The Nature of Enlightenment My friend Gerry Downey and I have been engaged in a philosophical tussle for years now. We are fighting over the pressing question: What is the true nature of enlightenment? I have answered this question definitively (many times!) and yet I suspect Gerry remains unmoved. This puzzles me no end. I expected my discourses would have swayed even the stones in the gates of Hell by now. But alas, some audiences are a tough sell. Here then is the definitive explanation of the nature of enlightenment--a summing up and restatement of my position. Preliminaries Before we proceed to the main event, perhaps a few words of explanation would be helpful. I can hear the murmur of the crowd already: "What the hell is he talking about?" Well, this is all about the perennial problems of theology, which are principally four: 1) Does God exist? (Yes) So, this little exposition assumes that God exists, and it grants the highly plausible assumption that for most of us the first assumption is something less than obvious. It addresses the problem of getting there from here. That is, if there is God, how do we come to know God? How do we achieve union with or harmony with or knowledge of, God? (In Buddhism, pursuit of these questions is labeled the Quest for Enlightenment.) This little ditty is a breezy (even cheeky) statement of the "proper" understanding of the Quest for Enlightenment. Of course, this is all pretty much spiritual "inside baseball." If you don't believe in God, or think enlightenment is all hokum, then this will likely leave you just where you started. But if the real question for you is "how do I become one with God?," well then, you've come to the right place. That's what this essay is all about. Sound like fun? Read on. Human Evolution As human beings bounce around the atmosphere of our Big Blue Marble, we are buffeted by some primal forces; the drives for survival, feeding and reproducing being three of the big ones. But more fundamental than any of these is the basic human drive to self-transcendence. The human species is driven by a hidden need to reunite with the divine---to come to know God. This a basic human need, more basic than any other. It is the motive force behind human evolution. It explains why there is a Quest for Enlightenment, and why this Quest is the most compelling drama in the entire syllabus. It also explains much else that is otherwise inexplicable in human behavior. It explains the persistent need for religious belief systems. It explains why almost every culture has a myth of the fall from grace. It explains why every society in human history has taken drugs of one form or another (intoxication being a glimmer of the bliss of self-transcendence). It explains why all humans suffer, with greater or lesser degrees of awareness, from a deep metaphysical angst, from a deep dissatisfaction with life. It explains why sex holds such an attraction, since sexual union is the closest most of us come to mystic union. And it probably explains a whole lot more besides. The Buddhists have a neat metaphor for the predicament of human life. Life is an endless spinning wheel of births and deaths, say the Buddhists, the Wheel of the Samsara (illusion), and liberation only comes when we attain the enlightenment needed to step off the wheel. The Wheel of the Samsara is propelled by the angular momentum of human evolution, and the force behind this momentum is the drive for self-transcendence. So the good news is that all of human life and the long march of human history all are tending, inexorably, toward Enlightenment. So eventually the train will arrive at the proper station. In the meantime, the passengers are mostly without a clue as to the destination, and often aren't even aware that they are on the train. But we are, and we will all get there eventually---although eventually can take a long, long time. Two Theories There are two theories of human nature that have dueled to no resolution during most of human history. One group believes that man's basic nature is noble and good. There is not a lot of obvious evidence for this view, but some people have always believed it anyway. According to this view, it is only the corrupting influences of society that debase this fundamental human goodness and obscure our true nature. To return to goodness, then, requires that humans get as close to Nature as possible and as far away as possible from the pernicious influences of Culture. The other group, by contrast, held that man's basic nature is wicked and it is only the civilizing influences of society and culture that prevent man from falling back into the primitive ooze that is our natural resting place. This view has always benefited from the abundance of ready evidence in its favor. In any case, these two great theories of human nature have clashed for centuries, with no resolution. The reason is simple--they are both right, and both wrong. They are both right in thinking that human nature has a basic capacity and tendency to good and evil. They are both wrong in thinking that human beings have only one of these tendencies and not the other. The whole truth is that the capacity to be anything from Hitler to Mother Teresa is present in each and every human being. All people have the potential for both villainy and saintliness. That's why this kind of debate is never resolved. In Buddhism, the idea that man's basic nature is good is expressed by saying that our true nature is the Buddha Nature. Which means that all human beings have the potential to become enlightened. I think this is right. But it is also true that human beings have the Golem Nature. Which is to say that we have a tendency to be thick and stupid and unenlightened. To become the one and avoid the other requires effort, which is to say, spiritual work. However, the nature of that effort may be somewhat subtle. The question that the two competing theories of human nature were really at loggerheads over has always been "What is man's basic nature?" What is the "rest-state condition" of human nature? That is, if no unbalancing forces were impinging on people, would we be good or bad? It does seem to me that our rest-state condition is one of simple, deep happiness. The simpler I get, the more this seems to be the case. We are rarely in our natural rest-state condition because all kinds of tensions block us from this simple condition. To say that our basic nature is the Buddha Nature, is to say our nature at the deepest levels of our being, behind all the surface tensions, is divine. This fact is obscured by the alienation we experience from these deeper levels of our being. But as we squirm around in the play of tensions that is life, we can be saintly or beastly, as we choose. Both potentials are equally present in worldly life. It is only when we transcend these tensions and withdraw our energies from the play of tensions that we can