Alan's blog Ask Alan Teachings: Ask Alan buddhism developmental awakening direct awakening enlightenment expectations false beliefs maps method models pseudo-Advaita tradition
by Alan
158 comments
Direct vs. Developmental Awakening
In this video response I explore the extreme examples of both direct and developmental views of enlightenment.
Note: I mention some traditions, but not all sub-sets or lineages within those traditions ascribe to the same direct or developmental view that I discuss.
Direct vs. Developmental Awakening from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.
Alan's blog Ask Alan Teachings: Ask Alan enlightenment gurus maps meditation Open Enlightenment practice resonance teaching transmission video
by Alan
79 comments
How to experience enlightenment
How to experience enlightenment from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.
Better late than never, eh? Videos should be more frequent from now on.
My last video transformed the blog into a forum, and amongst many other terrible accusations thrown my way I was rather confusingly compared to Andrew Cohen. Let’s see where this one takes us…
Alan's blog Events: Advaita Vedanta Being Ordinary enlightenment expectations false beliefs maps meditation non-duality Open Enlightenment philosophy Platonism post enlightenment satsang video
by Alan
3 comments
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!
Ask Alan Teachings: Advaita Vedanta awakening enlightenment Freedom liberation love realisation zen
by Alan
276 comments
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.
Do you have a question about enlightenment?
Ask Alan from Alan Chapman on Vimeo.
Any questions can be raised in the comments below.
Articles: awakening enlightenment mental illness neurosis psychosis Ram Dass Sigmund Freud
by Duncan
18 comments
Insanity and Awakening
How do we know that people who declare themselves ‘enlightened’ or ‘awakened’ aren’t simply dupes of mental illness?
A common symptom of schizophrenia, for example, is the delusion that we are the messiah or ‘special’ in some other sense that enables us to see into reality in a way that others cannot. So, to draw the conclusion that those who regard themselves as ‘awakened’ may have lost their sanity seems understandable.
However, a person’s mental life is only an issue when expressed in a way that poses a problem to someone. I sit next to a guy at work who believes the world is only six thousand years old. This strikes me as bizarre, considering that his only evidence is the Bible, but it doesn’t pose a big enough problem to himself or anyone else to prompt an intervention. If he decided to stop washing because he knew the world was ending soon, however, then it would probably be a different story.
Mental illness is as mental illness does; it’s never a question only of ideas and individual experience, but always also a question of behaviour and degree. Experiencing awakening is one thing. Telling everyone and setting up a blog is another. Setting up a commercial organisation to teach others is another thing still. In each case there’s the same idea that one has awakened, but it’s the behaviour that results from the idea which calls down a diagnosis to the degree that it poses a problem to others.
In our culture harbouring wacky ideas isn’t a big deal, whereas acting on them or living according to them certainly can be. So too is waving them in other people’s faces. This is the boundary between being ‘eccentric’ and ‘insane’. Eccentricity is tolerable, but attempting to influence the lives of others is overstepping the mark.
My first point, then, is that only ideas which lead to problematic behaviour will be regarded by our culture as ‘ill’. In most cases, someone who experiences awakening will not manifest any untoward behaviour at all. Indeed, most feel happier than they were before and just get on with their lives. They are therefore functioning healthily.
However, the fact remains that messianic ideas feature in mental illness regardless of whether the sufferer acts on them. We still must deal with the question of whether believing oneself to have awakened, or to have gained a special insight into the nature of reality, is not in itself pathological.
The causes of mental illness is a hot topic that I don’t want to get entangled in. I propose to focus on the notion of illness instead. In all instances of disease what we see is rarely the cause itself but its symptoms in the organism. The symptoms of a disease are the attempt of the organism to heal. For instance, the mucus that runs down our nose when we have a cold is not the virus or the action of the virus, but the reaction of our body (inflammation of blood vessels) in its attempt to deal with the infection.
