What Is Enlightenment? (William Bodri)
A Quasi-Esoteric Perennial Philosophy
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “What is Enlightenment?†by William Bodri.]
I wasn’t about to dish out 30 + dollars to read this book (which, regrettably, isn’t available in Kindle), but a student of mine who wanted me to review it was kind enough to provide me with a copy.
The book is a veritable tome -- 500 + pages, with very small font that makes it a pain to read. I use reading glasses, but the student who provided my copy also bought one for himself, and he likewise complained about the near-microscopic font size.
The author, William Bodri, an erudite fellow steeped in the Great Spiritual Traditions, argues that Enlightenment in every genuine spiritual tradition describes the same Awakening. He writes:
“Enlightenment is non-denominational, the Truth is common to the entire world: seekers from every spiritual tradition can and have succeeded in attaining self-realization. It is a universal accomplishment within the reach of all, rather than the province of just one tradition. The records of various religions show that many have attained it... Furthermore, this ultimate spiritual achievement is described in the exact same way, using common characteristics, by countless saints and sages no matter what tradition they come from. Only the language changes, not the realization.â€
Bodri’s lens for describing the common Enlightenment is a Zen Buddhist/Taoist one, augmented by Advaita Vedanta, as described by Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, and Nisargadatta Maharaj. Although he argues for a non-denominational Enlightenment, he views Buddhism as the foremost tradition because of its “ability to “explain everything.†He writes:
“As stated, only Buddhism offers such high teachings, because it is he transcendental wisdom that explains everything. This is how it is distinguished from other religions of the world.â€
But Bodri contradicts himself, because he resorts to Taoist teachings to (incompletely) explain the energetic dimension of Awakening. If he really understood Buddhism and the En-Light-enment project, he’d have used the Buddhist Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmankaya) teaching to explain it, but he doesn’t. He understands that Enlightenment entails achieving what he calls the “three enlightenment bodies†or Buddha body attainments,†but he has no real understanding of what this means or involves. For example, he only describes the Sambhogakaya as the “Reward body.†If he were truly astute, he’d have rightly described it as the Blessing/Blissing Clear-Light Energy Body, and would have equated it with Hindu Shakti and the Christian Holy Spirit. Bodri’s problem is that his understanding of Buddhism and Enlightenment is limited, and does not include Dzogchen, which provides the most comprehensive explanation of the Trikaya to be found in the Buddhist tradition.
Bodri also contradicts himself regarding the Sambhogakaya, or Reward Body, which, unbeknownst to him, means Grace, or Blessing Power, measured out in response to one’s spiritual merit. He writes: “Your spiritual attainments are not due to some heavenly tribunal or decision made above… This idea wrongfully suggests that spiritual greatness, including enlightenment, is therefore due to some external force other than one’s own cultivation efforts.†But elsewhere he writes: “Once started, the actual sequence of transformations so that everything opens will take more than a decade, and is usually assisted by the intercession of heavenly beings… Often practitioners will be put through ordeals that involve mental torment in order to determine which of the practitioner’s chi channels are blocked and need to be opened through heavenly assistance, yet this is a process ordinary individuals without wisdom and attainments cannot possibly understand.â€
Bodri’s descriptions of Enlightenment in the various religions do not do these religions justice. For example, he doesn’t even mention the Trinity and the Holy Spirit in his section on Christianity. This is especially egregious, because the Christian Trinity, esoterically understood, is the same Triple Body as the Buddhist Trikaya. And his section on Judaism is even worse, lacking a consideration of Kabbalah.
Unfortunately, Bodri is also deficient when it comes to Buddhism, his religion of choice. For example, he writes: “Within Buddhism there are two schools of cultivation -- the Yogacara and Madhyamaka schools – that offer some insight on all this progress. These two sides actually comprise just one school, the Mind-Only (Mere Consciousness school), which emphasizes the fact that everything you experience is just consciousness.†Bodri has it wrong. Yogacara and Madhyamaka are two distinct Mahayana Buddhist schools, and it is Yogacara alone that is the Mind-Only school; whereas Madhyamaka is all about emptiness, and in no way teaches that everything you experience is just consciousness.
Elsewhere Bodri writes: “Everything you see right now is not an external world but something appearing in your personal mind.†I’ve got news for Bodri: the computer he works at is not something appearing in is mind, but an external reality that would continue to exist if he (and his mind) dropped dead in front of it. The Buddha would hardly approve of Bodri’s reduction of the external world
to appearances in one’s mind.
