5/10/2014

The A & Bs of Enlightenment | Vincent Horn

The A & Bs of Enlightenment

Posted by Vincent Horn+ | July 03, 2006 | Blog | 13 Comments

Soon after I got back from retreat, I chatted with a friend of mine who has been a long time vipassana practitioner. After some 20 years of
practice he has more or less stopped believing that vipassana leads to enlightenment (well, not exactly but bear with me), and adopted
what I would call a much more non-dual approach. The difference between the two, according to my friend, is the difference between
what he was calling Enlightenment A and Enlightenment B.

Enlightenment B is the realization that comes from a progressive unfolding of more and more refined states of consciousness. Its often
associated with the rising of kundalini, and tends to happen in a stage-like fashion. Vipassana and the stages of enlightenment in the
Therevadin Buddhist tradition seem to be a good example of a path that leads to Enlightenment B.

Enlightenment A, on the other hand, can not be attained or acquired over time, because it is not time-bound. Its something which is true
right now, irreducible, and ever-present. This kind of Enlightenment seems to be expressed most clearly from teachers such as
Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle.

Now, whether or not this distinction is a helpful one, has in my opinion, yet to be seen. Enlightenment B, or gradual enlightenment, has
served to inspire my practice, keeping me going on retreats, etc. But it has also been the source of a great bit of frustration, striving, and
discontent. Enlightenment A, or the non-dual approach, when Ive considered it has relieved a great deal of pressure from the whole
spiritual path. If theres no where to get, then why stress so much? It tends to re-imbue the path with a sense of ease and relaxation. But
it also seems like I tend to remember this greater ease primarily when Ive been practicing quite a bit!!!

Part of the reason Im not entirely sure I can simply split them apart, as my friend has done, is that there are very few cases of people
who have realized Enlightenment A before pursuing Enlightenment B. A couple come to mind, whereas Im willing to bet there are many
who have pursued the gradual path, and that has suddenly turned into the sudden path (B pursued far enough becomes A). One could
argue that this is exactly what has happened with my friend. And Ive even gone so far as to ask him, You mean doing vipassana for 20
years has nothing to do with what you recognize now? His shocking answer is No. But is this shocking? I suppose if what is realized in
Enlightenment A is actually non-dual and not bounded by time then trying to come up with a logical (logic exists in time) and causal
(causality also happens in time) explanation may be, by definition, pointless.

Is there a relationship here? ((And dont give me the absolute and relative truth stuff, cause both of these paths are claiming absolute
knowledge, but claiming that the path or non-path to them differs.))

About Vincent Horn

Vincent Horn is a mind hacker & buddhist geek. He has been practicing Buddhist meditation intensively since
his freshman year in collegeincluding a year on intensive silent retreatsand began teaching in 2010 with the
support of his own teachers, Kenneth Folk and Daniel Ingram. In addition Vincent co-founded the popular
media company Buddhist Geeks in 2006. His work focuses on the fusion of nascent technology and
contemplative wisdom, and has been featured on the pages of Wired, Fast Company, Tricycle, and the Los
Angeles Times. Along with his wife Emily, he makes his home in Asheville, North Carolinathat is until the
distinction between atoms and bits dissolves completely.

13 Comments

faraz says:
July 3, 2006 at 11:03 am

Umm, A very tricky question indeed. Although I would think that 20 years of vipassana meditation does have a role

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2006/07/03/the-a-bs-of-enlightenment/

1/5

5/10/2014

The A & Bs of Enlightenment | Vincent Horn

to play in this because one can only see or realize enlightenment A(which is always present)when the mind chatter
has slowed down a lot and one is detached enough from ones desires and fears.
This is because the presence or beingness i.e. enlightenment A is always there. One has to clear ones mind
enough to see it.
The tricky part then is that how can the causeless the everpresent be the result of something, but this thought
comes only when one thinks that it was not there in the first place and doing certain processes and procedures
caused this. Thus the illusion of causing the causeless comes into the picture.

Vince says:
July 3, 2006 at 12:12 pm

Yeah, that seems to be one way that this paradox is explained. In the Mayahana tradition (especially in Tibet) its
that Buddha Nature is always present but, as youre saying, is obscured. Removing the obscurations then lets the
Buddha Nature shine through. This makes some sense to me, but still seems to create a seperation between the
obscurations and the Buddha Nature. Are they really seperate, or are the obscurations themselves Buddha
Nature?

Matt Westgate says:

July 3, 2006 at 12:40 pm

Hey there. Im a long time reader, first time poster.

