The American philosopher and semiotician (one who studies “signs”) Charles Sanders Peirce proposed a helpful model for understanding the way that signs operate. In this case, we’re looking at the signs related to human communication, and more specifically the language related to the communication and interpretation of “enlightenment.” Peirce used a triadic model to explain signs, where a sign is the collection of a representamen (the form which the sign takes, in this case the spoken or written word), an interpretent (the sense made of the sign), and an object (that to which the sign points-the thing itself). Another term for representamen and interpretant are the signifier and signified. The signifier, again, is the the words or symbols which point to something and the signified is the concept which we associate with the signifier. The object continues to be that which, as a whole is being pointed toward.
When considering the semiotics of enlightenment, we can see that the word enlightenment is the signifier and the conceptual understanding that we have of what enlightenment is, is the signfied. The object then is enlightenment itself (i.e. the direct 1st person understanding of “it”). One of the famous sayings in the Zen tradition, makes some use of this distinction, when pointing out that the finger that points to the moon is not the moon. In this analogy that the moon is itself enlightenment and that the finger represents the signifier and signified combined. The finger is both the word “enlightenment” and all the possible notions one may have about it. The assumption here is that by looking beyond all relative notions of enlightenment we can more quickly experience it for ourselves. Zen is rife with this understanding of enlightenment.
Taking this conception of signs a bit further, I’d like to point out and try to some degree to remedy a confusion which appears obvious in the Western Buddhist tradition. That has to do with the confusion surrounding the term enlightenment, as well as other terms that “point to” the goals of Buddhist practice (nirvana, arhant, BuddhaNature, emptiness, luminosity, satori, etc.). The confusion has to do with the observation that people often have very different, and sometimes directly competing, notions of what is being signified by these terms, not to mention the variety of signifiers which seem to be pointing in similar directions.
Daniel Ingram has done an excellent, albeit cursory, exploration of some of the different notions or models that people have when they think about or use these terms. Check out the section of his book, The Models of Enlightenment, for more information. These ideals and notions often come from divergent sources, including one’s tradition, one’s teachers, books (both ancient and contemporary), other practitioners, other religious traditions, etc. In a very real sense we often map our hidden assumptions (many of which are culturally generated) onto these terms and go around assuming that these what is now signified by the term enlightenment is universally understood. In short we confuse the signified with the object of enlightenment and we take our idea of what enlightenment is, to be enlightenment itself. We often don’t realize that there are many possible signifiers (or interpretents) that people will have in regards to enlightenment.
The first thing to do then, is to recognize that this is the case. Then, we can examine our concepts of enlightenment (and perhaps others) and see which actually hold up to reality-testing, and more pragmatically which actually lead to the goal. Of course, the question arises here, what goal? As soon as we ask this question, and start exploring, then we’ll see that there actually be several different possible goals. Traditionally the Buddhist tradition has used the distinction of the 3 trainings–ethics, concentration, & wisdom–to define three different areas that we can train in. Each of these lead to different goals, and there are in fact different goals within each of these areas (ex. in concentration practice we may attain an initial level of concentration that helps us stay with changing objects of attention, or we may attain a deeper degree of concentration absorption that has very different qualities.)
So the next thing we can do is create a clear language of signifiers, that can accurately describe subtle differences in experience. Being clear about what we mean, when we say what we say, and having a rigorous contemplative language can be much more helpful then running around with only a few, vaguely defined terms. I would argue that much of the confusion, frustration, and argument surrounding the term “enlightenment” has to do with the lack of clarity regarding the semiotics involved. Let’s get clear about what means what, when, and to whom. And let’s do it in the service of awakening to the many dimensions of freedom that have been pointed to in the Buddhist tradition!
February 1st, 2009 at 3:56 am
I find myself torn recently between the perspective you argue here and its antithesis.
