What to do if your
brother-in-law is enlightened? - The world's longest blog article. Apologies in advance for being a nerd.
What is enlightenment? How to achieve it? Is it easy to do? What is nothingness?
Any resemblance to any living “brother-in-law” is entirely coincidental.
Since a large number of
people on this planet have a brother-in-law, it seems to me that it is about
time this important subject be squarely addressed, for, given the large number
of brother-in-laws on the planet, there must surely be quite a number who
consider themselves “enlightened.” In fact, recent studies have shown that
there is a veritable epidemic of enlightenment occurring in the population of
brothers-in-law. I feel it is my duty to take on this subject straight up.
Notwithstanding the
current pandemic of enlightenment in this group, there have always been some in
every age and culture who consider themselves enlightened and who, moreover,
consider any and all religious or spiritual doctrines, practices, or promotion
as, to quote P.G. Wodehouse, “bilge.” Some, using stronger language, shout “poppycock!”
True devotees everywhere
and in every age are plagued by at least one know-it-all scofflaw and
self-described enlightened brother-in-law. Since presumably your gentle nature
and your firmly held beliefs preclude you from knocking the ‘ol buster off (and
putting him out his misery while saving civilization from this blight upon
humanity), this article may offer you some solace and alternatives.
Perhaps you are plagued,
as I have been, by one such who, while adamantly rejecting any label, would
easily fit into the target range of the dreaded “nondualist.” These blighters
fancy themselves godlike and omniscient, gazing down upon creation and its
creatures with a sardonic and all-knowing hauteur. Their disdain and dismissal
of practices such as meditation, dogma, ritual, prayer and the like is, well, “absolute.”
And what makes his
assertion that religion is unnecessary (and, in fact, worse than unnecessary)
so clever is that there is a some level of truth here. Starting with the well
known evils and disadvantages, prejudices, and narrow-mindedness of religion
and its practitioners and representatives, there is the deeper truth that in
the nondualistic state of consciousness there is no longer any distinctions of “I
or Thou” or ego or separateness. In the state of Oneness, there is only
Consciousness itself! It almost absurd to spend a lot time describing the state
because by “definition” this state is beyond words. Still, for my purposes and
I hope for yours too I will use these words as synonyms or markers and these
include Oneness and God. Other terms (and there are many more) include
Self-realization, samadhi, satori, nirvana, heaven, or mystical marriage (etc.
etc.). (Keep in mind that users of these terms may well make distinctions among
them.)
In the tradition of
Vedanta, the scriptures of India, and among yogis (rishis, masters, etc.) the
attitude of our nondualist is the approach to God (or Oneness) called gyana
yoga. A modern Christian who approaches God as the “Cosmic Ground of Being”
might similarly be called a gyana yogi. So, too, a Buddhist who refuses
to describe the ultimate state as any-thing at all except perhaps as nirvana.
As Krishna notes in the Bhagavad
Gita, this approach, however, is austere to an extreme (like being a
spiritual stoic) and comments that the path to the Absolute should be walked only
by a few advanced souls for it is “arduous” for most embodied beings. Easier
for humans is to approach the Unapproachable through the “I-Thou” relationship.
To be a true nondualist one must deny the very existence of all objects in the
field or sphere of duality, including one’s own body, emotions, thoughts and so
on! Rare and difficult indeed! For those who attempt it prematurely (and that
includes, in my humble opinion, just about everyone who does) they seem to fall
into a pit of self-delusion. Those attracted to this path are, admittedly,
those who possess a keen and sharp and discerning mind. In the attempt to cut
off the report of the senses and emotions (too soon), the mind can drift and
pretend to establish its own alternative reality. The consequences, as any
amateur psychologist can tell you, are disastrous for as Krishna also notes in Bhagavad
Gita, “suppression availeth nothing.” The sphere of the mind is far vaster
and more labyrinthian than that of the physical cosmos.
Our aspiring nondualist
might even, with a sarcastic grin, quote sages who say, of enlightenment, that “it
is, and, it isn’t!” In this they pretend to be deep and profound, hoping by
this koan to stump you into submission. Our nondualist will mock all forms of
spirituality as tainted with duality and thus doomed by their opposite! And,
again, there is some truth to this. One who emphasizes devotion in an
unbalanced way may become fanatical, for example. One who emphasizes ritual or
dogma may become dogmatic, and one who treasures selflfess service may become
restless and disillusioned.
