Drumrollll...a little John Wren Lewis (my fave NDEer)

[Guest guest]

Variety - the Spice of Enlightenment

 

I found myself repeating the famous words of Omar Khayam:

 

Myself when young did eagerly frequent

 

Doctor and saint, and heard great argument

 

About it and about, but evermore

 

Came out by that same door wherein I went.

 

Thus the Advaitists tell us that:

 

Enlightenment means realizing that. " you are not the doer. "

 

Enlightenment means realizing that the Absolute is the only doer.

 

Enlightenment means realizing that your are THAT .

 

So - enlightenment leaves you back as the doer after all!

 

Then Peter Masefield tells us that in the original Buddhist teaching:

 

The Noble Eightfold Path leads to enlightenment.

 

The first step of that path is a right view of Reality

 

A right view of Reality is possible only after enlightenment.

 

So - the path to enlightenment can't start until it's completed.

 

And much more in the same circular vein.

 

But don't get me wrong, to me this isn't depressing at all.

 

On the contrary, it strikes me as

 

possibly pointing towards a new line of enquiry in a very welcome

 

search for " evidence-based enlightenment. " I've always found that

 

when circularity occurs; I am using

 

 

words which have no meaning in my lived experience.

 

In this particular case, terms like Absolute, non-dual,

 

spiritual " attainment, " Emptiness, Unity,

 

etc., and of course Enlightenment itself, will continue to fall back

 

on themselves so long as they

 

are used in the abstract to describe generalities, because then no

 

one " really knows what they're talking about.

 

To break this cycle, we need to get more specific . This is why my

 

partner Ann Faraday and I

 

make backbreaking efforts to follow the advice of Alan Watts to " eff

 

the ineffable " whenever we

 

attempt to describe our " enlightenment " experiences. For example when

 

I describe mine in terms

 

of knowing myself as Eternity Johning, is it the

 

same as Ann's experience of what she calls " no self " ? Both of us are

 

trying to express the feeling

 

of the experience instead of talking in abstractions. Mine feels very

 

much like a sense of the

 

Absolute as loving Fullness, while Ann's terminology seems to be

 

expressing a felt sense of its

 

Emptiness of selfhood. Could it be that enlightenment reflects

 

differing aspects of the Absolute,

 

rather than a monolithic Reality which has to be either one thing or

 

the other?

 

And if we sometimes behave in less than perfect ways, not always

 

completely selfless,

 

compassionate or dignified, does this mean that we are not Really

 

Enlightened or does it mean

 

that we have just " slipped out " for a moment or two? Or longer? Does

 

it bother us? Or do we feel

 

that Absolutely everything is Absolutely OK to the Absolute?

 

These are the kind of specific and personal questions that need to be

 

asked of anyone claiming

 

" enlightenment. " And if, as it seems to me, variety is not only the

 

spice of life but also its very

 

 

purpose and delight, then surely the Absolute, Eternity or whatever

 

revels in differences and

 

rough edges rather than any kind of standardized perfection.

 

Which may be why the Eternity-experience, as I prefer to call it, has

 

different effects on different

 

people's lives - leading some to the dharma, some to minister to the

 

dying, some to sail around

 

the world, some to write a novel, and others perhaps simply to become

 

better parents or children

 

 

(though I've yet to hear of an Enlightened One taking up stockbroking

 

or real estate.) And if

 

Omar Khayyam is moved to retreat peacefully with his book of verse

 

beneath a bough, with a

 

loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and Thou beside him singing in the

 

wilderness - well l'm sure that's

 

just fine with Eternity!

 

(Prof) John Wren Lewis, School of Studies in religion, University of

Sydney

 

I love this guy.....bn