A dear friend of mine recently forwarded me a link to a very interesting article written by a thinker, founder, Rabi and a poet Zohar Atkins, titled “You’re Enlightened. Now What?”.
I appreciated this article not only for its witty (although at times lofty) overtone, but primarily for the questions that probe into the very heart of the topic of Enlightenment. High-five Rabi, keep ‘em coming.
Now, before moving on I must disclaim that, as a lay meditation practitioner, in no way do I infer the same amount of (spiritual) credibility that one Rabi can, nor do I presume any particular “expertise” on the topic of Enlightenment (if such a thing were to exist). I do however feel I can offer a positive contribution to the discussion in service of veracity, and I hope the readers take it like that.
What is Enlightenment?
Let us first start by looking at what Enlightenment is not. This is an important consideration as it may provide a gateway to answering, or at least addressing some, if not all, of the Rabi’s questions, interpretations and potential misconceptions.
Contrary to popular belief, enlightenment is not some remarkable, thunder-accompanied mystical revelation bestowed upon a “subject” by the infinite Grace of some celestial Overlord while they were tripping on shrooms on the 2nd day of Burning Man (unfortunately, I might add, for it would make a great BM advertisement).
Nor is it the finishing line of a long, solitary, barefooted journey across Tibetan highlands on the way to a secluded hermitage where one is to spend the next decade-or-so eating only veggies & rice, convincing mountain lions to adopt the same diet (for obvious reasons), and observing the subtle formation of icicles inside one’s nostrils.
While these hypothetical descriptions tote an immense romantic appeal, so much so that it likely constitutes the way most people think about the phenomenon, the reality of enlightenment is much less ardent and far simpler than the above anecdotes. So simple for that matter, that it easily borderlines with triviality.
Perhaps the most fitting insight into the nature of Enlightenment is offered by an old Zen monk, who while coming back form a nearby forest, was asked to define it. He responded:
“Before enlightenment, chop wood & carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood & carry water”.
A similar response was given by another Zen monk who when asked to explain the “Buddha Nature” (which is another way of inquiring about the nature of enlightenment) responded with:
“Dry shit on a stick”.
Yes, you got that right - dry shit on a stick. Both of these monks happened to be pointing at a singular element or quality of the enlightenment experience (albeit in their own unique, humorous, ways), and that is that:
Enlightenment simply means to be fully present, moment to moment, empty of any pre existing conceptions, ideas, interpretations, etc., other than to mirror the Reality before us - just as it is.
The first monk just happened to have chopped some woods and was carrying water, and the second monk had just stepped on a pile of dry shit with his stick. This was their immediate, unobstructed, direct experience of reality, void of any arbitrary interpretation or conditioned conceptualization. Nothing more, nothing less.
See, Enlightenment has least to do with the process of elevating ones consciousness to the highest realms of existence devoid of worldly affairs in an attempt to find eternal bliss, compassion and supreme Union with the Universe, as Rabi seems to suggest somewhat derisively, and most to do with the down-to-earth, practical, pragmatic application of the enlightenment experience in every day life. Whether it be showing up to the splendor of the stack of paperwork at your law firm in the morning, tending to the various bodily processes of your newly born baby, contemplating the strategy of your political party or Fortune 500 company, or planning the rocket defense against the hostile neighboring country that’s threatening your survival.
Enlightenment does not imply blissed-out, idle passivity, nor does it imply universal perfection in which there is nothing to do and nowhere to go, nor does it make you a hopeless tree-huger drowning in a sea of compassion and love for all beings. It does not inhibit, prevent, ideologically dye or promote any human activity, process or choice, be it where to live, whom to live with, who to vote for, who or what to renounce or accept, whether to pull out a gun in self defense or order an airstrike on a hostile country.
These kinds of interpretations are misconceptions and trivializations of what Enlightenment means, and can likely be attributed to inadequate understanding, perhaps even in absence of deeper insight, or to an attempt to push forth or reaffirm a particular ideological / theological position.
So then, what does Enlightenment actually imply?
Enlightenment, in its simplest “definition”, implies clarity of action which comes from clarity of perception. Clarity of perception means seeing things as they truly are, in their own unobstructed manifestation, not as we paint them to be with our own pre-conditioning and ready made biases.
It implies seeing everything that appears in one’s field of awareness for what it is, be it our thoughts, emotions, desires, aversions, cravings, attachments, fears, and then putting them all down so that our actions and relationships in and with the World emerge untainted by our past conditioning, habits and accumulated memories, untainted by our ideology, egoic narrative, attachments, likes and dislikes, fears and aspirations. Instead they emerge from the requirements of that particular moment, void of the discriminatory, dualistic, clinging mind that tends to break everything down into opposites, good and bad, right and wrong, often wreaking nothing short of chaos in the process.
When we are able to get our egoic conditioning out of the way of perceiving reality, and instead we approach everything with forever fresh eyes, our actions become clear and we are able to respond wholesomly to the requirements of the situation, whatever it may be.
These actions can sometimes manifests in the form of compassionate loving-kindness, or supreme union with all beings, but there is no reason, nor an ideological mandate, why they could not manifest as something less noble than that - so long as they are a result of a moment to moment, mental & spiritual clarity.
The Rabi ends his article by expressing doubt into the practicality of Enlightenment. Assuming that the intention of his writing was to honestly inquire into the nature of, rather than a pretext to lessen the phenomenon, I can only hope that this response is taken as a friendly contribution to his process.
As a closing note, and in keeping with the habits of the sages of the East, I’ll take the liberty to offer a new topic for inquiry, perhaps for both of us:
hank you. I often hear people, the proverbial day after a peak experience express a longing to return to that state. The question is what purchase that state would have on the world, were it elongated or more widely distributed. My hunch is it would have less purchase than people would like to think. I am certainly in favor of spiritual practice; as I am in favor of mind expansion. I'm just skeptical that these noble pursuits are the silver bullet to our problems. I'm a pluralist. They're good. But pursuing them involves tradeoffs.
I realize that the way people talk about Enlightenment may not be the same thing a how ancient traditions (and masters) discuss it. I realize that someone truly Enlightened would not necessarily ask the questions I ask; but those questions are the kind that we as a society should ask.
The Way that Cannot Be Named Doubts Itself, Therefore It Is.