On a personal note, this post will briefly explain my position and motivations for doing this work with The Unity Project, and why I created it.
On occasion, when speaking with people about The Unity Project, I realize that sometimes they assume that my motivation for studying enlightenment, epiphanies, and awakenings, is so that I can get information or ideas to help ME achieve enlightenment.
It is a natural assumption. However, that is not the case.
There are several reasons that “I am NOT seeking enlightenment”:
1. I am not really motivated to achieve enlightenment.
I am not unhappy with my life at all, and am not “driven” in any way to change my outlook at this time. I might say, that I am a “truth seeker”, in a way. That is, I am driven to find out about things, and to uncover the true nature of life and the universe. I love to always learn, and broaden my outlook and understanding of life. So, you might say that I am driven to learn and grow, but not from pain or negativity, only from curiosity and love of life. It may sound funny, but there is no deep motivation for me to fundamentally change the way I am now.
( Some others I know might disagree, but I won’t go into that now!)
2. To “Seek” enlightenment would block any chance of it happening.
This is what I have heard referred to as “the paradox of spiritual effort”.
Nitin Trasi, in his book “The Science of Enlightenment” sums this up well;
“Actually it is not very surprising that Enlightenment should occur so rarely.
Enlightenment, as it has already been explained, is the actual perception or realization
(not belief or mere intellectual understanding) that one is not a separate entity.
Therefore, the very pursuit of this as a goal to be ‘attained’ by a ‘me’ will be counter-productive,
because the very effort will reinforce the conviction in the existence of a ‘me’ as a separte entity.
As this is the exact opposite of the result desired, the aspirant will be moving around in circles.”
The Science of Enlightenment, p. 38.
In many cases, it is when a person “gives up” on “spiritual pursuits”, that they make the most progress. I am not motivated to achieve enlightenment, and if I were, I would realize that to “seek” it would be to destroy my chances of achieving it.
Eckhart Tolle, in a video online titled “Enlightenment”, says this;
“You cannot make – whether you call it the ego-less state, or whether you call it enlightenment – you cannot make it into a goal. Goal implies future. Because the very entry point into the ego-less state, or the enlightened state, is the present moment. If you make it into a goal, that you want to achieve, you MISS the entry point, because you’re looking to the future, because “goal” implies future. That is the dilemma of all spiritual seekers.”
3. I am open to enlightenment, awakenings and epiphanies.
Though I am not actively “seeking” enlightenment, I am fully open to the possibility that it COULD happen to me, at any time. This is also true for any other awakenings or epiphanies. (In fact, I have smaller level epiphanies quite often.)
This is part of ideas I have developed in The Unity Project, relating to the following items;
- You would likely never achieve enlightenment, or awakenings, if you actively thought that you were NOT capable of it, or if you thought that it would never happen to you.
- You must entertain the possibility that enlightenment could happen to you. That is, you must not actively “block” your possibilities by your attitudes.
- To be open to experiencing awakenings and epiphanies, at any time, is necessary. Even though you are open to the possibility of it happening, you must also be open to it happening AT ANY TIME. Some may believe that they could become enlightened, but that it would happen “out there”, sometime “in the future”, or even in “another lifetime” etc. What I mean here, is to be open to these experiences at any moment.
WHY STUDY ENLIGHTENMENT, EPIPHANIES, AND AWAKENINGS?
Though I am not actively seeking enlightenment myself, I am still extremely interested in these subjects.
Enlightenment, awakenings and epiphanies are extremely interesting to me for the following reasons:
* They involve a “sudden” insight that has the power to transform our lives.
Unlike an automobile accident, or winning the lottery, this sudden transformation comes from within. When I refer to “enlightenment” and “awakenings” or “epiphanies”, what I am generally referring to are experiences that are PROFOUND… potentially life changing. What interests me is how our consciousness could create a situation where an entirely new perspective is experienced, where our life is profoundly changed in a positive way. HOW does this happen, and WHY?
* There is a “light switch” character to these transformations.
