Open Enlightenment

Life After Enlightenment

Life After Enlightenment from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.

Bookmark this article

Being Ordinary Interview: Life, the Universe and Everything

I recently had the pleasure of chatting with Being Ordinary‘s Tom Buckley-Houston. Tom has done a wonderful job in editing down our very long discussion into a listenable interview. Although I talk about some of things I already touch on in this video, we end up discussing a diverse range of topics including astronauts, direct vs developmental paths and even the future of the human species. Check it out here!

Bookmark this article

Before, During and After Awakening

Q: What was it like before, during and after enlightenment? – Chris Marti, Jackson, Ceri, plus many more OE readers…

Before, During and After Awakening from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.

Bookmark this article

The Folk Theory of Enlightenment: An Interview with Jody Radzik

Jody Radzik is the infamous webmaster of Guruphiliac, a site that sheds light on the scams, crimes and abuses perpetrated by the mad, bad and sad hucksters and would-be gurus of the enlightenment scene. Jody recently gave a talk on the Folk Theory of Enlightenment (FToE) at the Science and Non-duality Conference 2009, details of which can be found at his new blog, Shimmering Dead End.

As a fan of his work, I was delighted when Jody agreed to the following interview, where we discuss his spiritual career, the negativity he frequently receives from telling the truth, working with Kali, and the FToE.

more »

Bookmark this article

A Non-Dual View of Enlightenment

I recently posted an argument on behalf of the belief that enlightenment is an event that happens to a person, with the intent of having the argument – at some point in the future – reviewed by my peers. In lieu of the fact that there is no one to put forward the apparently opposite argument that enlightenment cannot happen to a person, I thought I would do this myself.

However, my thinking has got ahead of my writing, and I’ve arrived at an interesting place where both views are in some degree accurate and inaccurate. I would much prefer to explore this, although I’ll give the main points in support of the view that enlightenment cannot happen to a person.

I’ve already given the irrational consequences of believing enlightenment is not an event and cannot happen to a person, such as mistakenly identifying Non-duality with doing nothing, giving up and understanding nothing; with the developmental nature of enlightenment – described by every single biography of a pseudo-Advaitist and straight up practitioner alike – left ignored and deemed irrelevant.

But what about the problems with believing enlightenment is an event that happens to a person?

First, if we accept that a person experiences knowledge of the Non-dual, then we are left with the person as a subject and the Non-dual as an object. Hardly non-dual (as Ceri pointed out). Yet personal experience reveals that the Non-dual is not absence of experience; but at the same time, there is no duality. How can we describe enlightenment in order to facilitate an understanding of this, without falling into either trap?

Second, we are left with the consequences of describing someone as an ‘enlightened person’. Not a person who has experienced enlightenment, but an enlightened person. Can you see the difference in emphasis? The first is a description that matches the facts; the second is the ascribing of a certain quality to an individual, and it is very rarely used in the sense that ‘this person has experienced enlightenment’. I would argue that every single bad model, ridiculous expectation and delusional fantasy around what it means ‘to be enlightened’ stem from using enlightenment as an adjective, and it’s a huge contributing factor to the facilitation of the abuse of power by many a guru or teacher. Consider: if enlightenment could not be used as an adjective, exactly how would you ask the question ‘what does it mean to be enlightened?’

The Language of Non-duality

So how do we resolve the two apparently irreconcilable view points? Either enlightenment happens to a person, or it doesn’t, yes?

I think the solution lies in describing the experience of the Non-dual accurately, without resorting to the gobbledygook of pseudo-Advaitists. It’s common here for the pseudo-Advaitist or amateur postmodern philosopher to interject with the idea that language fails us, and that true understanding is not possible with language anyway; we can only ‘point the way’ using feeble gestures and nonsensical phrases.

‘A bad workman always blames his tools’ springs to mind, so let’s continue.

When enlightenment happens, whether it’s just a peek or it’s permanent, it is usually accompanied by the intellectual realisation that consciousness or awareness is not limited to the body, the emotions, the mind, or the individual. What is normally taken to be the self is seen as just another set of sensations, no different from the ground beneath your feet or the sky above your head. Buddhist’s call this ‘no-self’. Advaitist’s call this ‘the Self’ with a capital ‘S’ (or Big Self), as opposed to the ego, or small self.

