Er... first post. Sorry for the length. It's not a light topic; I tried to keep it concise, but it's philosophy. Also, this is the philosophy of enlightenment. I get the difference between thinking about the concept of truth vs direct awareness of the self. This is a mental circle-jerk, but it's fun and interesting, so here it is anyway.
I’ve heard a lot of people say “you don’t attain enlightenment; there’s nobody to be enlightened.” Many instructors really harp on this point. I get the gist of this as a helpful pointer for the grasping ego, but I don’t know that I entirely agree with it as a true statement. That's what this post is all about.
First, enlightenment. I like Leo’s analogy of it being like The Matrix. The truth is not that you’re an ego trapped within the matrix, but that you are The Matrix. The matrix (your true self) isn’t a giant machine, but is the infinite nothingness in which all exists. I’m seeing the world from one person’s perspective, and mistakenly imagining that this person is all that I am, but the truth is the little me is just me experiencing myself through a story.
The trick with that is becoming aware of the matrix as the matrix. I’ve heard this same analogy as a TV screen, but again, you are the screen. There’s nothing really conceptual that captures that last part of nothingness observing nothingness, which I think is what makes the journey so hard.
Second, the brain/body is (in)deterministic. There’s no comprehensible concept of “choice” or “will” in a purely material universe, not to mention there’s no way for our brain to act independently of all outside influences.
I’m a programmer, so it’s easy for me to think about determinism in a technical context. A light switch doesn’t have choice; a calculator is a fancy series of light switches; a chess playing computer is really just an extension of the same concept. QM and relativity are a bit more mind bending, but are also entirely logical and (in)deterministic. Given a set of inputs, you get a known output (or probability in the case of QM). The only differences with our brain is that it’s a very advanced, purposeful computer, and it has a heck of a lot inputs; so many inputs that it appears to act independently of its surroundings.
So, basically, our brain/body is a sort of natural automaton. Some combo of my DNA, childhood, friends, family, pressures, failures, successes, books I’ve read, things I’ve watched, and an unimaginable myriad of other factors brought me to where I am today, practicing mindfulness and self-inquiry, going on and on about philosophy, and posting to this forum. Enlightenment is non-duel, all one, monism. I don't know that I'm entirely convinced of this yet; philosophically, it seems possible to me (at the moment) that consciousness and matter could have separate objective existence, and consciousness could somehow influence matter (dualism). But, either way, materialism doesn't lead to "choice," and the ego only mistakenly believes its in control.
So, given these, what is enlightenment really? Who is there to become enlightened? I see two ways of looking at it, which both seem true.
1) My true self. Awareness that I am the nothingness in which all things are. “God.” This can only be direct awareness; the infinite observing the infinite. Any kind of conceptualization of this is a blinder. This is the typical guidance on the topic, and I can see how this is necessarily so.
2) This little automaton. Just like Google stores facts, analyzes, and “learns,” so does my mind. The experience of self-awareness itself escapes the mind, but the idea/thought/concept of awareness doesn’t entirely escape the mind. If it did, none of us would be able to think about this stuff enough to talk about it. I imagine it’s somewhat like waking from and remembering a dream, where your waking consciousness gets enough hints and ideas of the dream to know that it happened. Whether that's an accurate analogy or not, I don't know, but it necessarily seems like something in the finite has to shift for anybody to ever be aware that reality is infinite.
So, “there’s nobody to become enlightened?” I don’t know about that. No true self, no consciousness, but something in the brain necessarily shifts. I (ego) may never directly know truth, but I would have to know the idea of truth. That's not even mentioning the tangible little-self changes.
Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?
