One of my first posts in this blog dealt with the problem of defining enlightenment. (See “A Little Background – Definitions“).
The more I study this subject, the more definitions I find.
After thinking for some time about exactly “what is enlightenment”, I have come up with MY OWN definition of enlightenment.
Following my definition of enlightenment I will present some other definitions that I have come across recently, so that you can compare.
This is my current definition of enlightenment, subject to change without notice…
ENLIGHTENMENT: A state of consciousness that experiences reality unfiltered through any
mental, physical, or psychological distortions.
In my view, enlightenment is an ability to experience the world WITHOUT any personal perceptual filters.
By perceptual filters I mean the following (among others):
- the false idea of a “self”
- beliefs
- expectations
- desires
- values
- languages
In other words, enlightenment is a DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF REALITY.
Before I break down my definition of enlightenment into its separate parts, I would like to address the question of “What is REALITY?”
======================
* WHAT IS ”REALITY”?
======================
When I refer to enlightenment as “the direct experience of reality”, I can imagine that some readers may have questions or objections about what I may mean by ”reality”.
It is not my purpose to define “reality” here, but I will list some of the objections that may arise in this context:
- You cannot define reality. It is not definable.
- There is no such thing as “one” reality – reality is a subjective experience, different for each consciousness.
- There is no ”one” reality - reality exists on many levels.
These are all valid points.
When you look up “REALITY” in the dictionary you will find definitions like this:
Reality: “The state of being actual or real; A real entity, event or other fact; The entirety of all that is real; An individual observer’s own subjective perception of that which is real”
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reality
In other words, most definitions say that reality is the state of being real… which really doesn’t tell you much. There are various definitions, but many of them go around in circles without really defining it.
And in a larger sense, to verify something as “real” may seem simple, but can actually be far more problematic than might first be evident. How to verify “reality” is beyond the scope of this post, but is a very interesting topic in itself.
So, in some sense the first objection, that one cannot define reality, is valid.
As to the second objection, that reality is a subjective experience - this can also be true.
Our own EXPERIENCE of reality is subjective, and each person’s is somewhat different. This is AN aspect of reality, but the subjective aspect is only one aspect of reality. Because most of us experience reality subjectively, does not mean that it cannot be experienced objectively.
And finally, the third objection, that reality exists on many levels, may also be true. There is the macro level, the micro level, the quantum level, the cosmic level, the material level, the seen, the unseen, and on ad infinitum.
When I use the word reality in this definition of enlightenment, what I mean is this:
REALITY IS ALL OF THAT.
Reality is indefinable, it is subjective, and it is multi-level. My definition of reality means that it is EVERYTHING THAT IS, including the contradictory and problematic states of indefinability, subjectivity, and multiplicity.
Enlightenment signifies the ability to see through the “subjective” aspect of our experience of reality, as much as is humanly possible.
My definition proposes that enlightenment is a “state of consciousness”, that “experiences reality” UNFILTERED “through any mental, physical, or psychological distortions”.
===========================
* UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
===========================
There are several underlying assumptions here.
-
There is a “reality” that can be fully experienced by a state of consciousness.
-
That reality is normally “filtered” before it is experienced by our consciousness.
-
Those filters are mental, physical, and psychological.
-
Those filters “distort” reality, in such a manner as to change our consciousness of it.
-
It is possible to experience reality in an unfiltered, undistorted manner through human consciousness.
The “filters” that distort reality for most of us consist of mental, physical, and psychological filters.
I hope to write about this more in the future, but here I will give a very brief overview of these distorting filters.
========================
* ABOUT THESE “FILTERS”
========================
In putting forth these ideas about how these “filters” alter our perception of reality, I am not overly concerned with the quantification of these points.
That is, it doesn’t really matter exactly what filters what, or how it filters it, at this point.
What I am driving at is that our perception of reality IS FILTERED.
If you, or anyone you know, can present me with a better, more exact or verifiable model of filters and how they work, I would welcome your input and feedback. In the future all of these filters of reality could be looked at in detail, parsed, categorized, and refined.
My main point here, at this time, is that these filters exist, and that it is possible to see reality with a minimum of interference from them – in a state we call enlightenment.
+ + MENTAL FILTERS -
Your brain is flooded with information every second. Much of that information is filtered out of your conscious awareness from moment to moment.
A mental filter is, in broad terms, a filter that acts primarily through the subconscious, or pre-conscious mind.
Here is an example - If I ask you what your right foot feels like you can tell me. However, before I asked, you probably weren’t consciously aware of the feelings coming from your foot. That feeling and consciousness of your foot has been filtered out of your primary experience, by what I am calling a “mental filter”.
Another example of how this works might be in driving. Have you ever noticed someone else driving the same model of car as the one that you are driving? Your mental filter normally filters out most of the other cars around you. But when you see a car similar to, or the same as your make and model, your awareness picks it out of all of the other cars and calls your attention to it. This happens automatically, and unconsciously.
Our mental filters significantly change what we see and what we notice about our selves and our surroundings.
For more information, here is an article titled “How Thought Creates Reality“, that touches on some of these ideas.
+ + PHYSICAL FILTERS -
When using the term “physical filters” I am speaking primarily about any physical impairment, or alteration, that changes our perception of reality.
Some examples of physical filters may be:
-
Drugs or other chemical stimulants
-
Alcohol
-
Prescription drugs that alter perceptions
-
Other physical impairments
I am not a doctor or a scientist, so I cannot scientifically prove these points at this time.
However, it seems very likely that there ARE physical filters that could PREVENT the conditions of enlightenment.
It is an interesting question. Exactly which physical changes or impairments would prevent enlightenment, and which would not?
For example, it seems to me that one could be blind or deaf, and experience enlightenment. On the other hand, if certain parts of the brain were impaired or removed that would likely preclude the possibility of enlightenment.
In Buddhism, use of drugs or stimulants is strongly discouraged.
I believe that the brain (and body) should be as free as is possible from all unnatural conditions, in order to be prepared for enlightenment.
It is hard to imagine one becoming enlightened while on a cocaine high, or drunk on alcohol.
If you have any information about ”physical filters”, or impairments, that would impact or prevent the occurrence of enlightenment, I invite you to contact me so that we might present accurate and credible information on this website.
+ + PSYCHOLOGICAL FILTERS -
Here is an entry in Wikipedia about “Reality Tunnel“. This entry points to the type of “psychological filters” I am talking about;
Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don’t even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality.
– Robert Anton Wilson
“The idea does not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist Christian reality tunnel or the scientific materialist reality tunnel.”
“A parallel can be seen in the psychological concept of confirmation bias—our tendency to notice and assign significance to observations that confirm our beliefs, while filtering out or rationalizing away observations that do not fit with our prior beliefs and expectations. This helps to explain why reality tunnels are usually transparent to their inhabitants. While it seems most people take their beliefs to correspond to the ‘one true objective reality’, Robert Anton Wilson emphasizes that each person’s reality tunnel is their own artistic creation, whether they realize it or not.”
