Partially Enlightened AMA

[Epistemic status (am I using this term right?): I am not a scholar, nor well versed in any school of Buddhism. My understanding comes from a combination of personal experience and insight cross-referenced with wikipidea articles]

I see Buddhism as split into two basic schools of thought:

The Sutrayana is the method of perfecting good qualities, where the Vajrayāna is the method of taking the intended outcome of Buddhahood as the path.

I would class that Indian Buddhist as Sutrayana and the Chinese one as Vajrayāna.

In simpler terms, one is getting there by taking 'the correct steps', and the other is getting there by understanding what 'there' is, setting it as the goal and leaving the means up to the unconscious mind.

Each approach has its limitations. Sutrayana is a lot of hard work. Vajrayāna is confounding to anyone who isn't ready for it. Sutrayana is the one that can be expressed in rational terms. Vajrayāna is mysterious.

My way is Vajrayāna, so my attitude is the same as the Chinese Buddist. I'm all like "Why are you working so hard? Just wake up and smell the manure!" But I can appreciate that my way isn't going to suit everyone, and for those who don't get it, learning by rote is better than nothing and will keep them safe until they are ready.

So, back to your question, it generally requires time and analysis, but it doesn't have to. Everyone is in the process of running a meaningless marathon to nowhere. They could just stop, but most will not stop unless you give them lots of bricks to carry.

---

Shit, I've realised there's more to this story. Even with my path, there is mmmm. Jeez this is a complex topic.

There is no inherent need for time. But, taking a long time over it may be preferred. Faster is not always better. The mind is full of shit. Looking at that shit is not comfortable. It becomes comfortable. The first time you see it you scream. The second time you wimper. The third time maybe you just cry a little. And so on until you're like "this is okay actually, I can live with this". And then when you've made peace with that, something else comes up from the mind. I'm not sure why anyone would want to rush that process. Enlightenment doesn't take the upsetting thing away. Enlightenment is the upsetting thing. Full enlightenment is when there is nothing left in our minds or anywhere that could possibly upset us.

Suffice to say, I'm not fully enlightened, and in no rush to be. Anyone who says they want to be fully enlightened instantly, doesn't know what enlightenment is.

Edit: I realise now, it's unclear whether those Buddhists were talking about full enlightenment, or just the first stage (stream entry). A lot hinges on that question. The Mind Illuminated talks about enlightenment as a sort of accident and the exercises merely a means of making oneself more accident prone. But you know what really makes you 'accident prone'? having someone else to whom that accident has already happened, shoving you when you least expect it.

Edit 2: It's all about trust really. If you don't trust your teacher, then you need to trust your own analysis, and analysis takes time.

There is no 'better'.

Speaking of enlightenment is the height of vulgarity.

I would rather reveal my own foolishness and be corrected, than hide it and keep it.

Speaking eloquently, I would have nothing to say.

By speaking at all, I reveal nothing but my own unenlightenment.

Leaving shit out in the sun, flies are attracted.

Apparently I have no mind at all.

I'm glad you asked this question. I read my post to a friend who sees as I do, and she suggested that people would react very negatively to that part and it might explain the volume of downvotes. She has much greater insight into how normal humans think, and so I'm inclined to defer to her judgement on this.

It's quite an offensive idea isn't it.

I recommend you check out The Curse Of The Counterfactual [LW · GW].

Fear and guilt about suffering (whether perceived in ourself or someone else), do not undo suffering. Nor do they motivate us in a healthy way to act.

Humour liberates.

None.

By rich, I assume you mean "having more money than I need". Thankfully no.

Time and attention, not money, are my most precious resources (I would not sell a minute of my time for all the money in the world). An excess in money would be a responsibility I would need to spend time and attention on, to determine its most helpful disposal. The more the excess, the greater the responsibility. Who wants that? Not me.