Open Enlightenment

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.

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

Challenging False Beliefs

I’ve felt for some time that forum debates are rarely productive, and more often than not the focus of a discussion is lost in pedantic, tit-for-tat rebuttals. I think a forum is a great tool for a community whose primary function is to offer support; but when it comes to challenging ideas or rigorously investigating a given belief, the conversational nature more often than not leaves ideas poorly expressed and researched, with a number of people hot under the collar.

I recently came across a short commentary by an American teacher on my article 10 ideas I’ve changed my mind about since becoming enlightened. The verdict: I’m only partially awakened.

Should I have ignored the commentary?

Should I have dissected the commentary and provided a rebuke for each point (God knows there are so many)?

Instead, I decided to propose a dialogue based on a shared interest in understanding the mystery of enlightenment, instead of a silly and pointless ‘argument on the internet’ between two enemies who have never met. I suggested an experimental format:

Person A writes a well thought out, researched piece on a given idea (such as ‘A person cannot personally become enlightened’ – the core belief stated by the American teacher and the reason he considers my awakening ‘partial’). This means Person A is forced to examine the reason for his or her belief, and sets out his or her thinking for all to see.

Person B then reviews the piece (not the person!). Any apparent flaws in reasoning are highlighted, any contradictory arguments or evidence not included are presented, any references checked, and so on. Does the belief stand? It should be remembered that this is a review: it could be overwhelmingly positive.

Person A then reviews Person B’s response. Again, the focus can only be on the argument and how it has developed. The discussion is kept on topic, the arguments are well presented, and at the end there should be some degree of clarification as to how valid the belief in question actually is. Who knows? With personal feelings kept to a minimum, maybe someone might actually change their mind about something!

All three parts – the argument, the review, and the review of the review – are then open to public discussion, forum style.

I think the above format could work really well in a community format too, with anyone open to submit a piece for consideration, anyone open to review it, and then anyone open to review the reviews (we could even have a star rating system). This would raise everyone’s game a notch.

The American teacher preferred to have a discussion via skype, but I don’t believe this would be anywhere near as beneficial. So I’m putting forward my argument that ‘A person can only become personally enlightened’ anyway, and if anyone would like to review it, and then be reviewed, please do. Of course, comments are just fine too!

Bookmark this article