What is this "Enlightenment" business anyway?

Dare we poke this bear? ... poke... poke...

Let’s start with the obvious: there are as many meanings/interpretations of the term “enlightenment” out there as there are people to talk about it. So the yogi/seeker trying to avoid axle-wrapping needs to let go of expectations and be cautious when encountering teachers/teachings that are overly-enthusiastic about the notion.

I use the term “awakening¹” or “realization” preferentially over the term “enlightenment.” Even the former terms are wonky and have usage pitfalls, but the latter is like a minefield of misconception and confusion. So I opt for the “lesser of two evils.” How to gain clarity on these terms? I’m not sure. So I’ll just throw out some commonly-heard sayings, and try to demystify them.

1.) “It’s not an achievement.”

This is the first reason I prefer the terms “awakening” or “realization” over “enlightenment.” The former terms naturally seem to indicate the truth of this saying better than the term “enlightenment.” They indicate an acknowledging of the way things already are. You can’t earn or achieve what you already are. As Alan Watts said: “You cannot ‘go’ to the place where you are now.²”

2.) “You can’t attain it.”

This is a trickier one. The ego can’t attain it, certainly. But that’s because the ego, in a very important sense, doesn’t exist and it can’t do anything at all. But, as the terms “awakening” or “realization” imply, there is something to learn here. It is the recognition that there is a “Fundamental Nature” at the bottom of everything and, further, that what-that-is is not the person you take yourself to be.

So there is insight one can become aware of, but what the insight relates to already exists. And what-that-is that already exists is utterly unaffected by whether you have this insight or not.

3.) “It is the end of suffering.”

This is very true, but what people mean by “suffering” is almost as divergent as with the term “enlightenment.” An extra stumbling block comes from the Buddhist traditions; the Buddha talked about suffering a lot. But what did he actually say? Did he change what he said over time? These things can never be known for certain. The only thing we know for certain is that Siddhartha Gautama was not a Buddhist. The traditions came after him. Did they “garble” his message on suffering?

I hope so, because I’ve heard plenty of what I consider claptrap³ from some Buddhist traditions regarding “suffering.” Consequently, I tell people to avoid diving into traditions they weren’t more-or-less born into. I prefer to speak in terms of western, secular ideas because that’s my milieu, and the milieu of virtually everyone I speak to. As modern, native English-speakers we can talk perfectly clearly about what suffering is — and what it isn’t — without appealing to any traditions at all. Human knowledge and societies have changed a lot in 2000+ years. We only make contemporary conversation more difficult if we presume we must incorporate ancient perspectives. The Ultimate Truth comes down to what you are right here-and-now. You are not existing millennia in the past! So there’s no point in trying to “go back” there.

Suffering (as I and other contemporaries discuss it) is not pain nor difficult circumstances. Pain and difficulties are inevitable and they are not necessarily problems. They are just the way life goes; death will be the release from them. Suffering is almost the mental resistance we have to the ebb and flow of experience (i.e. resistance to what appears in our awareness at any given moment). Why “almost?”

Because true suffering (again, as I and others contemporaries define it) is actually a subset of that mental resistance. John Wheeler (see References page) has articulated the best definition I’ve ever come across. He said at one point: “Suffering is self-centered thinking — and taking it to be true.”

This strikes right at the heart of it. Suffering is indeed characterized by awful feelings/emotions. But those feelings/emotions are caused by antecedent thinking. And not just any thinking; self-centered thinking. And it’s not even the self-centered thoughts that are the cause! It is the taking those thoughts to be true that is the ultimate root of all suffering.

Hopefully the usefulness of the terms “awakening” or “realization” (over “enlightenment”) is apparent here. The “self” that is the center of our thinking — the “self” that we take ourselves to be — is an illusion. It’s a fantasy; a phantom. Dealing with this situation is one of the real “dangers” of spiritual seeking⁴. We delude ourselves into believing that we are our self-image, our “identity.” This belief is false.

So we can “wake up to” or “realize” the fact that our belief about what-we-are is fundamentally in error. When that happens (if things haven’t gone off-the-rails) then the self-centered thinking that formerly was the cause of all of our suffering suddenly looses all it’s power. The thinking itself can be (and often is) present, but it’s seen in the light of the knowledge that the “self” the thinking refers to doesn’t actually exist. So the thinking about that self ceases to be salient/potent, and no negative feelings/emotions can result.

