James Swartz

Enlightenment sickness means that the ego co-opts the knowledge of non-duality (self). The knowledge of non-duality (satya), when properly integrated, ought to humble the ego into submission by realizing that it is, in fact, only apparently real (mithya), an epiphenomenon that has no independent existence of its own. However, the ego is sly and extremely tricky. Its entire purpose is to cement itself and to create a better, firmer, more solid sense of identity. When an immature, unqualified, super-active (rajasic) mind is exposed to Vedanta, the potential exists for disaster: the ego will try to create a new identity for itself based on self-knowledge, I call it a narcissistic super-identity. This ‘spiritual super-ego’ can be far more dangerous than a regular ego, because it misinterprets and distorts the spiritual teaching for its own ends. Such an ego is still under the sway of samsara, and still seeking wholeness in the mithya world, but it now does so under the guise of being ‘enlightened’ and whatever superiority it believes this confers.

Yes, or in other words: enlightenment is (1) perfect satisfaction with oneself, as one conceives it, and (2) perfect satisfaction with the world as it is. The rest is just fancy talk.

Yes. The problem with that solution is that most people don't know that their desires, beliefs and opinions are crap. Vedanta is the long con. It sets up the state of play and patiently walks qualified inquirers through the minefield of the so-called spiritual world. It works but it's not for everyone.

Absolutely! It also helps to have an impersonal source of well-vetted Self knowledge like Vedanta.

Yes. There are many paths because there are many different people at different stages of understanding. It's all good. My post assumed a qualified person according to Shankara's definition: a discriminating, dispassionate person with a disciplined mind and a burning desire for liberation.

Yes, non-dual love. As in my post "5 stages of devotion".

They can help some people and hinder others. They were very beneficial for me but I know many for whom they are a curse. After two years I realized I was the all-seeing eye of consciousness and gave them up. But that didn't stop my seeking, although it lead to Vedanta, which did stop it.

Hi Ishanga, yes, I agree, in Vedanta we talk about 5 stages of devotion: Stage 5: The Fruit of Devotion – Non-duality The Knowledge of I am (Jnana Yoga) is Non-Dual Love In this stage the devotee realizes that the manifested universe (Isvara) and the person (Jiva) enjoy the same identity, which destroys the relationship between the individual and the world. You are me and I am you. Everything is me. I am love. Enlightened devotees are free from mental and emotional events created by desire. They have no desire for objects because they are full. They can fulfill the desires of others because they are non-binding. They are here to serve. They are emotionally tolerant and do not disapprove of those who do not conform their values. They are free of possessiveness because they understand that everything belongs to Isvara. They are completely secure because they know there is no security in objects. They are not fooled by Maya’s beauty, variety and novelty. They are free from arrogance, pride, superiority, and competitiveness. They get along with everyone and everyone gets along with them because they have fragrant compassionate personalities. Everything they do contributes to life.

Discriminate between the two basic existential categories, which are (1) a conscious subject, which cannot be objectified, and (2) "the field," which is the objects, i.e. experiences that present themselves to the conscious subject. The conscious subject is always present and doesn't change, whereas the "field" is in a state of constant flux. Discriminating the subject from the field is "enlightenment," which is to say freeing the subject from its apparent attachment to the objects in the field...thoughts, feelings, people, desires, specific circumstances, etc. Do you agree?