realize our rest-state condition--that is, our divine nature. So in a sense, the basic nature of man is goodness. However, all of life, including Nature and Culture and everything else, produces tensions. There is no escape from the dilemma of God vs. Golem within the context of worldly life. A method must be found to transcend tensions, whatever their source. That method is spiritual practice. Airy-Fairy One of the most pernicious tendencies in contemporary spiritualism is what Downey typically deplores as "new ageism." By this I think Gerry and I both mean the stupid view that in the religious domain all rational bets are off and magic prevails. Thus, laws of physics and biology are not constraints. Magic trumps not only reason but objective facts and stubborn universal laws. Gerry and I both think this is crap. There is magic afoot in the universe, but it is magic in addition to the laws of the universe, not in contradiction to them. In other words, the problem with science is that there are more things under heaven and earth than it dreams of. But the proper response to this is not abandon science and embrace only the world of dreams. Truth There are basically three main theories of Truth: the Correspondence Theory, which corresponds to the true one, and two others. The Correspondence Theory says that something is true if corresponds to how things are. Simple enough, you might say, and who but a philosopher would raise any questions about such a simple matter. Who indeed. The second theory is the Coherence Theory of truth which says that something is true if it is part of a larger web of theories and ideas and if this something fits with the rest of the web--that is, if the story we tell ourselves is coherent, then it is true. Alternative webs of theory are just sort of alternative intellectual metaphors, and so long as the story is coherent, then one web is just as good as another--just as true. And who but a philosopher, you might be wondering, would believe such a silly thing. Right you are. The third theory is the Conventional Theory of truth which says that what we take to be true is just a matter of social convention. So if we want to have a different truth, if we prefer a universe other than the one we have, then all we have to do is get together and agree that the truth is what we want it to be, and POOF, that's that. Perhaps you are thinking that this sounds a little too easy. You're right again. Unfortunately, the universe is what it is, independent of our puny opinions about it. And the truth of the nature of enlightenment and how one goes about pursuing it are what they are, whatever our wishful thinking may be on the matter. And if we hope to become enlightened, it will be necessary that we understand and perceive and feel and experience reality as it in fact is--our experience must correspond to how things are or we will not only miss the boat, we will likely miss the ocean as well. Western Philosophy Throughout the history of western thought virtually every philosopher, from Plato to Mortimer Adler, has offered up their logical "proof" of the existence of God and their elaborate intellectual system for understanding the world and man's place in it. Each new generation of philosophers finds the "proof" offered by the last group to be defective, and offers up a proof of their own. And then along comes the next generation, in a never-ending chain of ideas cannibalizing ideas. Such is the way of western philosophy. We shall not add to the debris of dead ideas in this great tradition. I have no "proof" of anything. What I offer are some opinions, some conjectures, and some hints about the actual nature of things. Your task is simply to pursue your own direct experience of reality and see if it's like I say. Western philosophy, for the most part, is basically intellectual knot-tying. There are some exceptions; the Dialogues of Socrates (as reported by Plato) qualify in my book as Wisdom Teachings. But most of the rest of it is square knots and clove hitches and slip knots. Suitable only for tying one's mind in knots. This is not our objective. So don't tarry overlong in the West. Boats In contemporary exoteric Western theology the problem of getting there from here is largely one of living a moral life and patiently waiting until you die to go to heaven. In the East, the matter has always been a little more interesting. In Buddhism, Islamic Sufism and Hinduism, in particular, there are ancient traditions that emphasize the quest for salvation here and now, while still living in this very world (this strain is also present in Christian mysticism). If we want to wax poetic, we might describe our task as sailing across the ocean of illusion. To sail across any ocean you need a boat, and all boats are not created equal. A priori it would seem most implausible to suppose we find ourselves in a universe in which all boats are in fact created equal, and no leaky boats could be found. But, in any case, experience tells us that such is not the world we inhabit. There are plenty of false beliefs available about the nature of man and God, and many theologies which catch little wind in their sails. I shall now arrogantly, and in the most unecumenical spirit, suggest that few boats bearing the Cross of Calvary will make it to the far shore--and the reasons are deeply instructive. There is a fundamental question which must be addressed by any system of spiritual thought. It is the question that occurs immediately after an affirmative answer to the question: "Does God exist?" The answer to this second question determines everything that follows. The Second Question is: "What is the relationship of God to man?" Christianity answers that the relationship is one of non-identity. God is God, and Man is Man, and we and God are two separate things. Christianity's next question then becomes: "If God and Man are two, what is the nature of their relationship?" Generally, the metaphor that Christianity cleaves to is that the closest parallel to the relationship between God and Man is that of parent to child. Well then, given the apparent separation between God and Man (our fall from grace) how does Man gain the favor of God? The answer is in roughly the same manner that a child gains the favor of their parent, namely, by behaving in certain preferred ways. Reasoning thus, Christianity then creates a methodology for enlightenment (the reunion of Man and God) which consists mainly of various behavioral injunctions (Commandments, canons, catechisms, etc.) The emphasis is on overt conduct (avoiding sin and cultivating piety) or covert conduct (being charitable, being loving, being righteous, etc.) In general the Eastern traditions answer the Second Question as follows: "The relationship of man to God is one of identity." This leads then to the next fork in the road: "How then do you account for the apparent separation of man and God?" The