I was thinking that Shinzen is saying that we will have pain and that mindfulness awareness and teasing out a “complete experience” is not a cure-all for pain or discomfort – just for the lessening or cessation of the suffering. I remembered that he is saying that the teaching and the technology (old malas or new zap-o-matics) is to lessen or end suffering in any circumstance. I thought the “cure” he spoke of is the relief from the disease of endless wandering away from concentrated states. Technology would be an aid, another tool, not a substitute for the consciousness that must do the actual work of precise awareness and equanimity. Whether or not a person who has succes in this way considers themselves “enlightened” is not the point. The idea of enlightenment is a conceptual religious or philosophical notion that the unenlightened will hold dear and which will ultimately get in the way of the cessation of suffering. With luck maybe the temptation of “enlightenment” will not be exported along with the technology.

Well, that’s my two cents anyway. Now I’m going back to listen again!

Thanks, Yin-neng

The stuff here about devices for meditation remind me of the Holosync controversy, and the fact that these guys misrepresent at least zazen in order to sell their wares.

I am deeply skeptical of any endeavors that try to make this all scientific, and, I regret to say, I’m also skeptical of explicit efforts to enlighten many people.

Better top use the method of Yun-men (Ummon) and risk having one’s lineage die out and profoundly affect future generations for enlightenment than to explicitly chase for students.

IOW, the best way to enlighten the most people is to cultivate a profoundly deep practice for one’s self, and to welcome all without regard to rank or merit or standing or understanding, and to meet them on the terms in which they need to be met.

thanks for the comment. good point you bring up. it does sound like “old-school formula for enlightenment.” i’m not gonna speak for Shinzen here since only he could explain what he really meant by that statement. however, i’ll offer you my own interpretation of his statement.

regarding the statement: “And it is able to crack the fundamental cycle — the cycle that underlies all of the specific problems. It is able to crack that.”

i believe Shinzen’s position is not a cure-all. i believe that his position is more nuanced than that. i’m not sure if you’ve listened to the entire Science of Enlightenment series but there is a track there wherein he expounded on this very topic (i might transcibe that when i get the chance). my interpretation on it is that, the meditative path or ultimately enlightenment will enable one to have an insight into the root of one’s *unconscious* or “programmed” reactions to life conditions.

so instead of going through life *driven* by one’s “karma” an enlightened person is able to crack the fundamental cycle and is more free to choose to live their lives, contribute to society, compared to most people who live their lives without the enlightened mindset. then imagine people having this kind of mindset reaching a critical mass and we can presume that it could change society for the better, especially if these people are the influential ones in our society. using the integral lingo, this is similar to getting people up the developmental ladder (e.g. turquoise and beyond in the AQAL model).

from an individual perspective, the more a person is enlightened the more she is conscious of causing less suffering to herself and others. this is Buddhist teaching 101. it may sound old-school, but it’s still the foundation of buddhist practice and ethics, as i understand it.

that said, i agree with you that “To make the leap of logic that helping a significant number of people get enlightened would necessarily solve problems that are culturally or systemically based (therefore having very little to do with our individual levels of human suffering) is one that, for me, is speculative at best.”

yes, it is speculative, but it’s damn worth a try

~C

“And it is able to crack the fundamental cycle — the cycle that underlies all of the specific problems. It is able to crack that.”

There seems to be some pretty big assumptions and leaps made in this one statement. Does enlightenment really end the cycle that underlies all human problems? Isn’t that an old-school formula for enlightenment = end of all suffering? I’m surprised that Shinzen would make this leap, as he himself acknowledges that enlightenment isn’t a cure all. Weird then that he would base his reason for wanting advanced meditative technologies to be developed on a cure-all hypothesis.

Everything else he said made total sense, but that piece struck out at me as far more naive than I’m used to from him. Perhaps his view has changed since then, or it is more nuanced than he is communicating here.

I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but for me I would speak about the role of enlightenment in helping “solve” the world’s problems much differently. It could perhaps be one factor in reducing individual human suffering (not eliminating it), and it could have a widespread effect, but it’s not clear at all that what this effect would be on the whole, and what it would be accompanied by. To make the leap of logic that helping a significant number of people get enlightened would necessarily solve problems that are culturally or systemically based (therefore having very little to do with our individual levels of human suffering) is one that, for me, is speculative at best.