If mental illness is truly an illness, then the delusions of the mentally ill are symptoms. Regardless of what we suppose the cause of the illness (genetic, environmental, spiritual, etc.), the symptoms that arise in the body-mind are an attempt to cope with that cause. So if a runny nose helps combat a cold, what is the benefit to a mentally ill person of the delusion that they are the messiah?
There are two possibilities. We’ve left aside the question of exactly what is attacking or threatening to attack, but we’re presuming that because this is illness then it’s an agent of disease, and because this is mental illness then the ‘site’ of the attack is the mind or that which exerts an effect on the mind. In this event, a delusional idea can help in one of two ways: it can either change our sense of self, or it can change our sense of reality.
In other words, when something threatens our mental balance we can adapt to it by (1) making ourselves a different person from the one to whom the threat applies; or (2) reshaping reality in a way that implies there is no threat.
As an example, let’s say the attack is from a psychological source: a strong feeling of insecurity and inferiority. If I go down route 1, then I might develop psychosomatic illnesses that limit my range of activity. I become an ‘invalid’ who can no longer be expected to achieve the sort of things I formerly demanded of myself. So, by changing the sense of who I am through psychosomatic illness, I’ve side-stepped the threat.
A trip down route 2 would be very different. Here, I would simply re-write reality and insist that regardless of appearances I am the new messiah. Everything that happens in my world confirms this: the TV newsreader is talking about me; car registration plates in the street contain hidden kabbalistic messages proclaiming who I am in reality. Again, the threat is side-stepped, but this time by re-writing the external world in a way that ensures the spectre of psychological inferiority never arises.
What we have here is also an illustration of the difference between the two classical branches of mental illness: neurosis and psychosis. In neurosis, reality is left untouched, but the sense of self is re-written. The clinical picture is one of anxiety and misery. In psychosis the self is unhindered, but the space in which it attempts to run free is bought by re-organising reality. The clinical picture is delusion and a loss of boundaries and relationships. Just as in physical disease, symptoms of mental illness are attempts at healing but they are often not solutions. In fact, symptoms can frequently become problems in themselves. Often, it’s not really the disease that kills us but our symptoms.
The Freudian model of neurosis.
To return to our main question, the person who claims they have awakened could indeed be manifesting a neurotic or psychotic symptom. Yet the concept of awakening relates to the standard model of mental illness in a very intriguing way. The person who has awakened talks about their experience in a manner that suggests they have arrived at a new understanding of their identity by gaining an accurate perception of reality. If that were true then both self and reality would have undergone a change. So if this is a symptom, is it neurotic or psychotic – a change to the self, or a change to reality? Evidently it is both. Or maybe neither.
The Freudian model of psychosis.
The classical line between neurosis and psychosis (Freud, 1924), although still observed within the field of mental health today, in practice has proved difficult to draw. Psychiatry has since recognised numerous ‘borderline’ forms of mental disorder that do not sit easily within either psychosis or neurosis. (An example is the fairly recent discovery of ‘personality disorders’.)
This is only to be expected, since the division between neurosis and psychosis rests upon a supposed duality between reality and the self. Ask someone to define the self and you’ll often get an answer along the lines of ‘it’s that which perceives reality’, whereas common definitions of reality often evoke ‘that which continues the way it is when I’m not around’. Yet even logic dictates it cannot be as simple as this, because unless we suppose it somehow stands outside, then the self must be included in reality; and unless we suppose things would seem the same if we had no mind or body, then reality must be regarded as arising from the self.
If awakening doesn’t fit the standard models of mental illness it’s because it hits that model right in its weak spot. The person who has experienced awakening claims to have seen through precisely the dualism which separates reality and the self.
