What is this enigma?!
As I have written before, what is called “enlightenment” in spiritual communities has many descriptions. The core aspect of what is called enlightenment is a shift in our awareness of our nature, where our identity is such that what we are is not fundamentally a body or a local mind, but rather a boundlessness and awareness that extends beyond typical notions of time and space. But there are still many questions. How much love is included? How much knowledge? To what extent does this shift have to happen? For how long? To what depth? And what of the other exalted abilities? How much is under this person's control and how much is not? Do they make mistakes?
The reason some of these questions can be difficult to answer is simple: The notion of enlightenment always includes boundlessness and awareness mixed together with a very local, contextual, and culture-bound individual. Like the wave and the particle, we cannot say exactly where the line is between these two apparent contradictions, yet there is some line somewhere, and depending on the individual perceiving them, the line shifts.
My take on the topic from a functional perspective given where we are as a society is that the notion of an enlightened person is more confusing than clarifying. We can have enlightened thoughts, perhaps do enlightening work, and maybe have an era of enlightenment where awareness and light in a society increase, but to describe a person as enlightened in the past-tense may be a mistake. Integration and expression are always evolving.
Notably, the notion of the enlightened person can be confusing for the so-called enlightened person themself. Some of the energies that are unbottled during enlightening experiences can have repeated and lasting effects of what can be interpreted as perfection–perhaps appropriately so within a distinct context. They can also unbottle a tremendous capacity for service and accomplishment. Yet, as the context or environment shifts, the very same effects can grate against the defenses of the individual mind, strain the psyche, and set the stage to abuse the very same capacity. This explains part of why, in some cases, the same person can be a savior and a terror.
In my view, even the greats such as Krishna, Jesus, and more are best seen not as enlightened. I say that with reverence for teachers and saints that have guided my journey, including Swami Chinmayananda and Shirdi Sai. What defines such people to me is their wisdom, insight, love, capacity and so on. But the thing about wisdom, insight, love, capacity, and more is that they are not fixed in the past. They are not static at an imagined ideal of 100% all the time. They ebb and flow with the circumstance. They're part of the human experience, even as they extend beyond it. Enlightenment, on the other hand, is seen as something that has happened and is fixed. I think this leads to misunderstandings and often tragedy among followers who are pursuing an ideal that is not fully representative of the person they are following.
At the same time, I would be remiss to leave out that elevating someone and idealizing their good qualities can literally be life-saving in so many cases, as millions of people have experienced. There is a time and place for everything, and no article can encompass all the subtleties involved.
Some people would consider what I say about a religious, spiritual, or philosophical figure not being enlightened as blasphemy. If so, it is a wonderful sign. Just as science has had its foundations shaken by the findings of quantum physics, spirituality is perhaps also due for a foundational shake-up–not of its knowledge, which has withstood the test of time–but rather of its practice and application in today’s world, along with how we speak of it. Part of that shake-up is deconstructing some of the unexamined, outdated notions associated with what we call spirituality so that this knowledge and experience can become available to all.
There is much misunderstanding that needs to be dispelled, and I do so with the intent of bringing clarity and self-love to this conversation. I say self-love because what we see in others as unassailable can be a reflection of a lack within ourselves. If so, then perhaps part of restoring that love within ourselves is seeing the person who we saw as unassailable as facing the same challenges we do and trying to live their lifetime the best they can, just as we are.
But, then again, what do I really know? I'm not enlightened.
Comments