Hiding behind the
pretense of nonduality may impress a few, but enlightenment is not a put up
job. Yes, it is that an enlightened master can make himself appear very
ordinary to ordinary and materialistic people but those of refined
consciousness will always catch his scent! It is absurd to claim enlightenment
but to have no noticeable traits of an expanded consciousness.
Still, we must confess
that enlightenment is unconditional and it expresses itself uniquely in each
soul who achieves it. Swami Kriyananda once asked an enlightened yogi why he
didn’t seem to have any disciples or conduct any ministry. The yogi’s simple
reply was, “God has done what He wants with this body.”
Another feature of the
state of Oneness is that it exists independent of any efforts to achieve it.
Will power or mental power or affirmation alone cannot command it. But the
scoffer mistakenly concludes that any effort to achieve it is futile, and that
any effort to share “the path to it,” is nothing but self-serving propaganda.
Pointing to the many shortcomings of religion and religionists, and their
all-too-human representatives, he claims to have “proof.”
In this we encounter yet
another of mankind’s existential dilemmas: how can the ego transcend itself?
Can any action ever be other than in self-interest? Is anyone who strives for
salvation or seeks to help others towards the same goal simply self-deluded
because he or she is so plainly NOT (yet) enlightened himself? Is there a way
out of this conundrum? The relationship of spiritual growth to effort and even
to grace is so difficult to establish objectively that it is not difficult to
look at all the religious craziness that abounds and dismiss it all as useless.
Add to this the overpowering satisfaction and relief it offers to the ego which
can rise up and shout, “I told you so!” “I’m perfect just the way I AM!”
“I don’t have to do a thing!” But is it true?
Human life is not worth
living if we abandon the nexus between action and consequence. The law of
action and reaction has its metaphysical counterpart in the law of karma.
Problem is, the nondualist proclaims, leaping into the breach, action only
produces reaction and it never ends. Or does it?
Sleep may be the opposite
of activity, but yogis claims that Oneness is achieved through the state of
breathlessness -- a state that doesn’t produce death to the physical body. “Be
still and know that I AM GOD” says the Old Testament. To admit a nondual state
is, itself, logically even, to yield to the affirmation that there exists a
state of being, of consciousness that has no second, no dual, and that this
state is transcendent of duality.
Other great spiritual
teachers and scriptures further proclaim that from this state of Oneness is
manifested the whole of creation itself. This cannot be proved logically, they
admit, but only realized in the state itself. By definition, moreover, this
would have to be the case.
The power of Oneness
holds the key to our imprisonment in the body and ego. “It takes One to Know
One.” It has been both a universal precept and an easily observed fact in the
history of the spiritual giants of planet Earth that each soul, imprisoned, is
eventually awakened from its delusive dream of duality and separateness by the
influence, wisdom, and compassion of another who has already awakened from the
dream. Thus the power of the myths such as the prince and the pauper. We are
all royalty but we find ourselves paupers and have forgotten our true nature. Someone
or somehow we must awaken from this error, this nightmare of mistaken identity.
This, too, is the
meaning of the famous story by Jesus Christ: the Prodigal Son. A true guru
(known as a “Sat” guru, or savior) comes in every age (measured in thousand or
more year increments) to re-awaken the forgotten memory of our Oneness in those
souls who, during that time, are ready and “have ears to hear” (as Jesus put it
repeatedly). Such a One also has the power to attract and completely liberate
those who have incarnated in that time and place in readiness to ascend.
But the pseudo guru of
the Big Easy to Oneness is not finished yet, for he also has the testimony of
some spiritual teachers (and seekers) who quote scriptures such as I AM THAT I
AM (Old Testament), or, “Tat twam asi” (Thou art THAT! - Hindu scriptures) to
bolster their claim that no personal effort is needed for we are already
enlightened and only have to realize it.
This claim, though
misplaced, nonetheless has its source in the truth that the state of Oneness
both preexists and coexists with material reality. Out of Oneness, out of
nonduality, and out of God has come creation’s duality. (Out of the One, comes
two; from two, three!) Nonduality (God) is both the source and sustainer of
duality and at the same untouched by it. This is as deep and profound a truth
(and mystery to our duality-bound intellect and body-bound sense experiences)
as any mankind has intuited. It is taught in various ways in every great faith
and metaphysical tradition. On its basis, some have falsely concluded that we
can simply declare ourselves “free” and thereby be proclaimed “enlightened.”
