This is a gentle rant against the use of such words as \u201cfully,\u201d \u201ccompletely,\u201d \u201cabsolutely,\u201d or \u201cpure\u201d in talks and articles that have to do with spiritual practice. Such words represent that category in grammar called the \u201csuperlative\u201d—as in not better, but “best.”\u00a0 The trouble with this group of words is that they often represent what is also called an \u201casymptotic limit.\u201d The speed of light is one of those\u2014and the point of an asymptotic limit is that although it can be named, in fact, in reality, it cannot be reached\u2014except by a certain even more mysterious whatever called electromagnetic energy, one small fraction of which is visible light. But perfection is also an asymptotic limit. We can approach it, but the closer we get the harder it is, the more work it takes. Really, you just can’t get to perfect.<\/p>\n
Now in our ordinary words, fast, very fast, and incredibly fast still operate for most things in realms that are hardly close to the speed of light. What I\u2019m getting at is that for most situations, good, very good, and very, very good are still far from perfect.<\/p>\n
What, you may ask, is the problem? This essay is a challenge to all the spiritual mumbo-jumbo or political exhortation that uses superlatives. Too many sham self-proclaimed spiritual teachers suggest that unless you\u2019re fully, completely pure, absolutely divorced from your ego, completely surrendered to the guru, and in other ways superlatively sacrificed, you don\u2019t get to be saved, enlightened, whatever. I consider such talk to be a con job, a scam, a verbal bit of flibberty-flab that lures you with one hand and tosses you away when you\u2019ve run out of money. After all, how would anyone know if you\u2019re fully, absolutely, genuinely, sincerely, truly, devoted? Free of doubt and ego? And unless you are, they get to promise you the moon! If you\u2019re superlatively whatever, you get it\u2014but if you fail, if you\u2019re only 98.3% self-sacrificing, they have a back door, they get to keep your money and say you didn\u2019t try hard enough.<\/p>\n
So I\u2019m allergic to any talk that uses such words. If I concede that the person is ethical and sincere, I then must question that speaker\u2019s level of critical thinking. I consider this type of superlative-osity as careless thought, mental-short cuts that prop up illusions. They feed unrealistic expectations (see blog on dingle-derry complex.)<\/p>\n
“Getting” enlightenment or “having” wisdom seem to me to be related in this semantic obfuscation. The illusion of possession, of achieving full whatever, attaining permanent guaranteed holiness or cosmic awareness—these treat such abstractions as if they were permanent stages of mind-body knowing. (There are some skills that tend to be more like that, like swimming, riding a bicycle—once you get the “knack” you don’t forget in the way you might forget some remembered fact.)\u00a0 I recognize that there are spiritual teachers who do not make such claims, but say intead that disciplined spiritual practice may generate variably higher degrees of peace of mind or subtle pleasure, related to a less distracted capacity of enjoying the moment. There may even be breakthroughs of deep insight and a sense of more vivid “reality.” But it comes and goes, for most people, and at this point in our understanding, such states of mind are rarely continuous.<\/p>\n
I am wary about any implication that wisdom or equanimity is attainable once and for all. I think it\u2019s a practice. You can start with the turbulence of a child\u2019s mind, perhaps at 10 – 20%\u2014the higher numbers if your life isn\u2019t too stressful\u2014but as you expand, even with optimal learning of life\u2019s lessons, your life may become nicely balanced, quite wise, but how perfect can it get, given the vicissitudes of age, health, culture, relationships, and so forth?<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s say you get to (I\u2019m making this up), say, 80%. You\u2019re pretty happy, content, successful. Does that mean you won\u2019t be tempted to give in to unworthy motivations? And say you\u2019re pretty good at recognizing temptations and overcoming them\u2014does that mean 80% or 90% of the time? What if no one gets to 100% on anything?; or if they do, it\u2019s just a passing whatever.<\/p>\n
So, as with the misleading ideals about perfection or words like “fully,” we need to penetrate the semantics of possession: Too many people have the idea that it is possible to get there, achieve it, have it, hold on to it, harvest the benefits of having established yourself. You\u2019ve studied, you get a diploma, people think you\u2019re smart, and you take a job that requires a diploma, and you do the job as is needed, routinely. You lose your passion, your real interests are your family and your hobbies, but you still have the illusion because of the degree that you belong to the intelligentsia, that you are an intellectual. You\u2019ve proven it. What if it\u2019s not that way at all in life, it\u2019s just the way fools have set up various human social organizations? (They haven\u2019t improved the way they do this setting-up because they don\u2019t know how to do it better. Remember, this is only the 21st century, not the 67th century!)<\/p>\n
How can one discern whether another person\u2014or even themselves\u2014are \u201cfully\u201d anything? I mean, what if compared to last month, you\u2019ve advanced from 30% to 50% along the way. Maybe that jump in skill or competence may feel as if you\u2019ve \u201cgotten it,\u201d\u2014at least compared to what a clod you had been before. I hear the adolescent line, \u201cI totally get it!\u201d when in fact there\u2019s just been a discernable advance\u2014or, worse, a blip that is inflated by arrogance.<\/p>\n
What if in my meditaton, prayer, and selfless service (or maybe cult-brainwashed-exploited) I develop the illusion or delusion of having become enlightened? How would I or anyone else know different? . Or worse, what If, because what if I can achieve only 78% of the requisite quality, or only 99% –are all bets off if I haven’t completely done whatever? This kind of linguistic “catch” is common in spiritual discourse and allows false gurus to say, “Well, you haven’t “really” done it, so my guarantees that you’ll get your heavenly pay-off doesn’t apply”—or expressed in equivalent ways.<\/p>\n
Are there any ways a truly enlightened teacher can be sure he or she is really enlightened and not just self-hypnotizing himself? Can you be 90% enlightened and it will seem like 100% but in fact there are some essential components you haven\u2019t learned or mastered?\u00a0\u00a0 Or 99%? Or 70% And how can a potential disciple tell?<\/p>\n