Enlightenment - enlightenment: the paradox of enlightenment
Mnlightenment is one of those things. The other day someone asked me if I was looking for enlightenment. I was a little puzzled. But because I really appreciated this person, I tried to be honest - yes, no, um, I don't really know, actually I do, if I'm being completely honest... Why this fussing around? Why not just say straight out, yes I do, like she did when she replied that she thought most people were looking for it. I'm not so sure about that.
In any case, the question made me feel uneasy. Should I admit that I am looking for enlightenment, perhaps even that I have found a piece of it? Is it possible to find a piece of enlightenment, or is it a completely or not at all thing? What shadows are there, what paths, what aberrations, 1000? In the evening I was talking to a friend: How many people do you know who claim to be enlightened? He laughed. "None - fortunately," he said. And so we talked briefly about what the question was actually about. During the conversation, I mixed up enlightenment and enlightenment. Aha! Here's the crux of the matter.
When I answered my friend, I used the image of a light that I found somewhere many years ago when I was thinking about the cosmos, and that I now carry this light with me and try to illuminate something here and there. In its essence, this experience was the realization that the world as it presents itself to me through my sensory perception and the mental representations of an external world derived from it cannot be like this, that the basic assumptions of space, time, matter and consciousness are radically different. The experience of this radical otherness motivated me to study philosophy.
So I learned something about the Enlightenment and German idealism. I learned to use my intellect, reason and aesthetics. Sometimes what emerges is good and beautiful and exciting, sometimes off-putting, false and dishonest. This, I think, describes the process of enlightenment. The light of rationality makes everything shine in its brilliance and exposes it for what it really is. Kant's idea of enlightenment was to use one's own intellect in order to emerge from one's own immaturity. To become aware of one's own understanding is an act of transcendental reflection, pure thinking, in categories and on the basis of a priori given space and time. And my discomfort came from the fact that I didn't actually mean that at all. I thought about it for years, discussed it with my students for decades. Always with the feeling that it is not entirely wrong in essence, but that it misses the point.
Because what enlightenment also means is enlightenment. And that is quite the opposite. It is much more similar to the experience that first moved me to study philosophy. In Eastern philosophy and spirituality, it is the central experience. There are, of course, countless paths.
I would like to take a brief look at the Advaita philosophy. A philosophy of immanence, at least that is how I would like to understand it. What is essential here is that it is an experience and not a realization, or if a realization, then in the sense of an experience. It is about experiencing unity, that there is no difference between me and the Creator, between Atman and Brahman. This is an experience that cannot be explained by argument, it cannot be deduced, explained or falsified. It goes beyond the boundaries of the mind, although it can encompass them. It is not irrational, but neither is it rational. It is structured and open, it endures contradictions, it is inclusive, embracing, understanding, forgiving, undogmatic. It is filled with light. Is this what the medieval mystics saw?
Paths that I can experience here in India are, for example, Jnana Yoga: knowledge and wisdom, Bhakti Yoga: devotion and love for a personal God, Karma Yoga: selfless action, Raja Yoga: meditation and control of the mind, Tantra Yoga: unity of opposites, Kundalini Yoga: awakening of Kundalini energy. All these paths do not lead to anything, but have their starting point in Brahman. This form of enlightenment shows itself, reveals itself, can be experienced, manifests itself through practice. I would like this to be understood with all due caution and modesty, because the pitfalls, illusions and aberrations are immense. Once something has manifested itself, it disappears at the same time, because nothing is permanent. If I hold a thought, it disappears when I think about it; if I trace my own existence, I lose myself in memory and desire; if I think, see something in the sense of a vision, it can quickly reveal itself to be an illusion, an illusionary image. I try to stay on the path of the Upanishads, this seems to be a good companion. Enlightenment comes from within, on all its levels, it does not come through enlightened rationality - understanding and reason.
In Heidelberg we had this virtual poison cabinet with philosophers who turn your head, who see the world so differently that all conventional thinking is called into question. We often laughed at them and were fascinated by the sheer possibility of their existence. Schopenhauer, Spinoza, Whitehead were in there. This "poison cabinet" was actually the cabinet of opposites to the excesses of the Enlightenment.