But again I ask you, is it so? And if it is, how do you we know it’s true? Are
there are any proofs of enlightenment?
Given that religion will
always have its share of frauds and flawed human beings (as we find in all
human endeavors), and given that there are ignorant and superstitious people
who practice religion out of fear, suffering or for ego or material gain, it’s
not so difficult, if so inclined, to conclude along with Karl Marx that
religion is “the opiate of the people.” When one has a taste of nonduality and
in relation to it, it is true that all spiritual efforts and beliefs seem
unnecessary. If one achieves enlightenment and it is a permanent beatitude,
well, why argue? But the mere contemplation or passing experience of Oneness
does not thereby render one exempt from the challenge and effort needed for
purification of ego consciousness in order to enjoy the permanent blessing of
soul freedom. The coexistence of nondual and dual states of consciousness (and
passing back and forth between) can give rise to pride and self-delusion.
In fact, this is a
commonly reported challenge to spiritual seekers even if they never use these
somewhat dry and technical terms. Swami Kriyananda, my teacher, has pointed out
that in the last stages of liberation the final test is that of pride--in this
case, pride in the very real lofty heights of vision and power granted to the
soul before it merges into the stream of Bliss forever. The Christian analogy
is the temptation of Christ during which Satan shows to him all the earth and
offers him dominion over all things if Jesus will worship him, Satan, Lord of
Creation. Jesus says, simply, “Get thee behind me, Satan!” The test of pride is
both the soul’s first and last temptation.
And because many people,
including your brother-in-law, may have in fact had some peak experience of a
nondual or nonverbal reality, it tempts one to so declare the inadequacy and
unessential need for self-effort, religion or spiritual activities or beliefs.
If well read, our scoffer might quote Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita who
(like Buddha centuries later) who decried the common reliance upon Vedic
rituals and prayers in substitution for the effort to seek God as the sole
reality.
Is all spiritual
striving and sharing, therefore, simply a delusion, like your brother-in-law
avers?
There’s a corollary to
this line of false but egoically convenient reasoning. The corollary is the
long standing appearance of the teaching of emptiness. The state of the void or
emptiness is indeed a state of consciousness. It includes trance states or
states induced medically or otherwise. Every night in deep sleep we enter the
dreamless sleep state in which yogis say we touch upon our soul nature as
Bliss. Yet far from being unconscious, when we awaken from a good sleep we are
aware that we slept well (or not), having entered this important and essential
state. Yogis have long used comparisons to sleep to hint at higher states of
consciousness. Unfortunately, in sleep we cannot progress spiritually because
enlightenment by definition is a higher, more aware state.
If all things are a
manifestation of consciousness, this must include rocks. Rocks don’t appear
especially conscious. Therefore, we can conclude that in this relative world,
consciousness itself is relative but that unconsciousness, taken
literally, is impossible.
But some clever scoffers
aver that emptiness is de facto the state of enlightenment. This is convenient
because it, too, absolves the scoffer of any guilt, remorse or need for effort
or right action. This false teaching is well rooted in that agnostics, atheists
and materialists believe that at death we disappear and no longer exist. Hard
to argue with the obvious physical evidence (or lack of it) supporting this
point of view. But in this article I don’t want to get into the afterlife
issue, not for fear, but it’s a much bigger topic. In this article I want to
focus on enlightenment as a present state of consciousness while living in a
human body. I am only saying that the lack of belief in an afterlife is another
point of view that would seem to support the idea that enlightenment is a state
of emptiness.
This concept of
no-thing-ness is, however, a valid teaching because, as a state of being, it
can be experienced by meditative efforts. But is it enlightenment? Emptiness is
a feature of and typically associated with Buddhistic teachings, though it
appears throughout history and in human thinking. But it is flawed, both
logically and intuitively. For no one, except perhaps a suicide, seeks
permanent loss of consciousness. Survival is the most deeply rooted instinct to
be found anywhere in creation. If it is false then the creation itself is
false. And yes that teaching is common, too, but we are not here to discuss
whether the creation is true or false. A useless debate. We can simply say that
it is impermanent so far as our experience of it is concerned. We can say that
intrudes impressively upon our senses and our thoughts, and, indeed, even our
dreams. Whether anything is, ultimately, “real” begs the question and no doubt
pleases mental midgets but not true seekers who, in the end, want practical
results to their sincere seeking.
