, than even they).

I believe that it is critical for organizations such as WIE, and II and for Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, and others, to work *witihin* the Lineages and to not attempt to suplant them (though I percieve no such intention).

I must say that Andrew Cohen is a very rare teacher, in that he seems to me to embody the traditional Guru Disciple tradition of the Vajarayana, yet operates outside of the Tibetan Cultural Influence. His style, and the character of his student/teacher relations, seems much closer to the style of a Tantric Master than that of the typical ‘Non-Traditional Spiritual Teacher’. He is not (in any way that I can see) an example of the malaise of PC Buddhism that has infected the west (further articulated below).

Being that Andrew is rather unique in this regard, I believe he, and his message, is much more likely to appear benign to the Vajrayana Buddhist Traditions, and therefore his core message, as articulated in the link above, would likey be received with a greater degree of openness. However, change/evolution, is difficult to accept. Paradoxically, even for Buddhists and Buddhist Lineages, whose most fundamental teachings are about non-grasping and impermanence.

Nothing in the manifest world is static. Not even The Vajrayana, which is a methodology, a technology and skillfull means, towards enlightenment. Only ‘that’, which the practice of Vajrayana Buddhism facilitates in 'unveiling' in a student; that unqualifiable referent for which the label 'Vajrayana' is a referece is: timeless, boundless, luminous thusness--and utterly unchanging. All else changes.

Therefore, how can Buddhism itself not change? The question is change into what? And the danger is that the Vajrayana devolve into a flatland moras as the tragic concequence of the Vajra Master being demoted into a Politicaly Correct, Democratic Spiritual Club’s Cheerleader. Such, can only result in the students of such teachers hanging on to their every narcisistic tendency, and poisonous graspings; since, under such circumstances, no one could ever be considered more advanced than any other, and the *ROCKET FUEL* of Guru Devotion–which is the very foundation of the Vajrayana–would be rendered into soda pop; I.E., a little fizz, an unsatisfying sweet taste, and that’s about it….

What has to change/evolve in Buddhism (and in other contemplative traditions) is for an awarness of the difference between States and Stages (I.E, Grok the Wilber-Combs Latice) to arrise in the latest generation of the Legitimate Lineage Holders of such traditions. I do believe that it is inevitable that such will happen.

When a Lineage Holder in a Contemplative Tradition, begins to require that a certain level of ‘Altitutde’, along with the traditional requirment of very high “state-stage” attainment, is a prerequisite of their granting ‘Lama’ status to an advanced student, that Lineage will have demonstrated that they have evolved out of inevitable decline and towards continuing to be an instrument of Bodhichitta, for the sake of ‘sentient beings’--or even more--for the sake of the entire manifest realm.

I must say that It is not easy to work within a Lineage whose teachers range in 'Altitude' from Blue to Green (average across AQAL's lines, of course). I hold the greatest respect, and devotion for all of the lamas of our lineage; regardless of their 'myths of the given'. My respect for their attainment of the highest of state-stages has no bounds. I engage in Guru Devotion, my heart and mind completely open (to the very best of my growing capacity) regardless of any uncertainty regarding precisiely to what extent my own Root Lama understands this difference. Moroever, it is not up to me to judge or question my Lama’s 'Altitude'. The Lama’s personality, or their Altitude, is irrelevant. It is the *VIEW* that the student holds that is relevant. The Devotion is not to the Person of the Lama. The Lama is a (relative) reference, to the *infinitely* deeper (absolute), and unqualifiable, referent that the Lama embodies. One has to separate the relative from the absolute, and not lose ‘Pure Vision’ otherwise the effectiveness of the Vajrayana’s technology is undone.

So, what might be a new definition of enlightenment? I would say that it is a balance between the sublime state-stage attainment of the traditional lineages, balanced with a sublime altitude in stage-structure attainment, of the various lines of development, which give context, and expression, for that sublime realization of the unmanifest.

Not that I claim any of this [enlightenment] for myself; far from it. I am as the rare adolescent that has, for the first time, undestood that they know very little, but having seen the way towards knowledge, maturity, and an authentic life, set out firmly on the path towards its realizaton.