• Anne Sweet

Enlightenment, ethics and morality

If you truly know yourself beyond, and are free from, the personal identity you know you are indistinguishable from the Source. With that recognition comes the knowing of the sacredness and unity of all things, and the deep (though often painful) acceptance of the presence of all things, within and without: glorious and horrific, macabre and beatific.

Man has created a morality to enable society to function within the complexity of existence without continually collapsing into chaos and mayhem. As I understand it, this is not the true morality: it is a human construct that serves human existence. There is a deeper morality born of the 'knowing of the sacredness and unity of all things' which is not a morality at all. Paradoxically, in the discovery of liberation or freedom, I found myself completely bound and unfree. I do not have the freedom to act irresponsibly or harmfully or unethically. I do not have the freedom to stand idly by in the face of untruth. I am absolutely governed by inherent rules and laws that are not man-made, that are not 'personal'.

Those who claim to be enlightened but are still causing harm are not yet enlightened, regardless of their status or spiritual realization. Unfortunately, it is possible to be corrupt and be self-realized but this is not enlightenment as I understand it. If enlightenment is to mean anything at all, surely it must represent our highest and greatest human potential, unmarred and untainted by the outward demonstration of our lower instincts, compulsions and desires.