(End quote.)
There are MANY psychological filters.
Our environment, our upbringing, our natural tendencies, our past experiences - all of these contribute to psychological factors that filter our experience of “reality”.
For the sake of understanding and insight, these psychological factors could be identified, categorized, and prioritized in more detail in the future.
For now, I would suggest that our “picture” of reality is flawed by a whole collection of factors, most of them going almost entirely unnoticed by the average person.
To peel these filters away can lead to enlightenment -
to experience reality WITHOUT them, IS enlightenment.
============================= 
* ENLIGHTENMENT AS “TRUTH”
=============================
When I asked a Buddhist monk from Sri Lanka whether it was possible for someone entirely ignorant of Buddhist principles and ideas to become enlightened, he immediately, and unequivocally said; YES.
When I asked him why, he said; “BECAUSE IT IS THE TRUTH”.
This is one of the ideas that lead me to my definition of enlightenment.
I thought: “If enlightenment is TRUTH, then it is REALITY”.
Truth: ” Ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience:
the basic truths of life.”
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/truth
It seems to me that enlightenment is seeing “truth”, which is seeing “reality”.
The difference between enlightened experience of reality, and our “normal” experience of reality, is that enlightenment is a state of consciousness that experiences reality without our normal subjective, unconsciously created filters and distortions.
When we see reality “as it is”, we see the “truth”.
When we can see the truth, in this manner, we are said to be “enlightened”.
+++
===============================================================
DEFINITIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT / DESCRIPTIONS OF ENLIGHTENMENT
===============================================================
David Smith, in his book “A Record of Awakening”, says this;
“We Buddhists have decided, when reality is fully seen and known, to call that enlightenment or awakening.” (p. 122)
—————————-
Nitin Trasi defines enlightenment in this way;
“Enlightenment is defined as the intuitive understanding that one is not a separate entity.”
(p.5 The Science of Enlightenment.)
In his chapter on “Enlightenment” (p. 53) he defines enlightenment in this way;
“Enlightenment can be defined as the clear and deep intuitive perception (‘apperception’) or intuitive understanding (not just belief or intellectual comprehension) of the entire situation, that is, of the unity of Consciousness and of the absence of the ‘me’ or ‘I’ as a separate, autonomous entity.”
Mr. Trasi also lists these synonyms at the top of the chapter: Realization; self-realization; awakening; satori; jnana; gyana.
—————————-
Jill Bolte Taylor, in her book “My Stroke of Insight”, quotes Dr. Kat Domingo as saying;
“Enlightenment is not a process of learning, it is a process of unlearning.” (p. 169)
—————————-
“It is, according to Buddha, the end of suffering. Physical pain is still experienced but it is no longer compounded by worries and fears, by mental suffering, which has ended. Enlightenment is the ability to see things as they really are, to accept that what is is, and to say ‘yes’ to all of life. This is done, not out of naivete or denial, but out of a profound realization of the selfless, interconnected, interdependent unity and oneness of all mental and physical phenomena, of all experience.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11680701/What-is-Enlightenment
—————————-
“In Buddhism, enlightenment (Bodhi in Sanskrit) refers to a unique experience which wholly transforms the individual from their previous state in samsara.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(Buddhism)
“(Samsara is the cycle of birth, death and rebirth (i.e. reincarnation) within Hinduism, Buddhism, Bön, Jainism, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and other Indian religions. Colloquially, “Samsara” can also refer to a general state of overt or subtle sufferings that occur in day to day life.)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara
—————————-
“Enlightenment is essentially realizing the non-dual nature of reality, and for those who understand Hindu philosophy, non-duality is Creation (Param Brahman).”
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-enlightenment.html
—————————-
The Shambhala Dictionary defines enlightenment as -
“Enlightenment - The word used to translate the Sanskrit term bodhi (lit., “awakened”) and the Japanese satori or kensho. A person awakens to a nowness of emptiness, which he or she is – even as the entire universe is emptiness – and which alone enables him or her to comprehend the true nature of things. Since enlightenment is repeatedly misunderstood as an experience of light and experiences of light wrongly understood as enlightenment, the term awakening is preferable, since it more accurately conveys the experience.”
http://www.shambhala.com/html/learn/features/buddhism/glossary/glossary-E-H.cfm#e-link
—————————-
“If you look at the Hindu and Buddhist tales of enlightenment you’ll find that they aren’t quite sure what it is. Many words are used to describe it, all of the sounding equally exalted in English. Liberation, perfection, freedom, the ‘cessation of the illusion of self”, “crossing over to the other shore”, “truth – consciousness – bliss” (satchitananda), “the supreme awakening”, “great orgasm” (mahamudra).” – Kevin Murphy
http://www.shaktitechnology.com/enlightenment.htm
—————————-
Enlightenment: “A blessed state in which the individual transcends desire and suffering and attains Nirvana.”
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
—————————-
Enlightenment: ”The awakening to ultimate truth by which man is freed from the endless cycle of personal reincarnations
to which all men are otherwise subject.”
(Collins English Dictionary)
—————————-
Enlightenment: ”The beatitude that transcends the cycle of reincarnation; characterized by the extinction of desire and suffering
and individual consciousness.”
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enlightenment
—————————-
“Enlightenment, Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/enlightenment
—————————-
“Enlightenment can refer to many different concepts. In a secular or non-Buddhist context, the word enlightenment often means “full comprehension of a situation”. Spiritual enlightenment means to obtain a spiritual revelation or deep insight into the meaning and purpose of all things, to communicate with or understand the mind of God, to achieve some other type of profound spiritual understanding, or to achieve a fundamentally changed level of existence whereby one’s self is experienced as a nonchanging field of pure consciousness. Some scientists believe that during meditative states leading up to the subjective experience of enlightenment there are actual physical changes in the brain.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(spiritual)
—————————-
“Enlightenment is awakening to the experience of the world as a unity.” – Terren Suydam
—————————-
ENLIGHTENMENT:
A state of consciousness that experiences reality
unfiltered through any mental, physical, or psychological distortions.
The Unity Project
If you care to have YOUR definition of enlightenment added to this list, send it in to me!
Either use the form below, or go to the contact page by clicking here.
In Unity,
AJ
Hey Alex,
Everything I know about enlightenment I learned from Alan Watts and the internet. So I am no Buddhist scholar. But having some familiarity with psychology and philosophy of mind – two subjects very much in the purview of Buddhist thought – I will venture my own definition and also offer a critique of your definition.
There are two aspects of enlightenment I see emphasized over and over again more than others. These are:
1. realizing the illusion of separateness
2. experiencing #1, not just intellectualizing it
I also think the shambhala definition emphasizing “awakening” is important, because there is a difference between a transient experience that is soon forgotten, and a transformation from which there is no return. So I offer this definition, which is sure to be flawed in its own way:
Enlightenment is awakening to the experience of the world as a unity.