There most often seems to be a strong distinction between the moment BEFORE an awakening or epiphany, and the moment AFTER. In addition, once this threshold is crossed, there is no going back. This is fascinating to me. How does a permanent change in our makeup take place? What happens in the brain, and in our mental makeup, to have a shift like this possible?
* This is the cutting edge of consciousness studies.
Enlightenment, awakenings, and epiphanies are unique phenomena. They are dealing with the highest levels of brain functioning and mind, and their relative rarity makes them even more important to study. I have found a fairly wide crossover of these topics with other studies involving ESP, Near Death Experiences, and the mystery of sleep. So these phenomenon can point to areas of understanding that may have applications in other aspects of consciousness studies.
* There might be a way to facilitate the occurrence of these experiences.
Aside from Buddhism, there doesn’t seem to be much practical advice one can take to learn how to have, or to facilitate these experiences. I know that, as far as enlightenment is concerned, there are some who will say; “Just practice Buddhism, this will lead to enlightenment”. While I agree that practicing Buddhism has that potential, I think that it is, what I have termed, “The Long Hard Road” method of doing it. I believe there may be OTHER ways of achieving enlightenment today that are more conducive to our modern way of life and thinking. It seems that a new, fresh look at this whole topic is in order.
* Studying these experiences will likely lead to unexpected surprises.
Focusing in on awakenings, epiphanies, and enlightenment will likely lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of consciousness, and perhaps even lead to practical applications that can actually make a difference in people’s lives. What IF there were methods available that could facilitate profound awakenings or epiphanies? We don’t know what we will find in these studies, but I believe that, due to the profound and complex nature of these phenomena, that we will find something very important – something that could potentially change the lives of many people in a positive direction.
* Awakenings and epiphanies are linked to creativity.
I think that it is likely that the findings of these studies will improve the odds of people being able to make huge leaps in creativity. Most profound insights lead to renewed energy and excitement, and are often followed up by healthy and joyful activity. Renewed creativity and quantum leaps in insight could have exponentially large positive outcomes. For example, if that creativity were to result in things like new answers to energy problems, environmental issues, and other major life factors for the future of our planet and our species.
All of these points are inherently fascinating to me.
I would study them even if there were no chance at all that I would personally reap the benefits in practical terms. Just the sheer enjoyment of studying and learning about these experiences and how they are possible is motivating enough for me.
In fact, I HAVE thought about the dilemma of actually achieving enlightenment, or a profound awakening in my life. I have wondered how that might change my study of these issues.
It seems, at first, that it would be a very strong advantage to actually experience these things first hand before writing about them. But I am not so sure about that.
I think what I would prefer is to study as much about these topics as I can for some good period of time… and THEN experience a profound awakening.
That way, I could put the “icing on the cake” and tell what could not be told before, about the actual experience. In addition, if these studies lead to methods that could facilitate an awakening, I would need to be able to experience THAT process in order to know it from the inside out.
Another way of putting it, is that sometimes I think I need to “think like an unenlightened person”, in order to develop what will work for everyone who IS unenlightened. I am fairly sure that there will be many people who disagree with me on this point, thinking even that it is a logical inconsistency.
But let me just say, that since I am in no big hurry to experience enlightenment or an awakening, I can use this time to delve as deeply into it as I can… from the perspective of an ordinary, “unenlightened” individual.
I better get back to work on this project… if I become enlightened too soon it could ruin the whole thing!
I might just turn into one of those people who say; “you can’t talk about it”, “it is something that words just can’t describe”, “you can never get there by thinking about it”, etc. – I might just turn away with a blissful look on my face and say; “this study is ended”.
In Unity,
AJ
Alex,
It’s true that you can’t achieve enlightenment like any other goal, since goals are created by ego and enlightenment isn’t a product of ego.
But that means only that trying to achieve enlightenment is not sufficient for success. It doesn’t follow that trying to achieve enlightenment is not necessary.
Consider the countervailing opinion that you will never be enlightened unless you intensely desire it. Combine that with Jesus’ teaching that it is harder for the rich man to achieve enlightenment than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. In other words, someone basically content with his current, ego-directed life (a rich man) can’t become enlightened.