There is no “getting to the other shore” without realizing this so-called “self” is not what you are. Yet that “self” is the very identity which is the center of so many people’s universes. Again this is a real “danger” of the seeking journey. People should not embark on the seeking journey without being fully warned that they must relinquish many notions that give them great senses of security; the “self” being a key one of those. See Footnote 4 for a link to an essay where I discuss this in detail.

The so-called “dark night of the soul” and the “clinical conditions” of depersonalization or derealization are the byproduct of unwitting souls stumbling onto the fact that they (and reality) are not what they think they are — but doing so without being prepared for it.

It is a bitter irony that they have discovered the truth that leads to liberation — that is they have discovered the key to the end of suffering — and yet in some sense they “need” to believe in a lie. The result is they are tortured by what, for others (those prepared for the discovery), is liberation.

4.) “There is nothing to find.” “There is nothing to understand.”

These statements annoy me to no end. They seem to encourage a flippant dismissal of there being something worth learning from the seeking journey. Such a dismissal couldn’t be more untrue. Yet in a ridiculously-narrow sense these sayings are true, so they can’t be tossed aside carelessly.

Far too many teachers (who I’d slap with the often-offensive label of “neo-advaitan”) spout this kind of thing a lot. An irksome situation because you can’t simply say “that’s false!” But the tiny nugget of truth in these sayings is obscured by the obtuse wording of the phrase. There very much is something of tremendous interest and value waiting to be discovered.

There is no excuse for such sloppy pointing in general, public speech. So when teachers do say things like this it is a red flag indicating either 1.) they actually don’t know what they’re talking about or 2.) they do understand what they’re talking about but are being deliberately disingenuous/obfuscatory. Or, even worse, both. In any case they should just keep their mouths shut. Sadly, the vast majority of contemporary teachers fall into one of these two camps. At least those in camp #1 can be partially exonerated because they are well-intentioned. The teachers in camp #2 (or the 1-2 combo) are all-too-common and I will often refer to them as “spiritual influencers” and “brand builders.” Caveat emptor.

Moving on, what is this “something of interest” that the above sayings effectively dismiss?

I prefer the moniker “Fundamental Nature,” which John Wheeler used a lot. It’s a no-frills label that’s very straightforward and far less cumbersome than “Ground of Being.” These are so many names/labels to choose from. It doesn’t really matter which one you choose to use, but at the end of the day , one must remember they are all merely labels. Regardless of which label one chooses to use, there is a “bedrock” to reality and that “bedrock” is what you are. A perennial point of confusion comes from the fact that you can never apprehend it directly — like you would an “object” of knowledge or an instance of sense perception.

An astute seeker might then ask: “If it can’t be apprehended directly, how do you know that it’s there?” That is the $64,000 question. And we’re back to the vexing nature of those statements above. They’re technically true; you will never “grasp” the Fundamental Nature with senses or the conceptual, thinking mind. But that’s because they are manifestations of it. Alan Watts sometimes used the analogy of a car’s headlight: it illuminates the road ahead, not the wires connecting the light to the battery.

Even though we can’t “get at” The Fundamental, we know it’s there because “The Fundamental” is the label we’re giving to the fact any anything is going on at all. Is the road illuminated or is it not illuminated? The answer is obvious when the situation is approached from the right angle. Whatever name we pick for this Fundamental, the name is merely indicating that “reality is.” The basic nature of the Cosmos is actually “going on.” In other words, whatever “reality” is, it’s not just a big “blank” — not some “inert nothingness.” There is vibrancy, there is liveliness. There is “something” even though it’s not a “thing.”

This unreachable “it” is that-which-knows the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness. It is that-which-knows the difference between wakefulness and deep sleep. It is that-which-can-distinguish between existence and oblivion. “One without a second.” “The Uncaused Cause.” It is the “Light of Creation.” The “Light behind The Watcher.” It is “That which was never born.”

You can’t “get at it,” because “it” is what you are. The fact of this “primordial intelligence” can eventually become obvious, once one serendipitously fails to keep overlooking its incessant activity. We know it not as we would an “object” — we know it by what it does. And it does everything, because it is quite simply “all that there is.” You can call it The Cosmos, or The Universe, or Reality. Some people call it “god” but I don’t like that term and so I try not to use it.