answer is that this is an illusion of some sort. What then is the methodology for producing enlightenment? Why, those sorts of activities which have to do with states of being or understanding (meditation, contemplation, yogas, etc.). In other words, the Quest for Enlightenment seems most naturally to flow out of a metaphysical model in which Man seeks to resolve the apparent separation of Man and God--to escape this illusion. If Man and God are truly separate, and if right conduct is our main concern, then the quest to produce a revolution in our understanding and our being is not so sensible. Better just to behave ourselves. It is for these reasons that I think Christianity is largely missing the boat when it comes to the Quest for Enlightenment. If one makes a basic error in one's ontology (such as concluding that Man and God are not identical) then it is hard to recover from this and have a sensible epistemology. Not impossible, just hard. The Understanding Model My friend Gerry Downey is a prime sponsor of the Understanding Model of Enlightenment. According to this view, Enlightenment has something to do with a finer or purer or more complete or more accurate understanding of the nature of ourselves and our place in the universe. The knowing mind, then, is a key to the process of spiritual growth. In Hinduism this strain of thinking is called Jnana Yoga (the yoga of using the discerning mind to grow spiritually). In Buddhism much of the tradition involves an emphasis on "right understanding," which seems at least superficially to be sympathetic to the Understanding Model. There are other traditions: Hatha Yoga, which emphasizes physical postures, and Bhakti Yoga, which emphasizes devotional practices, and Karma Yoga, which emphasizes good works, and Kundalini Yoga which emphasizes powerful energy flows in body. But all of these approaches are aimed at the same objective: enlightenment here and now, whatever enlightenment may be. In some forms of Buddhism the mind is addressed in paradoxical ways to produce the understanding that is sought. In Zen Buddhism one seeks understanding by contemplating paradoxical ideas. These ideas are called koans and are such questions as "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" and "What did your face look like before you were born?" You get the idea. One koan from the Book of Serenity finds two groups of students watching a cat in the sunny courtyard of the monastery, instead of chasing the Buddha Nature in their navels. The master catches them and propounds a threatening koan: "I will spare the life of the cat, if you can speak the Truth about the cat." The students are perplexed, which apparently is not the right answer because the master severs the cat in two with a single swift motion. Contemplation of this koan is supposed to lead the student to a deeper understanding of the universe. The Understanding Model of Enlightenment is one of the Great Wisdom Traditions of the ages, and there is probably a lot of truth in it. But I am concerned here to offer an alternative model of enlightenment, and so I shall be quite disrespectful of this Understanding Tradition. But really, no disrespect is intended. It's just that one can't have a dialectic without opposing ideas, and so I shall oppose with vigor. Just for the sake of the dialectic you understand. Mindstream One of the most delightful metaphors used by Buddhists to describe their approach to enlightenment is to say that one must "purify one's mindstream." In other words, if you observe your mental goings on you will find a more or less continuous flow of thoughts and ideas, about all sorts of crap. You will find fantasies about the past and the future, and our old friends: fears, lust, anger, greed, envy, sloth and torpor. It is these impurities, according to this view, that are the obstacles to enlightenment and so, quite sensibly, one is enjoined to clear the mind of these impurities, by envisioning celestial beings or by forming noble intentions or by thinking pure thoughts in some way. The notion appears to be that somehow ideas or thoughts are the primary aspect of the "mindstream" and so changing them changes the mindstream. I don't think it's quite like this. In fact, I think this view has things precisely upside down. It seems to me that our awareness is a flow of energy, with differing contents at different moments, and that our thoughts are like ripples in the river. So changing our thoughts is kind of a superficial way to change the river. The stream itself can be impure, due to the manifold sources of tension and blockage that we accumulate. And it is possible, and more immediately and powerfully effective, to change the stream itself, rather than trying to alter the basic nature of the stream by fiddling with the flotsam. And when one purifies the mindstream in this way, by changing the underlying flow of energy that is the awareness behind all thoughts, ennobling thoughts spontaneously arise as a simple expression of the inherent nature of the stream. The reason all this is important is that we accumulate tensions on lots of levels that are not directly involved in the business of our thoughts, for example, in our various bodies (more about this later). Enlightenment is a whole-body condition (more about this later as well), not a change in the content of one's thoughts. The idea that enlightenment is about a change in one's thoughts, in addition to bearing the burden of being untrue, can also be, if we are not especially vigilant, a handmaiden to the "airy-fairy" model of the Quest. So, we should purify the mindstream by all means, but we should not mistake the river's traffic for the river itself. Ways & Means It may well be true that there are differing and equally effective methodologies for producing enlightenment. So it may well be that Jnana Yoga is a valid methodology. I think, however, that it is a dangerous approach because it is likely one may fall prey to the commonplace error of mistaking the means for the end. That is, because one uses events in the understanding to produce spiritual growth, it does not follow that events in the understanding are what spiritual growth is. Spiritual growth is a transformation of one's total being, not an event in the understanding. The fruit of Jnana Yoga may well be enlightenment, but enlightenment is not an event in the understanding. Zen Again The good news about Zen is that it fosters a kind of no-nonsense attitude in the seeker. Since there is much nonsense in every aspect of life, this is usually prophylactic. Westerners, however, tend to be very fond of Zen for unsavory reasons. Zen is a minimalist approach, making no apparent commitments about elaborate metaphysical phenomena. It doesn't even require the aspirant to be seeking God. Because so many of us in the current generation of Westerners have become so cynical about religion, Zen appeals to us