Think of the teaching that enlightenment is naturally within us all but blocked by our attention to our ego-directed life. The desire to “achieve” enlightenment is that natural state trying to break out from obscurity. The paradox is that trying to “achieve” enlightenment logically contributes to that obscurity, but the other part of the paradox is that not caring about enlightenment one way or the other is symptomatic of little pressure from within to break out. Such a person may be quite happy, but where is the energy to overcome his ego-directed consciousness?
To put it another way. Since enlightenment is blocked by attachment to ego-directed activity, what’s to motivate us to let go of our attachment unless we intensely desire enlightenment?
My guess is that your intense curiosity about enlightenment is not merely academic, but an attempt to understand how you can get to a point where letting go is a choice and not something mysterious that against all odds may someday happen to you. The question you raise for me is whether such an attempt must, as it seems to have been for many, be filled with existential angst or whether it can be a more calm journey of personal development. It seems unlikely but quite conceivable that some charmed people live quite a happy ego-directed life and yet over time realize that that’s not where their true happiness lies. They enjoy their ego-directed life but aren’t attached to it. For most of us, however, some Sturm und Drang is a big part of the journey.
Gary Schouborg
Good points Gary.
In response to your comment about this issue: “Consider the countervailing opinion that you will never be enlightened unless you intensely desire it”, I will quote Tolle, who said this in his video on enlightenment;
“So you have to, one way or another, either because you’re totally frustrated with the spiritual search, or because you suddenly see the truth of it – give up the search, as it were future.
This seems to conflict with certain teachings that say… basically there are two conflicting spiritual teachings.
One says, that seems what I’ve just said, but it’s not quite it… one says “there’s nothing you can do, and you might as well totally relax, because you can’t bring it about. There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. So, let go, forget all about it” … some teachers say that, “forget the whole thing – just have fun”.
The other teaching says “if you do not want enlightenment as intensely as a drowning man wants air, you’re not going to get it”.
Now, what I just said seems to be more towards the other, that is, you cannot make it into something to want, or to get… but really the truth is hiding, you bring the two together… and how does that look?
How can you bring those together – on the one hand there is nothing you can DO, that’s true, and on the other hand an intensity is required – you bring the two together.
The very intensity that is mistakenly interpreted as an intensity that’s driving you towards the future goal, can become an intensity that is driving you into the present moment.
That’s the uncompromising intensity of it, only this moment… and yes, there is an intensity there that takes you deeper into This… it’s not an intensity that drives you into future.
“There’s nothing you can do” is true in the sense that, if “doing” requires future and time, that doesn’t help you.
And, of course, going into the present moment, and becoming internally aligned with the present moment isn’t really a “doing”.
In that sense, there is nothing you can “do”. You can only allow the present moment to be, and go deeply into it.
It’s a question of how you use the language.
But, so in that sense they are right, that there is “nothing you can do”… and the others are also right.
The intensity is required, the intensity with which you embrace the Now.”
Great topic and I wholeheartedly agree that it is fascinating and at the heart of consciousness studies, which is my real passion.
The trap inherent in desiring enlightenment is a probably one good reason it is so rare, as you quoted Nitin Trasi as saying.
However, desiring enlightenment is still a valid path. The trap isn’t really about setting enlightenment as a goal. It’s about being a person who wants to be enlightened. It’s identifying with wanting it that makes it unavailable. If you were enlightened, you wouldn’t want for it anymore. By identifying as someone who desires it, you necessarily attach to not being it.
Some have to spend enough time experiencing the futility of that approach before they let go and stop being that person. It is a kind of reductio ad absurdum path to enlightenment.
Of course, at the moment of letting go of seeking, our hypothetical seeker could just as easily become a “person who does not desire enlightenment”. Such a person is also unavailable to enlightenment. This is a much more subtle trap.
Alan Watts spoke frequently about how all the trials and traditions of the Buddhist monkhood are unnecessary – zen masters indulge their disciples in these because most of them cannot conceive of a pain-free path to enlightenment. But according to Watts, enlightenment is available to anyone, at any moment.
