If you achieve enlightenment, how will you know?

Enlightenment is understood vastly differently within religious traditions. While in Buddhism it refers to ‘awakening,’ or as found in Sanskrit, ‘Bodhi,’ Christianity refers to it as a unification with God, characterised through divine illumination, agape love, and the acceptance of God’s grace. Regardless, using either of these definitions, it is undeniable that a person would not know themselves whether enlightenment has been reached; while there may be epistemic difficulties in externally verifying enlightenment, the radical transformation in consciousness and moral character described in many traditions suggests that enlightenment would manifest in ways that make it recognisable, both to the individual and to observers.

A religious figure who would agree with this sentiment is Siddhartha Gautama, a 6th-century Indian prince who renounced his own wealth and status after encountering suffering. He attained enlightenment after sitting under the Bodhi Tree. And so, enlightenment in Buddhism is described as awakening from ignorance and suffering. For this reason, Gautama believes that we would indeed know, since our perception of reality fundamentally changes. This is plausible when we consider his grounds of contention – enlightenment removes ignorance and craving. This inference bears weight when we consider that cravings reveal themselves to us as emotional disturbances, frustration when desires are unmet, defensiveness of the ego, and fear of loss. Yet an enlightened person would behave in observable ways – they would be free from attachment, the fear of death, and they would suffer no desire for status or social praise. In this way, it becomes about experiential evidence. If so, enlightenment would not be subtle nor uncertain. Instead, it would involve clarity, and freedom from suffering or sin, yet most importantly, the eradication of ignorance. Since doubt arises from ignorance, and enlightenment removes ignorance entirely, it logically follows that uncertainty about enlightenment would also be eradicated. This argument can be corroborated using St Augustine’s theology, that divine illumination allows the soul to perceive the truth directly through God. If so, then error is overcome, as well as lack of clarity. Thus, a strong and compelling argument is presented consisting of the notion that since enlightenment includes self-perspicacity, then knowledge of conformation would be undeniable.

However, William James would strongly repudiate this notion. His work centred the ‘stream of consciousness,’ and through his in-depth study on it, he was able to evaluate the practical value of religious and mystical experiences. James suggests that you may think that you are enlightened, but you are mistaken. His foundations of the claim are as follows: psychology shows that humans are prone to confirmation bias and illusion. This stands true, as it seems sensical that when we want something to be true, we are more likely to believe that it is. This causes it to be a matter of subjectivity which may feel authoritative but which no one else may externally verify. If so, then subjective certainty doesn’t guarantee genuine enlightenment. This premise can be illuminated using an analogy- while you may be subjectively positive the sky is blue, this doesn’t mean it is factually correct- two people may both claim to see the colour “blue,” yet their subjective experiences of that colour could differ. Thus, in the same way, having ‘clarity,’ on what you feel ends up becoming subjective causing there to be a lack of certainty to support the claims. This objection is a powerful objection as it highlights the epistemological problem- inner certitude doesn’t always equate truth. This can be corroborated via an additional example- many people across the world are certain that the god which they believe in exists, despite all of them being different. In this way we are able to see how some will confuse inclinations toward beliefs as the ‘truth.’

Nevertheless, a strong response can be made back to this objection. Most religious understandings of enlightenment tend to distinguish true enlightenment from illusion. Genuine enlightenment would indeed be recognisable beyond doubt – the defining characteristics of it would be the enduring moral transformation a person must undergo, and as previously stated, these would be perpetuated visibly.  In Buddhism, enlightenment eliminates greed, hatred and delusion. In Christianity, enlightenment leads to virtues such as humility and charity. And so, by observing someone you would understand if they were in a state of enlightenment or not. Scriptural grounds to substantiate this claim can be found in Matthew 7:16, ‘by their fruits you will know them,’ This suggests that spiritual authenticity is revealed through sustained patterns of behaviour rather than through internal feelings alone. If so, then enlightenment is not a mere feeling, but a sustained ethical change. While an enlightened person will still experience emotions, they are no longer driven by them. Instead, they represent a long- term change in mental habit and moral standing, infallible and resolute. Therefore, this is a strong response, rejecting the second premise of the objection and allowing us to return to the initial idea, that enlightenment is indubitable- while the objection aims to suggest how internal verification is not confirmation, this response illuminates how we can also know enlightenment, from observable transformations.

