Enlightenment as a Social Construct

This discussion started up in reference to the Comments made by Adam West in Impermanence, No self, and Suffering:

"... it's very difficult, if not impossible to resolve that question with any kind of conclusive support. It is clear people frame their enlightenment from within their respective traditions. How to prove enlightenment exists outside of these traditions - personal and social constructions - is very problematic. See the work of Professor David C. Lane and more particularly, Baba Faqir Chand, a great exponent of Surat Shabd Yoga...Due to unconscious psycho-dynamic processes at work duing said meditation - and off the cushion - on principle, any said realizations are iredeemably confounded. Of course, the traditional view is true enlightenment, by definition, transends the unconsious and even archetypes, however, how to prove it. Especially when time and again, people see what they want to see, particuarly the symbolism of their parent traditions."

My thought is, let's explore the concept that enlightenment is a social construct and see where it leads. There is no doubt that at least some of our reality is socially constructed, not least of which is personal identity - the self. In a certain sense, there is no such thing as the individual - all of us are (to some degree) an expression of our social networks. Humans seem to have a "semi-open loop information sharing system" that we are hardwired with. Point is, enlightenment does not take place within a vacuum. We are primarily social creatures, and most traditionally enlightened folk have a support network - even the ones that never speak and live in a cave.

Perhaps the practices that lead to enlightenment allow a profound shift away from the personal identity that is given to us by circumstance, but as long as we remain human, it is impossible to completely transcend social constructs or concerns.

Hi Dave!

Great topic!

For me, " We are primarily social creatures", this is undoubtedly so. I see the meaning and 'understanding' we ascribe to our enlightenment, and our lives generally, to be primarily a social construction. How do we understand event 'X', what meaning does my or my loved one's death have to me?

Enlightenment itself is said to be independent of such constructions, but I am skeptical of that too - given unconscious psycho-dynamic process, particularly conscious and unconscious beliefs, expectations and culturally significant symbolism. Time and again this has proven to be true. Buddhist have Buddhist enlightenment, as do Sufis and Christians and so on. However, people do have experiences that lead them to leave one tradition and take up another one, but mostly, and often, they are from the tradition they grew up in or those present traditions that they have deeply internalized.

[cont.]

The question is, is it possible to have an absolutely pure and unconditioned, uninfluenced realization of reality as it ACTUALLY is, outside of, and aside from, human society and implicit conceptual frameworks there from?

We could imagine a single human being who was spontaneously living on a possible world like ours. He is completely alone - no human contact whatsoever - never had. This is normal to him, and he goes about his life hunting and gathering. He has our intelligence but not our language or higher-order education, sophisticated deductive faculties or symbolic representational abilities and so on. One day he is in the dualistic, subject-object, unenlightened state of mind, and then next, he spontaneously realizes 4th path / Rigpa on an ongoing, permanent basis. What does it mean to him? Anything at all? What value does he ascribe to it? Does he even care? Is it even significant to him?

Such attributions of value, significance, meaning etc., ascribed to his enlightenment - change in state of consciousness - view - seem to be entirely social constructions. Perhaps he sees he is more efficient in his daily duties, or his sense of well-being has increased and so on, so he considers he is somehow better off today, now that he is enlightened, than he was yesterday; but then perhaps not. There is a change, and it just is. Kinda like a change in the weather. For the first 20 years of his life it was mostly always cold and snowing. All of a sudden it is now mostly always sunny and warm. Feels good, tends to be more convenient and pleasant on a functional level and personal well-being, but other than that, so what? Does it really register that much? He just continues on chopping wood and carrying water ... ;-P

What you guys reckon?

In kind regards,

Adam.

"The question is, is it possible to have an absolutely pure and unconditioned, uninfluenced realization of reality as it ACTUALLY is, outside of, and aside from, human society and implicit conceptual frameworks there from?

We could imagine a single human being who was spontaneously living on a possible world like ours. He is completely alone - no human contact whatsoever - never had. This is normal to him, and he goes about his life hunting and gathering. He has our intelligence but not our language or higher-order education, sophisticated deductive faculties or symbolic representational abilities and so on. One day he is in the dualistic, subject-object, unenlightened state of mind, and then next, he spontaneously realizes 4th path / Rigpa on an ongoing, permanent basis. What does it mean to him? "

Hi Adam,
Part I
Interesting question and thought experiment. My initial reaction to the question you present in the first paragraph is "No!" - because humanity as we know it does not exist apart from human society and conceptual frameworks.