Duality only exists where there is a subject and object. Normally, the subject is taken to be the sensations that make up a person, who experiences the world as something separate from itself, as an object. But with enlightenment, the ignorance that the person or individual is a subject is gone; we are left with ‘an experience with no experiencer’.

This is exactly my experience. Since my enlightenment I know that I am not this person, Alan Chapman. But Alan Chapman persists after enlightenment just as he did before (much to everyone’s delight, I’m sure). Enlightenment occurred for me, and it was a radical transformation in identity, from subject to Non-dual experience.

‘An experience with no experiencer’ is not meaningless; it is not a garbled, flailing gesture that is supposed to point to the truth. It is an accurate description of what occurs during enlightenment. It is a wonderful definition of Being itself, and perfectly expresses the non-dual nature of existence: Just this.

No doubt some people will argue that it is impossible for experience to exist without an experiencer, and so yet again, language has failed us. But the fault here is not with language, but with a logic based on the ignorance of duality. Awareness is not a thing. Consciousness is not a subject. This can be expressed (and I hope it is right now) very clearly with language, without the need to resort to pseudo-Advaita speak.

Rational Consequences

What does this mean for the belief that enlightenment happens to a person, and the contrary view that it cannot?

The sensations that make up a self or person do not disappear with enlightenment; but the person is very much effected by it. A change in behaviour – physical, emotional and mental – takes place. The person has knowledge of enlightenment, memories of it occurring and persisting, and can express all of this experience in words. Enlightenment happens to people, as an experience.

But the person is no longer a subject. It is assumed by human society at large that a person – his or her physical body, emotions and mind – IS a subject, and they will describe the subject usually in those terms: fat or thin, ugly or attractive, nice or annoying, stupid or clever. For the person who has experienced enlightenment, this still retains its functionality. But can we describe a person as ‘enlightened’ in the same way? Do we not assume that an ‘enlightened person’ is actually an ‘enlightened subject’ when we use enlightenment as an adjective? Does this not imply that there is a subject with a quality – enlightenment – that really exists, when this is actually the opposite of the experience itself?

If there is one thing enlightenment demonstrates, it is that there is no subject to ‘be enlightened’.

Just as describing yourself as ‘fat’ or ‘thin’ still has a degree of utility after enlightenment, even though there is no subject to be fat or thin, can we use ‘enlightened’ in the same way? Consider any description of a person – bar ‘enlightened’ – and you will see that it describes either a physical, emotional, mental or behavioural trait: All the things mistaken to be a subject. ‘Enlightened’ does not accurately describe any physical, emotional, mental or behavioural trait; and that’s why it is frequently assumed as a (usually fantastical) description of a phenomenon that falls into one of these categories.

Describing a person as ‘enlightened’ could be the greatest mistake ever made in the history of genuine spirituality. (Hey, talk about a turn around in opinion.)

So does enlightenment happen to a person? Absolutely. It is an experience that is a perfectly natural development for every single man, woman and child on this planet, and it is perfectly understandable. No pseudo-Advaita necessary.

But there is no such thing as an ‘enlightened person’.

There’s a big difference.

(P.S. I’m not sure what this means for the ‘Small self/Big Self Fallacy’, because I haven’t thought it through yet. More to come no doubt.)

(P.P.S. I’m quite enjoying this. The fact that I’ve arrived at my current position is in part down to the Challenging False Beliefs approach. I think it has definite value. If anyone would like to review this article, I would be greatful.)

Bookmark this article

Enlightenment is an event that happens to a person (or The Small self/Big Self Fallacy)

There is an Indian school of thought regarding enlightenment that came to prominence in the 20^th Century and is currently of great popularity in the West, especially in America. It is sometimes referred to as ‘Non-dual spirituality’, ‘Direct-path’ Advaita, or amongst its detractors, as pseudo-Advaita.

