The Phenomenology of Awakening: Theory

Why the term Awakening and not Enlightenment?

It is important to realize that the term ‘enlightened’ was first used by Max Müller ( 1823 – 1900) to describe the Buddha in 1857. For various reasons it has become the standard translation of Bodhi (literally ‘awakening’). Cohen (2006) points out that ‘enlightenment’ is an incorrect translation because Bodhi is more process-oriented, whereas ‘enlightenment’ is event-oriented. Enlightenment also suggests an illumination from the outside, a metaphor that is common in the Christian tradition where a person can be enlightened by God or the holy spirit. Awakening, by contrast is a personal transformation or realization of one’s true nature from within. It requires personal effort to free yourself.

What is Phenomenology?

Phenomenology (from Greek φαινόμενον, phainómenon "that which appears" and λόγος, lógos "study") is the philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness. Phenomenology is interested in study of the direct investigation and description of phenomena as consciously experienced, without theories about their causal explanation and as free as possible from unexamined preconceptions and presuppositions. As philosophical movement it originated in the early 20th century through the work of Edmund Husserl in Germany.

Hard Problem of Consciousness

One related issue to phenomenology, is what David Chalmers calls the hard problem of consciousness, ie how do cognitive and behavioral functions give rise to a felt sense of someone who is having an experience. For example, why should neural processing in the brain lead to the felt sensations of, say, feelings of hunger?

even when we have explained the performance of all the cognitive and behavioral functions in the vicinity of experience—perceptual discrimination, categorization, internal access, verbal report—there may still remain a further unanswered question: Why is the performance of these functions accompanied by experience? (David Chalmers, Facing up to the problem of consciousness).

Can there be an objective measure of Awakening?

If the hard problem of consciousness is true, and there is no reason to believe why it cannot be true, it means that awakening can never be something that can be objectively measured. It is important to realize that most of the descriptions that we read in religious texts are actually first person accounts of people’s experiences. Things like chakras, kundalini, subtle body etc are first person accounts of peoples experiences as they enter various meditative states. Even if we do fMRI studies of people’s brain all we can do is measure these neural processes, and compare them to the person reported experience of that event. There is no objective way to measure someone’s felt experience of an event because it is a subjective experience.

My hypothesis is that the only way to compare the validity of one personal experience of awakening is to look at records of other people’s experiences (scriptures), use rational analysis (intellect) and see if you experience is in the ball park of the reported experiences. This is an empirical method which is rigorous and allows for the validity of a personal experience.

What does Non-Duality mean?

The word non-dual has been commonly used to describe the traditions extant in some of schools of Hinduism and Buddhism but non-dual traditions of Christianity and Islam exist as well . The fundamental premise of all non-dual traditions is that the apparent separation that we feel between ourselves and the world around us is because of a lack of understanding of our true nature. This apparent separation is the cause of all our suffering because we are always trying to bridge this separation by seeking objects of the world to complete us. Here objects are not only physical possessions but also mental constructs like pleasure derived from sense objects.

Our true nature is described as Sat-Chit-Ananda, commonly translated as existence-consciousness-bliss in the Hindu Vedanta traditions. In non-dual schools of Buddhism it is called Tathagata ( Buddha-nature). All tathagatagarbha sutras agree that the tathagatagarbha is an inherent, transcendent essence that resides in a concealed state in every being.

Axiomatic Nature of Awareness: Original Consciousness (Sat-Chit-Ananda)

The commonly accepted definition of axiom means self-evident truth. If we observe our consciousness carefully, it becomes obvious that we do not need any outside validation to know that we exist. The only thing that we can know without any outside input is that we exist. The fact that we exist is a self-evident truth. This Awareness knows itself and objects of the world. A commonly used metaphor describes Awareness as similar to a candle. A candle illuminates itself and objects around it. You don’t need a flashlight to illuminate the candle. It is Self-Luminous.

One of the key premises of all non-dual traditions is the description of an aspect of our consciousness (Awareness) that is outside of conventional descriptions of space and time. If we observe our Awareness, we can see that Awareness has no beginning and no end. It is outside conventional descriptions of space-time that we typically use when we describe our everyday consciousness. This Awareness is typically described as sat-chit-ananda. Sat is translated as Existence, Chit is consciousness and Ananda is bliss. So our true nature is Satchitananda is existence-consciousness-bliss. In certain schools of Hinduism, Awareness is also described as AJati (A-Not; Jati-Birth), which literally means Not-Born or outside of conventional descriptions of space and time.