On the one hand, precision language can be applied to subjective experience (the very foundation of Neuro-Linguistic Programming is to discover the structure of subjective experience) to create more accurate models. This can be extremely useful pragmatically, developing greater accuracy and control for psychospiritual technology. Specialized language can lead to very precise information gathering, turning phenomenology into more and more an exact science.
On the other hand, there are fundamental, absolute limits to the modeling or semiotic process itself. This includes limits to language, number, and indeed thinking itself. To think about is to leave something out. To make a map is to delete, distort, and generalize.
Science and technology tend to ignore these limits, even those discovered as the very foundation of logic (Gödel’s incompleteness theorem), mathematics , physics (Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, special and general relativity), etc.
Science–and indeed all thought and abstraction including language–tends to proceed on the basis that nothing essential is lost in the process of modeling. Yet a scientific worldview has reduced the world to nothing but meaningless matter and selfish genes, devoid of soul, purpose, or beauty.
Perhaps by further analyzing and controlling subjective experience, we will complete the task of desacrilizing the universe, inner and outer, preparing for a re-emergence of the sacred in all things.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Duff is quite right as far as binary logical thought is concerned. One step beyond that we find paradoxical thinking, and yet one step further mandalic reasoning. Each of these function as meta-reasoning to the previous levels and modalities found therein. Also, each of these has its own issues (i.e. shadows) if enacted in confused ways with regard to the fundamental nature and structure of reality. What we may work towards is a culture of sliding complexity – from binary thinking to mandalic reasoning and even further – used by subjects that have clarified their own fundamental condition to at least a significant degree. Those in pre-awakening stages of practice should feel encouraged to develop a reflective capacity to critically examine their own – often unconcsious, often culturally mediated – models of progress and realization. In short, dedogmatization and detabooization of buddhahood is a hallmark of post-postmodern dharma, to be measured as it should be by its capacity to inspire, ensober, empower, and awaken.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Duff: I see a distinction between the semiotics and the attitude we take towards them. A more specific and careful terminology can help us both avoid conflating our concepts of enlightenment with the real deal, and with narrowing down and diagnosing mistakes we make on our path. One othet lesson to take from the Zen teaching Vince referenced is to not follow the ideas and concepts we use to reach enlightenment too strictly. After all, the moon may have moved from where the finger last pointed, and we are not in the same position as the one pointing.
February 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
“To think about is to leave something out.”
To think about is to attach to the mind, which changes the experience of identity. And while the mind very literally cannot understand this experience of identity, is it true that the mind is limited in the sphere of thought?
I’m not sure you can completely rip on science and technology when they are constantly reducing the number of hours and people required to meet basic needs, even if there isn’t a society/system that supports low employment as a goal. Are we not talking dharma in an oh-so-techno-savvy way made possible by science and tech? I have high hopes for what minds are capable of once they stop running conditioning loops trying to prop up the illusion of being the self.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:18 am
@Hokai: I often feel that my highest and best thoughts are but a small part of your much larger perspective!
Can you point me towards some resources for learning more about paradoxical and mandalic reasoning?
@eric: Studies of indigenous tribal people show 20 hours a week of work, and most is spent in enjoyable activity at low stress levels. We cannot return to this of course, and this is a different discussion…
February 15th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I think this article is an oxymoron. Its aim seems to be to simplify something by being as complicated as possible.
It upsets me that you guys are trying to make enlightment into some crazy worded definitions. It seems the aim is to achieve some kind of ego feeding from lack of real results. I like to talk about complicated ideas in simplest terms possible so we can actually all get it and move on.
Yes we all have subjective opinions about EVERYTHING. I suppose this article explains this point in most difficult way to understand it ever.
February 16th, 2009 at 11:40 am
No offense Kathryn, but I don’t think you did actually understand the gist of the article. It wasn’t to simplify anything, but rather to show philosophically one reason why people misunderstand enlightenment. I don’t assume that this is necessarily a simple thing, as the human psychology is incredibly complex. Hence the reason for using fairly complex ideas to try and address it. Sometimes trying to simplify things equals dumbing them down and missing key distinctions.