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 must 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 fully tied to one another, we make the distinction between these issues for the sake of clear presentation.

Preconceived notions

One can argue that objective truth does not exist at all, and what we call 'truth' is only a matter of subjective perspective and interpretation. On some level this notion is indeed correct, since our universe is composed of innumerable interpenetrating angles of perception and viewpoints. 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 and perception that serves our particular soul so that she may realize wholeness and fulfill her destiny.

The truth about enlightenment cannot be grasped within the ego frame of reference, for it is a state of total being that represents our unity with the light of the beyond. Although there are levels to our awakening, enlightenment is by definition a complete absence of personal interpretation and mind-based perception. Nevertheless, to reach it, we must possess a workable conceptual knowledge of the evolutionary process. Whether the philosophical tenets of a particular tradition support our evolution towards enlightenment depends not on their legitimacy, but on our ability to discern whether the truths they contain are absolute or obsolete. For this reason, throughout the teaching 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 have a practical impact on the nature of our realization. It is irrelevant whether a particular 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 our preconceived notions of reality, for in doing so, we run the risk of missing the objective truth of our evolutionary purpose. For instance, if our spiritual vision is conditioned by the idea of emptiness, this notion can itself prevent us from realizing the soul, for our insight into reality, if any, is bound to by-pass 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, failing to embrace an essential part of ourselves. If we limit our realization of the ultimate reality to non-identification and non-suffering, we will stagnate in a partial awakening to impersonality, failing 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 fundamental qualities of human will, intelligence and inner strength.

Our preconceived notions about the path affect not only the nature of our experience, but can also lead us to misperceive our attainments. 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 in fact remaining stuck in horizontal 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 naively interpret his shallow realization as 'the goal has been reached and there is nowhere further to go'. 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 an 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 remain perceptually deluded.

But why is it is necessary to seek philosophical accuracy in a teaching if the realm of enlightenment lies entirely beyond concepts? A correct vision of the path in all its elements is simply fundamental to our completion. We must bear in mind that to reach a non-conceptual condition represents only one aspect of spiritual realization. Two different seekers who have arrived at the non-conceptual state may in fact abide in two entirely different realities. The absence of conceptualization, or even thoughts for that matter, does not presuppose enlightenment, for the energetic opening to the absolute reality is independent of, and beyond, the presence or absence of concepts. In its final expression, non-conceptualization is the surrender of the mind to the previously realized being and consciousness that enables the purity of reality, free of veiling concepts, to be fully embodied. One should not discard spiritual concepts before reaching completion on the path, for they are essential means for the mind to channel our consciousness towards transformation and awakening. We must only be mindful that insensitive readings of existing concepts can easily distort our vision of the path.

A philosophical basis of a teaching that inaccurately reflects reality

Some of the most common misconceptions on the spiritual scene relate to notions about the nature of the universal self and the soul, and the role of ego, such as those espoused by philosophies of non-dualism. Traditions that offer an impersonal interpretation of reality tend 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 individual and universal. The idea that there is only the self, and no individual, when taken to an extreme, denies any evolution towards awakening. 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.

We may wonder why teachings of non-duality founded by seers of the highest order and expressing extraordinary depth 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 perception of reality was conditioned to express their experience 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 reflect the subtle dimension of the soul; their objective was the strict realization of impersonal peace and freedom. It's not that their teachings were 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 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. In spite of the fact that the majority of seekers and teachers find their sense of security in conforming to past definitions of truth, it is the responsibility of our human intelligence to honestly probe the reality of self until it is seen for what it truly is, as it is.

An incomplete vision of the path

Inferior teachings, though they speak of enlightenment, do not point to the dimension of pure subjectivity in a clear way. Their concept of enlightenment is so idealistic that it lacks any tangible link between practice and realization. The possibility of enlightenment appears so abstract - so remote and incredible - that seekers become forever 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 increasingly deeper states of awakening, they can be considered one-dimensional oversimplifications of the path. Even traditions that do 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 outcome of passive transformation descending from above, failing to see the importance of conscious cooperation in the evolutionary process. As challenging as it is, to discover the complete vision of the path is the very foundation of our spiritual evolution towards complete understanding and wholeness.

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 existence as realized through a long and arduous evolution that involves the actualization of many aspects within our consciousness. Hoping to inspire awakening, teachers sometimes skillfully 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', '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 multidimensional 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 indiscriminative seekers in ignorance.

Return to http://www.anaditeaching.com/teachingintro5.htm