FWIW I would not consider myself enlightened because although I have had transient experiences of Unity, and I intellectually comprehend what it means that separation is an illusion, I still stubbornly identify with my ego, which is by definition a separate entity. For instance, I still get embarrassed and worry about what others think of me. Those are definitely signs that one has not awakened to true unity.
Regarding your definition, I was surprised to read it, if only because it makes no mentioned of “unity”, which is right there in the name of your website :-]
You said: enlightenment is a state of consciousness that experiences reality unfiltered through any mental, physical, or psychological distortions.
Taking a look at the assumptions you make:
1. There is a “reality” that can be fully experienced by a state of consciousness.
2. That reality is normally “filtered” before it is experienced by our consciousness.
3. Those filters are mental, physical, and psychological.
4. Those filters “distort” reality, in such a manner as to change our consciousness of it.
5. It is possible to experience reality in an unfiltered, undistorted manner through human consciousness.
The main issue, as I see it, with your definition is that assumes the Objective view of reality: that experience corresponds with *receiving* reality. The primary operation of human experience is thus *filtering* out aspects of reality we don’t need.
In fact, what cognitive neuroscience has clearly shown is that we *construct* reality – that is the primary operation. Filtering is important too, in the sense of what data is selected to guide the ongoing construction.
What is dreaming? If you think along objectivist lines, you have to jump through hoops to explain how it happens. With the constructivist view, dreaming is the same as the waking state, with the senses turned off. We experience a construction – there is no fundamental difference.
If you accept this, then you can rewrite your 5 assumptions above like this:
1. The reality that we experience is a construction of our brains.
2. The ongoing constructed reality is fed by data from our physical, emotional, and mental “bodies” (for lack of a better word).
3. It is impossible to know in what ways our constructions differ from “true” or noumenal reality, or from other people’s constructions.
So I think when you see Buddhist sages talking about experiencing reality “the way it really is”, they are not asserting that there is a direct experience of reality available to those who can scrub their brains the hardest… rather, I suspect they are referring to transcending the filters we experience the world with. Transcending, to me, means: no longer identifying with. Something that imprisoned you, no longer does. We identify with our egos, but this limits us. When we view the world from our egos, we see the world through the filter HowDoesItAffectMe. But seeing the world “as it really is” means that what affects me is no longer that important. We become available to experience much more of the world. We don’t shy away from suffering and we don’t chase pleasure. We see ourselves in everyone, from the saints to the slime. Our hearts open. There is no fear. That is what enlightenment means to me.
Excellent feedback and thoughts, Terren. Here are a few quick responses to your comment.
My definition of enlightenment INCLUDES, but is not limited to the Buddhist viewpoint. I did not specify that, so I can see how it might be assumed that I am talking about Buddhist Enlightenment. Buddhism has led to most of my speculation about enlightenment, but I have tried to avoid a specifically Buddhist discussion of this topic in those terms. I was concerned that it would lead to endless disputes about “doctrine”… which is not really the focus of this topic. I DO mention some Buddhist viewpoints, perhaps leading to further assumptions that I am really discussing enlightenment from a Buddhist perspective.
Regarding this comment of yours;
“There are two aspects of enlightenment I see emphasized over and over again more than others. These are:
1. realizing the illusion of separateness
2. experiencing #1, not just intellectualizing it”
I agree with you on this. In most of the (better) commentary on enlightenment, these two factors are ubiquitous.
However, I think that these points ARE, in fact, included in my definition. If “reality” (which I do NOT define in my definition of enlightenment) includes the fact that our feeling of separateness is an illusion, then THAT is what one would come to know (in a deep, intuitive, way – not just intellectual knowing). In “seeing reality” in an “unfiltered, undistorted” way, one would theoretically see our existence as “not being separate”, or as containing an “illusion of separateness”, if you prefer.
Your point here falls in with Nitin Trassi for example, who feels that the two aspects of enlightenment that you mention are primary.
I am hoping to expand on that a little. I feel that, although those two points are likely to be primary aspects of enlightenment, they are not the ONLY aspects of it.
And again, the same comment of mine pertains to your statement;
“Regarding your definition, I was surprised to read it, if only because it makes no mentioned of “unity”, which is right there in the name of your website :-]”
Unity would be included in an undistorted view of reality.
The next point you make;
“In fact, what cognitive neuroscience has clearly shown is that we *construct* reality – that is the primary operation. Filtering is important too, in the sense of what data is selected to guide the ongoing construction.”
This is an interesting distinction, and may come into play here somehow… I realize that perhaps the choice of the word “filtering” may lead to some ambiguity. I would like to continue to learn and think about this distinction. But, as you point out… even if reality is constructed, it is constructed out of the filtered input that we are receiving.
However, I don’t think the issue of how reality is created in our perception is the main point here. My main point in that what we normally perceive is “distorted”. Whether it is constructed or filtered, it is still distorted.
What may be useful in this process is to understand these “distortions”… and whether they are part of a construction or a filtering process may make a difference in detail, but not necessarily in the overall effect that they have.
Another point you make, about DREAMING, is interesting. I don’t know about that. What did come to mind when I read your comments was the position of Nitin Trasi, that once enlightened, an individual CEASES TO DREAM. I would need to look up the details of his position to flesh that out, but I remember clearly that he has stated that an enlightened person will no longer dream.
And finally, the summary of your comments is RIGHT ON.
I think that what you state there is another way of saying what I have said. The concepts are coming from a different perspective, but arrive at the same conclusion.
Let me know if I have correctly interpreted your comments, and/or if you have any further feedback on my input.
Some great food for thought you have contributed here Terren!
Thanks again for your input and thoughtful consideration.
In Unity,
AJ
I’d like to lay out my take on enlightenment and then show how it relates to Alex’s and Terren’s takes, which stimulated the following.
The question, What is enlightenment?, supposes there is one experience that all the literature on enlightenment is pointing to. In fact, various teachings on enlightenment may be talking about significantly different experiences. If that’s so, then writers should explain why they’re talking about one kind of enlightenment rather than another. Doing so has the merit of forcing the writer to explain why it’s desirable to have that experience or at least to discuss and understand it. That’s a good thing whether there’s one underlying experience or not, since answering that question will go a long way toward clarifying our understanding of what we’re talking about. In other words, if Alex answered why we’d want to experience reality unfiltered and Terren answered why we’d want to experience reality as unity, they’d take us a long way toward understanding what they’re talking about.
The enlightenment I’m interested in (EG = the enlightenment that I, Gary, am interested in) is an embodied experience that contributes to human happiness by reducing unnecessary suffering. I say embodied for experiential, empirical, and conceptual reasons.
Experiential: EG is the only experience I can relate to and the only experience I’ve actually had to some degree.
Empirical: EG has the advantage of being subject to empirical study.