The difference between awakening and mental illness is summed up graphically in an account cited by Ken Wilber of the meeting between Baba Ram Dass and an institutionalised schizophrenic. Ram Dass says:
‘Do you think you’re Christ? the Christ in pure consciousness?’ He says, ‘Yes.’ I say, ‘Well, I think I am too.’ And he looks at me and he says, ‘No, you don’t understand.’ I say, ‘That’s why they lock you up, you see.’ (Wilber 1996: 178)
The ill person makes himself a messiah by preserving his sense of self at the cost of re-writing reality. Because the aim is to preserve the self then there is no room in his reality for more than one messiah. When Ram Dass says ‘I’m Christ too’ the ill person cannot admit this, because it would threaten the sense of identity he is fighting to preserve.
Although Ram Dass, by saying he thinks he too is Christ, appears on the surface as nutty as the guy he’s talking to, the crucial difference is that the world of the awakened person accommodates everyone as the Christ. The world of awakening is more expansive because the awakened person, by seeing through the duality of self and reality, has surrendered each to the other. The Christ is the one who recognises his or her true nature as inseparable from reality (‘I and the Father are one’ [John 10: 30]) and therefore the Christ is not limited to any individual – although many Christians might have something different to say about this, of course!
Some who claim to have experienced awakening are no doubt mentally ill, but in that case their ideas are symptoms. As we have seen, a symptom is an attempt by the organism to heal itself, which is often never completely effective, and so there will usually be other signs that alert us to the presence of disease. In the case cited above, the patient’s refusal to admit that anyone else was like him betrays the symptomatic nature of his ideas and had indeed led to his isolation and incarceration.
When we look closer at the nature of awakening and the models used to demarcate mental illness we see that the models rely on a dualism between reality and the self, whereas awakening claims to have undone precisely this duality. In the light of awakening, the model of mental illness itself appears mentally ill in its insistence on sustaining a duality that creates the phenomena it seeks to describe. Fundamentally, this is why Sigmund Freud was led to his famous quip that the aim of therapy is ‘replacing neurotic suffering with ordinary human misery’, because whilst there is a supposed separation between self and reality then suffering is inevitable. Contrast this with the Buddha’s bold promise of an end to suffering, when self and reality are surrendered into the other at the moment of awakening.
References
Ken Wilber (1996). The Atman Project. Second edition. Wheaton, IL: Quest Books.
Sigmund Freud (1924). ‘Neurosis and Psychosis’. In: The Pelican Freud Library, volume 10. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1979.
Alan's blog News: book dialogue enlightenment excerpts expectations free ebook insight involvement Open Enlightenment post enlightenment teaching tradition
by Alan
9 comments
The End of Open Enlightenment?
It’s been awhile, hasn’t it?
My absence has been due to the bad customer service I’ve received from a certain broadband service provider, but as frustrating as this experience has been, it has given me time to take stock and reflect on the purpose and value of this blog.
I haven’t been lazy in my time away; I’ve written a rather lengthy two part article on morality and how it relates to wisdom, an article entitled ‘More Buddhist than Buddhist’ for the new Buddhist Geeks digital magazine, and a piece on the relationship between the Dharma and money, with an emphasis on how it relates to my future teaching plans.
But I doubt any of them will see the light of day.
You see, just as it took some time to fully understand the purpose of the Baptist’s Head project, so too has the purpose of Open Enlightenment slowly emerged. At first, I thought OE would facilitate what I felt was a necessary and beneficial conversation, and the aim was to try to explore the best way of understanding enlightenment and our relationship to it. This wasn’t always clear to many readers, and we spent a good deal of time arguing with detractors. As it became obvious that the conversation I hoped to have was never going to happen if we only ever repeated ourselves, I wrote the ebook to move the conversation along and act as a jumping off point.
