Awakening and enlightenment

I cannot be enlightened, but I already am. What is this I that society calls identity and what is this I that has stayed as a constant?


This is a poorly written essay since it is hard if not impossible to write about something that is indescribable. There have been many revisions and there need to be many more.

To know nothing is not a paradox. There is a difference between intellectual knowledge and direct experience/realisation. The use of active voice ("I" referring to my ego) interspersed with passive voice is deliberate.

My egos went through a dark period in the 2010s. My egos are very open and public about pretty much everything but this is something I've not been able to fully write about yet. The first awakening (collapse of the illusion) happened on Monday May 14, 2012. On Tuesday May 29, further collapses. People who want to think about (as opposed to realise) enlightenment can read the idea of the Big Evolution also, since that is sort of how it occured, a realisation or flash which then becomes an interpretation. If this is too direct, check out The Penny That Blots Out the Sun by Alfred Pulyan.

What is enlightenment?

What is enlightenment? I don't know and I am not enlightened. But here I am, trying to characterise what enlightenment is. You shouldn't understand what that means. If you don't but You do, then you're in the right place.

That is pretty much the situation with almost every realisation outlined here. And with every realisation, enlightenment is brought forth. Enlightenment is experiencing that the mind-made self is not the real Self (or really it is a superset, since the Self is everything). This doesn't mean that you have to consider yourself in a static manner as though you're standing still. On the contrary, you're moving through life like a log on river, or a flock of birds, a school of fish. Enlightenment is a dynamic process that is always occurring. And in the end, it's an experiential process that brings out something that is already within. You cannot "seek enlightenment" or "become enlightened"; it comes from within and it already is. There is nothing to do and no one to achieve it.

I cannot be enlightened. "Full enlightenment" is not possible while in human form. When you are dreaming, the dream character isn't the one waking up. When the sleeping body wakes up, the dream and dreamer are extinguished. Egos die and are reborn constantly (the longer the spaces between death and rebirth, the greater awareness/enlightenment/awakening). Glimpses and nonduality awareness last as long as your stomach grumbles and you have to get your next meal. This doesn't mean that the meal cannot be experienced in different ways but they are all part of the dream.

The recognition of this is sometimes called enlightenment. Being aware is being enlightened, which I prefer BTW (i.e., I prefer to use phrase "aware" or "being aware" instead of "awakening" or "enlightening"). And by "being aware" I mean via realisation rather than intellectual knowledge. However, it is within the dream there is differentiation but that's all it, all differentiation, separateness, duality, is part of the dream. It's fine to do all this and that, but be aware of why it is occurring.

Why even bother writing this? While there is a lot of value and maybe even levels to different experiences and awareness thereof, enlightenment isn't a collection of experiences. Realising the illusory and ephemeral nature of thoughts and feelings will bring awareness to the forefront.

Ethically, one human cannot (should not) determine (i.e., "judge") anything about another human being (primarily referring to the person or the ego, not actions or being). Even saying something like "we are all on the path to enlightenment, but some are awake and some are dreaming" is judgemental. It is not enlightened to make a statement such as "person X is not enlightened." (There is no need to make such a statement; note the irony here of this whole missive in that context!) Everyone is already enlightened, but is there awareness of it?

What is not enlightenment however is thinking about enlightenment. Enlightenment is not meta-thinking. The moment you start to think about anything, including thinking, that self-referential aspect may seem like an awakening but it is not experiential. It's only the mind-self or ego that that is engaging in this thought processes and getting massaged in the process, feeling pride, etc. Awakening, enlightenment, the universal substrate bubbles forth. It's extremely hard to put it into words but if it comes out, either accidentally through some life-altering experiences (as was the case with me), through glimpses by chance especially when in a state of flow (ditto), or through practices like meditation while not explicitly seeking it (later on), you will discover peace, acceptance, contentment, and equanimity.

Why am I (is my ego) writing this

My egos have been blessed since childhood to be a generally content person, especially when it comes to material things. There are few things that perturb me in terms of thought (thought not necessarily in terms of action---see the distinction below). My ego is attempting to comprehend some indescribable experience, possibly even replace it to see validation of the awakening process. This is the reason I write everything else on this website) and hopefully it'll also give other people some insights, realising it is a ego-driven exercise. There is not a general path to enlightenment that many religions or teachers purport to provide, and these realisations should not be taken as such. I believe it occurs entirely by chance.