The way I reconcile Watts’ assertion with its relative rarity is this: the way I conceive of enlightenment, it is probably something the vast majority of people would find extremely uncomfortable to choose, myself included. For me, the dynamic works like this: I know if I chose enlightenment, I would accept a truly blessed existence, in which my being flowed freely with all that I experience. It sounds great. But I am not willing to give up this identity. It is all I have ever known. I have built a life around it. I enjoy it, and I suffer for it, but I won’t let it go. In my heart, enlightenment feels like an abandonment, of myself, my family, my life. So I remain unenlightened. From a certain perspective, the choice I make is utterly rational. From another, it is irrational. What differs in those perspectives is the meaning and importance of “identity”, or what it means to be somebody. What does it mean, after all? Who or what determines it?
Choosing enlightenment, from a certain perspective, is akin to choosing to die. There are parallels to suicide. Suicide is available to anyone, at anytime, but most people would find the choice uncomfortable, to say the least.
Most of those who seek enlightenment are not actually choosing it, but keeping it at bay, in the same way that a troubled teenager may desire suicide, not as an actual strategy, but because it provides other kinds of rewards.
Excellent article and wonderful feedback comments!
I find a certain kinship in seeing and sharing with others who find fascination in consciousness and enlightenment while also seeing the inherent difficulty in it.
Before sharing my comments, I’d like to state that while I am not formally a Buddhist, I regularly meditate and believe that an enlightened consciousness represents a pinnacle in personal development. In working diligently to avoid using words like “goal” or “achievement” it is of course merely word substitution, but perhaps there is a subtly in understanding the difference between “merit” and “skillful” as opposed to “goal” or “achievement.”
There are many nuances to the tricks our egos play with regard to maintaining its position of control in our lives. Eckhart states this as well when noting the pursuit of enlightenment can become just another ego gratification or “the desire to become enlightened.” Even with my admiration of Mr. Tolle and his apparently unprompted enlightenment, he notes that his experience came at the hands of intense suffering and subsequent release. If we’re going to support the notion that “anyone can become enlightened at any time” I would submit that it must be via this path of a complete letting go of ourselves.
The other (Eight-fold) path, or “Long Hard Road” as Alex dubs it, is the more gradual and positive-based approach to enlightenment. Undoubtedly this path is not achievable overnight, yet I believe it is made “long and hard” by our life experiences, supremely developed egos and resulting unwillingness to let that go.
The last thing I’d be interested in doing is supporting the belief that “enlightenment is too difficult,” yet I do not fully embrace the idea that *anyone* can be enlightened *at any time*. If that were true, I’d think we’d have a lot more spontaneously enlightened people than I believe exist among our population. This is why I believe the concepts taught in Buddhism are critical to the gradual attainment course. Our egos are more than satisfied to understand the *concept* of gratitude, equanimity and compassion, however it is the *actual experience* of these things that triggers the change in our thinking.
As a hypothetical, let’s say we could observe a Buddhist monk’s brain exactly at the time he/she achieves enlightenment. The result of that observation becomes the understanding of not only what happened on the physiological level (assuming it was measurable) but some ability to reproduce that phenomenon in another, untrained individual.
Here’s what I personally believe would happen if that procedure were enacted on the average person. They might experience some joyous revelation or even something akin to a true ephiphany, however the effect of the experience would be short-lived. The individual’s dominant ego would eventually regain control, likely within a matter of days at best. This is due to the fact that what was changing in the monk’s case was a relatively minor and final step in a process of development. To believe that it is the only requisite step is where I am not convinced.
The nature of what is being “undone” in our ego-based mode of thinking is what makes the process seem difficult as well as what prevents us from releasing the ego itself. This is why, when viewed objectively, the instructions of Buddhism revolve around the systematic unwinding of the ego. Placing our focus more on others (as well as staying in the present moment) serve to reduce our clinging to the things we consider to be “me” or “mine”, hence enabling us to see the world differently, through an unfiltered view.