The A's & B's of Enlightenment

[Crossposted from VincentHorn.com]

Soon after I got back from retreat, I chatted with a friend of mine who has been a long time vipassana practitioner. After some 20 years of practice he has more or less stopped believing that vipassana leads to enlightenment (well, not exactly but bear with me), and adopted what I would call a much more “non-dual” approach. The difference between the two, according to my friend, is the difference between what he was calling “Enlightenment A” and “Enlightenment B.”

Enlightenment B is the realization that comes from a progressive unfolding of more and more refined states of consciousness. It’s often associated with the rising of kundalini, and tends to happen in a stage-like fashion. Vipassana and the “stages of enlightenment” in the Therevadin Buddhist tradition seem to be a good example of a path that leads to Enlightenment B.

Enlightenment A, on the other hand, can not be attained or acquired over time, because it is not time-bound. It’s something which is true right now, irreducible, and “ever-present.” This kind of Enlightenment seems to be expressed most clearly from teachers such as Ramana Maharshi and Eckhart Tolle.

Now, whether or not this distinction is a helpful one, has in my opinion, yet to be seen. Enlightenment B, or gradual enlightenment, has served to inspire my practice, keeping me going on retreats, etc. But it has also been the source of a great bit of frustration, striving, and discontent. Enlightenment A, or the non-dual approach, when I’ve considered it has relieved a great deal of pressure from the whole spiritual path. If there’s no where to get, then why need I stress so much? It tends to re-imbue the path with a sense of ease and relaxation. But it also seems like I tend to remember this greater ease primarily when I’ve been practicing quite a bit!!!

Part of the reason I’m not entirely sure I can simply split them apart, as my friend has done, is that there are very few cases of people who have realized Enlightenment A before pursuing Enlightenment B. A couple come to mind, whereas I’m willing to bet there are many who have pursued the gradual path, and that has someone turned into the sudden path (B pursued far enough becomes A). One could argue that this is exactly what has happened with my friend. And I’ve even gone so far as to ask him, “You mean doing vipassana for 20 years has nothing to do with what you recognize now?” His shocking answer is “No.” But is this shocking? I suppose if what is realized in Enlightenment A is actually non-dual and not bounded by time, then trying to come up with a logical (logic exists in time) and causal (causality also happens in time) explanation may be by definition pointless.