By the same token, this missive is by no means religious or spiritual in any way (I believe in atheism, for the record). Enlightenment does not require such faith or beliefs. Enlightenment is recognising there is a transcendental state or presence that exists when there is awareness of the mind-made self. Being in this state in its entirety is the equivalent of attaining nirvana. During this state of being, the choice of departing the material world, something that is known as mahasamadhi, will be (sometimes?) presented.

This relates to various other spiritual concepts with some interesting connections. Enlightenment isn't a goal in and of itself but a process that occurs in the context of ego-driven activities (unless the ego is ended permanently which makes survival difficult). Being at peace with the mundane things in life lets the ego focus on what it considers the more interesting aspects, but it is all done with equanimity.

Enlightenment - awareness and action

Enlightenment is a process, where if one strives towards the process, then that being arrives at a state of enlightenment. If the process occurs, with or without being cognisant of it, then the state of enlightenment is brought about. There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path. Enlightenment isn't something that is achieved, however, it just happens, but there is a conceptual understanding of it that may be conveyed via thought and language. The map is not the territory.

When you meditate, certain transcendental states will arise as you still your thoughts, perceptions, feelings, and emotions. But this stillness is easy to forget, especially if you are new. Since we're human, we're likely to screw up with respect to our actions and get caught up in the doing or in the emotions every once in a while, even if we are aware of what we should have done. However, this cogency is what enlightenment is all about. If you know yourself really well, then you can take steps to rectify the situation even if there is a lapse in action. Enlighenment will help make this easy.

In this regard, I believe that it possible to become "deenlightened", where the connection to being is hidden. In other words, if nirvana has been achieved, a supreme enlightenment, through following the Eight Fold Path of Buddha for example, and your ego went against the path, then the enlightened state will diminish or become hidden. Regaining this state should be easier in comparison to the original attempt, however.

The film The Matrix tells a good coherent story. The crux of the story in the movie, beyond the allegory to all kinds of societies, is the issue of choice (and causality). There's a Doctor Who episode titled Enlightenment which talks about enlightenment as not a thing to possess, but rather the choices you make. In all cases, enlightenment arises rather the self doing something to bring it about.

Wholism vs. reductionism

Enlightenment is generally a wholistic Zen-like concept, i.e., where the nature of the oneness of reality and lack of division is apparent. However, I believe the dualistic way of thinking can be used to dissect emotions and actions where one does reach an equilibrium with their environment with respect to a particular thought or action. For example, one could achieve a state of flow with regards to certain actions, such as performing music. That is a form of awakening, where thoughts, emotions, the past, the future, have no bearing on what is. However, they may not behave the same way in other respects, such as with regards to anger for example, letting their ego drive the bus. All these factors however play off each other and being enlightened in one area is likely to affect another area (and vice versa). The illusion collapses in certain contexts but not in others.

Furthermore, one feature of the state of enlightenment is that it allows transcending the mundane, i.e., the categories that occur when you apply dualistic thinking concepts to human emotions and actions. For example, reaching an enlightened state with regards to love or hate just means you go beyond those two choices, where you're in a position that cannot be boxed into nice dualistic categories. Thus being aware of dual nature moves you closer to the state of enlightenment. Remember that even though I write in dualistic terms below, the point is to transcend categorisation (and that even though enlightenment can't really be parcelled out in this manner, the below can be thought of "as features of enlightenment").

Purity and focus

Purity of the heart is to will one thing. --Kierkegaard

Focus and purity is essential. This means that a corrupting or ethically polluting situation does not exist. The ego's motivations must be pure in that you're doing whatever you're doing for its own sake and nothing else. This is what is likely to brings about enlightenment.

One of the most ethically polluting entities in the world (and I expound on this more below) is money. Essentially if you are doing anything for money, it is not pure and in my view generally leads to dissatisfaction (and forlornness, in a Sartrean sense). But a more insidious kind of pollution occurs when your goals seem to be noble, but yet you're doing something for a reason other than for doing it. Desire as we all know gets in the way of awareness, awakening, and enlightenment.

