Mi'sen

Ian, do you have a 'go to' definition/frame for enlightened-ness? I know very little about JK, I recall Shinzen saying that he seemed to 'get' something but that his teaching led to a lot of his students talking about JK instead of putting what he said into practice.

Shinzen was making the point that not all people with a deep awakening are good @ teaching it to others. He would use JK as the prime example. His point is that while it’s true that there’s nothing to get and nowhere to go, you still have to give people something to hang onto.

Excellent clarification. Thank you sir.

As for the go-to definition of classic awakening, the short version is that you realize that there’s no such thing inside you as a self. There’s much more after that, but that’s considered the basic “qualification.” (And, yes, I’m aware of all that’s problematic @ that def.)

Yeah, the other version (same thing, differently stated) is realizing "I'm just the witness". Which you get seems to depend on your tradition/previous learning/framing. Or that's my understanding, I am (probably) willing to defer. But awakening is not enlightenment.

awakening is when you get your first experiential proof that you are not all that crap. So, for example, my first awakening got me "I am not my personality". Didn't get me "I am not my body." Further awakenings got me other stuff.

as for enlightenment. /shrug/ there are a fair number of definitions that seem reasonable "I am everything/nothing", Jiva-mukti (end of new conditioning), the dissolving and reassembly of sense data, etc... Not sure which is "enlightenment". Am sure I am not enlightened.