Why don’t more awakening teachers differentiate between small and big interpretations of awakening?
WHAT IS AWAKENING?
First, what is awakening?
It’s when we go from taking ourselves as most fundamentally something within the content of our experience, typically our human self, to finding ourselves as that which allows all content of experience, and that which forms itself into any and all content of experience. This is something we are already very familiar with, although we may not have noticed it’s our more fundamental nature.
Here, we find that our nature – and all of existence to us – is oneness, love, and so on. And this allows our human self and psyche to transform within this new conscious context. (Which has always been here, just not consciously noticed.)
SMALL & BIG INTERPRETATION OF AWAKENING
What are the small and big interpretations of awakening?
The small interpretation of awakening is what I used to describe awakening above. Here, we keep to what’s immediately noticed, and we avoid jumping to conclusions beyond what we can easily check for ourselves. It can also be called a psychological interpretation of awakening since it stays within the realm of psychology.
The big interpretation of awakening takes it a step further. Here, we assume that the nature of all of existence is the same as our own nature. We assume that all of existence is what a thought may label consciousness, or even the divine or God.
WHY IT’S A HELPFUL DISTINCTION
To me, this is a helpful distinction for a couple of reasons.
It’s intellectually honest. Since we experience all of existence through and as what we are, it will appear to us as if the nature of all of existence is the same as our own. And, if we are honest, we cannot know for certain.
And it’s pragmatic. A small interpretation of awakening, or being more fluid between the small and big, is more appealing to certain groups of people. The small interpretation of awakening is compatible with just about any worldview, including atheism, materialism, and so on. It doesn’t require any particular worldview or cosmology.
WHY NOT POINT IT OUT?
So why do not more awakening teachers point out this distinction?
I am not sure.
They may not see it as important, for whatever reason.
They may be familiar with one and not have much interest in the other.
They may point out the distinction in private to students who may benefit from it.
They may be unaware of the distinction.
SUMMARY
Awakening is the shift from taking ourselves most fundamentally as this human self, to finding ourselves as what all our experiences – of this human self, the wider world, and anything else, happen within and as.
We can understand or talk about this from a small view on awakening. Here, we just point out what anyone can check and find for themselves, without making assumptions about the nature of all of existence.
We can also talk about this from a big view on awakening and use terms like God, the divine, and so on.
Differentiating between the two is, to me, intellectually honest. And the small and big views appeal to different groups of people, which is why this differentiation is useful.
If awakening teachers don’t point out this differentiation, it may be for a range of reasons. They may not see it as important. They may have their target group already and have terminology that works for them. They may point it out in private. And some may even be unaware of the distinction.
Note: If I am honest, I am not aware of any awakening teacher that does differentiate between the two. I assume there must be many out there, I just haven’t found them or heard them yet.
INITIAL OUTLINE
- Why not differentiate?
- Why not
- See it as unimportant
- Happy w. one or the other, less interested in the other
- Do it but in private with students who are ready/ripe for it
- Unaware of the distinction
- helpful distinction
- intellectual honesty
- makes it accesible to more people
- Personally, not aware of anyone who does but they must be out there, seems obvious
- Why not
…..
DRAFT FRAGMENTS
From the small interpretation of awakening, or from a view that holds both the small and big, we have to admit that we cannot know. To us, it naturally appears as if the nature of all of existence is the same as our own since we experience all of existence through and as what we are. And, if we are honest, we cannot know for certain the nature of all of existence.