Conceptual: non-EG accounts of enlightenment, I believe but won’t argue here, inevitably involve incoherent conceptual puzzles; which gives me reason to believe they don’t exist.
Distinguish between the state and the disposition of EG, and between EG as unique and EG as a continuum that allows of degrees.
The dramatic, knocked-off-your-horse-completely-transformative, and extremely rare EG state is a psychological reboot of a mind that’s gotten snarled in its own programming. Short of a complete reboot and further down the continuum are EG states that unsnarl some portion of dysfunctional programming.
The disposition of EG, also allowing of degrees, is the ability to run one’s programming without getting snarled in it. After all, our mind’s programming is only a means to some end, so when it starts running itself independently of that end, we can say it’s ensnarled.
The end for which our programming exists is to deal with reality, which includes our own programming itself, since we’re reflective animals who can monitor our own programming. It’s that capacity that opens the door to unnecessary suffering.
To us embodied animals, reality is primarily anything that can impinge upon us and to which we can respond. However, because we’re reflective, part of our reality is our thinking of what can impinge on us and how we can respond. It’s that monitoring of our thinking that opens the door to unnecessary suffering. Because of that monitoring, we aren’t just afraid when in danger but we can worry about it when we’re not and we can refuse to face it when we are. That’s unnecessary suffering. And because we’re social animals, we aren’t just afraid of hostility and abandonment from others, but we can take their viewpoint and reject ourselves as well. That’s unnecessary suffering.
Fortunately, we have dogs as living koans to straighten us out. Those who project human mental abilities on dogs demean them and miss what they really have to offer. Since they’re not self-monitoring, they respond to reality simply. When we relate to them empathetically, we can train on that simplicity and thereby let go of our self-monitoring excesses. Dogs teach us what really counts, what really is. Note that dogs are not liberated from fear and pain and joy and pleasure. They just don’t make too much of them. Or at least any capacity for self-reflection they may have renders their capacity for excess much less than human.
Reality isn’t something that exists independently of our thinking. Particulars exist that way, but “reality” is a HEURISTIC notion, a framework that guides inquiry into what exists and what doesn’t, into what impinges on us and what doesn’t. When we think about x, we want to know how it impinges on us and how we can respond to it. We say it’s not real if it turns out that only the thought of it is impinging on us and if we’re responding only to the thought.
Failure to see reality as a heuristic notion rather than something that exists leads to many age-old conundrums. Reality isn’t indefinable. I just defined it. Reality is indefinable only if you think of it as something that exists—that is, as something out there among all those particulars. Of course it’s puzzling then, in the same way as it’s puzzling to wonder what color the concept of orange is, a puzzle created by missing that oranges and the concept of orange by which we refer to them are two entirely different things. Similarly, reality isn’t infinite or endless. It’s our inquiry that the heuristic notion of reality guides that’s endless.
A state of EG is therefore a naked experience of the heuristic, not of everything that exists. We’d explode if we experienced everything that exists. Why on earth would we ever want to experience even a fair portion of everything that exists? When we experience a full EG, we experience an unconditional openness to everything that is. When we experience a partial EG, we experience enough of reality the heuristic to realize the limited value of some particular with which we’re currently dealing. We are liberated from attachment to that particular, maybe just for the moment, maybe forever. In a full EG, we’re liberated from any attachment to anything. Perhaps a full EG is inherently permanent.
The disposition of EG is the ability to experience a state of EG. At its most pronounced, the disposition affects our every moment. We’re liberated from any attachment forever. At its least pronounced, the disposition affects a particular aspect of our life for at least a brief length of time. Most of us have experience EG to some degree. For example, being hip probably no longer has the importance to us that it had when we were adolescents. We’re aware of its illusions and we’ve put in perspective what it genuinely has to offer.
Finally, distinguish between filtering and distorting. Some of our thinking is natural in the sense that it doesn’t blind us to reality, to the fact that whatever we’re thinking about is only part of the whole. This natural thinking FILTERS out some of reality without closing our minds from being open to something outside the filter. On the other hand, some of our thinking obscures the heuristic, inherently obscuring our thinking’s own limited nature. For example, teenagers who feel humiliated for not being hip don’t just see that deficiency as a small part of who they are, but as their whole identity. I AM WHO AM NOT HIP. This sort of thinking DISTORTS reality not only by creating something false but also by resisting correction.
Now I’d like to apply this framework to Alex’s and Terren’s blogs.
Alex
“ENLIGHTENMENT: A state of consciousness that experiences reality unfiltered through any
mental, physical, or psychological distortions.”
[GS]
Taken literally, the “any” would mean that I can’t be enlightened while writing this email, since doing so involves filters. In fact, Alex immediately seems to abandon “any” for some subset of “personal” filters: “In my view, enlightenment is an ability to experience the world WITHOUT any personal perceptual filters.” And he goes on to imply that only some filters prevent enlightenment: ” However, it seems very likely that there ARE physical filters that could PREVENT the conditions of enlightenment.” After all, “Your brain is flooded with information every second. Much of that information is filtered out of your conscious awareness from moment to moment.” So if enlightenment is purely unfiltered experience, it has nothing to do with embodied human experience. Alex’s wanting to distinguish between filters that prevent enlightenment and those that don’t implies that he too is concerned with EG, not some Platonic, other-worldly experience. Sometimes he equates filtering with distorting. I suggest he limit “filters” to the enlightenment-compatible (perhaps even enlightenment-promoting) filters and call the enlightenment-incompatible ones “distortions.”
“By perceptual filters I mean the following (among others):
• the false idea of a “self”
• beliefs
• expectations
• desires
• values
• languages ”
[GS]
By distinguishing between filters and distortions, we can then comb through these bullets and identify when these items are filters and when they are distortions. After all, my desires make life lovable; only my attachment to them causes me and others unnecessary suffering. He seems to be moving in this direction in this reply to Terren: ” What may be useful in this process is to understand these “distortions”… and whether they are part of a construction or a filtering process may make a difference in detail, but not necessarily in the overall effect that they have.”
“Reality is indefinable, it is subjective, and it is multi-level. My definition of reality means that it is EVERYTHING THAT IS, including the contradictory and problematic states of indefinability, subjectivity, and multiplicity.”
[GS]
There’s nothing contradictory and problematic about any of those characteristics if reality is a heuristic. Anymore than there’s anything puzzling about the concept of orange not being orange, once we realize that the concept and the orange are two different things.
“Enlightenment signifies the ability to see through the “subjective” aspect of our experience of reality, as much as is humanly possible.”
[GS]
“Seeing through” suggests that reality stands behind our subjective experience. Reality as heuristic allows us to put our subjective experience in non-attached perspective as part of reality, not opposed to reality.
“Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don’t even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality.
– Robert Anton Wilson”
[GS]
Reality as heuristic allows us to see any interpretation as merely one bus stop in a never-ending journey of inquiry.
———
Terren
“Enlightenment is awakening to the experience of the world as a unity.”
