What is "awakening"? Is there an "objective" definition?

Mike Redmer on FB re blogpost "Why don't more meditators reach the thought-free state?

Mike Redmer
CEO of Seated Monkey

"I think about this "thought-free" state as possibly one manifestation in a spectrum of possible awakened states...love to know what you think about that Gary?... your working definition of what "awakening" is...Gary's blog is a welcome resource to explore these areas."      


Hi Mike:

Tks...

Great question; many "seekers" have no clear information of what "awakening" or "enlightenment" is, or what's in it for them.   

As to what constitutes "awakening", IMHO, as described in the blogpost, many lineages including Zen, non-duality/advaita, Dzogchen, Patanjali's yoga, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. recognize the absence of the "blah, blah" of self-referential narrative as a/the goal as  most of our suffering, craving, attachment and distress arises there.

i came to "spiritual practice" to change/stop the endless, meaningless, destructive, internal "blah, blah", self-referential narrative which filled my waking days.  It was not a religious pursuit, not a group process.  It was personal; "my" thoughts, my problem.  i somehow knew, even as a kid, that "enlightenment" was possible, but didn't clearly know what it meant other than it was not OK w/the Methodist church.      

My "blah, blah" wasn't special; no cure for cancer, just repetitive, mundane, mostly sexual "blah, blah".  Amazingly, wonderful teachers like Ramana Maharshi, some Zen masters, and yogis led me to virtually no "blah, blah", while still maintaining full functionality; other good stuff came along with it.


"Experiences" and siddhis/powers manifested, but my teachers said to let go of them - they were a hindrance to awakening.  Sometimes i listened, often i didn't, but they were right.  my eventual "awakening" was confirmed by two Zen masters and cognitive neuroscience and psychological testing studies.    

However, there are other definitions in other traditions which is not surprising.  How could one definition fit the range of cultures, history, traditions, etc. of Christian desert mystics, Buddhist rinpoches, Asian forest monks, Japanese Zen folk, Indian yogis, Amazonian shamans, middle eastern Sufis, Taoist sages, etc.?  Some of these are in large religions w/long, complex and "mixed" traditions, others are wandering ascetic renunciates or solitary practitioners.

Ramana Maharshi

Why do we form these different groups, and religions?  As discussed in an earlier blog "Why you are or aren't religions, or spiritual, or "other" - recent research?", religions developed to meet many social, economic, cultural, security, and physical welfare needs.  Many of the founders of the world's major religions appear to have had similar  spiritual "awakenings".  However, as the old joke goes, when Jesus/Buddha/Moses, etc. found the secret of life, the "Devil" said he was not worried, because he would organize it.  "Awakening" is generally not a major theme or purpose of large religions, arguably not even of  large "spiritual" organizations, as they have other goals, many highly laudable.  


Our species evolved far beyond our primate relatives in the ability to form large groups, including religions.  This enabled us to work cooperatively in large numbers to amass  resources, to divide and assign different tasks and resources to different folk, and to surrender some "individual" self-interest to the interest of the group.  This caused an explosion in population in the last 50,000 or 70,000 years as our ancestors moved out of Africa where we all originated (yes, all of us).  


How much genetic modification occurred in this eye-blink of time compared to our 5 million years of evolution, is much debated, as discussed in the blogpost "non-dual awakening - evolutionary step backwards? or next step forward?".   we do know from our cognitive neuroscience that we are "wired" to form and belong to groups, whether it came from genetic, epigenetic, or other processes.  


Modifications to our neurons, neurotransmitters and hormones developed that reward "grouping".  Oxytocin, the "love drug" forges bonds between mothers and children, males and their mates (so it's not perfect), males to their offspring, even us to our pets.  Petting your dog releases oxytocin in you and your dog; if your dog loves you, and you love him, he will likely survive to make more puppies, etc.     

Carsten De Dreu
University of Amsterdam

However, oxytocin isn't the "love for all" drug.  Recent studies, "The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Promotes Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans", De Dreu, et al. Science, 2010 and "Oxytocin Promotes Human Ethnocentrism", De Dreu, et al., PNAS, 2011, top peer-reviewed journals, investigated oxytocin's effects.

De Dreu, et al. found that men who received oxytocin made less selfish decisions when it came to helping their group, but showed NO concern at all for improving the outcomes of men in other groups.  They also found that oxytocin made men more willing to hurt other teams when it was the best way to protect their own group.


Therefore, religion (a group behavior) may not offer the clearest and most direct approach to "awakening" (nominally an individual behavior).  It is easy to get deflected from "the prize" if other agendas take your eyes off of it.       


Correspondence with a leading Tibetan Buddhist yielded the following elements of "enlightenment":


           a) disappearance of ordinary concepts, mental constructs, hope, fear, dualistic perception of the phenomenal world
           b)  ultimate wisdom
           c)  pure awareness
           d)  unimpeded knowledge 
           e)  boundless loving-kindness and compassion 
           f)  knowledge of other people’s minds 
           g)   clairvoyance 
           h)  knowledge of past and future events
           i)  above all, activities that spontaneously benefit beings in a vast way
           j)  fully eradicating craving, anger, confusion, envy, pride, and ignorance
           k) knowing the ultimate nature of reality

           l) seeing the lack of identity of the personal self 
           m) seeing that all phenomena, including sentient beings, are...appearing yet devoid of intrinsic existence. 
           n)  discrimination ceases between pleasant and unpleasant, beautiful and ugly, mine and theirs, melodious and discordant 
          o)   ability to expound the dharma unimpededly...even without having much studied the scriptures
          p)  being able to explain spontaneously the deepest aspects of the dharma...but, not to use (it) to speak about worldly matters
         q)  an increase of gamma frequencies in several important parts of the brain. 
         r)  presentation of one's understanding to a master


Many of these (a),c), e), j), k), l), m), n)) are common to what occurs with w/loss of self identification which leads to loss of self-referential narrative, fears and desires.  Others, IMHO, represent cultural and religious ideals (perhaps unachievable) held by the group, and in fact may have little to do with awakening.  Many can now be measured by using approaches like the Hood Mysticism Scale and fMRI and EEG scanning.  Some are highly controversial, subjective, and have not been (so far) demonstrated scientifically.

Adyashanti

An interesting difference re i), "above all, activities that spontaneously benefit beings in a vast way", a classical Buddhist and Christian element, is treated very differently in "Direct Path", non-duality/advaita, and some parts of Zen.  As Ramana Maharshi stated it, "If you...being free of attachment and subside in Self by knowing what is the reality of yourself, know that this is the greatest help which you can render to all the other people in this world."  Adyashanti, the most popular contemporary Zen teacher, has said virtually the same thing. 


There are enough elements in common that it could be possible to sort out what is common in these two lineages, and what is measurable, even if only subjectively, and then do the same with other lineages.  What was common throughout would be used for "awakening", and what was not would be regarded as "cultural".


Whatever path folk find themselves drawn to, i strongly encourage them to get confirmation of their awakening from someone credible and widely-regarded in that   tradition.  As the Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said "you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."  Many folk have declared themselves "enlightened"; beware these folk.