For those that do believe in enlightenment, and who may also be on the path to find it, these fundamental questions may arise: What does “enlightenment” mean to me?

This is how enlightenment becomes a trap. We fantasize – distract ourselves from the true fruits of life in search of a phantasm. And one day, if we keep on our spiritual path, we will eventually have to let go of even these ideas about “enlightenment,” if we want to experience the truth, to see it through one’s own mind.

For these reasons, one may find that there is nothing useful in his or her personal interpretation of “enlightenment” – no knowledge to be found that would guide one to where he or she wants to be. If a spiritual concept is only causing further roadblocks, reject it and come back to it later (or perhaps not at all) – don’t complicate it any further by intellectualizing it – this only wastes energy.

Enlightenment does not refer to a place where one wants to be – it is a place where one already is. It is nowhere to be found. It is nowhere to be discovered. It is only here to be realized. Enlightenment is not the end of the spiritual journey, nor is it the beginning. It can be better characterized as a moment that is outside of human conception (cannot be measured in the physical world, nor described in words) – but it is real – because it can be sensed. The “feeling” only is what it is. And how that “feeling” causes us to behave, from that point forward, is how it is. And that is all there is to it, there is no enlightenment (quote unquote).

Most experience falls short of conception, and therefore it cannot be completely shared with others through language. As the Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski once said, “the map is not the territory” – in reference to the fact that all conceptions of the mind are abstractions and never encapsulate the thing that is wished to be described as it actually is (yes, in the complete and utter empty Tao-sense of the word “is”).

What is – or the identity of things – is always represented as merely a conception made by the mind. The mind wishes to generalize things, and thing-ness, to help make sensory information simpler to digest, so that we can become most adapted to our environment by only focusing on the important thing-ness of things. In the process, however, we sacrifice the absolute truth of things – the inherent no-thing-ness.

The “no-thing-ness” is inescapable. Even “enlightenment” is a concept (an abstraction or idea) with no inherent thing-ness. It merely is, as what you define it as, and even in that definition (that intention) there is no-thing-ness. In the self, there is no-thing-ness. In the cosmos, there is no-thing-ness. Even in the concept of “nothing,” there is no-thing-ness.

Concepts, our only understanding of what we conceive of as “truth,” are delusionary in the ultimate-sense of things — which is no-thing-ness. But how can even this “no-thing-ness” escape conceptual thinking, yet still be true?

In part, the truth is the knowledge of the impermanent and incomplete nature of concepts. In full, the truth is the experience of no-mind, which is pure experiential consciousness. In this state of consciousness, there are no conceptual thoughts to arise or decay – no sense of self, no sense of suffering.

One may wish to call this state “enlightenment.” But to create a concept of a phenomenon one has not yet experienced, but only desires to experience in the future, is a completely useless concept to hold onto. It serves no spiritual gain, only more potential roadblocks. Therefore, one will find that there are points in the spiritual journey that call for a rejection of this concept “enlightenment.” One, in a sense, needs to outgrow even the noblest of desires.

Image Credit

Join my newsletter for more!