This is a followup to my review of CC Leigh’s book Becoming Divinely Human, exploring her descriptions of awakening. My model of the stages of development in consciousness is based on the transcendent shifts within. The Divinely Human model of stages focuses more on the embodiment that emerges from those transcendent shifts. I’ve not used embodiment as a platform as I’ve seen it as more variable, based on the way it expresses through this or that human life. Yet I’d agree there are common features.
Some of their teachers (including CC) undergo training to offer a “Whole Being Realization Clarifying Conversation” to validate an embodied awakening. I have found that typically, the initial shift needs the most support, though.
In her book, Divinely Human Awakening, CC uses a 4 Stage model of awakening (In Chapter 1):
1: Identity is in the physical and emotional bodies
2: Identity shifts to the mental body, conceptual
(These align with the Alexander model from psychology.)
3: Whole Being Realization aka Divinely Human Awakening. (also second birth) Causal and spiritual are added to the personal self above.
This is like Self Realization, however, it’s a more embodied style that doesn’t emphasize the detached transcendent Self/ witness but is lived as an active presence. We could say a householder and flow emphasis.
4: Seamless Onlyness, a recognition there is nothing but the divine ground of Being. This I’d describe as a refined version of Self Realization with flavours of the God Consciousness stage. CC clarified that heart awakening isn’t called out, but is an intrinsic part of embodiment.
In her prior article, CC describes an earlier model with a stage before #3, Consciousness Awakening. This is more like what I’d call initial Self Realization.
She then described Embodied Awakening, stage 3 above, what the book calls Whole Being Realization or Divinely Human Awakening.
The Awakened Heart that follows is more like what I’d call God Consciousness.
Thus, I’d say the online article is closer to the model I use. However, she goes into a lot more detail about the approach process in her book than I did in mine.
It’s impressive she’s developed this model without reference to tradition. It is from mapping their own and students unfolding. By contrast, I’ve seen others that didn’t differentiate experiences from shifts in being. Entire books on enlightenment are just categorizes of experiences – no actual enlightenment present.
Experiences can certainly be expansive and can change our perspective. But they don’t fundamentally change who or what we know ourselves to be. When you don’t know the difference between an experience that will come and go, and a more subtle shift in being, there can be the tendency to dwell on the temporary rather than support integrating inner being. For example, if we have a flashier awakening, we may confuse the flash with the shift, not recognizing the more subtle actual shift in consciousness. The result can be favouring what comes and goes rather than culturing the actual shift. This can delay a stable awakening and slow down embodiment.
This illustrates the importance of understanding in the awakening journey. Not that we’ll get there by figuring it out conceptually, but as a support to put our recognitions in context and ensure we don’t get side-tracked or stuck in an alley. Further, recognizing there’s more helps avoid getting stuck and allows us to let go of even our growing enlightenment. This allows the next stage to come forward.
I value other perspectives as, when the context is valid, they can bring out details and perspectives we may not have seen before.
Davidya
Seamless Onlyness, by some of its language, does point to Unity stage. However, CC didn’t agree with the way I framed Unity. This may just be a terminology issue.
As usual, well done Davidya! I for one can testify to most of the issues this article presents. I spent about 20 years in a Zen practice, and argued with myself about the idea of a monastic life, despite marriage and children. Rather humorous in retrospect. I too, had many deep experiences (many true shifts as well) and they fit right into the examples given in the various books and dharma talks I experienced. However, while I was sitting in a two-week retreat I had a large shift that revealed to me that I was in the wrong practice. In my next interview, I told the Roshi that I was leaving Zen completely! He was shocked and said that I was just ready to become a teacher!
The following years were difficult, but I moved into a more effortless sitting, and there I met my long-departed Guru, Neem Karoli Baba, and things changed. What I learned was exactly what you discuss here, which is that regardless of effort, we move at our own pace and not as the “book” may state. That we will eventually be led into the best way to meet our egos, in a friendly and accepting way, where the discussion can occur through awareness and love. Our process, as you reflect here, “Experiences can certainly be expansive and can change our perspective. But they don’t fundamentally change who or what we know ourselves to be.”, in retrospect, was why I needed to leave Zen. It was nice to read this and reflect upon those times. Thanks!
Thanks for sharing, Bill.