But as time marched on it slowly began to dawn on me that this blog serves a rather different function. Both Duncan and I have posted our thoughts on enlightenment right from the word ‘go’, despite the fact the experience of awakening was still very fresh and we hadn’t enjoyed the benefit of allowing the dust settle. For some, this could be seen as a mistake that can easily lead to making embarrassing public gaffs; but if it wasn’t for this blog, which has acted as a focus for getting my thoughts down and sorting the wheat from the chaff, I would never have reached the understanding and view I know hold about enlightenment. If anything, blurting out what could have been premature and perhaps ill-informed comments about awakening (which, for the record, I don’t really believe we have done) as and when they arose has led to what I consider a much more mature view of the phenomenon than if we had remained quiet and careful. And for those with a genuine interest, there is perhaps more value to be found in witnessing what we have posted and how this has changed over time than perhaps in the actual content, something only an honest and regularly updated journal of post-awakening experience and thought can provide.
However, we’ve now reached a point with the blog where I feel we may start repeating ourselves (again), and I have to question the value of that. It doesn’t help that we still have to answer the same dull and ignorant comments we’ve endured since beginning this project, which sometimes feels like a constant uphill struggle. I still believe the conversation whose parameters I outline in the ebook is very important and worth having; I just don’t think many people are ready to have it yet.
Just as I felt it was necessary to write the ebook to answer the many common questions and objections we would frequently find ourselves dealing with, I now feel it is necessary to try and present a view of enlightenment that is both comprehensive and able to highlight and explain the common misgivings regarding the phenomenon that (I believe) frequently crop up during public discussion. As this view has emerged, I’ve found it increasingly difficult to discuss awakening, because what I wished to say would almost always require many more lengthy explanations before I could expect my comments to really make sense.
So I need to write another book, but this time it requires something more substantial than an ebook. But rather than write this blog off, shut up shop and spend the next year writing in seclusion, I’m going to utilise the wonderful power of maintaing a blog in focussing my efforts. Although there will no doubt still be regular postings here from me and Dunc (but probably mostly from Dunc), you can expect posted excerpts from the work in progress for your enjoyment and feedback.
My journey with Open Enlightenment has also led me to a particular conclusion regarding teaching and that rather thorny subject of mixing money with Dharma, and the material I am now working on will inform my future teaching in the form of course material. So this ‘new’ direction isn’t just about a book, but what I hope will eventually form the backbone of a new Western school of awakening.
I hope to have the first excerpt posted in the coming weeks.
(P.S. So the answer to the headline is, erm, ‘no’.)
Articles Teachings: enlightenment Nishida Kitaro religion the absolute
by Duncan
31 comments
The Room
I’m not fond of the word ‘enlightenment’ and would prefer something like Nishida Kitaro‘s expression that is translated as ‘religious consciousness’. This would make it clear that what we’re talking about is not a personal attainment but a way of seeing that beings us into alignment with the Absolute. However, its disadvantage is that ‘religious consciousness’ still sounds like a state of mind. And – of course – it contains the endemically misunderstood word ‘religion’. But its biggest disadvantage of all is that if I talked about ‘religious consciousness’ then people might think, ‘Oh, that’s what he means. I thought for a moment he was talking about enlightenment, but of course that would be ridiculous!’
You have to experience enlightenment to know what it means. Someone who says that enlightenment is ‘boundless compassion’ probably hasn’t experienced it, although they may have experienced boundless compassion. Someone who says enlightenment is ‘a perfectly still and tranquil mind’ probably hasn’t experienced it, although they may have experienced a perfectly still and tranquil mind. It sounds stupid to say it, but only a person who has experienced enlightenment has experienced enlightenment, rather than what they suppose the effects of enlightenment to be. If a person who hasn’t experienced enlightenment experienced enlightenment, the discovery that it’s only the realisation of the Absolute (and not any of Its relative effects) would probably disappoint them, because it takes someone who has experienced enlightenment to appreciate what enlightenment is.
So what the hell is it, then?