[GS]
I’ve always been puzzled by the emphasis on unity in enlightenment literature, since it’s obvious that we embodied creatures are distinct from one another. And if the emphasis on unity merely means we’re interrelated, that seems a trivial insight. But I can make sense out of unity on an affective level: EG is affective, non-defensive openness to the world around us as it impinges upon us. Here, unity is non-dissociatedness, not denial of distinctions. Clearly we need to draw boundaries between ourselves and the world around us. Some psychotics are the worse for being unable to. But the challenge of EG is to make those boundaries flexible to the situation and open to being extended as our interaction with reality becomes increasingly rich.
“FWIW I would not consider myself enlightened because although I have had transient experiences of Unity, and I intellectually comprehend what it means that separation is an illusion, I still stubbornly identify with my ego, which is by definition a separate entity. For instance, I still get embarrassed and worry about what others think of me. Those are definitely signs that one has not awakened to true unity.”
[GS]
I like the concreteness and aptness of the example. However, I disagree with the absolutist assumption in “true unity.” I think it allows of degrees. I certainly have experienced Terren as non-defensively open to me and other aspects of the world around him. In that sense, it seems he’s experienced true union or unity, though apparently not to a full degree that has transformed his every thought.
“The main issue, as I see it, with your definition is that assumes the Objective view of reality: that experience corresponds with *receiving* reality. The primary operation of human experience is thus *filtering* out aspects of reality we don’t need.”
[GS]
Yes. This is inherent in being embodied.
“In fact, what cognitive neuroscience has clearly shown is that we *construct* reality – that is the primary operation. Filtering is important too, in the sense of what data is selected to guide the ongoing construction.”
[GS]
It think we can tie together the constructive and data-receiving moments by saying that we construct our response to reality.
“It is impossible to know in what ways our constructions differ from “true” or noumenal reality, or from other people’s constructions.”
[GS]
I’m not sure what Terren has in mind here. Is he thinking that we construct the experience of orange in response to an orange, but that we can never know what the noumenal orange really looks like? But the noumenal orange exists precisely as not experienced, so it doesn’t look like anything. To even ask about the difference between our experience of an orange and the noumenal orange itself is non-sensical, like asking about the difference between red and blue. The difference is primitive.
“So I think when you see Buddhist sages talking about experiencing reality “the way it really is”, they are not asserting that there is a direct experience of reality available to those who can scrub their brains the hardest… rather, I suspect they are referring to transcending the filters we experience the world with. Transcending, to me, means: no longer identifying with. Something that imprisoned you, no longer does. We identify with our egos, but this limits us. When we view the world from our egos, we see the world through the filter HowDoesItAffectMe. But seeing the world “as it really is” means that what affects me is no longer that important. We become available to experience much more of the world. We don’t shy away from suffering and we don’t chase pleasure. We see ourselves in everyone, from the saints to the slime. Our hearts open. There is no fear. That is what enlightenment means to me.”
[GS]
I hope my comments have helped facilitate further inquiry. Otherwise, I apologize for pointing to something at such length, when Terren here lays out the bottom line so clearly and succinctly.
Gary
@Alex:
I like the idea of “enlightenment” as divorced from a particular Buddhist context, since efforts to identify the One Authentic definition would be counter productive. I agree with Gary’s suggestion that we ought to justify our own notions, which is what you’ve opened the door to with this article.
That said, you say you want to expand on what Nitin and I find as the primary aspects of enlightenment (experience & unity). You’d like to import the idea that reality (left undefined) can be experienced directly by one who has let go of distorting filters. You are of course free to attempt this – but the way I see it, there are two problems:
1. you assume something that is unknowable in principle
2. the assumption leads to an unlikely proposition
To point 1, you’re right that it is not important *how* we construct reality, but it is important that we *must* construct it to experience it. That means that each of us construct unique, idiosyncratic, personal realities. It may be that there is a single Objective Reality out there from which our individual realities are ultimately constructed, but it is impossible in principle to know this for certain. By asserting that reality can be experienced without distortions is meaningless if you accept this, because to use the word ‘distortion’ implies that there is an objective standard against which we can perceive them.
The unlikely scenario is that, by dint of your definition, being enlightened means that you will see all of reality the same way other enlightened folks see it. Given the evidence for a constructivist explanation of mind (gathered ironically via the objective methods of science), it is hard for me to accept that.
I would be very interested to hear more about Nitin Trasi’s assertion that enlightened folks stop dreaming. I can’t imagine how he gets there…
Thanks for putting yourself out there and making this dialogue possible, I’m really enjoying it.
@Gary:
Unity is a much deeper concept than you allude to here, Gary. Of course, the distinctions that separate us from our world are self-evident from our embodied perspective. But that is a privileged and thus biased perspective. That perspective is psychological. Alternative perspectives sourced in different levels of description – such as those based in biology, chemistry, physics, and still lower levels of description, show a compelling unity with the rest of life and the world as we know it. Going in the other direction, the sociological perspective reduces our identities to expendable units, like ants, whose dynamics at large make up the group organism, the “hive” if you will.
Now it is one thing to have an intellectual understanding of those forms of unity. That those aspects of unity can be *experienced* by an embodied psyche is what enlightenment is all about, from where I’m coming from. The key to understanding it is in the psychological process of identification. An enlightened person no longer identifies with an ego/body. Rather, he or she identifies with the totality of his/her experience, which of course is constructed. So if the constructions are reprogrammable and identification is malleable, then there is no reason why the psychological self must be the stopping point for discussion about unity.
It’s a good point that using an idiom like “true unity” is not ideal, especially coming from a constructivist. When I refer to “true unity” I am invoking the idea that one can absolutely be no longer identified with an ego/body. Now that I spell it out like that, it seems implausible, but I’m not sure one way or the other, as I am not completely sure I understand how that process of identification really works.
Thank you for pointing out my error regarding the phenomenal and the noumenal. Rather than saying that we can never know whether our constructions differ from noumenal reality, I should have said that we can never know whether our constructions refer to anything in an objective sense. Just a way of saying we don’t have access to whatever is actually impinging on us.
Thanks for your comments Gary.
Terren
Terren
Unity is a much deeper concept than you allude to here, Gary. Of course, the distinctions that separate us from our world are self-evident from our embodied perspective. But that is a privileged and thus biased perspective. That perspective is psychological. Alternative perspectives sourced in different levels of description – such as those based in biology, chemistry, physics, and still lower levels of description, show a compelling unity with the rest of life and the world as we know it. Going in the other direction, the sociological perspective reduces our identities to expendable units, like ants, whose dynamics at large make up the group organism, the “hive” if you will.
Gary
One way to “transcend” an egoistic point of view is science, which seeks to understand things not as they relate to our personal experience (phenomenology) but as they relate to one another. Your appeal to biology, etc. seems to suggest something like this. But I’m sure you don’t want to equate enlightenment with being a super-scientist. More below.