Let me illustrate this with a positive example based on a subject that is near and dear to my heart: scientific research. Some of the greatest scientific research has been conducted by people completely oblivious to its consequences (positive or negative). These scientists did it in a pure manner, i.e., purely for the intellectual and conceptual challenge. However, if you look at the scientific and technological worlds today, there is a lot of research that is done motivated by social pressure, not because the researcher is genuinely immersed in solving a problem. That is, there are ulterior motivations.

This only makes things worse for both the researcher and society: the researcher isn't happy because they are not really doing what they want to do. Since the research has been polluted, the results are designed to produce what society wants to hear, which may not be accurate leading to long term problems. A pure researcher, on the other hand, would question themselves in a Popperian vein until they were exhausted, probably resulting in what society really wanted.


This is pure speculation: When you sleep, it may be the ego that is sleeping. Your body is resting. Your ego is put to sleep so that your body may rest, as thinking and feeling consumes energy. This may be why dreams occur and what they are: your ego kept at bay and being vfed random inputs as your body is resetting itself. Interestingly, this gives us an insight into our Self. If the ego is indeed sleeping, then what is running the show? I am not referring to what is controlling your breathing, etc. which is happening all the time. I am referring to what the input source for your dreams are and what is in the space in between the dreams.


Equanimity with respect to emotions is key to reaching the state of enlightenment. Some teachers may say they are an obstacle but the enlightened view is that everything exists to set you on the path that you are on. Emotions influence the use of our intelligence, which generally exists, in my view, to further the propagation of our genes. However, our minds and brains are powerful tools and like I say above, if you can achieve an enlightened state with many or all of your emotions, then productivity and progress will be easier. There is a paradox of sorts here, however: all emotions, even the so-called negative ones, are part of the human intellect. To completely shut off these emotions is ultimately destructive. Yet, how can one achieve a state of contentment (or apathy, or blissfulness) while expressing these strong emotions? The answer lies in the accepting and application of these emotions in a constructive manner (to further your awakening). Any emotion, even negative ones like hatred, when applied constructively, become positive. I don't mean positive and negative in the sense of good and bad, which is an illusion, but rather in terms of bringing out the spatial consciousness or enlightened state from within you.


"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering." --Yoda

By far the most contentment I believe is received when you can exist in equilibrium with your environment with regards to anger. As I say above, banishing anger isn't healthy. I do think there is a difference between different kinds of angers. The directed kind is one where you get angry at a specific person or thing. Indirected anger is where you can be angry at a situation. The former is usually destructive and the latter can be extremely constructive. This is overall a tricky distinction to make. For example, if you're sitting in traffic, you could get frustrated and blame all the other drivers around you. This directed kind of anger doesn't do you or anyone else good since it is completely beyond your control at that moment in time (and this is an important realisation to make). However, you could (fairly rationally) decide that sitting in traffic isn't good for you or for the people around you, take up engineering, and design better means of transportation. Now that would be a constructive way to channel your anger.

The thing is, as long as you're in this mode, i.e., thinking constructively (say by taking an engineering course or letting others deal with the problem while you deal with others), you reach a certain sense of calm and awareness realising that something is being done and consequently, your frustration disappears. At this point, one has gone beyond the state of being angry or not angry. They're still angry, but it has been translated into a passion of sorts. This is transcending the emotion and arriving at a state of enlightenment.


Related to anger is the notion of forgiveness. As long as you harbour resentment towards a specific person or action, you're not very likely to feel calm or content and you're definitely not existing in any sort of any equilibrium.

The key to forgiveness is to realise there is nothing to forgive (i.e., go beyond forgiveness). People do things intentionally or unintentionally and it is unrealistic to expect that in a complex system all interactions will go the way you want it to. Thus when a person does something that affects you negatively, the last thing you can afford to do is give into those emotions. This is easier said than done, but again requires adopting an Sartrean existential world view that you are solely and ultimately responsible for your actions. I do not believe any human being has the "right" to forgive anyone or anything; they can just get over it like on a bridge over water.