Ive been a vipassana practicioner for 5 years now and and have been wrestling with an internal zen-flare that
didnt want to go away. Having just returned from a big mind retreat I can relate well to the different types of
enlightenment you describe above (vipassana being enlightenment B and big mind/zen being enlightenment A).
The big mind retreat was a profound experience, and I think there are benefits of meditation for those in the
Enlightenment A camp. Genpo Roshi mentions 5:
1. To improve concentration/get better at sitting
2. Deepen samadhi
3. To remember youre awake
4. For the sake of others
5. No reason at all

ryan says:
July 3, 2006 at 1:25 pm

Tough to talk about indeed. One of the four samayas of Dzogchen is that obstacles are the wisdom of
enlightemment. The other is that there is nothing to do, and all the methods are just a way to become familiar with
Primordial Enlightement. So, as you said Vince, obscurations are no different than Buddha Nature according to
Dzogchen.
Ill admit its a bit hard to hold this view, in a practical sense:) But, the phrase become familiar with seems to be
more on target, althought that still implies something to be done.

Vince says:
July 3, 2006 at 6:34 pm

Yo Matt,
Thanks for posting! Glad to see there are some vipassana practitioners out there reading, and it looks like weve
been practicing for about the same amount of time Peer-review man, peer-review.
Hey, Id love to hear more about what you saw as the differences between a vipassana retreat and the Big Mind
retreat. Ive been interested in doing a Big Mind retreat, and have asked many people (who arent really familiar
with vipassana retreats) how the practices and how the retreats themselves are different. Any insight you have on
this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Matt Westgate says:

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2006/07/03/the-a-bs-of-enlightenment/

2/5

5/10/2014

The A & Bs of Enlightenment | Vincent Horn

July 3, 2006 at 10:06 pm

Hey Vince. Ill take a crack at some comparisons

In most vipassana retreats we take a vow a silence and arent allowed to talk with other students. So when
someone is sitting next to you and they break down, start crying or whatever you cant really comfort them or
share in that experience.
With big mind you do big mind as a group and its an intimate experience. You share stories, feel each others pain
and also learn from each other.
Vispassana is certainly focused on striving and effort. One of the best things I learned from vipassana was
concentration and generally how to mediatate.
Big mind offers a state experience of enlightenment A. And with my meditation skills from years of vipassana
hopefully this will become a stage experience (Im not really literate on all the wilber-speak)
My vipassana buzz usually wears off after a week or two returning home, even when continuing to sit. I get bored
with sitting. My big mind experience has been profoundly different. I look forward to sitting because 1) Im no
longer required to sit (2 times a day) and 2) I know why Im sitting (discovering dis-owned voices, observing
passing phenomena, etc) and 3) its very liberating that i Im already awake (relieves the pressure of sitting)
However I think the biggest difference has been this. With vipassana the focus is on attaining nirvana, which is
what I thought it was suppossed to be. A big mind retreat says nirvana is only the half-way mark. The ultimate goal
is to intergrate the experience of the absolute with being human in this moment. If we walked around enlightened
all the time, we wouldnt be very helpful to other people actually we wouldnt even care since people are just
parts of us and its all perfect already. Genpo really focuses on using the absolute state experience as a
backdrop for daily living as a human, which is beautiful and gives me a great sense of purpose. As a human and
with this insight, Im empowered to help others fall awake.
Is this the type of info youre looking for? If so Id love to chat more about it. Feel free to give me a ring:
http://www.asitis.org/contact

faraz says:
July 4, 2006 at 12:14 am

well, vince . Actually the obscurations are also a part of the buddha nature.
but when seeing from the viewpoint of a seperate being , these are said to be obscurations.
Because till the time that there is a person ,who wants to achieve enlightenment .he sees himself as seperate and
he has to do some things, remove obscurations to reach there. But when he has reached , he finds that it was all
actually an illusion. that the person was not there at all .
So the obscurations are there only from the point of view of a seperate being, which is actually an illusion.
umm, this much is enough.
bye,
faraz

~C4Chaos says:
July 4, 2006 at 3:32 am

Part of the reason Im not entirely sure I can simply split them apart, as my friend has done, is that there are very
few cases of people who have realized Enlightenment A before pursuing Enlightenment B.
interesting. im all for not splitting them apart too. not to mention that there are probably enlightened people who
are out there who just doesnt talk about it in terms of buddhist, integral, spiritual, language.
very cool post.

ebuddha says:
July 5, 2006 at 6:23 pm

Its funny, these types of considerations. As you have often said, they are universal, not individual. I have a similar
type of contemplation in my journal from 10 years ago, as well as similar posts since. It is useful to see this type of
reflection here, as it tends to make clear my own thoughts on this topic.
For what it is worth, the distinction between say Arsha Vidya style Vedanta, and the Tibetan Buddhist view, is this
notion of obscuration.

