Can I read my way to Enlightenment? Or do I need a big spiritual experience?

[James Swartz]

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. 

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, James Swartz said:

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. 

That last part is the most important. I will say some won't be able to understand your writing as English is not their first language.

[What Am I]

Awesome post, it seems to me it's always helpful to call out the need for balance in a spiritual approach.

I've come to interpret effective spiritual practice as kind of like riding a bike, where the act itself is a flow of instinctual skill that gets uncovered more and more as the practitioner exposes themself to what is, the Self, etc. So a heavy emphasis on direct experience and mostly non-conceptual.

On the other hand, there's probably a large amount that can be said intellectually about the spiritual process, just as there's mathematics and physics that could explain how a person doesn't tip over while riding a bike. And it seems to me the intellectual side would especially have its place in spirituality in the form of useful pointers and maps of the experiential territory.

Though I can't claim to have any significant skill, so I could be off on the interpretation.

1 hour ago, James Swartz said:

As you are probably aware, there is a very strong anti-intellectual bias in the yogic community.

Very interesting, I was not aware of this. Perhaps I've unknowingly fallen into this category as well considering my experiential bias.

[Inliytened1]

@James Swartz a lot of fancy words to say, just shut the mind off.  Or turn consciousness back in on itself and ask what am i.

[What Am I]

Just now, Inliytened1 said:

@James Swartz a lot of fancy words to say, just shut the mind off.  Or turn consciousness back in on itself and ask what am i.

Don't ask me

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, What Am I said:

Don't ask me

Lol.  Actually thought about you when I said that haha.   Great name.  Really great name!  Have not yet spoken but welcome.

Edited April 21 by Inliytened1

[What Am I]

4 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Lol.  Actually thought about you when I said that haha.   Great name.  Really great name!  Have not yet spoken but welcome.

It's indeed the essential question which we'd probably all like to know the answer.

Thanks, happy to be here where I can discuss these things. God knows I don't have many other outlets to do it.

Edited April 21 by What Am I

[Inliytened1]

@What Am I or not know   the ego doesn't wanna know - but only in truly not knowing is the answer found.  Paradox is a glorious thing.

 

Edited April 21 by Inliytened1

[Carl-Richard]

25 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

@James Swartz a lot of fancy words to say, just shut the mind off.  Or turn consciousness back in on itself and ask what am i.

We're suddenly counting words now? 

[Sugarcoat]

4 hours ago, James Swartz said:

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.

What does this mean especially second sentence 

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

What does this mean especially second sentence 

The only meaning I could decipher was that it is a sickness relative to fhe ego.  But even that was a stretch.  I don't think he knows what enlightenment is - too caught up in his teacher's language. 

Edited April 22 by Inliytened1

[Sugarcoat]

7 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

The only meaning I could decipher was that it is a sickness relative to fhe ego.  But even that was a stretch.  I don't think he knows what enlightenment is - too caught up in his teacher's language. 

Ok I don’t know still but it’s fine 

[James Swartz]

11 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

"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."

What does this mean especially second sentence 

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.”

 

Edited April 22 by James Swartz

[James Swartz]

14 hours ago, Razard86 said:

That last part is the most important. I will say some won't be able to understand your writing as English is not their first language.

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

[James Swartz]

14 hours ago, What Am I said:

maps of the experiential territory.

Great post! Here are my favorite charts:

 

[Sugarcoat]

6 hours ago, James Swartz said:

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.”

 

Ok I see

[Yimpa]

6 hours ago, James Swartz said:

Great post! Here are my favorite charts:

Visual learners, unite!