In terms of the single independent human being you mention, there ain't no such animal, and there never can be, due to constraints of our biology. Such a being would not be human in the sense we understand the word.

First off, the planet on which this being dwells would have to be much less harsh than our own, a veritable garden of Eden. Humans are incredibly weak and vulnerable as individual organisms relative to other life forms.

Even if we granted this circumstance, who or what would have raised this being from infancy? Many philosophers would claim that it is language that makes us uniquely human. There was a particular Holy Roman Emperor who performed an experiment. At the time, there was a huge debate about what the original human language was given by God, prior to the tower of Babel. Continued...

"What you guys reckon?"

I reckon that if there is no meaning or context within which to place a pristine enlightenment by an untarnished human being, that person will invent one

We're humans. That's what we do. We seem to need context and meaning, outside of whatever happens or drops away due to realization. I can vouch for this from my own experiences of late. My mind demands an interpretation of anything and everything in my experience. It's our nature.

Part II

In order to determine this original "Sprach Ur" the Emperor ordered that 1000 human infants be raised by nursemaids with great care - however, any human being who came into contact with them was to refrain from speaking to them. He reasoned that without exposure to human language they would begin speaking the "original language."

They all died.

It's been substantially demonstrated that love is biologically necessary for development, not only in humans, but also in higher primates, and probably all mammals. Romanian orphanages in which one person cares for 20 infants in shifts robustly produce extremely high rates of children with developmental disorders and psychiatric illness. It's been shown that mammalian mothers intricately regulate the physiologies of their infants through multiple channels. This co-regulation of physiology probably happens on a more limited basis throughout our lives (spouses often die close to each other, etc). Certainly there are some reports of feral children raised by wolves and so on, but they are universally profoundly mentally retarded.

Such a being would have to be hatched out of an egg, be able to care for itself from birth, and probably would have to be non-mammalian. Humans as we know them don't exist outside of social networks.

Kind regards to you too!
David

"Humans as we know them don't exist outside of social networks."

So, David, Twitter is life?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.....)

Yeah, quite right Dave. Our enlightened guy couldn't even be human. So, we'd have be granting a lot for that experiment to work.

That's terribly interesting about the Emperor and the babies - they all died. Wow! But not surprising considering what is known, as you said, about the human need for attachment, nurturing, development of the nervous system through human contact and so on.

So it is starting to look like absolute enlightenment, as defined as a 'pure', exhaustively INDEPENDENT realization of reality as it is, is a myth. Can't exist outside of social frameworks and ascribed meaning. However, we are getting ahead of ourselves with that proposition. So far we have shown a human, as we currently know it, can't exist apart from humanity, but can we realize reality apart from our own psyche, which necessarily reflects our social constructs? The mythology suggests we can, and actually, by definition, this mythology suggests true enlightenment per se, if it is to be worthy of the the title, must be an accurate and independent realization of said reality apart from the individual that is enlightened. As if he ceases to be an individual and citizen of humanity at all, and is now an open and pure portal to reality itself.

[cont.]

Contemporary enlightenment doesn't go quite so far, though often it is implied by egos who claim the title; however, at least insight into the empty nature of phenomena is at least held to be possible regardless of the personal traits of the ego and his psyche. Rather, there is insight into one's psyche, which was somewhat unconscious before, and is now, at least partially, conscious. So distortions are now clearer to us, while continuing to remain.

Can we have an independent realization of reality - even if only for the duration of the Satori - and then later that realization is interpreted in the light of society? Or is even the 'clear-seeing' itself, fundamentally, not that clear after all - it is still through the prism of the human psyche and its expectations and symbolism?

"So, David, Twitter is life?"

Lol! Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with it, Chris.

In kind regards,

Adam.

About an enlightenment that somehow end runs the human being, is independent of the human being, is somehow a "window into the true nature of reality" outside the human being -- how could it ever be so? I see no possibility of being able to drop my humanity. And is it just possible that what we call "enlightenment" is a human-centric phenomenon anyway? I guess I see enlightenment is a realization of my true nature and not as a means to avoid my true nature. By knowing "it" I can accommodate it, not eliminate it.