If the object of inquiry is beyond the scope of perception, it will be difficult to describe because language operates only in the world of experience. Therefore, we can never get a precise definition of consciousness from words. How can the limitless cause of existence be packed into words? Perception tells us that the universe is quite small, limited to what we can see with the eyes, hear with the ears, smell with the nose, taste with the tongue and touch with the skin. The invention of instruments that extend the range of the senses expands our notion of the scale of the universe and we now infer that it is infinite. When we try to infer the cause of the universe, both perception and inference break down and imagination takes over. We imagine someone or something so vast, grand and glorious that it cannot be experienced or described. This imagination-fed belief leads to the conclusion that words are useless as far as enlightenment is concerned. It is responsible for the notion that consciousness is a mystery and will forever remain a mystery. It is a mystery if you do not know how to look for it, but once you are in on the secret, it is as accessible as the nose on your face. What if the cause of the universe is not out there somewhere in space or locked in the infinite past, but is in our own minds? What if you have unwittingly been tricked by perception into looking in the wrong place? Nobody says that love cannot be experienced and known, even though no words can describe it. In fact we do not need a word to describe the self, because it is self evident. But if it is not self evident to you, then words can be very helpful. A finger pointing at the moon is not the moon. If attention goes in the direction indicated by the finger, the mind will experience and know the moon. If it is properly assimilated, the knowledge contained in a sentence or a group of sentences can destroy ignorance. The implied meaning of a sentence can also give knowledge. Self inquiry does not claim to describe the self, prove the existence of the self, or generate an experience of the self. It is not necessary because consciousness is always present and self evident. But if you allow its words to guide your investigation, they will reveal what is always revealed: “The self, pure awareness, is limitless bliss and unending pleasure. It is beyond the dualities of the mind. It is the is-ness that sees, the is-ness that is known through Vedanta’s statement, ‘You are That.’ It is the one, eternal, pure, unchanging witness of everything. It is beyond experience and the three qualities of nature. I bow to that self, the one that removes ignorance.” Furthermore, awareness is the non-physical “light” that makes experience possible. It is the container of experience and experience is the content. We exist quite happily in deep sleep without experience of objects, but we cannot experience anything without awareness, including the experience of sleep.

Enlightenment entails no duties or responsibilities. It is not an ideal that demands a particular kind of behavior. If you think it has turned you into a pure saint and requires you to live an austere and holy life and behave with perfect love, you have enlightenment sickness. Enlightenment cannot be equated with sainthood, because behavior depends on the nature of the instrument (body&mind) through which awareness functions, not on the self. For example, electricity flowing through a light bulb produces light. Functioning through a stereo, it produces sound. Operating through a heater, it causes heat. If only sattvic samskaras (peaceful habits) remain, saintly behavior will manifest, but rajas (egoism) and tamas (ignorance) can never be completely eliminated. If self knowledge came after a long period of diligent spiritual practice under the tutelage of a pure teacher, you will probably not catch enlightenment sickness. You would have lived in such a simple way that you were already happy before you discovered who you are, and there will be virtually no change in your inner life. You would have associated with enough truly enlightened people to understand that enlightenment is nothing special. But if you were not blessed with a sattvic disposition and excellent karma and you struggled long and hard, you will probably be so eager to make the most of your enlightenment that you will not take time to tidy up the last bits of ignorance. If you formulate your enlightenment as a grand happening and turn it into a big story, you have the enlightenment disease. In reality, you should be happy to keep your mouth shut because you did not get something you did not have all along. Awareness is your nature. By making a fuss about it, you are only calling attention to a long stay in ignorance, not to a special accomplishment. If you hear yourself telling others that you are awakened or enlightened or “cooked,” you have enlightenment sickness. Awakening is not enlightenment, because the self never slept. You are the fire that cooks, not the cooked food. Awakening means that some kind of insight or mystical experience happened, which you define as enlightenment. Enlightenment cancels the ego, so there is no one left to claim he or she is presently awakened. Or if the ego survived, it knows that the self—not it—is enlightened. At best you can say, “I am not enlightened, nor am I unenlightened,” because both enlightenment and endarkenment are simply ideas to you, awareness. Here are two examples of the specious logic of someone who has allowed the ego to co-opt his or her enlightenment: 1) “Consciousness is non-dual. This means that everything is the same as everything else. Therefore, the moral distinctions operating in the creation have no meaning. That is why I do what I want without regard for anyone or anything.” 2) “Reality is non-dual, therefore nothing ever happened. Therefore I do not exist. If I do not exist—I’m so not here!—my dualistic orientation does not exist. So if you see me acting like a self-centered jerk, it is a projection of your ignorance.” Or see what Sri Sureshvara in the 9th century said in the text Panchadasi: “One who says he is awareness yet refuses to discipline the senses is a shit-eating dog. Oh, enlightened one, before you got enlightened you suffered from the pain of your own mental imperfections, but now you suffer the censure of the world. How glorious is your knowledge? Knower of Truth, do not sink to the level of a pig in a sty! Free yourself from the defects arising from your Rajasic and Tamasic tendencies and be worshiped by the world like a god.” If you appreciate the comment of the thirteenth Zen master Dogen, the founder of Soto Zen, “Next to good manners enlightenment is the most important thing in the world,” you are a great soul. If not, not.