because it seems to allow us the luxury of being religious without religion. Or to be spiritual without any messy stuff about the spirit. The other thing about Zen is that it is, in many schools, a rather fierce, even harsh discipline. Tales from the Zendo are replete with the sound of the Roshi's wooden paddle whacking the student into greater mindfulness. This kind of "take no prisoners" approach to spiritual understanding suggests a certain view of the world--a view in which the Quest for Enlightenment is a pitched battle between the student's shortcomings, on the one side, and the Buddha Nature on the other. I hope Truth is not like this. If the universe is God, then where is the place that is not the flesh of the Beloved? Why then is it a question of fighting? Isn't it rather a question of opening to the Beloved's caress? Buddha The Buddha is a son-of-a-bitch. He is responsible for more misunderstanding of enlightenment than just about anybody this side of Jerry Falwell. I'm sure everything he said is true, it's what he didn't say that's the problem. In the case of every enlightened being in all of human history similar transformations have occurred in their entire body/mind. Physical changes, biochemical changes, subtle body changes, and, yes, changes in the understanding. But because the Buddha only reported on the changes in the understanding, this has misled generations of Buddhists to suppose that enlightenment has something to do with an event in the understanding. Bad mistake. Somebody ought to hit the Buddha with a stick. Neti, Neti So, all of the foregoing is by way of clearing your mind of some weeds that might otherwise hide the path. In Hinduism and Buddhism there is often a reluctance to speak of the enlightened state on the plausible conviction that it surpasseth understanding, and hence is not amenable to description. In Hinduism this is expressed as neti, neti---not this, not this. So the foregoing is by way of saying enlightenment is not this, not this. But being a prolix Westerner, I cannot rest content with the inexpressible. I feel compelled to say exactly what enlightenment is. Let us begin, then, at the beginning. Mystery One of the most important things we have to realize is the colossal, irreducible, utterly inexplicable, fact of our own existence. Looked at with clear eyes, all we really know for sure is that for the vast eons of time we did not exist; all at once, we appear in this world; we linger for a blink or two of the eye; and then we disappear for all eternity. Everything else is mere conjecture. Life, then, is a profound mystery. This mystery is irreducible and insoluble. It cannot be understood. Ever. By anyone. This is a fact, and we might as well get used to it. Existence is a Mystery. It is wildly implausible, yet here it is. The fact that there is Life, and the fact that we are here, is miraculous, and speaks volumes about the deep beneficence of the universe. The most extraordinary thing of all is how human beings can take it all entirely for granted. We plop down on this earth and go on our merry way as if everything were perfectly normal. As if we weren't swimming through a murky sea of mystery. How amazing! So there is something more to be said, and that something more is the Quest for Enlightenment. But please don't oversubscribe to the program. Please note the following disclaimer, so you can't say I didn't tell you so: Although enlightenment will fulfill you and bring you peace and joy and bliss and wisdom and contentment, it will not ever reduce the mystery of life. The mystery of life can never be fathomed. Period. Certainty So we don't really understand anything about life. It is an utter mystery. Virtually everything is a matter of conjecture. There is one certainty, however, and we should note it in passing. You are going to die. It may not be today. It may not be tomorrow. But a day will come and on that day you will die. Absolutely. No doubt. There are few things about which we can honestly be certain. We have lots of firm convictions (more than is good for us), but few things are really certain. But it is certain that you are going to die. But you will not become enlightened simply by dying. Something more is needed. This may well be the most brute of all the brute facts in our world. Belief Enlightenment has nothing to do with beliefs of any kind--you can believe anything you like or nothing at all and it scarcely makes any difference. The usual infantile posture of religious people is to suppose that spiritually is about belief, and a really strong belief betokens a profound religiosity. This is the mood of the "born-again" believer for whom the intensity of their belief is the proof of their piety. This approach misses the boat. One very good thing about Buddhism is that the Buddha clearly understood the unhelpful nature of mere belief so he fashioned Buddhism to be deliberately non-dogmatic. This has left the world relatively free of Buddhist pogroms, crusades and jihads, which is a good thing since we have always had a full quota from other sources. Basically, the Buddha taught that direct experience is the touchstone of spirituality, and beliefs can be taken on if useful, or dropped like an overcoat in Spring. Disbelief While belief is not important for authentic spiritual life, disbelief is probably crucial. Before we can really get anywhere with our quest for enlightenment, it is probably necessary to go through a process of disillusionment with the usual stories we tell ourselves as we crawl over the earth in this confused drama we call life. We probably have to give up our childhood notions of God and religion, and become thoroughly disillusioned as well with the alternative consolations offered by worldly life. So if you still think that life will fulfill you apart from the Quest for Enlightenment, then all I can say is: "You haven't been paying attention." Love Have you ever fallen in love? If so, was this an event in your understanding? I sincerely hope not, otherwise you are a seriously pathetic creature. Being in love is a transformation of state, a change in one's being, an alteration in one's mind, emotions, perceptions and even one's bodily biochemistry. Enlightenment is more like falling in love than it is like any other mundane human experience. The problem with romantic love is that it captures only a limited number of objects in its net--usually only one. Enlightenment casts a big net, a net in which everything in the universe evokes that same change of state. Openness Belief is not a prerequisite for spiritual growth, but openness probably is. And be clear about one thing: "having an open mind" is not the same thing as being open. Again, belief is an interior matter and if we make the error of thinking enlightenment is an event in the understanding then we think beliefs and "open minds" are what is needed. But enlightenment is not an interior