Am I making any sense?

"
"Humans as we know them don't exist outside of social networks."

So, David, Twitter is life?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.....)

"

LOL!!

God, I hope not!!

(Chris, you are about to provoke a rant here...) Apparently direct face to face human interaction is necessary. Emotions seem to be directly tied to facial expressions neurologically which take place in microseconds as demonstrated by fast action photography. A mother can entertain her baby through close caption TV, but a video of the same mother cooing and so forth will cause the baby to cry uncontrollably. Real time reciprocal interaction is neccessary - and we are hardwired to need it.

This is why long distance relationships are notoriously unsatisfactory, and why email communication is problematic and leads to misunderstandings. It's why I can't do psychiatry over the phone or on a forum like this. We have a very wide bandwidth for communication.

Social relationships are so fundamentally hardwired into us biologically that it is difficult to find words that are emphatic enough. This is true not only of humans, but of mammals in general, with a few solitary exceptions, like bears. Mammals have to care for their young, and each other. They are designed to function in groups and need each other for survival. They universally vocalize, play, and care for each other.

This idea that we not only co-regulate each other emotionally, but physiologically is starting to be well accepted by the scientific community, and there is a growing body of evidence to support it. Cardiac patients live 20% longer if they have a pet. We know married people are healthier and live longer. Women preferentially synchronize their menstrual cycle with friends they are close to, rather than other women they live with (so it's not pheromones).

Fascinating stuff.

Yes, I think your making sense, Chris. An accurate - in-context - realization of yourself - warts and all - and the empty luminous nature of said warts and self! ;-P

In kind regards,

Adam.

That's a really good rant, though.

And David, I have a compelling business reason to need to get my hands on any studies you can point me to that "prove" the need for human beings to engage in face to face communications in lieu of phone and other electronic methods. Are there any? Can you point me to them?

Adam , I have too many warts now to ever hope to get rid of them. I have to learn to live with them

"Adam West : " it is starting to look like absolute enlightenment, as defined as a 'pure', exhaustively INDEPENDENT realization of reality as it is, is a myth. Can't exist outside of social frameworks and ascribed meaning.... we are getting ahead of ourselves with that proposition.... Can we have an independent realization of reality - even if only for the duration of the Satori - and then later that realization is interpreted in the light of society? Or is even the 'clear-seeing' itself, fundamentally, not that clear after all - it is still through the prism of the human psyche and its expectations and symbolism?"
"

Part of the problem lies in the question. I would argue that human social frameworks and ascribed meaning are an intrinsic part of Reality, and cannot be separated from it. Therefore a realization independent of said conceptual and social frameworks would not be a true realization. This is sort of the same thinking that posits civilization as somehow "apart from" or in opposition to Nature.

In fact, civilization is a product of Nature, and cannot be separated from it. When you really look at it, life forms are all interdependent - in the same way that humans don't exist apart from the society of other humans, life itself exists as an interdependent web of interaction. In a certain sense, individual species cannot be said to exist in isolation. Beavers build dams. Humans build houses, cities and factories. The havoc humans are wreaking on the environment may well be part of the evolution of the biosphere - every other such evolution has been cataclysmic.

We have to allow for the idea that Reality with a capital R is itself impermanent, changing, evolving, not existing apart from human consciousness. The idea of "independent realization of reality as it is" is not only mythological, but meaningless in the final analysis (except insofar as it socially conditions us).

"
That's a really good rant, though.

And David, I have a compelling business reason to need to get my hands on any studies you can point me to that "prove" the need for human beings to engage in face to face communications in lieu of phone and other electronic methods. Are there any? Can you point me to them?

"

Sure can.

I wanted to avoid, on general principle, repeatedly plugging the book "A General Theory of Love", by Lewis, Amini, and Lannon, but you will find all the material you need there, along with an exhaustive list of references and studies in the footnotes.

It's really quite spectacular. You'll love it.
D

Perfect. Thank you.

Hey Dave!