And speaking of the Buddha, Bodri never quotes or paraphrases Gautama, the true Buddha, just Shakyamuni, the Mahayana version of the Buddha. This leads to Bodri making statements that Gautama would never have made. For example, Bodri writes: “The Buddha always warned against taking the alaya consciousness as some greater Self because the real Self is its support, which is the inherent emptiness, and the alaya is its manifest consciousness.†The Buddha never said this, and would never have said it, because he never described a Self, nor inherent emptiness as the support of manifest consciousness.
And speaking of the alaya, Bodri writes: “On the one hand there is the unchanging undifferentiated consciousness of pure illumination (Siva or Purusha) and on the other, there is the always transforming differentiated consciousness of manifestation that is the alaya (Shakti or Prakriti).†Unbeknownst to Bodri, the alaya is not Shakti (as manifest energy) or Prakriti, but rather the Unborn Realm. Bodri confuses the alaya with the alaya-vijnana (the immanent storehouse consciousness), but even the alaya-vijnana is not Shakti or Prakriti.
I could continue criticizing Bodri’s Dharma errors, but this review is already too long, so I’ll stop here and summarize my take on the book. First, the positives. Unlike most Buddhist writers, Bodri, who embraces the perennial philosophy, understands, and argues, that Buddhist Enlightenment does not differ from Enlightenment in other traditions. He also understands that Enlightenment is a whole-body matter involving the opening of blocked channels; and though his descriptions of this Enlightenment of the whole body are incomplete, they will still prove educational for many, as will his explanations of Zen, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta. Negatively, the book is endlessly repetitive and should have been edited down to half its size. As earlier stated, the book’s print is too small, which makes it a pain to read, and no (less expensive) Kindle alternative is available. A major problem is that the book focuses on Zen in Buddhism (while ignoring Dzogchen) and on Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism (while ignoring Kashmir Shaivism). The cognoscenti understand that Dzogchen and Kashmir Shaivism are superior to Zen and Advaita Vedanta when it comes to explaining Enlightenment, so they won’t be impressed with Bodri’s discourse, particularly since it is error-ridden.
When I weigh the book’s pros and cons, my assessment is that it merits three stars.
[My 3-star Amazon review (NDA) of “What is Enlightenment?†by William Bodri.]
I wasn’t about to dish out 30 + dollars to read this book (which, regrettably, isn’t available in Kindle), but a student of mine who wanted me to review it was kind enough to provide me with a copy.
The book is a veritable tome -- 500 + pages, with very small font that makes it a pain to read. I use reading glasses, but the student who provided my copy also bought one for himself, and he likewise complained about the near-microscopic font size.
The author, William Bodri, an erudite fellow steeped in the Great Spiritual Traditions, argues that Enlightenment in every genuine spiritual tradition describes the same Awakening. He writes:
“Enlightenment is non-denominational, the Truth is common to the entire world: seekers from every spiritual tradition can and have succeeded in attaining self-realization. It is a universal accomplishment within the reach of all, rather than the province of just one tradition. The records of various religions show that many have attained it... Furthermore, this ultimate spiritual achievement is described in the exact same way, using common characteristics, by countless saints and sages no matter what tradition they come from. Only the language changes, not the realization.â€
Bodri’s lens for describing the common Enlightenment is a Zen Buddhist/Taoist one, augmented by Advaita Vedanta, as described by Shankara, Ramana Maharshi, and Nisargadatta Maharaj. Although he argues for a non-denominational Enlightenment, he views Buddhism as the foremost tradition because of its “ability to “explain everything.†He writes:
“As stated, only Buddhism offers such high teachings, because it is he transcendental wisdom that explains everything. This is how it is distinguished from other religions of the world.â€
But Bodri contradicts himself, because he resorts to Taoist teachings to (incompletely) explain the energetic dimension of Awakening. If he really understood Buddhism and the En-Light-enment project, he’d have used the Buddhist Trikaya (Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya, Nirmankaya) teaching to explain it, but he doesn’t. He understands that Enlightenment entails achieving what he calls the “three enlightenment bodies†or Buddha body attainments,†but he has no real understanding of what this means or involves. For example, he only describes the Sambhogakaya as the “Reward body.†If he were truly astute, he’d have rightly described it as the Blessing/Blissing Clear-Light Energy Body, and would have equated it with Hindu Shakti and the Christian Holy Spirit. Bodri’s problem is that his understanding of Buddhism and Enlightenment is limited, and does not include Dzogchen, which provides the most comprehensive explanation of the Trikaya to be found in the Buddhist tradition.