Let us therefore say
that the creation is false in the sense of always changing, alternating between
opposites and not absolute in the sense that Oneness, pure Consciousness, and
God are unchanging and eternal. Whether or not the creation is self-perpetuating
is also a “relatively” useless question for midget minds and dry hearts.
Returning now to
emptiness, my teacher (Swami Kriyananda) has put it so well with his
tongue-(firmly)-in-cheek: Commenting on the Buddhistic belief that the end of suffering
and the goal of life is to achieve the void, he says, “No wonder that in that
tradition they came up with the concept of Boddhisattva: one who postpones his
enlightenment to help others. Seeking no-thing-ness is more likely to prompt a
request for a rain check from what amounts to an act of suicide. Who would
aspire to no-thing-ness? Why, moreover, would one who achieved emptiness feel
such deep and abiding compassion for the sufferings of others?
That emptiness is in
fact a state of consciousness and can be experienced is not worth denying. Many
great spiritual teachers so attest to it. Most express this state as a
steppingstone, a way station to the goal. But if the price to end suffering is
to end consciousness as we know it, well, hmmmm, I think most of us would want
put in a request for that rain check.
Like Frank Sinatra sang,
“Is that all there is?” Hardly: saints down through ages don’t exhibit love,
compassion and joy as aspects of an enlightened consciousness “for nothing!”
The “nothing” that is real and true is the dissolution of ego, “nothing” less.
But when ego is dissolved (or expanded into Infinity--either image works for
the sake of describing the indescribable), the result is the one thing all
beings seek: pure, unconditioned Bliss. Not a loss of consciousness but
Consciousness itself. Satchidananda: God is, and we are, and we seek
immortality (Sat), unbroken Self-awareness (Chit) and Bliss (Ananda):
Ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new Bliss.
Our survival instinct
isn’t present for the sake of mere survival. We survive that we may live; we
live only as we are self-aware, and we seek to live to enjoy living. The
ancient teachings of India, including the adi (first) Swami Shankycharya, in
seeking to dispell the growing atheism among the adherents of Buddhism, declare
that God is Sat-Chit-Ananda: ever-existing, ever-conscious, ever-new
Bliss. This is the nature of absolute reality and is the eternal promise and
striving of all creation and of our souls.
But no matter how cogent
your response to the scoffer is, be prepared for his “ultimate defense
strategy.” When shaken, he will deploy
his golden parachute of silent nonduality to dismiss your explanations as born
in the “captivity” of duality.
Putting the scoffer
aside, smug in his inertial blanket of theoretical nonduality, I do think he
does us a service by helping us clarify some important questions. The effort
can highlight for us both the limits of intellectual discovery and the
potential for the intellect to point us in the right direction when used
wisely. But, like Moses who could not enter the Promised Land because born in
captivity (duality), the intellect must be set aside. Only the heart can “know”
and can enter into God (Oneness). “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they
shall see God.”
So I see at least three
useful inquiries offered to me by my (self-proclaimed) enlightened
brother-in-law:
1. What
does it mean to be enlightened?
2. Are
there any objective signs of an enlightened consciousness?
3. What,
if anything, can I (as ego) do to transcend ego and achieve enlightenment?
Human life would be
insufferable if we didn’t have the intuitive wisdom that we can improve our
lives and that we can discover what is true (whether it be in respect to
material, psychological or spiritual matters). The intuitive knowledge and
common shared experience that intention and attitude markedly affect a person’s
actions (and that one’s actions reflect one’s consciousness) is fundamental to
the human experience.
Many sages, saints, poets
and ordinary people have attempted to describe the indescribable state of
nonduality. “Nonduality” is a coldly rational word and I prefer “God” or, at
worst, Oneness. But it would the height of folly to “mince words” when
describing God!
I suppose that many
humans, indeed, perhaps most, have had some peak experience in their lives. In
every field of human activity you find beginners, experienced people, and “masters”
of their art or craft. This, too, is fundamental to the human experience.
