Pathless
Fiercely Interdependent
Devadatta 
Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult subject. I feel like you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on them, so I may try to clarify them for myself through a post; then, if you like, you can feedback on whether I'm on the same wavelength.
This seems to be more than an argument against the idea of a state of Nirvana separate from Samsara. Instead, your words cut deeper, pointing to the root of the problem being conceptulazation itself. For example, a toddler has not yet developed a solid sense of individual identity, of separateness. Being pre-linguistic, a toddler's conception of the world is much more holistic or "blurry" than a fully individualized person--a teenager, for example. Perhaps part of the work of liberation is to reclaim the holistic no-self of our own infancy. The real challenge in this is that we have to do it later in life, once we have been defined by all sorts of linguistic conventions, conceptualizations, and assumptions.
As an indivualized consciousness, a Buddhist practitioner must attempt to see past--not lose, necessarily, but see past--her learned concepts and assumptions, such as, "That's a willow tree," "My niece is four years old," "My favorite food is deep-fried rutabega with a honey-orange glaze," or "That piece of narrow steel is called a drill bit." Instead, she will soon be able to see that the true nature of all of these assumptions and defined things is no-thingness, or un-separateness. Not that the Buddhist would now start eating drill bits--that would be the action of a lunatic--but perhaps she will be able to see how a deep-fried rutabega is interdependent with a willow tree, a drill bit, and her four year-old niece, and how all of these things sustain everything else in their own way; how they are all part of one organic, ever-changing whole.
I'm having a more difficult time with the second part of this one, "neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment." I wonder if you are trying to point to the fact that "enlightenment" is just another concept and, as such, is unreal. What I take from this is that by conceptualizing enlightenment or Nirvana as a state above and transcendent from Samsara, we create a schism; that is, by making "enlightenment" a goal to be achieved, rather than a real, ever-present state to be accessed, we estrange ourselves from experiencing it.
Following you now (I think). As stated above, when we create a schism between Nirvana and Samsara by defining enlightenment as a goal to be achieved, we estrange ourselves. However, if we can free ourselves from the idea that enlightenment is something to be achieved, we also open ourselves to experience it more fully. We invite it in by looking it in the eye, rather than push it away by putting it on a pedestal. A key seems to be discarding the dualities of Samsara/Nirvana and ignorance/enlightenment.
It sounds simple (kind of), but who can stare reality in the face?
Thank you for your thoughts on this difficult subject. I feel like you bring up some good points, but I'm not sure that I'm entirely clear on them, so I may try to clarify them for myself through a post; then, if you like, you can feedback on whether I'm on the same wavelength.
Devadatta said:
This seems to be more than an argument against the idea of a state of Nirvana separate from Samsara. Instead, your words cut deeper, pointing to the root of the problem being conceptulazation itself. For example, a toddler has not yet developed a solid sense of individual identity, of separateness. Being pre-linguistic, a toddler's conception of the world is much more holistic or "blurry" than a fully individualized person--a teenager, for example. Perhaps part of the work of liberation is to reclaim the holistic no-self of our own infancy. The real challenge in this is that we have to do it later in life, once we have been defined by all sorts of linguistic conventions, conceptualizations, and assumptions.
As an indivualized consciousness, a Buddhist practitioner must attempt to see past--not lose, necessarily, but see past--her learned concepts and assumptions, such as, "That's a willow tree," "My niece is four years old," "My favorite food is deep-fried rutabega with a honey-orange glaze," or "That piece of narrow steel is called a drill bit." Instead, she will soon be able to see that the true nature of all of these assumptions and defined things is no-thingness, or un-separateness. Not that the Buddhist would now start eating drill bits--that would be the action of a lunatic--but perhaps she will be able to see how a deep-fried rutabega is interdependent with a willow tree, a drill bit, and her four year-old niece, and how all of these things sustain everything else in their own way; how they are all part of one organic, ever-changing whole.
Devadatta said:
I'm having a more difficult time with the second part of this one, "neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment." I wonder if you are trying to point to the fact that "enlightenment" is just another concept and, as such, is unreal. What I take from this is that by conceptualizing enlightenment or Nirvana as a state above and transcendent from Samsara, we create a schism; that is, by making "enlightenment" a goal to be achieved, rather than a real, ever-present state to be accessed, we estrange ourselves from experiencing it.
Devadatta said:
Following you now (I think).
As stated above, when we create a schism between Nirvana and Samsara by defining enlightenment as a goal to be achieved, we estrange ourselves. However, if we can free ourselves from the idea that enlightenment is something to be achieved, we also open ourselves to experience it more fully. We invite it in by looking it in the eye, rather than push it away by putting it on a pedestal. A key seems to be discarding the dualities of Samsara/Nirvana and ignorance/enlightenment. It sounds simple (kind of), but who can stare reality in the face?