Terren
Now it is one thing to have an intellectual understanding of those forms of unity. That those aspects of unity can be *experienced* by an embodied psyche is what enlightenment is all about, from where I’m coming from.
Gary
That’s the point I’m trying to make by going beyond intellect to empathy, an affective appreciation of reality other than how it’s related to my narrow self-interest.
Terren
The key to understanding it is in the psychological process of identification. An enlightened person no longer identifies with an ego/body. Rather, he or she identifies with the totality of his/her experience, which of course is constructed. So if the constructions are reprogrammable and identification is malleable, then there is no reason why the psychological self must be the stopping point for discussion about unity.
Gary
The key here is your point about malleability. What else could I possibly identify with but my ego/body? The key is whether my sense of my ego/body is rigid/defensive or heuristic/evolving.
Terren
It’s a good point that using an idiom like “true unity” is not ideal, especially coming from a constructivist. When I refer to “true unity” I am invoking the idea that one can absolutely be no longer identified with an ego/body. Now that I spell it out like that, it seems implausible, but I’m not sure one way or the other, as I am not completely sure I understand how that process of identification really works.
Gary
See my comments just above. I also don’t understand the details of identification, but it does seem to me valid to distinguish between identification that is rigid/defensive (over-identification) and healthy, flexible identification. While doing research in the 1970s into psychological diagnosis, I found only one common criterion for psychological health: flexibility. Don’t know if that understanding still prevails.
Terren
Thank you for pointing out my error regarding the phenomenal and the noumenal. Rather than saying that we can never know whether our constructions differ from noumenal reality, I should have said that we can never know whether our constructions refer to anything in an objective sense. Just a way of saying we don’t have access to whatever is actually impinging on us.
Gary
I’d rather say that our constructions certainly refer to objective reality. We know this because our constructions refer to an objective reality (as a heuristic notion) and lead to successful or unsuccessful action as dictated by objective reality. The value of constructivism is that it avoids all the age-old paradoxes that arose from assuming that our thinking somehow mirrors reality.
Terren
Thanks for your comments Gary.
Gary
And to you and Alex. These exchanges are, for me, a great example of sangha, a community that collaborates to deepen and sharpen their understanding.
@ Terren:
You say:
“By asserting that reality can be experienced without distortions is meaningless if you accept this, because to use the word ‘distortion’ implies that there is an objective standard against which we can perceive them.
The unlikely scenario is that, by dint of your definition, being enlightened means that you will see all of reality the same way other enlightened folks see it. Given the evidence for a constructivist explanation of mind (gathered ironically via the objective methods of science), it is hard for me to accept that.”
and yet…
What you and others have said is that, when one becomes “enlightened”, they experience (deeply, intuitively, etc) the unity of all beings.
Of course there are individual variations in perception of the nuances of life for everyone… but if enlightened people all see the same thing, unity, doesn’t that point to an “objective” reality that they are all seeing? (Unity).
Also, science is pointing to the same thing these days. I know some bristle at the inclusion of things like quantum physics in these discussions, but aspects of quantum physics DO point to an underlying unity in all things that we do not normally experience.
In other words, I have heard it said that the “reality” that science points to, is not at ALL the same as we experience it in our daily lives. That the way the world “really” is, is not at all like we experience it, subjectively.
And further, it seems that the experience of enlightenment (seeing, experiencing unity etc) is MORE in line with what science is saying reality is like. (I won’t go into the “participatory” theories of science, where the issue of our participation in reality has an interplay and influence on its outcome – but that is a factor I thought I would mention in advance, because I know that is out there as well.)
So, these lead me to believe that, even though “reality” is subjective, and variable to some degree – it is still ONE THING. It still exists, whether I do or not.
Excellent discussion!
@ Gary
“And to you and Alex. These exchanges are, for me, a great example of sangha, a community that collaborates to deepen and sharpen their understanding.”
Thank you Gary.
Some people (certain “Buddhists”) have implied to me that this is all a waste of time. I don’t agree.
I enjoy it!
And… we may disagree, and work around and bounce our opinions and views off of each other here, but over time we may actually evolve to a more clear understanding of these issues.
I have stated before, and will again state here, that I am not “wedded” to my views on these topics. I am trying to learn, and put out there the best that I know at the time.
You said this:
” I found only one common criterion for psychological health: flexibility. Don’t know if that understanding still prevails.”
I found that interesting, because that is where I am coming from.
And I don’t think any of us involved in this discussion are so rooted in our opinions that we don’t have the flexibility to banter back and forth in the spirit of comparing and learning.
So, thanks for your involvement and your comments. I really enjoy them and you add a lot to the discussion.
I need to work a little harder on understanding all of the nuances of your remarks! I was unclear on your points relating to the “heuristic” aspects of this whole thing.
I am looking forward to the next round!
AJ
Hey Alex,
You said:
“What you and others have said is that, when one becomes “enlightened”, they experience (deeply, intuitively, etc) the unity of all beings.
Of course there are individual variations in perception of the nuances of life for everyone… but if enlightened people all see the same thing, unity, doesn’t that point to an “objective” reality that they are all seeing? (Unity).”
I think where we are not seeing eye to eye comes down to what Unity actually refers to. The way we each conceptualize it leads directly to our individual notions of enlightenment.
For you, I think, Unity refers to ultimate reality, and so enlightenment means experiencing ultimate reality – possible only by clearing away distorting filters. Used in this way, Unity is something in and of itself to be experienced. It is an object, which is a paradox because objects only have meaning as separate from their backgrounds.
For me, the inaccessibility of ultimate reality is the primary feature of my philosophy. Unity therefore does not refer to ultimate reality, but to an awakening to the unified character of being of all things… and not just in the shallow sense of inter-relatedness Gary alluded to elsewhere. That in some fundamental way, everything is the same dance/dancer. Unity therefore is not a thing to be experienced, but a characteristic of the way we experience. The experience of Unity is still a construction, but we no longer relate to that construction as a separate self. We no longer sort of rope off part of that experience and say, “that is me, and the rest is not me”. We simply become the dance/dancer.
Terren
Hey Gary,
“But I’m sure you don’t want to equate enlightenment with being a super-scientist.”
Being a super-scientist would mean relating to unity strictly on the intellectual level. I’m emphasizing experiencing unity by no longer identifying as a separate being.
“That’s the point I’m trying to make by going beyond intellect to empathy, an affective appreciation of reality other than how it’s related to my narrow self-interest.”
I understand, and this fits your take on enlightenment, which allows for a gradual shift. From my perspective, experiencing empathy is a form of identification with something Other and so is an important stepping stone to enlightenment. However, empathy may be a fleeting experience and not necessarily transformative. If you and I don’t see eye to eye on enlightenment, it is that my version is more radical and doesn’t admit experiences of unity except in the sense of a transformation or awakening, a point of no return in which one is no longer attached to a self.