event, it is a transformative event. Energies and events and forces far greater than our ourselves will have to be confronted, and these forces will explode our interiors. We have to make ourselves permeable to these energies and events and forces--this is what is meant by "openness." Just as an "open mind" will not help you in falling in love, so too it will not help you become enlightened. What is needed in both cases is openness. Sex Undeniably, there are hoary traditions in most religious systems that disdain or suppress sexuality because of body-negative prejudices or confused misunderstandings of some genuine constraints regarding sex and spirituality. This has done a lot of harm throughout the ages and continues to exert a souring influence to this very moment. Although most of this anti-sexuality is just confused, there may be a kernel of interesting insight buried in there somewhere, and we shall return to this kernel in a moment. On the other end of the pier there is a whole boatload of silliness that goes under the general heading of Sexual Tantra. The idea here is to use sex as a spiritual technique or path. Practitioners of this way tend to exhibit a certain smug confidence about the superiority of their liberated point-of-view. But for the most part, what's really going on is that these folks are real interested in sex, but want to see themselves as being real interested in enlightenment, so they convince themselves that the one is a means to the other. What a happy coincidence! And now, about that kernel of truth. Drugs Virtually every culture known to human history has had its drugs-of-choice. In some of these cultures, these drugs were viewed as aids to enlightenment or even as full-fledged paths in themselves. I also have to admit that in my culture, many members of my generation came to spiritual life through an interest that was somehow first kindled in experimentation with drugs. These facts oblige me to say something about the relationship of drugs to enlightenment. Here is what I have to say: It may well be that judicious use of carefully chosen drugs may open some doors, or show us some possibilities we might otherwise foreclose. But the problem is that this is not a sustainable approach over the long haul. Perhaps you can feed your eight-year son steroids and produce an exceptional pee-wee football player by the time he is twelve, but this too is not a sustainable approach. The only healthy way to produce a star athlete is to carefully build an athlete's body from the inside out, bit by bit and step by step. Something similar happens with drugs and the quest for enlightenment: it may produce some beginning gains, but it is not a sustainable strategy in the long-haul, and enlightenment is about sustained effort over the long haul, it is not about sudden magical events and it is not a trip to airy-fairy land. To become enlightened requires that we conscientiously build the spiritual bodies we need to contain the forces that expanded awareness brings. Otherwise we won't make it past pee-wee football, or else we will blow our circuits trying. God The main reason people make errors in their concept of enlightenment is because they fail to realize that one must do the metaphysics prior to the epistemology. That is, one has to first answer the question: "What is God's nature?" The answer is: God is a flow of creative, loving, blissful, peaceful, conscious, fulfilling energy. To say that God exists is to say that the universe is permeated with this creative energy. God is not an idea that can be grasped, or an understanding that can be realized. God is the very matrix of energy out of which the universe is constructed. Heaven & Hell A human life, the Buddha said, is infinitely precious. According to Buddha, the soul waits for vast eternities of time for the opportunity to take a birth on this earth. Not, as far as I can see, because the earth is such a great place--in fact, precisely the contrary. Human beings have a concept of hell as some place one might go after leaving the earth, if we misbehave. But as I look around, it seems to me that we have nothing to fear about a future hell, since we have already arrived. The earth is a place of greed and lust and hatred and unlimited amounts of violence, war and senseless brutality. Everything you could possibly want in a hell, we've got! So a human birth is precious not because the earth is heavenly, but precisely because the earth is the very hell we seek. You see, the point is, enlightenment has to do with transcending or transforming all the negative tendencies in our being, and maintaining this exalted condition in the face of any and all challenges. You will not find this type of opportunity in heaven, only in hell. Going to heaven won't make you enlightened, only living in hell has that potential! So when it comes to enlightenment, our motto here on Planet Earth is: If you can make it here, you can make it anywhere. Bodies Now we need to get a little weird for a minute. The yogic traditions of the East tell us that human beings are not just physical creatures with flesh and blood and bones. We have other bodies as well, subtle bodies. In the yogic tradition humans are said to have four bodies: physical, astral, causal and supracausal. Perhaps the most familiar and accessible part of this model of the human being involves the subtle energy centers in the body known as chakras. There are said to be seven principal chakras in the human being (these are part of the astral body, more or less). Sometimes these chakras are described as lotuses, or sometimes as wheels. What is being asserted is that part of the larger reality of human beings are phenomena on subtle levels, and that these are as real and objective as my left foot or your wavy hair. Now, the idea here is that chakras, and perhaps some other even more subtle mechanisms, are part of your spiritual physiology. And just as you need to have a healthy physical body to be well on the physical level, you need a healthy spiritual body to become enlightened. Spiritual growth, from this perspective, consists of building or exercising or improving your spiritual physiology such that you can perceive and feel and understand the totality of Life. A lotus is a metaphor of course, but chakras are not. It is optional, or as one might say, it is an alternative intellectual metaphor, to think of chakras as lotus-like. But it is not optional that this piece of spiritual physiology be healthy and open. One can think of chakras as lotuses, or one can think of them as wheels, or one can think of them not at all. But just as my disinterest in thinking about my liver does not imply that my liver is an optional metaphor I can just as well do without, so too my chakras are essential to my spiritual physiology and a healthy spiritual body is the mechanism by which all genuine spiritual realization is supported. The important