Types of Enlightenment > They are not all the Same

[Nak Khid]

People have many interpretations of what enlightenment is. I'm just going to mention two so feel free to add others to reinterpret.

1. Mystical Visionary Enlightenment
2. Emptiness/Silence Enlightenment

You may try to tie together these two but I don't think that approach is always valid.   It is easy to just take two terms and put an = sign in between them and says they are two sides of the same coin.  You might argue that
However if you look at traditional interpretations of what enlightenment is in spiritual systems that have been around for hundreds of years or longer you may find some differences.
Within just Buddhism alone you will find different sects having different emphasis. 
You can say it all leads to the same thing but I think in some cases that is a cop out.
Anyway in temporary Vipassana and Zen the emphasis is toward emptiness, seeing things as they are, not as you wish them to be.
The term makyō is a Zen term that means “ghost cave” or “devil’s cave.” It is a figurative reference to the kind of self-delusion that results from clinging to an experience and making a conceptual “nest” out of it for oneself. Makyō is essentially synonymous with illusion, but especially in reference to experiences that can occur within meditation practice. In Philip Kapleau's The Three Pillars of Zen,[1] Hakuun Yasutani explained the term as the combination of ma meaning devil and kyo meaning the objective world. This character for “devil” can also refer to Mara, the Buddhist “tempter” figure; and the character kyo can mean simply region, condition or place. Makyō refers to the hallucinations and perceptual distortions that can arise during the course of meditation and can be mistaken by the practitioner as "seeing the true nature" or kenshō.

However in other traditions, some branches of Hinduism or Tibetan Buddhism (which is more influenced by Hindu traditions) mystical and visionary experiences might be expected as stages of enlightenment.  

In Hinduism and Buddhism and in general there are varying opinions on visions.
Some regard them as revelations others regard them as distracting physiological or psychological caused hallucinations.

And then when we come to the category of psychedelic chemicals they often have visual or perceptual effects.  
So when we look at these two conceptions of enlightenment
1. Mystical Visionary Enlightenment
2. Emptiness/Silence Enlightenment

You can see that visions or perceptual effects might not come into conflict with a mystical tradition necessarily. However even in a more mystical tradition they may or may not acknowledge chemically induced visions. 

The Emptiness/ Silence enlightenment tradition is more monastic.  Psychedelic chemicals and alcohol violate their precepts and in some of these traditions even having a vision during meditation alone could be regarded as delusion.
I'm not saying one type of enlightenment is more valid than another but what I notice is that a lot of modern spiritual teachers will mix knowledge inspired by both traditions and we can see how these visionary experiences could lead to discrepancies.

For instance one mediator may have visionary experiences, perhaps using long periods and special breathing techniques to induce these states
But a person who does mindful meditation  may never have a visionary experience and if they did once in a while be instructed to see it as  like a distracting thought.  They have probably been used to plenty boredom as well as peaceful states.  Enduring the boredom doesn't always lead to a blissful state it may just be another of passing feelings and "seeing things as the are" and accepting the boredom.

And then if someone take a lot psychedelics you can see what potentially could happen.  If then  they enter a practice with emphasis on emptiness and silence or some hybrid practice with a mixed appraoch it could feel relatively a lot more boring and much harder to endure.
Similarly even meditating in a meditation tradition more open to visionary experiences but without the psychedelic, hours might be needed to replicate a psychedelically induced state that occurred in only minutes.    You might have an explanation to make it all work theoretically but I am noticing people in this conundrum.
 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Nak Khid