Related to anger also, and the complement of forgiveness, is the notion of revenge or retribution. This in my view is one of the most difficult emotions to transcend. This essentially requires application of the Christian maxim of turning the other cheek, when something is done to you that makes you feel the need to take revenge. Again, rather than being passive, the important realisation for me at least was based on Nietzsche's "abyss" metaphor. I quote:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. --Nietzsche

The point isn't that you should not express revenge in some absolute moral sense, but that when you do, all it does is hurt you and not help you. This is why I'm a pacifist, since violence always begets violence and makes you a less content person.

In general, one should never do anything they wouldn't want to see in this world. So if you would like live in a world without violence, then you shouldn't express violence. This in conjunction with the golden rule (which says you should only do things you want done to you) is a powerful way of dealing in any complex adaptive system.

More quotes in this regard:

You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any one would sue you and take your coat, let him have your cloak as well; and if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you. You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." --Matthew 5:38:45 [I'm a staunch atheist for the record, but as a pacifist, I find this quote inspirational.]
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. --Gandhi


Buddha, as the first of his Four Noble Truths, said "desire is the cause of all suffering." I have in the past modified this to say that desire for material goods is the cause of all suffering, but "desire" is a poor translation. It is better thought of as "attachment". Attachment to outcomes/goals will hinder awakening.

This issue is also related to motivation for why you do anything in life. As I say above, I believe whatever you do in life should be "pure". Transcending the need for money or material objects in and of itself is a state of enlightenment. This doesn't mean you can't make money or have material objects. It's just that shouldn't be your motivation to do anything in life.

There is a seeming contradiction in Buddha's statement (and Buddhism): we desire liberation or awakening but it is really the attachment to enlightenment that is problematic. If you still your doing mind, then the awakening will happen automagically.

Love and relationships

No one is perfect. No one can be changed and one can't be made to love another ego, but beings are in universal love. Awareness of that also gets you closer to enlightenment. See also an eassy on relationships.

The song Somebody by Depeche Mode, which is quoted in its entirety in the relationships essay, takes an enlightened view towards relationships. Not just romantic relationships, but all kinds. This is best illustrated in this section of the song:

Though my views may be wrong,
they may even be perverted,
she'll hear me out
and won't easily be converted
to my way of thinking.
In fact, she'll often disagree.
But at the end of it all,
she will understand me.
--Depeche Mode

This could apply to any interaction between two egos. This is enlightenment affecting the illusion.


I believe in atheism but whether you're religious or not does not have any bearing on enlightenment. However, with regards to religion (or any other philosophy for that matter), it is a very subjective thing. For example, my atheist views are subjective and whatever makes someone happy is what they should believe in. (See quote from Somebody above.) All this done while realising that there is not a single ego who has a monopoly on some absolute truth that doesn't exist (or, in the spirit of Gödel, any absolute truth must be paradoxically relative).

The more interesting aspect of religion is to look at the philosophies underlying the major ones. My ego doesn't think highly of organised religion of any kind. However, philosophies attributed to people like Jesus Christ (regardless of whether he existed) can be enlightened. For example, with regards to the forgiveness and revenge point above, being able to turn the other cheek, either in a specific situation or generally in your life makes you enlightened with regards to those notions. You have transcended beyond the mundane concepts of forgiveness and revenge.

Eastern religions have an appeal to many westerners since they tend to directly stress enlightenment (in the way Judeo-Christian ones stress Heaven). Eastern religions are no more or no less special than their Western counterparts and are just as prone to corruption and pollution.

That said, the philosophies behind Taoism and Zen Buddhism are colinear with a lot of the points I make above. The basic idea is to transcend beyond the dualistic way of thinking about life and think of the universe as a coherent whole, i.e., a nonlinear complex system in a dynamic equilibrium, to which we all have access once the ego-mind's chattering has been made aware of.

All these dualisms...

There's a lot of dualism in the above, as well as in our day to day discourse. The point is to integrate the outward looking views with the inward looking ones, which is presently severely lacking, and come up with a cohesive and complete well-rounded worldview.

Overall worldview

One is born awake and aware (enlightened) and slowly begins to lose it as they become more and more immersed in The Matrix). It is current society that distracts from being. Ultimately, enlightenment has to do with accepting the futility, or as Satre would put it -- forlornness, of life or the dream state. This is a positive worldview, as I outline in the meaning of life missive.

Pseudointellectual ramblings || Ram Samudrala ||