Great post! Here are my favorite charts:

That's an excellent observation, Razard86! You can see some of the translations of Vedanta here:https://www.shiningworld.com/translations/

Hi Sugarcoat, If self knowledge came after a long period of diligent spiritual practice under the tutelage of a pure teacher, you will probably not catch enlightenment sickness. You would have lived in such a simple way that you were already happy before you discovered who you are, and there will be virtually no change in your inner life. You would have associated with enough truly enlightened people to understand that enlightenment is nothing special. But if you were not blessed with a sattvic disposition and excellent karma and you struggled long and hard, you will probably be so eager to make the most of your enlightenment that you will not take time to tidy up the last bits of ignorance. If you formulate your enlightenment as a grand happening and turn it into a big story, you have the enlightenment disease. In reality, you should be happy to keep your mouth shut because you did not get something you did not have all along. Awareness is your nature. By making a fuss about it, you are only calling attention to a long stay in ignorance, not to a special accomplishment. If you hear yourself telling others that you are awakened or enlightened or “cooked,” you have enlightenment sickness. Awakening is not enlightenment, because the self never slept. You are the fire that cooks, not the cooked food. Awakening means that some kind of insight or mystical experience happened, which you define as enlightenment. Enlightenment cancels the ego, so there is no one left to claim he or she is presently awakened. Or if the ego survived, it knows that the self—not it—is enlightened. At best you can say, “I am not enlightened, nor am I unenlightened,” because both enlightenment and endarkenment are simply ideas to you, awareness. Here are two examples of the specious logic of someone who has allowed the ego to co-opt his or her enlightenment: 1) “Consciousness is non-dual. This means that everything is the same as everything else. Therefore, the moral distinctions operating in the creation have no meaning. That is why I do what I want without regard for anyone or anything.” 2) “Reality is non-dual, therefore nothing ever happened. Therefore I do not exist. If I do not exist—I’m so not here!—my dualistic orientation does not exist. So if you see me acting like a self-centered jerk, it is a projection of your ignorance.” Or see what Sri Sureshvara in the 9th century said in the text Panchadasi: “One who says he is awareness yet refuses to discipline the senses is a shit-eating dog. Oh, enlightened one, before you got enlightened you suffered from the pain of your own mental imperfections, but now you suffer the censure of the world. How glorious is your knowledge? Knower of Truth, do not sink to the level of a pig in a sty! Free yourself from the defects arising from your Rajasic and Tamasic tendencies and be worshiped by the world like a god.”

Answer: We can’t catalog every experience and what specific individuals think about it, so to get true useful knowledge we need to reduce experience, which is existence shining as consciousness, to two fundamental categories: which is always a conscious intelligent subject apparently transacting with discrete inert events. Of course, it is wise to point out that chasing objects that one believes will remove a sense of lack caused by ignorance of one’s non-dual self is futile. At the same time, how will a conscious being discover the futility of object happiness, unless he or she chases objects, which we all do from the get-go? It’s only after realizing the futility of that pursuit that you become open to another point of view. My teacher, Swami Chinmaya, emphasized experience because Vedanta attracts a lot of intelligent intellectual people who think they can read their way to freedom. However, he insisted, as does Vedanta, that the solution to the sense of lack and inadequacy could only be solved by self knowledge, which needs to come from outside aka an impersonal teaching and a dispassionate teacher of self inquiry because unconscious biases are always present. His most famous disciple, Swami Dayananda, however, found it necessary to swing the pendulum back to the knowledge side, so his signature teaching distinguished experience from knowledge so that the experiential crowd could work their way through their resistance to knowledge. As you are probably aware, there is a very strong anti-intellectual bias in the yogic community. They are generally chasing samadhi, which they define as a discrete experience, a thought free state, whereas Vedanta defines the self as samadhi, a non-dual understanding that that values all objects equally. A particular sutra says, “a yogi in samadhi sees no difference between a nugget of gold and the excreta of a crow.” So the pendulum is always swinging back an forth, correcting itself if you will. When the mind becomes too extroverted, it becomes painful, so it seeks answers within. When it becomes too introverted also suffers the sickness of enlightenment. A mature cultivated person doesn’t give undue importance to either the world or the self but sees them both as non-different. Consequently, they enjoy dynamic peaceful lives.