This school of thought is a development upon the Indian tradition of enlightenment known as Advaita Vedanta, a teaching that began with Gaudapada in the 7th Century, and championed by Shankara in the 8th. Advaita means ‘not two’, and Vedanta means the ‘end of the Vedas’. The Vedas are a collection of Holy texts that teach enlightenment, and within this tradition enlightenment is considered the liberation (moksha) of the individual in the knowledge of his or her divine soul, or Atman. Before Advaita Vedanta, a popular idea within the Vedanta tradition was that an enlightened person, although realising Atman, is still a separate entity from Brahman, the ultimate principle. Based on personal experience, study of the Vedas, and the teaching of his lineage, Shankara presented the understanding that Atman and Brahman are in fact the same thing. The end of the Vedas is literally moksha, and Atman and Brahman are one (‘not-two’). The core texts of Advaita Vedanta are the Vedas (although Shankara did provide commentaries), particularly the Upanishads, which sanction monasticism and teach Bhakti (devotion or surrender) as the method to achieve liberation. Shankara was the founder of Shanmata practice.

Today, Advaita is taken to mean not the unity of Atman and Brahman that is described at the ‘end of the Vedas’, but the Buddhist doctrine of the ‘non-dual’ nature of enlightenment: ‘In seeing, there is just seeing. No seer and nothing seen. In hearing, there is just hearing. No hearer and nothing heard.’ (Bahiya Sutta). Some Advaitists teach that bhakti and monasticism are obstacles to realising moksha, effort and seeking must be given up, and that a person cannot become enlightened, because they already are. An example of this is given by the Indian guru Gangaji: ‘You are already the Self [Atman]…you are already free!’. Another by Lakshmana Swami when he says ‘The Self is always present. There is no question of realising it.’ (Thompson, The Odyssey of Enlightenment. Origin Press 2003.)

During an interview given in 2004, the popular American teacher Adyashanti gave the following reply to the question ‘Would you claim that you are enlightened?’: ‘Well, no, not with a straight face. I would say enlightenment is enlightened and awakeness is awake. It’s not an experience; it’s a fact.’

After writing recently about becoming enlightened, I came across a blog post by an American teacher who claimed that my awakening was only partial, because no one can become personally enlightened.

It is my contention that people who ascribe to the pseudo-Advaita tradition (yes, I’m not a fan), and particularly those who claim a person cannot become enlightened, are suffering from a poor understanding of the experience of enlightenment (even if it is their own), probably from a lack of applying a modicum of reasoning (I’m being kind. If you think the title of this article is blindingly obvious, wait until you see some of the stuff I’ve had to write below!).

The Argument from misunderstood or degenerated tradition

We’ve already seen how pseudo-Advaita deviates from Advaita Vedanta: ‘Advaita’ means ‘Non-dual’ in the Buddhist sense instead of the ‘Atman and Brahman are one’ sense; practice is actively discouraged instead of promoting shanmata, bhakti or monasticism; and the Vedas are no longer relevant. Pseudo-Advaita and Advaita Vedanta are categorically not the same thing, and I would argue that the former has its origins in the misunderstanding of the latter, although I cannot prove this beyond pointing out the use of various terms and cultural elements from Advaita Vedanta by the pseudo-Advaitists, and the common public misunderstanding that pseudo-Advaita dates back to Shankara.

The Argument from Personal Experience

Prior to 6^th March 2009, I wasn’t enlightened. I know this because I was there, in person. For three and a half years I performed all kinds of practices from Magick to Zen to Theravada to Fourth Way to Christian Mysticism to Sufism and so on in an attempt to get enlightened. There is a public record from this time, demonstrating my unenlightened condition, and the steady progress I made towards enlightenment, as predicted by numerous enlightenment models.

On the 6^th March 2009, I experienced the event of enlightenment. I know this because I was there, in person. Here is a write up of that experience, and a video of me talking about the event. The experience matched exactly the predicted event outlined (again) in numerous models of enlightenment.

(For anyone who thinks my opinion of pseudo-Advaita is based solely on a particular traditional viewpoint, say Theravada or Magick, it should be noted that I became enlightened Advaita style, at the feet of an Advaita guru, at the foot of Arunachala mountain, once home to Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, the most famous Advaita guru of the 20^th Century. I’m sure if I wanted to I could claim Advaita as my lineage and hop on the ‘no effort’ bandwagon and set myself up as an incomprehensible wise man.)

