Misconceptions of Enlightenment

Not all teachings point to the highest truth, just as not all seekers seek the highest knowledge and realization. Traditions of enlightenment reveal varying levels of understanding, as they reflect the particu­lar intelligence and capacity of their founders. If we seek complete clarity and illumination, we must exercise caution as we explore the many existing interpretations of enlightenment. To cut through naïve views, spiritual clichés, and false ideas, we need to sharpen our intelligence, develop true understanding and pass through the fire of necessary experiences.

Below we explore the major misconceptions of enlightenment in relation to their four sources: preconceived notions, a philosophi­cal basis of a teaching that inaccurately reflects reality, an incom­plete vision of the path, and oversimplifications of enlightenment. Although inextricably tied to one another, we draw the distinction between these issues for the sake of making a clear presentation.

Preconceived notions: One can argue that objective truth does not exist at all; that what we call ‘truth’ is only a matter of subjective per­spective and interpretation. On some level this is indeed correct, since our universe is composed of innumerable interpenetrating view­points and angles of perception. However, the more we evolve, the closer we come to universal intelligence and understanding, and the higher our standard for truth becomes. When we speak about truth in this context, we are pointing to the understanding that serves our par­ticular soul so that she may realize wholeness and fulfill her destiny.

Enlightenment is by definition a complete absence of personal interpretation and mind-based perception. Nevertheless, to reach it, we must possess a sound conceptual knowledge of the evolutionary process. Whether the philosophical tenets of a particular tradition can support our evolution towards enlightenment depends not only on their legitimacy, but also on our ability to discern whether the truths they contain are absolute or obsolete. For this reason, through­out this book we analyze a variety of different views of spiritual evolution and address some of the most common misconceptions they propagate which, taken as truth, can easily confuse a seeker on the path to wholeness.

Our primary concern here is not to debate conceptual theories of reality, but to address those perspectives that can have a practical impact on the nature of our realization. It is irrelevant whether a spiri­tual tradition labels the ultimate reality as ‘no-self’, ‘self’ or ‘neither self nor no-self’, for it is the same reality being pointed to, only through dif­ferent means. This is not to say that how we perceive certain concepts is unimportant; in fact, it very often determines the core energy of our approach to the path, thus affecting the depth of our enlightenment.

The problem arises when we unimaginatively cling to precon­ceived notions of reality, for in so doing we run the risk of missing the objective truth of our evolutionary purpose. For instance, if our spiri­tual vision is conditioned by the concept of emptiness, the very notion itself can prevent us from realizing the soul, because our insight into reality is bound to bypass the essence of our pure subjectivity. If we believe that the ego is non-existent and refuse to see its significance in the evolution of our intelligence towards human completion, we are likely to fall into spiritual denial and remain unwhole, for we have not embraced an essential part of ourselves. Or, if our realization of the ultimate reality is limited to non-identification and non-suffering, we will stagnate in a partial awakening to impersonality and fail to get in touch with the divine aspect of the absolute existence. If we assume that we can reach liberation and wholeness through devotion alone and refuse to take responsibility for doing the inner work, we will miss the opportunity to engage the vital qualities of human will, discrimination and discipline.

Preconceived notions about the path affect not only the nature of our experience, but can also lead us to misperceive our attainments. For example, having realized the state of presence, an adept follow­ing a tradition that regards awareness as the ultimate attainment may falsely believe that he has reached his destination, while he in fact remains stuck in a horizontal expansion of consciousness, unaware of the need to merge with the source of the now. Similarly, a seeker who arrives at the state of being, but lacks any concept of wholeness and multidimensional evolution, may naïvely interpret his shallow real­ization as the final goal. Due to an imbalanced identification with the universal, one who is strongly influenced by non-dualism may reach the state of transcendence and realize himself on the energy level, yet still not know who he is as a soul. All of these examples show us that despite having positive inner experiences and even true awakening, we can fail to perceive them correctly.

We must be mindful that insensitive readings of existing con­cepts can easily distort our vision of the path. Two different seekers who have arrived at the non-conceptual state may in fact abide in two entirely different realities. To reach a non-conceptual condition represents only one aspect of spiritual realization; it does not presup­pose enlightenment.