point here, and the reason I bring all this strange stuff up, is that if anything like this is true, then it means that enlightenment is in large measure an objective, substantive, real and practical matter. It is not simply a subtle matter of your interior understanding. There is a real temptation here to ignore the question of the mechanism and process of enlightenment. I do not just mean the methods or boats available, but the interaction of methods with structures so as to produce results. In other words, we need a theory of the Physical Mechanics of Enlightenment. We like to ignore this step because to do so allows us to have all sorts of fantasies about enlightenment, like the idea that it can happen instantly. But it is only by attempting this description that we discover the holes in our boats. So, I think these are some of the mechanisms supporting the process of enlightenment. I'm pretty sure this is true. I don't know how to convince you that this is so. But, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to tell you about it. I commend it for your consideration. Unenlightenment And now we come (finally) to the matter at hand---or at least, to its converse. The dilemma we are trying to escape is the fact of our own unenlightenment. But what is the nature of this unenlightenment? After all, if we have a false understanding of the problem, it is likely we will come to lots of false conclusions about the solution. One widespread false understanding is the view that our unenlightened condition is an illusion--maya or samsara. This naturally leads to the false conclusion that to fix this problem, to unburden ourselves of this illusion, must require knowledge or insight or understanding of our true condition, and that once we have seen through the veil of illusion, enlightenment is the inevitable result. This is all understandable, but quite wrong. Humankind is unenlightened. This is not an illusion but is an objective fact. We are unenlightened because of the accumulation of tensions of various sorts in the multiple layers of our being. These tensions are the virtually unavoidable byproducts of life. All of life is suffering, said the Buddha. A more accurate statement is that all of life generates tensions. These tensions poison us and make all of life a tale of suffering. So all of life is suffering, but not because we misunderstand the true nature of things, but because our bodies/minds are weak and vitiated and incapable of holding and conducting the energy of Life Itself. So unless we find some skillful means to transmute and transcend these tensions, they make us sluggish and dull and imperceptive and stupid. In other words, they make us unenlightened Enlightenment Enlightenment, then, is the state of being in which one is in maximum communion with the divine energy that is the matrix of all creation. This communion transforms one completely--on every level. It transforms one's mind, it transforms one's body, it transforms one's emotions, and yes, it even transforms one's understanding. But the transformation of one's understanding is only one part of the totality. It is not the whole event, it is not even the primary aspect of the event. Communion with God means that the creative energy of the universe flows freely through your entire being, seeping into the tissues of your physical body, coursing along the nerve fibers of your spine and brain, triggering rare biochemical secretions, freeing your emotions, vivifying your perceptions, illumining your mind and thrilling your heart and soul. This is enlightenment. Enlightenment hums in the heart as the pulsation of the universe itself. Enlightenment streams out the fingertips in the form of bliss. Enlightenment pours out of the forehead in the form of light. Enlightenment opens the crown of the head like a blossom, to prepare for the surge of power as the Shakti rockets you out of this world into the vast Sky of Being. This is enlightenment. Enlightenment is the Big Open, the condition in which all your chakras and all your other spiritual physiology is operating to its maximum potential. Enlightenment is a whole body condition. It affects all the "bodies," in real and palpable ways--this includes the physical body. Enlightenment is not some "airy fairy" mystical event in which we somehow escape the mud of earth--the mud of earth is part of the package. This is why Hatha Yoga works, and why one cannot attain authentic spiritual advancement without some practice that makes the physical body a viable receptacle to the divine energy. To put it crudely, if your physical body is thick and inflexible and filled with unresolved tensions, you cannot fully commune with God. So we do have a false understanding of ourselves (in this sense, our understanding is maya or samsara), but this false understanding is a consequence of the accumulated tensions in our being. The false understanding is not the cause of our suffering. The cause of our suffering is tensions which alienate us from the deeper levels of our Self. Thus the solution is not to be found in changing our understanding, but in changing our being. A change in understanding will follow as water follows the stream bed. Necessary & Sufficient In logic there are two powerful ideas, one of which is more powerful than the other. If something is a necessary condition for a subsequent event this means that it must be present in order for the subsequent event to occur. This means there is a fairly powerful and important connection between the two. If it is a sufficient condition, however, this means that the mere presence of the sufficient condition brings about the subsequent event. This is even more powerful. If something is both the necessary and sufficient condition for something else, the two events could possibly be identical. This distinction is important to logicians, and may even be of some importance to us. I have said, in a loose way, that enlightenment is the condition of being in the Big Open. But am I saying that the Big Open is enlightenment, or am I saying that the Big Open produces enlightenment? I don't know what I'm saying. I certainly think the Big Open is a necessary condition for enlightenment, and sort of brushes up against being a sufficient one as well. But that's as far as I'm willing to go at the moment. The matter awaits additional data from the field. Growth In Zen Buddhism there are two big theories of enlightenment: The Gradual School and the Sudden School. The Sudden School thinks enlightenment just happens, ZAP! Or at least they think that it is meaningless to talk about progress toward the goal. It either happens or it doesn't. That's that. In one sense, this might be true, but it's a dangerous way to talk. The Sudden View can be a way that people avoid the effort of confronting real spiritual growth. After all, I can sit on my zafu for whole lifetimes without accomplishing anything