I think the position you've espoused is fundamentally a correct one. However, can we imagine a possible world in which entities such as you and I have continued to evolve through countless life-times, and then perhaps through immortality - steadily growing and evolving in consciousness, subtly, power, form and realization, into beings that are of truly of a universal nature - resembling nothing of the humanity we once were; such that the multi-verse of all possible worlds, is but a single cell in our infinite bodies - that enlightenment for these beings may be a direct and 'unconditioned' - independent - realization of the Dharmakaya itself. Were this possible, what would that look like? And is this the mythical "independent" enlightenment whispered in hushed tones by long dead civilizations? Or at least their fantasy?

Many traditions have rich mythologies presenting wondrously enlightened Gods of truly monumental proportions; are such things a logical impossibility? That may be going too far.

Interesting? Since all is impermanent, what awaits us? What boundaries will define us in the future, assuming such a future, or any future possibly exists for us, or reality itself?

Nite guys! I enjoyed chatting with you!

P.S. To realize this conditioned existence as it is here and now is to realize the Dharmakaya, as it is, here and now; since the luminous play of conditioned, and unconditioned phenomena is not apart from, and none other than, the Dharmakaya itself. Not two. Non-dual. Still it's a fun thought! ;-p

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for final thought.

" However, can we imagine a possible world in which entities such as you and I have continued to evolve through countless life-times, and then perhaps through immortality - steadily growing and evolving in consciousness, subtly, power, form and realization, into beings that are of truly of a universal nature - resembling nothing of the humanity we once were; such that the multi-verse of all possible worlds, is but a single cell in our infinite bodies - that enlightenment for these beings may be a direct and 'unconditioned' - independent - realization of the Dharmakaya itself. Were this possible, what would that look like? And is this the mythical "independent" enlightenment whispered in hushed tones by long dead civilizations? Or at least their fantasy?

Many traditions have rich mythologies presenting wondrously enlightened Gods of truly monumental proportions; are such things a logical impossibility? That may be going too far."

Before we can meaningfully attempt to answer questions like the above, I think we need to delve deeply into the social role of enlightenment and spirituality in general, and the specific social role that the enlightened human being plays, along with considering questions of soteriology (not only of the nature and method of enlightenment but in a more general sense cross-culturally- the roots of Humanity's need for salvation).

To begin to approach the question though, I have to wonder given the reported nature of perhaps the majority of enlightened people's realization (that all is interconnected, all is one, we are not separate, etc.) - what does this mean to have "independent realization"? If you look at the Taoist version of gods, the Immortals, they are people who through cultivation practices transcend mortal life and death and enter "tien". Tien is usually translated "heaven."

Tien is usually translated "heaven" but might be more accurately translated "the Cosmic Order" given our western baggage and Judeo-Christian notions of heaven. Rather, for the Taoist, heaven has never been dissociated from Nature. The immortals - having obtained something which looks a whole lot like enlightenment, basically becomes "part of the Force" to use a contemporary metaphor.

If you look at the Gods - generally speaking, they are an intrinsic part of the structure of reality - they are not separate or independent in the final analysis. So the only way to do what you're talking about, Adam, is to become one with the Supreme Deity of the Multiverse. Maybe that's what happens in Nibbana.
D

"If you look at the Gods - generally speaking, they are an intrinsic part of the structure of reality - they are not separate or independent in the final analysis. So the only way to do what you're talking about, Adam, is to become one with the Supreme Deity of the Multiverse. Maybe that's what happens in Nibbana."

Yep, that's about what I was thinking - to realize yourself as the 'force' - none other than the very structure of the universe. We can see how in an absolute sense, in the above example, at least, this is a culturally independent enlightenment.

In kind regards,

Adam. Edited for clarity.

""If you look at the Gods - generally speaking, they are an intrinsic part of the structure of reality - they are not separate or independent in the final analysis. So the only way to do what you're talking about, Adam, is to become one with the Supreme Deity of the Multiverse. Maybe that's what happens in Nibbana.""

I should have said para-nibbana...

At any rate, I have a few thoughts about enlightenment along these lines:
Mankind has a built in need for "salvation" - a moral redemption of some sort. The drive for enlightenment or spiritual realization is enmeshed with moral concerns and the nature of said moral concerns. The universal association of virtue with the spiritual quest, and with spiritual endeavors in general speaks to this. Virtue is also crossculturally linked to wisdom. Moral virtues most likely contribute to the group cohesion of a community, and the need for salvation may have to do with the need to transmute societal forces that tend to disintegrate community cohesion.