After 6^th March 2009, I was enlightened. I know this, because I was there, and am still here, in person.

In other words, I wasn’t enlightened, then the event we call enlightenment occurred to me in person, and then I was enlightened. I am Alan Chapman, both enlightened and a person. Please consider me an enlightened person.

The Argument from Basic Reasoning

Let’s go back to Adyashanti and the following exchange:

Q: Would you claim that you are enlightened?

A: Well, no, not with a straight face. I would say enlightenment is enlightened and awakeness is awake. It’s not an experience; it’s a fact.

(As an aside, why is it so funny for someone to say they are enlightened? How many sanghas erupt into laughter whenever the story of the Buddha’s enlightenment is told? This is ironic considering the interview supposedly challenges The Taboo of Enlightenment.)

Adyashanti’s use of language in this instance is very peculiar. If someone were to ask me if I claimed to be educated (i.e. I went to school), would it make sense for me to say ‘no, because education is educated. It’s not an experience; it’s a fact!’? This misuse of language would not be tolerated in any other field, and yet when it comes to enlightenment, so many are all too eager to bow down to the apparent ‘wisdom’ being expressed. Let’s be clear: saying ‘enlightenment is enlightened’ doesn’t mean anything, and all it does is mystify a very natural, straight forward experience.

And there I go again with that word: experience. It’s common to hear the idea that enlightenment is not an experience at all, because it is non-dual. Therefore no one becomes enlightened personally, because the non-dual is not personal.

There is a very subtle – but nonetheless very real – mistake being made here.

Elsewhere, I’ve defined enlightenment as the sudden and irrevocable knowledge of the absolute truth. We can play around with this definition and substitute ‘absolute truth’ for ‘Wholeness’, ‘Self’, ‘God’, ‘Tao’, ‘Allah’, ‘Buddha-mind’, ‘Emptiness’, ‘the One’, ‘the Good’, or the pseudo-Advaitist’s favourite, ‘the Non-dual’.

Let’s do that: Enlightenment is knowledge of the Non-dual.

Note however, that enlightenment is NOT the Non-dual itself. Enlightenment is the gaining of a knowledge not previously available, specifically the knowledge OF the Non-dual. This is an experience, that occurs to a person, as an event. It is NOT the Non-Dual itself.

Now the Non-dual may be our ‘true nature’ (indeed, the ‘true nature’ of all things), or our ‘ultimate identity’; but that doesn’t change the fact that the realisation of this is an event that happens to a person.

The Non-dual is not an experience, not an idea, is not limited by nor has its foundation in people, places, practices, traditions, space or time. The Non-dual can never become aware of itself, because it does not exist in time; a person becomes aware of the Non-dual, as an event, in his or her life. We call this event enlightenment.

The clue to the nature of enlightenment is in the word itself: Enlightenment means something has become illuminated by a source of light. For the pseudo-Advaitist, this light source is the Non-dual, which ‘enlightens’ the individual.

A person can only become enlightened in a personal sense; the unenlightened person becomes an enlightened person. Personal enlightenment is the reason why there are so many obviously enlightened people out there who have very different opinions, ideas and beliefs about what they have knowledge of, how it first became available to them, and what it’s effect has been for them personally. It’s the reason we can talk about it at all.

‘I am Alan Chapman and I am an enlightened person.’ The sooner statements like this become the norm, the sooner people like Adyashanti won’t feel so squeamish stating the obvious.

Irrational Consequences

Pseudo-Advaitists and others who profess that a person cannot become enlightened are making a very simple error: they are confusing the event of enlightenment with the source of enlightenment. Is the illuminated room the same thing as the light bulb? Is the personality or ego the same thing as the Non-dual? And yet they use the term ‘enlightenment’ as if it referred to an object (‘…enlightenment is enlightened…’)

What are the consequences of ‘objectifying’ enlightenment?

If a person cannot become enlightened, because the person cannot become what the person already is, then the person must be the Non-dual itself.

In other words, the person – not the Non-dual – is the source of enlightenment. The illuminated room is the light bulb.

Hmm. ‘I am Alan Chapman and I am the source of enlightenment.’ Now that would be a much funnier sentence than ‘I am an enlightened person’, if it weren’t for the fact that it sounds so depressingly familiar….