and so what, there's always the next moment and maybe that's the one when enlightenment will strike. The refusal to assess progress allows one to make weak efforts and yet believe that one is on the right track. There might be such a thing as instant enlightenment--but it isn't going to happen to me and it isn't going to happen to you. So I don't know who that leaves. I suspect that pretty much everybody who has ever become enlightened has done so as a result of a long, slow process of gradual growth. There may be breakthrough moments (called satoris in Buddhism), and maybe even a final breakthrough moment (when we might say enlightenment has fully bloomed), and maybe from the point of view of the final goal all steps along the way are the same and so it doesn't make sense to talk of progress. But none of this should be mistaken for the idea that enlightenment is an instant process. Spiritual growth is very much akin to organic growth. You have to plant the seed, water the garden, hoe the weeds, and wait patiently for the miracle to occur. My tomato plants grow this way, and so does my enlightenment. Signposts Along with the idea of growth, there is the tandem and useful idea of signposts along the way. The main signs of progress on the Path To Enlightenment are such mystical matters as: astral perceptions, visions, energetic manifestations, and all sorts of psychic powers (known as siddhis in the Hindu traditions). All of these things are real and important, not in and of themselves, but as indications that something powerful and real is occurring. In some traditions, most keenly in Buddhism, such matters are disdained. This is not good, because it is useful to know that one is or is not making progress; but more importantly, if one has no recognizable signposts then it is too easy to be deluded into thinking one is becoming enlightened when one is only spinning finer and finer webs of intellectual abstraction. And again, a path without signposts can be falsely understood as a path without growth. All authentic paths have signposts, and signposts are there to help us. Krishnamurti I once spent a long, full, pleasant weekend among the tall trees in Ojai, California listening to Krishnamurti dispense his wisdom. Krishnamurti was a Jnana Yogi par excellence. Yet the whole event was vapid, like watered-down soup. There was no vitality, no energy, no communion, no transmission from teacher to student. Just a lot of very pure ideas. The pitfall along the Jnana path is to suppose that once one has gotten a hold of the right ideas, this is equivalent to being enlightened. Not. Enlightenment is a change of state; it requires vitality and strength. It definitely isn't watered-down soup. Ideas, even very refined ones, only point to the substance of the matter, which is a state of being behind the words. A vital state of being; an expansive state of being; a profound change of state. It is this changed state which is communicated by authentic teachers. People who only communicate ideas are philosophers, which isn't the same thing. Trungpa I once spent a miserable summer evening with several thousand of my closest personal friends in an auditorium in Los Angeles waiting for the arrival of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. Trungpa was a Tibetan lama who wrote extensively on various topics in Buddhism--in fact his literary output since his death has been one of the most prodigious in the entire genre. Trungpa showed up about two hours late, which was his standard practice--better to teach us all about patience, the knowledgeable insiders smugly said, and to demonstrate his lack of concern for the mundane conventions of polite society. He also had a lack of concern for his audience, as demonstrated by the haughty indifference in which he regarded us during the evening. He gave us the "teachings," but gave us nothing of himself. Whatever else Chogyam Trungpa may have been, he was not a teacher--at least not in the context of national tours for lectures before large paying crowds. A teacher, you see, communicates something of his/her essence directly to the student. A teacher is not needed to communicate ideas or insights or truths or to convey the "teachings." A teacher is needed to share the essence of their changed state with the student. It is only when we hold a false idea of enlightenment in which we think that enlightenment has something to do with understanding, that we are tempted to think that teaching has something to do with the exchange of ideas. Teachers If we believe the view that enlightenment is an event in the understanding, then it is an easy and tempting error to suppose we can achieve it on our own, since our understanding is an interior event involving only us. But this is not the nature of enlightenment. Enlightenment involves dissolving our tensions and opening to finer and more powerful levels of energy and manifestation until we are fully open to all the universe. We cannot do this on our own since it involves forces exterior to us that we cannot possibly generate and control. Enlightenment is not solely an interior event; it is a relationship, a relationship between you and the divine. To present yourself to a teacher requires that you consciously enroll in preschool and start the long climb all over again from your nap time blanket and your milk and cookies to a walking, talking adult. You may suppose you are already an adult, but I'm afraid not. This is very difficult if, like me, you spent most of your waking hours as a smart-ass know-it-all. You will be awkward and bumbling and incredibly dense about it, but it is necessary, so you might as well get used to the idea. False Teachers Some would-be teachers are charlatans, some are dunderheads, and some are villains. And there is a serious danger in the whole business of teachers. If we accept the phony premise that teachers are beyond the pedestrian constraints of this world then this can easily become a rationalization for all sorts of exploitation. An authentic teacher honors the simple ethical and social constraints expected of civilized people, and honors much else besides that is beyond the student's grasp. But the real teacher is not Beyond The Ordinary Rules of Behavior. The real teacher is beyond being stuck in ONLY The Ordinary Rules of Behavior. See the difference? So don't let some would-be teacher exploit you in any way in the name of some greater "logic" that only the teacher understands. But don't be afraid to approach teachers either, because of the dangers. And certainly don't use this issue about the dangers of false teachers as your excuse to avoid the challenge of surrendering your willfulness to a teacher's guidance. Use your head and your heart and your guts to tell you when you have encountered an authentic teacher. Your best protection against false teachers is simple purity of intention. If what you are really