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!