To confuse the source with the event renders enlightenment unintelligible, serves to re-enforce the status of the guru as someone capable of understanding something no one else can, disempowers the individual, paralyzes the practice of earnest seekers, obscures the well-documented progressive developmental nature of enlightenment, ensures no sane, open, honest and reasonable discussion can take place about enlightenment, and keeps the whole phenomenon out of the realm of public understanding.

So here we have it:

The Small self/Big Self Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when the small self (personality, ego or ‘I’ thought) is confused with the Big Self (Non-dual, God, Tao, One, etc). The sentence ‘You cannot become what you already are’ is a result of this confusion, which can be highlighted thus: ‘You (small self) cannot become what you (small self) already are (Big Self).’ This idea that the small self is the Big Self is contrary to the teachings of every single tradition that teaches enlightenment, including pseudo-Advaita. A person committing the Small self/Big Self Fallacy can be said to be ‘objectifying enlightenment’. The consequences of this confusion are:

The belief that nothing needs to be done or no effort is required to become enlightened.

The belief that enlightenment is not an event that can happen to a person.

The belief that enlightenment cannot be understood rationally.

The belief that the ‘Non-dual’ is synonymous with the dualistic notions of doing nothing, seeking nothing, and understanding nothing.

By naming this fallacy we can bring it into consciousness. By calling others on the commitment of this fallacy we can help reduce the amount of confusion around the topic of enlightenment, and hopefully move towards eradicating the image of the guru or teacher as someone who understands something beyond anyone’s comprehension.

The understanding of this fallacy leads to:

The belief that conscious participation and some form of active transcendence (meditation) is required to become enlightened.

The belief that enlightenment is an event that can happen to a person.

The belief that enlightenment can be understood.

The belief that the ‘Non-dual’ is not dualistic.

More importantly, it means the guru or teacher is just another person, with all the weaknesses that come with being just a fellow human being. Like everyone else the guru can be confused about all manner of things, and this includes enlightenment.

(It should be noted that I’m sure I’ve committed the Small self/Big Self Fallacy in the not-too-distant-past, and probably somewhere on this site. Hopefully when the new site is launched I will have addressed all instances of this.)

Bookmark this article

A Non-Duality Meeting

I went to a non-duality meeting at the weekend led by a young teacher named Jeff Foster. Between ten and fifteen people showed up at a room in Brighton’s Quaker Meeting House to hear Jeff tell them how ‘this’ is ‘it’.

The creation in our minds of an individual gives rise in turn to a seeker that then invents an ‘it’ for which it is seeking. Awakening occurs and seeking stops when we have seen through both the quest and the individual and realise that ‘it’ was actually ‘just this’ all along.

This is classic advaita thinking. More specifically, it’s ‘direct path’ advaita. Almost every question from the audience was a variant of: ‘What can I do to get enlightened?’ And every answer Jeff gave was a variation on: ‘Nothing. This is it, already. There’s no “you”, no “it”, let alone any action to be performed that could draw one of them toward the other’.

‘But before your awakening,’ I asked Jeff when my turn came, ‘you had a practice that you performed?’

Jeff laughed and assured me he tried and practised everything, constantly, until it drove him to depression and despair. But then he woke up and saw how no practice had anything to do with ‘it’.

‘Sure. But I’m interested in what we’re doing now,’ I said, ‘and how these meetings function as a means of enabling people to awaken.’

‘So am I,’ laughed Jeff. ‘This is just something that I offer.’

I suggested that it was useful for people to have a practice. It didn’t matter so much what it was, as long as it enabled us to experience for ourselves how it has nothing to do with enlightenment. Every seeker reaches a point when he or she begins to see ‘it’ regardless of whether they practice well, badly, or not at all. It’s only at this point the teaching that ‘there’s nothing to do’ begins to make proper sense.

In reply Jeff said something that made me think very carefully. He said: ‘Every practice fails.’

It’s true – because every seeker is destined to realise that enlightenment is not something he or she could ever cause to happen. How could you make something happen that lies beyond your experience?

‘I failed,’ Jeff said. ‘I failed to find what I was looking for, because it was here all along. Every seeker fails.’