So, therefore, it is not
unreasonable to presuppose that enlightenment, too, has its stages of
progressive development. You might object along rational lines saying that an
experience of nonduality must surely be, by “definition,” the same for
everyone. That may be logical but it defies the testimony and experience of
human beings. Love, too, might be said to be the same, but in fact it isn’t.
There are degrees of depth and feeling.
Paramhansa Yogananda was
once asked if there is an end to striving (in achieving enlightenment). He
said, effectively, that there is no end but one goes on into endlessness. What
else, after all, would “Infinity” suggest?
John Paul Sartre may
have declared himself “radically free” to act from his own inner creative
impulse, unaffected by outer circumstances but in this he betrayed both common
sense and truth. Nothing about his life, should you be so unfortunate to study
it, suggests the truth of his self-declaration.
True saints may indeed
have “seen” God but each and everyone of them are unique and their lives,
examples, and message was surely conditioned by, because appropriate to, outer
circumstances and the needs of others. Always appropriate to the circumstance
is the wise one.
What can enlightenment
possibly mean if it isn’t life changing? It may be that it transforms each
person uniquely but states of anger, jealousy, lust and dishonesty are not
aspects of an enlightened consciousness. This is not only common sense but it
is, in fact, the testimony of the lives of thousands of souls who have been
recognized as having a desirable and elevated state of consciousness worthy of
being called enlightened.
I won’t attempt to go
further and speak of the “miracles” performed by saints for I know those cannot
be “proved” although a sincere study of their lives and the testimony of
credible witnesses may prove surprisingly persuasive.
In the Bhagavad Gita,
the disciple, Arjuna, in fact asks his guru, Krishna, “What
are the signs of the one who has achieved liberation?” In the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali,
he describes numerous signs of enlightenment which demonstrate power of
nature and power over life and death. But again, such things are beyond the
experience of most people.
“He who says he knows,
doesn’t. He who says he doesn’t, doesn’t. He who knows, knows.”
I have purposely avoided
attempting to define enlightenment. I would have to quote my guru and others
who are Self-realized and consistent in their roundabout descriptions. But I
cannot speak of it from my own experience. But how can I “know” who is
Self-realized. We can point at the blue sky above, but until we can fly, we
remain earth bound.
It is foolish to buy
into the clever and ego-affirming dogma that enlightenment is easy of
attainment; that it costs nothing (in terms of effort or discipline); that it
eschews the need for religion, spiritual teachings, prayer, meditation, or a
spiritual teacher. Such assertions will always be made by some but simply
examine their lives and see with what degree of non-attachment,
even-mindedness, inner peace, compassion and wisdom do they conduct their
lives? Their philosophy is simply a state of self-delusion, for it comforts and
coddles the ego and excuses it of any meaningful effort, devotion to anything
greater than themselves, or grateful, compassionate service to others. In
Oneness we see all life as a part of ourselves.
In the duality of human
life, we have the opposites but this does not mean that anger is just as
valuable as love. We find greater happiness in love than in hatred. They may be
opposites but what separates them from Oneness is the link to ego desire and
involvement. Love connects and unites; hatred, separates.
Peace and love draw one
closer to Oneness because the ego-active principle is soothed and smoothed. As
we express more and more virtue and self-less-ness we become calmer and
stronger in ourselves. At the center point between opposites is the still state
of Oneness and while logic dictates that the opposites should be equal as well
as opposing, goodness brings us closer to ego transcendence than evil.
But there is a catch,
for “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” As long as even our
goodness is ego-centric and ego-affirming, we are still caught and the pendulum
of duality will, in time, force us back. Only when we consciously give
ourselves to God with love and self-offering can the power of grace (of
Oneness, of nonduality) meet us halfway to draw us ever deeply toward the still
point within. Only when we consciously surrender into Oneness with an open heart
can we enter, and, when we are ready, remain, in that beatitude.
So don’t let your
scoffer brother-in-law get to you. Disdain and contempt is difficult to bear,
but only by the ego. Instead, consider it a glorious path to God. Meet disdain
with love and even-mindedness. Indeed, feel but compassion, for a dry, loveless
heart and overly intellectual mind has no room, no appetite for God, no chance
for true happiness. Like one used to eating stale cheese, the armchair
philosopher substitutes his cleverness for truth and, in time, finds the
harvest but a bitter fruit of stillborn emptiness, devoid of happiness.
Be of good cheer! The
truth shall make you free!
Blessings,
Nayaswami Hriman