All the talk in the world will never begin to approach it, let alone “catch” it. Since it can’t be said, the sage realizes there’s no “need” to say anything at all. This Fundamental Nature (as John Wheeler would say), the Totality of Reality (as Peter Brown would say) is the truth of what you are. Since no concept (or constellation of concepts) can catch it — and “it” is what you really are — you can never conceive of what you are. This is why I prefer “awakening” or “realization” as terms to refer to this “sinking in” or “grokking” of the implications of being the Ultimate Reality.

True, you can never “grasp” it as an object — but the full implications of you you being it can very much be grasped

5.) “You don’t need enlightenment.”

This can be a potent pointer, but it’s a double-edged sword. It can engender misunderstanding almost as easily as it can clear up misunderstanding. The truth that’s in this saying is the same as the truth in the next “enlightenment saying” #6. So I’ll save the truth discussion for the next point. Here I’ll start with what this pointer gets wrong.

Where this saying goes awry is it completely side-steps the reality of the end of suffering. Who on this planet would not want an end to their suffering? The only way to find an end to suffering is to get clear on your Fundamental Nature. To realize the falsity of the belief that you-are-what-you-think-you-are. In my opinion that “getting clear” itself is the only thing that makes sense to refer to as “enlightenment” or “awakening” or “realization.” Since that process results in the end of suffering, it’s going too far to say people “don’t need” it. Of course people can (and usually do) continue to muddle through a life of suffering. But there is release/liberation⁵ from it available to be discovered. There is a “price to pay” in doing so — Alan Watts once said “The only thing you stand to lose is yourself!” — but the price is well worth it, if one is in the right mindset.

6.) “You are enlightened already.”

There is a truth this saying is hinting at, but it’s so obscured in the phrasing that this formulation should never be used, in my opinion. So let’s start with what this saying gets (glaringly) wrong.

Again, understanding what the Fundamental Nature is and that you are it is the only thing that makes sense to me to indicate with terms like “enlightenment,” “awakening,” or “realization.” Normal adult humans completely lack this fundamental insight by default. It’s a cognitive “bug” resulting from how we were raised, which is virtually universal in recorded human history.⁶

This contrast between “lacking” and “realizing” this understanding should be the most obvious thing in the world to anyone who has crossed that threshold. Therefore, anyone who uses this particular saying falls into exactly the same critique found in #4 above. They likely either don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re being intellectually dishonest.

On a more positive note, what about the truth in this saying (and in #5)? The truth it contains is only apparent if we replace the word “enlightenment” with a label for the Fundamental Nature (that phrase obviously just being a label itself): “You are [fill in the blank] already.”

Some options for the “blank:” Fundamental Nature, Buddha-Nature, Tao, Brahman/Atman, The Cosmos/Universe, God (I really, really don’t like that term), The Ground of Being, Presence-Awareness, Radiant Presence, Oneness, etc.

The above statement is true whether you know it or not. And you’re being aware of this fact (or not) does not change the reality of it one little bit. The only change that happens when one does realize this: the end of suffering. If we didn’t suffer, there would be no “need” for “enlightenment.” But we do suffer.

Consequently there very much is something worthwhile to learn on the seeking journey. And learning “it” is the culmination of the journey. Once culminated, the seeking is forever and utterly fulfilled. However, if that happens, the simple reality of regular, daily life carries on just the same as it always has. But it will henceforth be free of the burden of suffering. And that is the truth of the end of suffering.

1. I have a discussion of this term in more detail — including how I disagree with some traditions’ use of the term — in an essay here.

2. Talk, “Limits of Language” [35:50]

3. To be fair this may be due to translation issues. Maybe the Sanskrit would duhkha should not be rendered in English as “suffering?” For the life of me I cannot think of an English word to substitue for it and have ALL the Buddha’s supposed statements about it make sense. Whichever word I choose, at least some of the statements end up being bunk. For more detail see my essay on Suffering.

4. I’ve written about about this here.

5. Again, there is no release from pain and difficult/challenging circumstances short of death. But the unnecessary mental anguish (i.e. “suffering”) that we automatically add on top of those situations can be permanently purged from one’s life.

6. There are those that would argue against this assertion. Obviously, I strongly disagree with that position. That discussion is beyond the scope of this essay.