The Nature of Enlightenment

Last week, we addressed the question, ‘What is Enlightenment?’  We explored the origins of this term as described by its originator, Gautama, the Buddha.  We then contrasted the Buddha's understanding of Enlightenment with that of David Hawkins, an American physician who wrote extensively about spiritual matters.

I chose Hawkins’ work for comparison because his understanding of Enlightenment seems to take the Buddha’s understanding, formulated some 2500 years ago in a different culture, and updated it using a modern conceptual framework.  The Buddhist formulation is all but incomprehensible to us.  What does it really mean, saying that “Nirvana (is) the signless, no-occurrence, no-formation, cessation?”  Hawkins appears, in my mind, to have described Enlightenment in terms that are more accessible to contemporary readers.  Since my purpose in these scribblings is to make explicit the spiritual nature that underlies our observable reality, Hawkins’s work seemed like a natural fit for our purposes.

So, this week, I would like to drill down into the nature of Enlightenment.  I would like to use this opportunity to explore the defining attributes of Enlightenment as Hawkins understands them.  This, I believe, will shine a spotlight on what the Enlightenment is and illuminate what is necessary to experience this state.

~

There are a number of assumptions that underlie Hawkins' understanding of Enlightenment.  Foremost among them, he sees consciousness as the primary “stuff” out of which all else comes to be.  This is the opposite of our commonly accepted worldview.  Almost everyone sees matter as ontologically primary.  The common view is that somehow consciousness emerges from non-conscious, inert matter.  This is referred to in scientific circles as “the hard problem of consciousness.”  Holders of this view are, to date, unable to explain how consciousness is derived from inert matter.

What is fascinating about Hawkins’ view is that quantum physics seems to be quietly exploring this hypothesis.  Beginning with Max Planck and other notable physicists in the 20^th century, the notion has been floated that the universe is more like “an idea in the mind of God” than a physical structure built from small bits of material stuff.  To my ears, “an idea in the mind of God” sounds suspiciously like consciousness.  It does not sound at all like the Newtonian model of the world that most of us have learned in school.

A second assumption underlying Hawkins’ view is that Enlightenment is a permanent ontological shift, not a psychological state or a peak experience.  This perception is based on Hawkins' own personal experience.  On this point, Hawkins' view appears to be exactly the same as the Theravadin view.

The Buddhists describe several differentiated Enlightenment states.  They describe a Change–of–lineage state in which Nirvana, the “signless, no-occurrence, no-formation, cessation” is experienced.  A further development is the second Enlightenment state, where there is “neither perception-nor-non-perception, and which has the function of exploding all greed, hate, and delusions, and the extinguishing of all suffering.”  This third Enlightenment state, Fruition Consciousness, is a state of full Enlightenment, and it is marked by the complete cessation of consciousness.  The attainment of this state marks a permanent change in the consciousness of the enlightened one.

Of note, Theravadan Buddhists do not define Enlightenment as a “state.”  They would never say, “You have entered into a permanent altered state of consciousness.”  Instead, they would say that a causal structure (i.e., seeing the world as a series of cause-and-effect relationships) has been dismantled, meaning that certain mental processes, such as identification with the ego or a sense of self, can no longer occur.  Thus, Enlightenment is not a state that has to be maintained.  It is permanent.

On this point, both Hawkins and the Buddhists agree: the shift to Enlightenment is permanent.  There is no going back to a lesser or more primitive state of consciousness.  There is an important implication hidden in these data.  It means that Enlightenment is not a psychological state or a peak experience, as some have surmised.  Psychological states and peak experiences come and go; Enlightenment is permanent.

Moreover, after the final Enlightenment state, it requires no further effort on the practitioner's part.  In other words, Enlightenment doesn’t have to be maintained.  As mentioned above, Enlightenment is permanent, meaning it goes far beyond the variability of states and experiences.

~

In Hawkins’ understanding, Enlightenment is the collapse of the identification with the personal ego, the sense of “I” or “me.”  In its place, the individual opens to a universal Awareness – an awareness of All-That-Is.  From the perspective of this universal Awareness, there is no longer a distinction between subjects and objects.  The dualistic world collapses as one perceives the underlying unity, which binds everything together.  Instead of the separation implied by dualism, Reality is experienced as self-luminous, complete, and impersonal.

Again, this is very similar to the Theravadan formulation, which speaks about the dismantling of the causal structure of the ego.  While the ego develops in every human being from birth, it structures the world as a series of dualities.  Inherent in these dualities is the notion of causality – that “something” causes this other “something” to happen.  With the removal of the ego and its inherent perception of duality, the underlying unity stands revealed.

Here, both Hawkins and the Buddhists appear to depart somewhat from a traditional Christian perspective.  While the Christian notion of theosis is very similar to that of Hawkins, Christians see this union as highly personal.  It is the unification of the individual with the Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Hawkins’ notion of uniting with an impersonal Unity is clearly different.

Despite these apparent differences, there may be an underlying unity between these two views.  At this point, we have no way of controlling for the differences between the worldviews of Jesus’s time and those of contemporary America.  It seems within the realm of possibility that this difference – the difference between a personal and an impersonal conclusion to the spiritual quest – is simply a matter of culture or point of view.

While we are trying to describe what Enlightenment is, it’s also helpful to be clear about what Enlightenment is not.  Enlightenment is not a state of emotional bliss or ecstasy.  While there are blissful states that occur during the spiritual journey, bliss is not a notable part of its conclusion.

In the same way, Enlightenment is not a particular set of cognitive insights.  While a cognitive understanding of the spiritual journey is typically very helpful during the process, changing one’s ideas does not bring one to Enlightenment.  This understanding is particularly helpful at the present time.  With the wide accessibility of the Internet, there are thousands of “ideas” about Enlightenment floating around.  For our purposes, it’s enough to understand that none of these ideas will bring us to that blessed state.

Finally, Enlightenment is not a state of moral perfection.  Given the traditional Christian emphasis on moral behavior, this is a very important distinction.  While moral behavior facilitates the spiritual journey, it is neither its driver nor its end state.

~

I think I will stop here; I have probably given you enough to think about for this week.  Next week, I will continue this conversation by focusing on the attributes of the Enlightenment.  Until then, I hope you keep up with your meditation practice.  I have come to believe that we practice not just for ourselves, but for each other as well.  None of us travels the spiritual path by ourselves.  Just knowing that you are meditating and going deeper encourages me to keep going too.  I look forward to realizing, with all of you, that wonderful moment of union with the Divine.

With my warmest regards,

P.S.  These newsletters were written in a particular order, but due to the limitations of our email delivery system, we cannot send them in the order in which they were written.  We can send out the first five in order, but then the system sends out the next one, whatever that happens to be.

So, if you are suddenly moving from issue #5 to issue #whatever, it might be a little jarring.  If this sounds like you, I would encourage you to go back into our archives and do your best to read them in order. 

Humility as a Tool  → Letting go → Fear → Openness →  Acceptance & Growth

If you are finding this newsletter course helpful, you may want to consider Dr. Kaisch's latest book, Inside the Invisible:  The Universal Path to Spiritual Transcendence.👇

To access the other newsletter editions of the “Inside The Invisible Newsletter,” or if you’d like to read ahead or go back.

Please Note: These newsletters are meant to be read in order.