“The key here is your point about malleability. What else could I possibly identify with but my ego/body? The key is whether my sense of my ego/body is rigid/defensive or heuristic/evolving.”
I’m not sure, exactly, but I’m supposing that there is a qualitative difference between an ego that is simply expanded (in the empathetic sense) and one that is all-encompassing. In this state, one could make the tempting cognitive error that he or she is “making it rain”. This is related to the point you made about mentally ill people suffering as a result of ego boundary issues.
“… it does seem to me valid to distinguish between identification that is rigid/defensive (over-identification) and healthy, flexible identification.”
I think there is a certain rigidity inherent to any kind of identification, though allowing for degrees of flexibility. It’s like a tendon. A tendon can be flexible, but it must also attach to something to be functional. But I need to think more about this. To me, psychological identification is at the center of consciousness itself, and of course, enlightenment.
“I’d rather say that our constructions certainly refer to objective reality. We know this because our constructions refer to an objective reality (as a heuristic notion) and lead to successful or unsuccessful action as dictated by objective reality.”
I totally agree in the sense of a heuristic, or “working model” of reality. What I was referring to was an the impossibility of knowing whether our constructions conform to some absolute sense of ultimate reality. Obviously, language and science and the world as we know it would not be possible if there weren’t some convergence of our collective experience on what we refer to as objective reality. I’m not denying that it exists, only that we have to remember that we can never know for sure. We make that assumption at our peril.
.
Terren
Gary
“But I’m sure you don’t want to equate enlightenment with being a super-scientist.”
Terren
Being a super-scientist would mean relating to unity strictly on the intellectual level. I’m emphasizing experiencing unity by no longer identifying as a separate being.
Gary
Please explain what you mean by identifying. It’s clear to me that I, Gary, am writing to you, Terren, a distinct person from me. In that sense, I’m identifying with my mind/body. Why would I want to no longer identify that way? Either answer that or explain what sort of identification you want to transcend and why. Perhaps you’re thinking of over-identification? What sort do you have in mind? You seem to mean attachment to self, below.
———-
Gary
“That’s the point I’m trying to make by going beyond intellect to empathy, an affective appreciation of reality other than how it’s related to my narrow self-interest.”
Terren
I understand, and this fits your take on enlightenment, which allows for a gradual shift. From my perspective, experiencing empathy is a form of identification with something Other and so is an important stepping stone to enlightenment. However, empathy may be a fleeting experience and not necessarily transformative. If you and I don’t see eye to eye on enlightenment, it is that my version is more radical and doesn’t admit experiences of unity except in the sense of a transformation or awakening, a point of no return in which one is no longer attached to a self.
Gary
Please explain attachment. Am I attached to a self if I get scared if you are trying to push me off a cliff? Would an enlightened response be to simply let you push me off because the result would merely be a shift in the total gestalt of the universe of which I am a part?
—————
Gary
“The key here is your point about malleability. What else could I possibly identify with but my ego/body? The key is whether my sense of my ego/body is rigid/defensive or heuristic/evolving.”
Terren
I’m not sure, exactly, but I’m supposing that there is a qualitative difference between an ego that is simply expanded (in the empathetic sense) and one that is all-encompassing. In this state, one could make the tempting cognitive error that he or she is “making it rain”. This is related to the point you made about mentally ill people suffering as a result of ego boundary issues.
Gary
“I’m supposing” is where we part company. My impression is that you and Alex are speculating about something you’ve read about but have never experienced. I find that self-alienating, like voting for someone whose campaign slogan is “hope and change.” That methodology leads to being vulnerable to every flim flam man who knocks on your door. Now I agree that it’s theoretically conceivable that there are enlightened people who are experiencing something that is completely beyond my experience. But how am I to distinguish them from either spiritual flim flammers or spiritually advanced people who are unsophisticated philosophers and psychologist who describe their experience in conceptually muddled ways? And perhaps even more fundamentally, how am I to understand why being like them is desirable? What would I want to walk around all day in saffron robes and a vacant smile on my face? I’m taking a gradualist approach because I’m trying to make sense of enlightenment talk in terms of my quite ordinary experience.
————–
Gary
“… it does seem to me valid to distinguish between identification that is rigid/defensive (over-identification) and healthy, flexible identification.”
Terren
I think there is a certain rigidity inherent to any kind of identification, though allowing for degrees of flexibility. It’s like a tendon. A tendon can be flexible, but it must also attach to something to be functional. But I need to think more about this. To me, psychological identification is at the center of consciousness itself, and of course, enlightenment.
Gary
Same problem as above. What does total flexibility look like? See my cliff question above? What reason to we have to suppose that it exists?
———-
Gary
“I’d rather say that our constructions certainly refer to objective reality. We know this because our constructions refer to an objective reality (as a heuristic notion) and lead to successful or unsuccessful action as dictated by objective reality.”
Terren
I totally agree in the sense of a heuristic, or “working model” of reality. What I was referring to was an the impossibility of knowing whether our constructions conform to some absolute sense of ultimate reality. Obviously, language and science and the world as we know it would not be possible if there weren’t some convergence of our collective experience on what we refer to as objective reality. I’m not denying that it exists, only that we have to remember that we can never know for sure. We make that assumption at our peril.
Gary
I don’t follow, but this is a good place to explain what I’ve clumsily referred to several times as a heuristic. Science is an example of a heuristic notion. It’s a framework that guides inquiry. The scientific heuristic guides inquiry where beliefs are meaningful and can be adjudicated in terms of space and time. As such, this heuristic doesn’t say that space and time are all that exist (that would be a metaphysical claim), only that that’s what scientific inquiry is all about. Within that framework the notion of a miracle as a cause outside space and time is non-scientific one arrived at only by an argumentum ad ignorantium: we don’t have an explanation for event x, therefore it must have a spiritual cause. Throughout history, that argument has been used at every stage of human ignorance—e.g. epileptic fits as possession by the devil.
Gary
My notion of Terren is a more special heuristic, a pointer on which to hang all the information I have about you. To the degree that I’m unenlightened, I don’t treat my notion of Terren as a heuristic but as something finished, about whom I have nothing further to learn because I’m attached to what I know about you in the sense that I’m unwilling or unable to revise my perception. Now this may very well not be as radical or profound as real enlightenment but at least it’s something I can understand and that I can put forward for your criticism, as opposed to the enlightenment about which you and Alex seem to be speculating in a way that provides no way for understanding or criticism. The situation is like those who claim there’s a spiritual world beyond science. Well, there’s no way to deny that or to understand it. Every instance I’ve ever read of the spiritual world has been based on an argumentum ad ignorantium, which makes me suspicious that it doesn’t exist, makes me doubt that it’s even desirable, and makes me certain that it’s inconceivable, both to me and the people talking about it.
.
Hey Gary, see below.