interested in is enlightenment, then you won't linger long in any bad choices. Grace You and I are thoroughly stupid. I take this as self-evident. Just take a look at any fat slice of your life and your behavior and see if it speaks well of your unbounded genius. And so we probably will screw up everything we try, including most of our efforts in pursuit of enlightenment. This is one of the key reasons why we need a teacher. But, alas, another slap in the face, another Big Cosmic Joke On Us, is that a teacher can't really do it for us, and we are too dumb to do it for ourselves. So how do we get out of this dilemma? Well, the answer is grace. Grace means that God, from time to time, gives us something we have not earned and do not deserve. A freebie. We need a lot of these freebies if we are going to make it. Remarkably, there are freebies in abundance. This is grace; there is nothing to do about it, just take note of the fact that it's there (and maybe a sentiment of gratitude from time to time wouldn't hurt). Ethics What of the place of ethics in this scheme of things? Ethics is important, both in human terms and in cosmic terms. In cosmic terms, one of the results of growing enlightenment is that one grows in compassion and wisdom. This state of being expresses itself in the form of right conduct. Right conduct arises, not out of some process of deduction or understanding of key principles, but spontaneously as an expression of one's inner condition. Right conduct is evidence regarding one's inner condition. This does NOT mean that I am a sponsor of ethical subjectivism. Conduct is either right or it is not, objectively, whatever I may feel about it. My only point is that one does not arrive at right conduct by a process of reasoning or understanding, one arrives at it by a process of transforming one's state of being such that compassion and wisdom are the predominant forces shaping your behavior. After all, there are very few ethical problems in our behavior towards our most cherished loved ones. Enlightenment just is living the reality that everyone and everything in all the universes are cherished loved ones. Science There are two great cultic traditions in our culture, the Cult of Religion and the Cult of Science. Neither of these yields the Truth we seek in our quest for enlightenment--just as neither of these can provide a satisfactory substitute for falling in love. Enlightenment is about communion, and religion is about belief and science is about knowledge--and these latter are not what lovers seek. However, if one is especially concerned to pay obeisance at the Altar of High Science, it is clear that parts of the process of enlightenment are scientifically verifiable. Most prominently, the biochemical and physiological changes that accompany genuine spiritual transformation. Indeed, this model of enlightenment is much more "scientific" in this regard than the Understanding Model of enlightenment. I fail to see, for example, how science is to test the proper understanding of the Zen koan about cats. I think science can also test and verify changes in the subtle body realm, and maybe even beyond this realm as well. Science is nothing more than consensual validation and the willingness to submit hypotheses to potential falsification. This last point, the falsifiability of our theories, is stressed most keenly by an Austrian philosopher named Karl Popper, and I studied philosophy of science in the Popperian tradition, so I feel some lingering obligations to state this point. And I see no reason to think that any of these phenomena (which I take to be objectively real and hence verifiable) cannot be subjected to a scientific methodology if one is so inclined. Indeed, there was a Kashmir pundit named Gopi Krishna who wrote extensively on the scientific testability of the Kundalini Yoga phenomena. He even established a research institute for this purpose, and work along these lines is ongoing. In A Nutshell God is real and is freely available. We long, like a lonely lover, in the deepest core of our being to commune with God, to merge our small selves in Its vast embrace. Nothing short of this embrace will ever fulfill us, and hence, all other aspects of life contain suffering. Most of us also cannot approach the Beloved without rituals of courtship. These rituals of courtship are spiritual practices that produce spiritual growth. Spiritual growth is the process whereby we mature over time until we are ripe. Only then can our enlightenment be consummated. The cause of suffering is not ignorance or false understanding. The cause of suffering is a lack of our Beloved's embrace. The great irony of human life is that the Beloved is so near and we know it not. As the Hindu poet-saint Kabir said: Are you looking for me? I am in the next seat. My shoulder is against yours. You will not find me in stupas, not in Indian shrine rooms, nor in synagogues, nor in cathedrals: not in masses, nor kirtans, not in legs winding around your own neck, nor in eating nothing but vegetables. When you really look for me, you will see me instantly--you will find me in the tiniest house of time. Kabir says: Student, tell me, what is God? He is the breath inside the breath. You cannot reason your way to the Beloved's embrace. Enlightenment is a process of communion, not a process of understanding. You must surrender to it. Coda This is more than just a little embarrassing. Reading through this, it is obvious what a religious bigot I am. Intellectually, I know this is not politically correct. But in my butt, this is what I really believe. And since I am a writer, one of the chief ways I purge myself of my devils is by writing them down. So, this little ditty is one of my devils. I offer it for your consideration, in much the same way as Rod Serling used to rustle-up the demons on the Twilight Zone. But I offer it with the following words of warning: Most of this is pure intellectual speculation on my part. I know some of it from minor first-hand experience, but most of it I have just made up. Truthfully, I have no more idea than a rabbit what the nature of enlightenment is. Advice on this topic ought by rights to come from an Enlightened Master. This, I can assure you, I am not. It all seems plausible to me, but intellectual speculation can only take us so far (which is not very far). In these matters, there simply is no substitute for direct experience. So by rights, I ought to shut up. But I just can't. I am one of those people that Kierkegaard used to call "scribbling foxes," by which I think he meant people who are merely clever and who don't really know Truth from turnips. So to minimize whatever damage I may be doing, I confess that, with the few remaining Popperian brain cells I have left, I recognize that I may be wrong about all of it. So don't stake too much on anything I have said here--it would be better if you find out for yourself. |