Well, imagine that there is a room and the room is a metaphor for your experience. In the room are furnishings and objects and these are your experiences. While they are in the room they are part of your awareness. Yet the person who has experienced enlightenment sees how the removal of everything from the room is not the absence of experience, but the experience of absence. The person who has experienced enlightenment can see how the emptiness of the room is what enables things to appear inside it. These things include the person who has experienced enlightenment, who recognises himself as something that can appear in the room because the room is empty. The person who has experienced enlightenment sees how the room appears simply the way it already is, because it’s so empty that even he isn’t in it.
Alan's blog Articles Teachings: enlightenment ethics evolution history joy Original Nature post enlightenment sorrow
by Alan
9 comments
The Joy of Existence
‘Only Original Nature is’ does not mean that the manifest world is an illusion.
It means that all of existence is Original Nature, from the universe to the galaxies to the planets to single celled organisms to fish to plants to insects to birds to animals to humans.
However, Original Nature is not any of these things.
You are Original Nature.
But Original Nature is not you.
Ignorance is Original Nature; but Original Nature is not ignorance.
Sorrow is Original Nature; but Original Nature is not sorrow.
Change is Original Nature; but Original Nature is not change.
The self is Original Nature; but Original Nature is not self.
The opposite is also true:
Enlightenment, joy, peace and selflessness are all Original Nature; but Original Nature is not enlightenment, joy, peace and selflessness.
However, with the recognition of Original Nature, enlightenment, joy, peace and selflessness all arise spontaneously as expressions of that recognition, because Original Nature is, has and always will be free from ignorance, sorrow, change and self, all of which afflict the conscious human being.
(The first tastes of enlightenment are always the most blissful or awe-inspiring, but ultimately enlightenment has nothing to do with bliss or awe.)
It is ignorance that is the cause of the horrors of existence, being the root of all sorrow, loss and isolation.
It is awareness or wakefulness that is the cause of the bliss of existence, being the root of all joy, completion, and wholeness.
Evolution is the diminishing of ignorance and the growth of awareness; with this growth comes the recognition that change is rest, creation is peace, development is complete and life is meaning itself.
Evolution is Original Nature; but Original Nature is not evolution.
This is the joy of existence.
Alan's blog Articles Teachings: enlightenment expectations Original Nature post enlightenment teaching
by Alan
10 comments
What is enlightenment?
Enlightenment is the recognition of original nature.
It is called original nature only because it has been forgotten. It was never lost, because it is the nature of even our forgetting.
Original nature is recognised as whole, complete, satisfied, peaceful, free, unbounded, unified, perfect, over-abundant, clear, divine, good, just, loving, compassionate, beautiful, untainted, unconditioned and true. Original nature – being Whole – is its own self-negation, manifest as the phenomenal world; and so only original nature is.
Enlightenment is the recognition that you are not this self, in a world of others, and never were. You were never born, and will never die; original nature is both birth and death, because only original nature is.
Enlightenment is the recognition of complete and absolute non-relation between any one thing and any other thing, because where there is no separation, no relationship can exist. How can original nature be reached, and by who, when only original nature is? Original nature is the subject that searches for original nature.
Enlightenment means there are no such things as ignorance and enlightenment, and the path and the purpose are one. Because there is no such thing as time, everything has always been this way and always will be. Only original nature is.
Enlightenment means all things have no beginning, no end, and are a non-issue. Enlightenment is not the beginning of anything or the end of anything, nor was ignorance ever a problem. Enlightenment is not an escape but an intimacy with all things, because only original nature is.
Enlightenment neither means life is not worth participating in, nor that life continues as it always has unchanged; recognition of original nature manifests as the expression of the good, and the actions of the person who has experienced enlightenment reflect this, because only original nature is. A person that has no beginning, no end and has no issues is a perfect expression of original nature: boundlessly compassionate and peaceful.
Enlightenment creates a better world for everyone through an open mind and an open heart, even though there is no world to improve, no one to improve it or anyone to help, because only original nature is.
However, none of this is recognised unless recognition has occurred.
Enlightenment is and always will be an event that happens to people, because only original nature is.