A philosophical basis that fails to reflect reality: Some of the most common misconceptions on the spiritual scene relate to notions about the nature of the universal self, the soul, and the role of ego. Traditions of non-dualism in particular offer an impersonal inter­pretation of reality that tends to negate not only our ego-identity, but also our individual soul. In their desire to express the truth of universality, they overlook the significance of our sacred individual­ity. Rigidly applying the idea of non-duality, they miss one of the defining features of reality — the dynamic interplay of truth and con­sciousness between the individual and the universal. Enlightenment is perceived as no more than the removal of the false self, when in fact, experiential clarity reveals that it cannot exist without the indi­vidual, who must not only transcend his own ignorance, but whose presence is necessary to actually experience the state of truth.

We may wonder why extraordinarily deep teachings of non-duality founded by seers of the highest order have repudiated the existence of a personal essence. It is not that the conclusions of these masters sprang from incomplete realizations, but rather that their perceptions of reality were conditioned to express their experiences in a purely impersonal way. The traditions we are referring to were created in times when humanity was not yet ripe enough to embrace the consciousness of the soul. They may have been revolutionary in their time, but from the viewpoint of the now, their spiritual vision is outdated. At its conception, any new tradition of enlightenment naturally reflects the unconscious evolutionary needs of the contem­porary collective mind; otherwise it is rejected and forgotten. It is in fact the will of the divine cause to express truth at a level in accor­dance with the evolutionary capacity of humanity at any particular stage of its development.

Traditions of the past were not designed to reveal the subtle dimension of the soul; their objective was the strict realization of impersonal peace and freedom. Their teachings were not incorrect, only incomplete — and not in their time, but from the present per­spective of the expanded potential of human consciousness. Even though enlightenment is a timeless realization pointing to the change­less principle of the absolute reality, insight into that reality eternally evolves as the subject of illumination becomes increasingly whole. Ancient questions about our true identity and the nature of self have to be revisited in order to unravel the ultimate mystery of me within.

An incomplete vision of the path: Teachings that do not point to the dimension of pure subjectivity in a clear way fail to offer a tangible link between practice and realization. The idealistic vision of enlight­enment prevalent today appears so abstract — so remote and incred­ible — that even the most sincere seekers easily become lost in the jungle of their practices, unable to cut through ignorance.

There are teachings that do point to the essence, but because they ignore the complexity of gradual evolution towards deeper states of awakening, we consider them to be one-dimensional oversimplifi­cations of the path. Even traditions that acknowledge the need for gradual evolution are difficult for seekers to relate to experientially, due to their ambiguous terminology and imprecise descriptions of the various levels of realization.

In addition to a clear explanation of sudden versus gradual awakening, a teaching must also present a balanced vision of the relationship between practice and grace. Some teachings emphasize the important role of grace in awakening, but offer no intelligent connection between one’s personal effort and the possibility of receiving that grace. They create the illusion that enlightenment is merely the result of transformative forces descending from above, disregarding the importance of one’s conscious cooperation in the evolutionary process.

The oversimplification of enlightenment: Oversimplification of the awakening process is a phenomenon particular to so-called ‘sudden-enlightenment’ schools. A seeker must be aware that although the term enlightenment describes the simple reality of the natural state, it also reflects the complex reality of our multidimensional awaken­ing as realized through a long and arduous process that involves the actualization of many different aspects within our consciousness. Hoping to inspire awakening, teachers sometimes apply concepts that point directly to the ultimate reality, such as ‘you are already that’, ‘there is nothing to attain’, ‘when the seeker is no more, the search is over’, ‘being is enlightenment’ and ‘all is consciousness’. These ideas can be useful teaching devices, but when taken as abso­lute truths or ends in themselves, they can warp a realistic vision of the spiritual path. If a student thoughtlessly identifies with the dec­laration of a non-dual teacher that ‘everybody is already realized’, without seeing its figurative character, he simply ends up confused.

The responsibility of an intelligent teacher is to precisely describe the nature of enlightenment and the complex reality of the path, and to dispel the various misconceptions and myths of self-realization. Although many of the simplistic statements about enlightenment popular on the spiritual scene carry some element of truth, they must be seen in relation to the path as a whole in order to prove construc­tive. Simplistic teachings that absolutize fragments of truth in the name of enlightenment do not promote true awakening, but in their lack of complete vision, keep indiscriminate seekers in ignorance.