The traditional role of an enlightened person is generally been some kind of priesthood. Priests, being a development of shamanism, are concerned with the holes or gaps in social structure - the bardos - birth, death, marriage, initiation. They are the psychopomps of the existential challenges of any culture. That would be one aspect of the role of the enlightened person.

Another is that they are living embodiments of the highest values of a culture - avatars of realized human potential.

There are a few universal elements - technologies of high concentration states, the radical transformation of identity and structure of experience - there is probably a transcendence of "personal" cognitive structures. There may be an identification with the larger systems in which one participates over previously held notions of personal identity.

Hey Dave!

We may say those are 'bottom-up' developmental, psycho-social, evolutionary, structural and functional models or explanations for the phenomena of spirituality, traditions thereof and the transcendence urge; might there be a kind of top-down model, that reflects fundamental universal forces inherent to reality itself - and thus, are in this sense, independent of, or perhaps co-emergent with, or fundamental to, bottom-up forces?

The Dharmakaya is neither permanent nor impermanent; does not grow, change or evolve - is intrinsically awake, complete and perfect - and perhaps, like a primordial womb - which is self-existent and self-generating - the Tao merely gives birth to spontaneous manifestations of vast systems of life, like the birth of multi-verses in the vast infinitude of diamond-like space. And since this self-luminous life is none other than the play of Dharmakaya, it naturally and spontaneously reflects its own perfect self-nature; thus, are cosmic forces of evolution compelled to reveal the self-shining great perfection of all systems - sentient or otherwise.

That is, life is fundamentally complete and perfect, and must in time, reflect this. In the temporal realms, transcendence and transformation is immanent, and unavoidable. However, since there is no atman that evolves, there may appear an apparent contradiction of chaos, entropy and impermanence, and thus, suffering from the deluded perspective. And yet once this is seen through, fundamental completeness and perfection is known to always have been present, regardless of the fractal play of light we see before us.

In kind regards,

Adam.

"We may say those are 'bottom-up' developmental, psycho-social, evolutionary, structural and functional models or explanations for the phenomena of spirituality, traditions thereof and the transcendence urge; might there be a kind of top-down model, that reflects fundamental universal forces inherent to reality itself - and thus, are in this sense, independent of, or perhaps co-emergent with, or fundamental to, bottom-up forces?"

Undoubtedly there is.

"Enlightenment is a many faceted jewel"

Part of the idea is that there are many aspects to enlightenment, and this is one that hasn't been well explored, because it removes some of the glamor, makes it more mundane, etc. It's not a particularly gratifying idea that no matter what we achieve spiritually we are somewhat bound by cultural circumstances.

But as I mentioned before, the aspect of enlightenment which is socially constructed (and I do think it's only one aspect) is a pretty positive social construct. Maybe we can use the insights garnered from this discussion to help more and more people become enlightened - even creating enlightened communities and social systems.

By defining what aspects of enlightenment are socially constructed, maybe we can also discover which aspects are truly universal.

Gentlemen,
As the only non-enlightened contributor to this discussion I would like to forward this suggestion. Enlightenment only appears to be a social construct because we use those parts of the physical brain to access interpretations and understanding of it, this includes memory and pattern making. The absense of "I' phenomenon, the timelessness and boundlessness etc, are actually not those things, but possibly the raw, untouched, uninformed biological consciousness that is life, both physical and non-physical. When Kundalini runs in the body, it is apparant to me that it is independent of thought. So is my breathing and my digestion. Enlightenment then is the untouched unfolding of biological evolution that merely appears to be spiritual and or social in construction. The physical biology is first and foremost necessary, its material and immaterial form underlie all that is the manifest aspect of life. Once we start talking about it, it's not it. Like the good law of thermodynamics I think it is, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, ie, enlightenment? but can be transformed from one form to another, ie, cultural/traditional expressions. Of course, not knowing what enlightenment actually is, what I have just written causes me to giggle quite a lot. I find I do that a lot recently. Great reading your discussion. Thankyou
paul