If experience is non-dual why do we experience duality?

This separation is an artifact of being self-aware. We as humans can create images of ourselves in the past and future. This identification of the awareness with our own self-image creates a further disconnect between the world and us.

If we notice our children growing up, at the beginning they don’t have a fully formed sense of self, they are not able to distinguish between themselves and the world around them. As they start processing sensory stimuli, information from the world around then, they start getting a felt sense of I.

The Dualistic Nature of our Current Experience

As we look into our daily experiences, we realize that there are two aspects to our experience that stand out. We (Subject) and the world (Objects), and a vast almost, unbridgeable separation between the two. Except for a few rare occasions, where this sense of separation drops away, and we feel fleeting peace, we are constantly striving to bridge this separation. A sense of dissatisfaction (Dhukka) that arises from this separation is the primary cause of our suffering. Our consciousness is trying to bridge this separation by looking for happiness in the world of objects but it is impossible to feel complete from experiencing objects.

3 bodies in Samkhya: Models of Consciousness

Another thing that is worth discussing is that what the eastern traditions call body-mind is just not the physical body and the mind. In Samkya philosophy it is described as further the gross body, subtle body and the causal body. The subtle body is made up of the Mind-Intellect-Ego and the causal body is our Unconscious. In Vedanta it is described as the 5 Koshas, which is typically translated as sheaths.

It is important to realize that these are descriptions about the nature of consciousness not descriptions of reality or metaphysics. There is no objective way to measure the existence of a subtle or causal body.

Ego as an emergent phenomenon

The Ego is created when our Awareness/Original Consciousness identifies itself with the mind-body complex. Remember that the mind-body complex is not just our physical body but also encompasses the subtle and causal body as described above. This identification of Awareness with the mind-body complex creates the Ego. This Ego is an emergent phenomenon, meaning it is not reducible to a discreet entity. The sum is greater than its parts.

To be clear, even though the Ego is an emergent phenomenon it does not mean that the Ego is unreal. A lot of people commonly misunderstand the descriptions of Ego in eastern tradition as denying the existence of an Ego but what is being described is that ego cannot be reduced to the sum of it parts. Within the realm of the body-mind complex the Ego is real. One only needs to see the suffering humans have inflicted on each other to understand how pernicious the ego is in our consciousness.

Original Sin-Maya-Separation

As this process of the creation of an Ego continues, the newly created entity starts believing it controls the body mind complex. This separation becomes solidified into an entity called “I”. This “I” starts believing that it has an independent existence outside of the body-mind complex, and believes that it controls the body-mind.

At this point the separation of Ego from Awareness is complete. Ego now acts an independent entity that has an existence separate from the Original consciousness.

Samsara and 6 realms: Bridging Separation

As the Ego solidifies, it starts feeling this sense of separation. This pervasive unease (Dhukka) that all humans feel is because of the inherent transience of the Ego. This Ego is fundamentally unstable and is constantly looking for stability outside of itself through the sense objects/mental constructs.

1- God Realm (Pleasure): We seek gratification through sense objects and mental constructs

2- Demon Realm (Jealously): Being possessive of the objects we create pleasure from

3- Animal Realm (Ignorance): We don’t understand these objects are temporal

4-Hungry Ghosts (Craving): Not being satisfied. Constantly chasing objects despite having enough.

5- Hell Realm (Hatred): Violence

6- Human Realm (Freedom): Buddha Nature is always within us.

Buddha was a phenomenologist: Everyone Begins Here (Redux)

The Buddha was a phenomenologist par excellence. Buddha, unlike the many traditions extant during his time never indulged in metaphysical abstractions about the nature of reality, buddha-nature’s existence or non-existence. He focused on the nature of suffering, and how to end suffering. That said, I have included a basic description because whether we like it or not, our mind needs to be clear about the nature of practice and the reasons for practice. Otherwise, we will be involved in meaningless rituals or meditating without understanding the problem we are trying to solve.

References:

1. Cohen, Richard. 2006. Beyond Enlightenment: Buddhism, Religion, Modernity. London: Taylor & Francis.

2. Ramm,Brentyn 2021. The Technology of Awakening: Experiments in Zen Phenomenology. Religions 12:192

3. James Swartz: Book of Charts

Sunset