Bodri also contradicts himself regarding the Sambhogakaya, or Reward Body, which, unbeknownst to him, means Grace, or Blessing Power, measured out in response to one’s spiritual merit. He writes: “Your spiritual attainments are not due to some heavenly tribunal or decision made above… This idea wrongfully suggests that spiritual greatness, including enlightenment, is therefore due to some external force other than one’s own cultivation efforts.†But elsewhere he writes: “Once started, the actual sequence of transformations so that everything opens will take more than a decade, and is usually assisted by the intercession of heavenly beings… Often practitioners will be put through ordeals that involve mental torment in order to determine which of the practitioner’s chi channels are blocked and need to be opened through heavenly assistance, yet this is a process ordinary individuals without wisdom and attainments cannot possibly understand.â€
Bodri’s descriptions of Enlightenment in the various religions do not do these religions justice. For example, he doesn’t even mention the Trinity and the Holy Spirit in his section on Christianity. This is especially egregious, because the Christian Trinity, esoterically understood, is the same Triple Body as the Buddhist Trikaya. And his section on Judaism is even worse, lacking a consideration of Kabbalah.
Unfortunately, Bodri is also deficient when it comes to Buddhism, his religion of choice. For example, he writes: “Within Buddhism there are two schools of cultivation -- the Yogacara and Madhyamaka schools – that offer some insight on all this progress. These two sides actually comprise just one school, the Mind-Only (Mere Consciousness school), which emphasizes the fact that everything you experience is just consciousness.†Bodri has it wrong. Yogacara and Madhyamaka are two distinct Mahayana Buddhist schools, and it is Yogacara alone that is the Mind-Only school; whereas Madhyamaka is all about emptiness, and in no way teaches that everything you experience is just consciousness.
Elsewhere Bodri writes: “Everything you see right now is not an external world but something appearing in your personal mind.†I’ve got news for Bodri: the computer he works at is not something appearing in is mind, but an external reality that would continue to exist if he (and his mind) dropped dead in front of it. The Buddha would hardly approve of Bodri’s reduction of the external world
to appearances in one’s mind.
And speaking of the Buddha, Bodri never quotes or paraphrases Gautama, the true Buddha, just Shakyamuni, the Mahayana version of the Buddha. This leads to Bodri making statements that Gautama would never have made. For example, Bodri writes: “The Buddha always warned against taking the alaya consciousness as some greater Self because the real Self is its support, which is the inherent emptiness, and the alaya is its manifest consciousness.†The Buddha never said this, and would never have said it, because he never described a Self, nor inherent emptiness as the support of manifest consciousness.
And speaking of the alaya, Bodri writes: “On the one hand there is the unchanging undifferentiated consciousness of pure illumination (Siva or Purusha) and on the other, there is the always transforming differentiated consciousness of manifestation that is the alaya (Shakti or Prakriti).†Unbeknownst to Bodri, the alaya is not Shakti (as manifest energy) or Prakriti, but rather the Unborn Realm. Bodri confuses the alaya with the alaya-vijnana (the immanent storehouse consciousness), but even the alaya-vijnana is not Shakti or Prakriti.
I could continue criticizing Bodri’s Dharma errors, but this review is already too long, so I’ll stop here and summarize my take on the book. First, the positives. Unlike most Buddhist writers, Bodri, who embraces the perennial philosophy, understands, and argues, that Buddhist Enlightenment does not differ from Enlightenment in other traditions. He also understands that Enlightenment is a whole-body matter involving the opening of blocked channels; and though his descriptions of this Enlightenment of the whole body are incomplete, they will still prove educational for many, as will his explanations of Zen, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta. Negatively, the book is endlessly repetitive and should have been edited down to half its size. As earlier stated, the book’s print is too small, which makes it a pain to read, and no (less expensive) Kindle alternative is available. A major problem is that the book focuses on Zen in Buddhism (while ignoring Dzogchen) and on Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism (while ignoring Kashmir Shaivism). The cognoscenti understand that Dzogchen and Kashmir Shaivism are superior to Zen and Advaita Vedanta when it comes to explaining Enlightenment, so they won’t be impressed with Bodri’s discourse, particularly since it is error-ridden.
When I weigh the book’s pros and cons, my assessment is that it merits three stars.