Gary
Please explain what you mean by identifying. It’s clear to me that I, Gary, am writing to you, Terren, a distinct person from me. In that sense, I’m identifying with my mind/body. Why would I want to no longer identify that way? Either answer that or explain what sort of identification you want to transcend and why. Perhaps you’re thinking of over-identification? What sort do you have in mind? You seem to mean attachment to self, below.
Terren
I’m not advocating for this form of enlightenment, and I don’t desire it myself. I guess people who desire enlightenment do so because the experience of unity is an experience of bliss. Suffering is transformed, because suffering is caused by the illusion of separateness. However, the transformation involved is very threatening and most people are not willing to leap off that cliff.
It needs to be said that conceiving of oneself as a separate being is completely healthy, necessary and useful to survive in this world. Sociologically speaking, it is imperative that we do this. But the Zen Buddhists are pretty clear on the point that identity is a game we all play, whether we realize it or not. I don’t think enlightenment means your identity vanishes. In some way I can only speculate about, I think being enlightened means that you no longer need to identify as a person, even if you continue to “play along” for the sake of living in the world with other humans, playing the game.
Gary
Please explain attachment. Am I attached to a self if I get scared if you are trying to push me off a cliff? Would an enlightened response be to simply let you push me off because the result would merely be a shift in the total gestalt of the universe of which I am a part?
Terren
Certainly if you are afraid to die you are attached to a self. Attachment implies rigidity, or strong resistance to change. Circumstances that undermine an attached concept are treated as threats and activate emotional fight/flight responses. Like I said before, I’m not completely clear on identification, but I’m proceeding on the basis that identification is a form of attachment, even if it does allow degrees of flexibility.
In the example above, if I am enlightened, I no longer treat your intention to kill me as a threat. However I can choose to resist your attempt to kill me for any number of reasons, which would all fundamentally come down to “I don’t feel like dying today.” Even if you don’t fear death, you would still have reasons for choosing the circumstances in which you exit the stage. You’re just playing the game the way you want to play it. You may not want it to end, even if you’re not attached to it continuing.
Gary
“I’m supposing” is where we part company. My impression is that you and Alex are speculating about something you’ve read about but have never experienced. I find that self-alienating, like voting for someone whose campaign slogan is “hope and change.” That methodology leads to being vulnerable to every flim flam man who knocks on your door. Now I agree that it’s theoretically conceivable that there are enlightened people who are experiencing something that is completely beyond my experience. But how am I to distinguish them from either spiritual flim flammers or spiritually advanced people who are unsophisticated philosophers and psychologist who describe their experience in conceptually muddled ways? And perhaps even more fundamentally, how am I to understand why being like them is desirable? What would I want to walk around all day in saffron robes and a vacant smile on my face? I’m taking a gradualist approach because I’m trying to make sense of enlightenment talk in terms of my quite ordinary experience.
Terren
Your objection is too strong, because it applies to too many things that are ok to discuss in this way. For instance, I thankfully have no experience of schizophrenia, but I can theorize about it, and so can anyone else. It’s true that the only information I have about it is stuff I have read or otherwise have gotten second-hand. But that doesn’t stop me from trying to fit schizophrenia into my model of consciousness. If my model of consciousness can account in some way for the symptoms of schizophrenia, then the better for my model. Even better if my model makes novel predictions regarding schizophrenia that can be tested.
Likewise, I carry on with theorizing about enlightenment, taking it for granted that first-person accounts of enlightened individuals (along with many second-hand accounts) are valid, for the sake of the analysis. Skepticism about the reality of such accounts is obviously warranted, but that shouldn’t stop us from treating the topic seriously, even if I have no first-hand experience of enlightenment. In fact, I have found that analyzing enlightenment in its different forms has led me to a remarkable amount of insight into the nature of consciousness. And in all my time thinking on the subject, I haven’t found anything about enlightenment that is self-contradictory, so long as it takes the radical form I am talking about.
Gary
My notion of Terren is a more special heuristic, a pointer on which to hang all the information I have about you. To the degree that I’m unenlightened, I don’t treat my notion of Terren as a heuristic but as something finished, about whom I have nothing further to learn because I’m attached to what I know about you in the sense that I’m unwilling or unable to revise my perception. Now this may very well not be as radical or profound as real enlightenment but at least it’s something I can understand and that I can put forward for your criticism, as opposed to the enlightenment about which you and Alex seem to be speculating in a way that provides no way for understanding or criticism. The situation is like those who claim there’s a spiritual world beyond science. Well, there’s no way to deny that or to understand it. Every instance I’ve ever read of the spiritual world has been based on an argumentum ad ignorantium, which makes me suspicious that it doesn’t exist, makes me doubt that it’s even desirable, and makes me certain that it’s inconceivable, both to me and the people talking about it.
Terren
Comparing this kind of speculative analysis of enlightenment to talk of spiritual explanations of the world also goes too far.
I’m identifying specific psychological processes that are involved with enlightenment, and though I may not have spelled out my model of consciousness, there is an explanatory framework in my mind for how the experience of enlightened individuals is different from those of the unenlightened. The model and its ramifications can be understood and criticized, even if I am perhaps doing a poor job in exposing it.
Nitin Trasi says that enlightened folks no longer dream (according to Alex). I would love to hear more about that, but assuming we can take that at face value, he is making a falsifiable claim about enlightened states… something that a spiritualist will never be able to do. Unless Nitin is merely repeating some kind of doctrine, that claim is presumably generated from a conceptual analysis of enlightenment that is open to criticism.
You may choose to disagree with my model, but I am striving for a rigor and internal consistency between my explanations of consciousness and enlightenment. It is on that level that I find this talk valuable, not because I am advocating for some form of enlightenment for enlightenment’s sake.
It may make you uneasy to speculate about something outside of your experience, but it makes me uneasy to reduce a concept as heralded as enlightenment to something like “psychological flexibility” as you seem to have done. I think the concept you are advocating is very useful and deserves a label less cumbersome than “psychological flexibility”, but I doubt it corresponds very well with traditional notions of enlightenment.
Terren
I liked the Buddha’s approach — a negation and an affirmation at the same time, which is to say what enlightenment is not as well as what it is, and then to take the next step an undo both since, as you put it enlightenment is conceptually indefinable. And the reason for this is because it is transcendent — an unconditional state. That would be The Middle Way. And the really curious and fascinating awareness is this two-part framework is exactly the way our brain is organized and functions. There is a rational hemisphere (our left) and a trans-rational [intuitive] hemisphere (our right). The two parts function as a single entity. And when we awaken we leave the filters you mention behind and see things as they truly are: united.
So we have a rational/conceptual answer (which is an abstraction — not real) and an intuitive answer, which is beyond linguistic expression. We may “see” it but we can’t express it. Neurologically our language center resides in our left hemisphere. Language capacities are foreign to our right hemisphere. Enlightenment, as I understand and have experienced it, (awakening) is a sudden flash of insight, which reveals unadorned reality, otherwise known as “Suchness”. Therefore, while we can know it, we can only express it conceptually, which is always an abstraction.