‘But every seeker must go through that experience for themselves,’ I said (thinking to myself: because sitting here and telling ourselves there’s nothing to be done isn’t likely to do much good).

‘But then everyone will try to “fail”,’ countered Jeff.

In the break I chatted with some other attendees. One had recently become interested in spirituality and for just over a year had been meditating diligently. Then he came across the non-duality teachings. He stopped meditating and started attending non-duality meetings instead.

I didn’t talk with him long enough to gain an understanding of the experiences he’d had. I hoped he was at the point where his practice had shown him there’s nothing to do, rather than simply being attracted to this as an idea. Perhaps it has a different effect on some, but I can’t see how the rhetorical game of a non-duality meeting encourages people to examine their experience rather than just think about it. Let’s not forget: it wasn’t non-duality meetings that led Jeff to his awakening. He tried everything, and practised until he exhausted himself.

I didn’t disagree with anything Jeff said, only the style of his teaching. As Jeff said, all practices fail, because no seeker discovers what they imagined they had set out to find. Likewise, all the maps and models for ‘getting there’ are stories, self-fulfilling prophecies (for the most part) that create the kinds of experiences they pretend to describe.

Ultimately, the practices, maps and models are just flipcharts, touchscreens and PowerPoint slides. Just supports for different styles of teaching.

Jeff Foster on YouTube, making an interesting point about the nature of depression.

Bookmark this article

The Diamond

Enlightenment is not an idea.

Do you believe Taoism is about Taoism, even when Laozi wrote ‘The Tao-Path is not the All-Tao. The Name is not the Thing named.’?

Do you believe Buddhism is about Buddhism, even when the Buddha taught the emptiness of all things?

Do you believe Philosophy is about Philosophy, even when Proclus reasoned the One that cannot be hypothesized?

Do you believe Sufism is about Sufism, even when Mohammed said ‘Allah, the One, independent and besought of all, He begets not nor is He begotten, and there is none like unto Him.’?

Do you believe Advaita is about Advaita, even when Shankara argued ‘Brahman is the only truth’?

Do you believe Magick is about Magick, even when Crowley proclaimed ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law!’?

To those who cannot see past ideas, all of these teachers and teachings appear contradictory and exclusive, each promoting their own absolute dogma at the expense of the others.

Yet how many teachers of enlightenment have taught that their teaching alone is true?

For those who cannot see past ideas, one facet amongst an infinite number is taken to be the whole diamond; and the discovery of the truth of another facet is taken to mean the existence of two diamonds, not One.

Yet how many teachers of enlightenment have taught the existence of many enlightenments, or that enlightenment can mean many things?

Unable to see past ideas, and conditioned to find the One Correct Answer, the beginner – seeing many facets of the diamond – cannot help but doubt if he has found the right teaching, to the extent he will either endlessly flirt with one tradition after another, or combat his uncertainty by convincing himself of the shortcomings of any method but the one chosen. The reflection of one facet is held superior to the reflections of the others because not only does conditioning demand it, but the practitioner has not yet seen the diamond personally.

But even the enlightened human may be guilty of persisting in the ignorance of trying to find the One Correct Answer, despite possessing the knowledge that the absolute truth is not an idea. When this happens, the enlightened human forgets the diamond all together when concerning himself with but one facet, and yet having knowledge of the diamond, will struggle in vein to raise up an amalgamation of various reflections to the status of the diamond itself. When this happens, the enlightened human may even deny the existence of the diamond by claiming only reflection exists. For such a confused human, enlightenment is not understood as knowledge of the Tao, Emptiness, the One, Allah, ‘not-two’; the illusion that the absolute is differentiated persists, almost as if enlightenment had never occurred. Of what use is enlightenment to such an individual if it is not or cannot be lived?

Can you admire the reflection of one facet without taking it for the whole diamond?

Can you appreciate the existence of many facets without denying the existence of the diamond itself?

Can you appreciate that no facet is the diamond itself, no matter how glorious, comprehensive or reasonably sound its reflection?

Can you hold within your gaze each and every facet, in all their relatively diverse, contradictory and paradoxical beauty, without trying to resolve them in to a single reflection?

Can you see past all reflections to the diamond itself?

Bookmark this article