Open Enlightenment

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

Technical Morality

It’s common amongst Gen-Yers to have an inherent intolerance for authority or moralising of any kind; we want clear, honest information fast, and how we use it is no one’s business but our own. I think this is admirable to a degree, and I sympathise with the anti-guru approach that results from applying this view to spirituality.

This attitude is prevalent in the emerging ‘practical dharma’ movement, exemplified in forums/wikis such as the Dharma Overground, Kenneth Folk Dharma and our very own Baptist’s Head Discussion Forum (for those coming at enlightenment from a magical perspective). Methods and technicalities are distributed, discussed and implemented, and the users enjoy the empowerment that comes with ultimately relying on their own dedication and judgement.

But is it possible we might be making a fundamental error in reducing spirituality and enlightenment to simply a matter of technique and a model of possible territory?

Should ethics have a more central role in ‘practical dharma’ beyond its usual sidelining as something that is solely a matter of personal choice?

For a couple of years I was only concerned with methods and maps because I believed they referred to something discoverable and verifiable; morality could not offer such objectivity, being primarily concerned with value judgements.

Time and again I see this approach demonstrated on the forums mentioned above. Technical discussions are generally fruitful, but if someone’s behaviour is called in to question, the discussion quickly degenerates in to a tedious name-calling impasse. At this point, morality might skulk out of its dark hiding place and suggest we all just try to get along; deep down, no one involved in the discussion really respects such a suggestion.

And time and again I see arrogance, egotism, envy and a lack of respect displayed in these forums. Lord knows, I’ve contributed enough of that myself over the years.

Hang on

But what if morality does have the same gold standard as methods and maps?

What if, rather than being a mechanism as is usually assumed, the method is actually a moral act?

What if meditation isn’t just something that happens once a day on a cushion for half an hour, but is in fact a specific morality – based on an experientially verifiable practice, not supposition – that informs how we treat ourselves and each other?

The overwhelming evidence, both personal and scientific, shows that meditation mitigates anger, hate, greed, and self-interest, and gives rise to a conscious expression of our original nature (whether we call that nirvana, God or the Tao), whose characteristics are acceptance, interest, openness and love.

It might come as a surprise, but THESE CHARACTERISTICS ARE THE METHOD.

When we apply these characteristics to our experience, we engage with authentic spirituality. This is meditation. There is not one single bone fide approach to enlightenment that doesn’t work in this way. Whether actual recognition of our original nature has occurred – known as enlightenment – makes no difference to the validity of the practice, beyond increasing the depth and potential of the expression; furthermore, enlightenment does not guarantee its conscious expression in our behaviour: practice is an end in itself, not just a means, and if practice is abandoned after enlightenment, then of what value is enlightenment to anyone, including ourselves?

With all of the above in mind, how ethical is it to ‘evaluate’ someone’s progress without addressing the potential (and the all too common) conceit and arrogance that arises as a result of having verification from an ‘expert’ – who only deals in the ‘real world’ technicalities of enlightenment – that yes, you really are an accomplished meditator, you’ve mastered the formless realms and you very well maybe enlightened.

Where is the integrity and mindfulness here? Should this advice always be given to anyone who asks, regardless of their mental state or psychological predisposition? And what if the ‘expert’ is wrong?

The student in this example is not even in the position to accurately judge at what stage he or she may be at, let alone have the forethought and insight to be mindful of any possible unique but unhealthy reactions to this information, or the probable egotistical and conceited emotions and beliefs that may result from being informed of such a position.

In an online environment where autonomy is promoted, and when dealing with conceit so close to the heart that we cannot recognise it ourselves, it is virtually impossible to highlight these shortcomings and prescribe a particular approach without causing offense.

But if everything I have written has a solid basis in reality, then the degree to which we indulge anger, hate, egotism, greed and ignorance is the degree to which we are TECHNICALLY failing. Hate isn’t bad simply because we don’t like it; hate is an indication of a lack of awareness, openness, interest, love and acceptance. Hate is an indication of a lack of application of our method, and a lack of how much we understand our original nature.

To dish out judgements on other people’s progress and attainments without also addressing their morality shows a practical shortcoming on the ‘expert’s’ part; to ask for a judgement of our progress without being willing to accept a similar evaluation of our morality is a practical failure on ours.

I’ve recently been asking myself how often do I bring the ‘practical dharma’ to my daily life, and I can tell you, it’s very rarely as much as I would like.

How about you?

Bookmark this article