Furthermore, many mystics describe enlightenment as ineffable, meaning it is beyond the limits of language and conceptual thought. In Buddhist traditions, nirvana is often characterised as transcending ordinary categories of understanding, suggesting that it cannot be fully grasped through rational or linguistic description- however, if this is true, then the notion of ‘knowing’ enlightenment in a propositional sense would not make sense. Similarly, Christian thought describes the ‘cloud of unknowing,’ a work of mysticism, providing a guide to contemplation, and instead of ‘knowing,’ things, it focuses on surrendering into the ‘cloud.’ This reflects the belief that finite human minds cannot fully comprehend an infinite reality. Consequently, if enlightenment surpasses rational categories, ordinary forms of self-awareness and logical verification may not function in the way we expect. Logic itself doesn’t apply in the way in which we understand it to- ordinary linguistic frameworks are insufficient to describe it. If so, asking the question ‘how will you know?’ doesn’t make sense, as it misunderstands enlightenment, assuming it operates within ordinary epistemic frameworks. This is plausible because many religious traditions emphasise direct experiential awareness rather than intellectual knowledge, suggesting that enlightenment may be recognised through a transformed state of being rather than through reflective certainty. Therefore, once more, a strong argument for knowledge of enlightenment is presented. While the initial arguments suggest that knowing would arise from subjectivity, this argument suggests that the entire question fails; enlightenment transcends this very discussion, and experience will still exist even if language in inadequate.

Conversely, while this argument appears logical, by focusing on what enlightenment truly is, it becomes tenuous. If we concede that enlightenment is transcendent, we must also concede that it can’t be known at all. The first premise is as follows – humans are finite while enlightenment is infinite. This is plausible when we consider that humans themselves are not creatures of omnipotence, and omniscience, and so, we must be finite. Therefore, enlightenment itself cannot be understood. There is no awareness, nor recognition of the infinite within the finite, and enlightenment thus becomes indistinguishable from non- enlightenment. This causes the concept to lose practical significance, and within Christianity, motivational force is lost. This is a prima facie worrying objection to the argument, functioning as a reductio ad absurdum, as it takes the entire idea of the transcendence of enlightenment, and implies that it could never be recognised at all, thus presenting the absurdity of the argument. Therefore, this objection successfully demonstrates the failure of the argument, exploiting how the flaw within it causes the concept to have no basis.

Yet there still remains to be some compelling aspects to the argument. Mystics have often said that enlightenment is a kind of direct awareness, rather than reflective knowledge. The distinction here centers immediately upon experiencing reality rather than thinking about it. Their version of enlightenment is described as a non-conceptual, non-dual experience, often referred to as a sense of ‘being’ or ‘knowing,’ as opposed to an intellectual or cognitive concept. In simpler terms, it can be described as a ‘state of existence,’ not an ‘acquisition’ of sorts. So, for this reason, you would ‘know’ enlightenment, not as a thought, but as a transformed mode of being in permanence. This is when we consider the grounds for this claim– you do not need proof of enlightenment. Just as you do not require proof to know you are conscious, enlightenment is an immediate awareness of itself. In many Eastern traditions enlightenment is often misinterpreted as a permanent ecstatic state. Instead, it is described as a fundamental shift in awareness. Thus, enlightenment would not be something propositional, but experiential clarity. Where propositional knowledge refers to intellectual knowledge, facts or beliefs, that can be stated in words. Whereas enlightenment is not something you can learn from a book or simply agree with intellectually. And experiential clarity refers to direct, personal realisation or insight. It is a ‘knowing how’ or ‘knowing what it is like’ that is immediate and ineffable—it cannot be transferred simply by language. It is an irrevocable shift in perception or consciousness making enlightenment categorical and irrefutable. In this way, we are able to return to our original idea of enlightenment as something we ‘know.’ Therefore, a convincing response is delivered to the objection- it reconciles ineffability with awareness, suggesting that despite its infinity, enlightenment can indeed be known, just not within the conceptual framework we possess.

And so, while overall certain epistemological challenges arise when attempting to verify enlightenment to others, these objections cannot undermine the central argument that enlightenment would be immediately recognisable. James may attempt to highlight that our psyche can be victim to illusion and the danger of subjectivity, enlightenment is something distinguishable from confusion- a profound and enduring transformation. Both Buddhist and Christian perspectives agree on this. Enlightenment is an overcoming of ignorance and a cultivation of one’s moral virtues, suggesting that it is not a mere feeling, rather a fundamental shift within one’s mode of being. Furthermore, while it may be suggested that it is ineffable and infinite, it does not at all render it unknowable; rather, it can be recognised through experience. Consequently, enlightenment will resist ordinary methods of verification, however, the radical transformation in morals and clarity, would make it unmistakeable to the person who experiences it, and discernible through their actions. Therefore, no matter the fact that it transcends ordinary knowledge, it remains something that, once attained, would be undeniably known.