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2006/07/03/the-a-bs-of-enlightenment/

3/5

5/10/2014

The A & Bs of Enlightenment | Vincent Horn

The truth of non-duality, is an always present recognition, that has no second, and for the most part is
experienced as outside of time, even as time continues.
Why is this hard to recognize? A lot of reasons.
Expectations. Expecting that you will witness yourself in non-duality.
Identified mind-chatter. Opening up to a space of awareness beyond chatter is usually but not always required
to then notice the underlying truth.
Obscurations emotional, mental issues that are taken as primarily real, that then obscure the truth.
Examples taking the individuals fear as more real than the truth. I hate my job!! or I have run out of money
and wont be able to eat soon! have popped me personally out of non-dual states before.
Also, a lot of Enlightenment B is working through the above. Then there is a real awareness, a recognition of
states beyond the normal mind-body, so that recognition of the truth can exist, despite the entertaining and
terrifying Mara-show.
But, as the number of those who have stable non-dual recognition attest, Enlightenment A can stabilize without
Enlightenment B.
But it is less likely to.

Vince says:
July 5, 2006 at 9:42 pm

Thanks for the reflections eBudd!

Vince says:
July 6, 2006 at 6:49 am

Yo Matt,
Yeah, that is very helpful. That definitely gives me a better idea of some of the differences between Genpos style
of teaching and many of the insight meditation teachers here in the West.
Im assuming also, because you say you have to sit 2 hours a day that youve probably done Geonka style
vipassana. Is that right?
If so, I can say pretty confidently that his technique, style of teaching, and what Ive heard can sometimes be
rigidity arent as present in the vipassana technique that I practice (insight meditation). Although they are both
vipassana and both share certain characteristics (again this is assuming youre doing Goenka practice), they are
definitely different. Maybe I could write a post about that, because often when people read my blog, they have a
similar practice background and make certain assumptions about my practice that are simply incorrect.
As a side-note, I think KW has made some of these very same misunderstandings, as his wife Treya was involved
with Goenka vipassana, and so he was very familiar with that method, but probably less familiar with the style of
teaching that comes from Western teachers like Joseph Goldstein and Jack Kornfield.
Anyway, thanks again for the comparisons!

eric giesbrecht says:

July 17, 2006 at 11:01 am

i just became aware of one of andrew smiths recent essays via pauls blog at zaadz, detailing much of the main
points of this discussion.
wanna check it out?
http://www.integralworld.net/index.html?smith25.html
from my initial survey, its not great but is fruitful to (re)consider.

Vince says:
July 17, 2006 at 12:18 pm

Good article Eric. Thanks!

Unfortunately I think both Smith and Goehausen misconstrue Wilbers position, at least the way I understand it. I

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2006/07/03/the-a-bs-of-enlightenment/

4/5

5/10/2014

The A & Bs of Enlightenment | Vincent Horn

think he has best stated it in this video on IN: Practice for Two Realities.
Yes, the hard-core Nondual approach has nothing to do with development, how can that which is beyond
development have anything to do with development. But how can it not either? Its a freakin paradox, and Wilber
recognizes that probably more lucidly then anyone Ive talked to about this stuff.
To say that we must abandon all practices for the practice of self-enquiry is not the answer. Self-enquiry, may I
remind Goehausen, happens in time, and is as such a time-bound-striving practice. Ive done self-enquiry and
continue to because it has value, but the argument that it leads to the non-dual (using Goehausens argument not
mine) is preposterous. Nothing can lead to the non-dual, because there is no development involved, even the
development of the Who am I? enquiry.
But then again, weve got to do something yes? If we havent jumped off the ladder or havent figured out how to
then Id rather be climbing up then doing nothing at all.
Smith claims that Non-dualism simply refers to a perspective which does not distinguish self from other. Thats
probably right given the definition, but the non-dual can itself be subject to the pre-trans fallacy. Because pre-dual
and trans-dual are both non-dual. The non-dualism that mystics experience is really the trans-dual, because it
includes and goes beyond self. The non-dualism that infants experience doesnt distinguish between self and
other because, as Smith himself points out, it is a state that is completely subsumed with self-only. Smith
recognizes all of this, but why he doesnt draw this distinction out is beyond me (nontrans-dual pun intended).
The rest of the article is pretty interesting, but for me to comment on any of it would be pure theoretical
speculation as Smith knows his shit about holons better then I do. Very good article though.

Vincent Horn

Home

About

Events

Teaching

Speaking

Want to discuss your meditation practice with a catalyst?

Blog

Contact

LET'S TALK

Hooray!
CyborgCamp 2014

144 : 22 : 07 : 58
DAYS

HOURS

MIN

SEC

Buddhist Geeks Conference

159 : 13 : 07 : 58
DAYS

HOURS

MIN

SEC

2014 Vincent Horn.

http://www.vincenthorn.com/2006/07/03/the-a-bs-of-enlightenment/

5/5