|
For more information, contact: Gary Schouborg, PhD (925) 932-1982 |
Schouborg, Gary
(2003). "Soma: A Naturalistic Theory of Enlightenment". Soma: A Naturalistic Theory of Enlightenment Gary Schouborg Correspondence:
Gary Schouborg, GaryNini.com, 1947 Everidge Court, Walnut Creek, CA
94597-2952, USA. E-mail: gary@garynini.com Abstract: This article
provides a naturalistic account of enlightenment as soma. I use 'soma', which
derives from the Greek word for body, to mean being somatically awake: having
a felt sense of our body as anchoring us in the present and providing our
deepest satisfaction in life. Compared to soma, we experience all our other
satisfactions as secondary. Enlightenment is said to have four attributes:
transcends time and change, transcends a sense of self, has unconditional
value, and transforms everyday living. To understand in what sense we can
properly attribute those characteristics to enlightenment, we do better to
assume that enlightenment is the naturalistic state of soma rather than a
metaphysical, non-natural state that transports us beyond the natural world. Introduction This
article provides a naturalistic account of enlightenment as soma. I use
'soma', which derives from the Greek word for body, to mean being somatically
awake: having a felt sense of our body as anchoring us in the present and
providing our deepest satisfaction in life. Compared to soma, we experience
all our other satisfactions as secondary. Enlightenment is said to have four
attributes: transcends time and change, transcends a sense of self, has
unconditional value, and transforms everyday living. To understand in what
sense we can properly attribute those characteristics to enlightenment, we do
better to assume that enlightenment is the naturalistic state of soma rather
than a metaphysical, non-natural state that transports us beyond the natural
world. The following
account of enlightenment relies on three key distinctions: metaphysical
versus naturalistic transcendence, absolute versus relative pure
consciousness experience (PCE), and partial versus whole mind. Something
whose transcendence is metaphysical falls completely outside categories that
apply to our natural world. Something whose transcendence is naturalistic
falls outside ordinary experience but not completely outside categories that
apply to our natural world. An absolute PCE is completely devoid of all
features, whereas a relative PCE has minimal features to which we do not
directly attend. (I am using 'feature' as a general term to include object of
consciousness or anything else about or in consciousness of which we can be
said to be aware.) Partial mind is consciousness devoid of soma, whereas
whole mind includes it. Both partial and whole mind include all our ordinary,
everyday activities from the mundane to the heroic. The difference is that
partial mind gets overly caught up in them, overly identifying its happiness
with particular experiences other than soma. However, in whole mind soma
emerges as being of unconditional value, compared to which all other
satisfactions are of secondary importance. Soma thus provides a liberating
distance from the joys and sufferings of everyday life. Whole
mind's integration of soma into everyday living allows of degrees. In the
most primitive form of whole mind, in meditation, we allow soma to emerge by
withdrawing our focus on the specifics of any thoughts or feelings that may
come and go. Not focusing on specifics allows soma to emerge as a unique
positive feeling which various traditions call an "inner peace"
that is "the pearl of great price". It provides a feeling of
"being at home", because we feel no need to search further for some
greater happiness. As whole mind develops, we increasingly bring the inner
peace of soma to our everyday life. We then experience the satisfactions that
we derive from achieving our everyday desires, as well as the disappointments
that result from our failing to do so. But we experience them as — we
don't just believe them to be — secondary to the deeper, unqualified
happiness that we experience in soma. The
preceding three distinctions are at the heart of the difficulty in
understanding enlightenment. Failing to distinguish between metaphysical and
naturalistic transcendence, we mistakenly take reports of enlightenment's
transcendence to mean that enlightenment is superior to anything our body can
provide. Failing to distinguish between absolute and relative PCE, we
mistakenly take PCEs to be evidence of consciousness unrelated to our body.
And even when we recognize that our body plays a role in enlightenment, the
fact that soma usually first arises from processes in which we withdraw our
attention from everyday details makes us wonder how we could ever experience
its inner peace in the hustle and bustle of everyday life. This
article argues that soma has the first three characteristics of
enlightenment: transcends time and change, transcends a sense of self, and
has unconditional value. As to the fourth characteristic of transforming
everyday living, aside from the rare spiritual genius who has a sudden
integrating illumination, the rest of us develop spiritually by progressively
integrating the inner peace of soma with increasingly complex everyday
experience. Because of limitations of space, I will lay only the groundwork
for understanding how this progressive integration is possible. Section II: Identifies enlightenment's four
characteristics: transcends time and change, transcends a sense of self, has
unconditional value, and transforms everyday living. Raises the question of
how the first three are compatible with the fourth, since everyday living
requires attention to time and change, a sense of self, and finding value in
everyday experience. Section III: Shows that reports of absolute PCEs are
problematic, rendering problematic any accounts of enlightenment as
metaphysically transcendent. This opens the door for an alternative,
naturalistic account of enlightenment as a relative PCE that is only
naturalistically transcendent. Section IV: Shows how soma has the first three
characteristics of enlightenment. Section V: Shows how distinguishing between partial mind (devoid of soma)
and whole mind (includes soma) more clearly differentiates between
unenlightened and enlightened awareness
than do traditional contrasts
such as ego and non-ego, self and
no-self. Shows how the distinction
clarifies the ambiguous and often inconsistently employed traditional
concepts of emptiness, mindfulness, non-clinging, lovingkindness,
surrender, and spontaneity. Section VI: Shows how explaining enlightenment as soma
enables us to identify the precise relationship between enlightenment,
clinging, and living in the present (being somatically awake). Conclusion: Identifies what
remains in order to explain soma's role in enlightened everyday living: show
how we can be somatically awake in the midst of everyday activity; and show
how a developmental theory and a neuropsychology of enlightenment help
explain soma's role. To the
extent to which soma explains the four characteristics of enlightenment, the
burden of proof shifts to proponents of other accounts (whether metaphysical
or naturalistic) to show why they are more adequate. At the very least, this
article aims to promote precision in discussions of enlightenment, where the
language has been remarkably loose and ambiguous. |
