Beyond Conceptual Categories: What I Got Wrong about Enlightenment

By Tchiki Davis, M.A., Ph.D.
*This page may include affiliate links; that means we earn from qualifying purchases of products.

The Enlightenment Map > Stage 4 > Conceptual Categories

Beyond Conceptual Categories: What I Got Wrong about Enlightenment

Most spiritual teachings begin by questioning some aspect of ordinary identity. People are encouraged to investigate the belief that they are a separate self, a thinker of thoughts, a controller of actions, or an owner of emotions. These investigations can produce profound shifts in perception. Long-held assumptions begin to loosen, and experience may appear far more fluid and interconnected than it once seemed.

Yet there is a deeper clarity that receives far less attention. What if the fundamental illusion is not about the self at all? What if the deeper misunderstanding is about the mind's tendency to organize experience into conceptual categories (like self and no-self) and then mistake those categories for reality itself? From this perspective, the self is not the primary problem. It is simply one example of a much larger misunderstanding of reality.

This possibility changes the conversation about awakening in significant ways. Rather than asking whether a self exists or does not exist, attention shifts toward the categories through which those questions are being asked. The focus is no longer on finding the correct answer within a conceptual framework. Instead, the framework itself becomes the object of investigation. This opens the door to a very different understanding of enlightenment, one that may extend beyond many of the conclusions commonly presented in contemporary spirituality.

Get The FREE Awakening eBook

✓ Discover what awakening is like
✓ Learn about the four stages between awakening & enlightenment
✓ Get exercises to progress

Sign up below to get our FREE eBook.

What Are Conceptual Categories?

Conceptual categories are mental distinctions that help organize experience. They allow people to navigate everyday life by dividing the world into recognizable patterns like This versus Not-This. Concepts such as self and not-self, success and failure, or freedom and not-freedom all serve practical functions. Without these distinctions, ordinary communication would become difficult.

The problem is not that conceptual categories exist. The problem arises when concepts are mistaken for reality itself. A category is a way of organizing experience, but it is not necessarily how experience fundamentally is. The mind often forgets this is all made up. It begins treating its descriptions of reality as if they were reality.

This tendency does not disappear when someone awakens. In many cases, it simply becomes more fixed and unquestioned. The category of "what is included in the experience of self" may be replaced by the category of "what is included in the experience of no-self." Although the lived experience changes, the underlying conceptual assumptions remain intact.

Is Paradox Real?
This is one reason spiritual teachings can appear to be paradoxical. They frequently attempt to point to both sides of a conceptual reality. Sometimes once side seems true; sometimes both sides seem true. But both of these perspectives assume that there are actually sides, that there is an actual difference between THIS and NOT-THIS.

There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It is just one perspective that often arises on the path. In 5th density, wisdom sees through the solid, real sense of the self and its arbitrary boundaries. This sense of nothingness or emptiness often seems to lead to an experience of peace.

But in 6th density, This and Not-This, self and no-self, are integrated, not transcended into nothingness. It becomes obvious that they were never different. The apparent need, path, or experience of transcending self is still part of a conceptual/dual reality where opposites still seem like opposites.

A Non-Duality Trap
Many teachers use non-dual insight as a tool to detach from suffering rather than as a fuller embrace of reality. "It's not me, therefore nothing truly hurts" is actually a sophisticated form of detachment dressed in liberation language. The tricky part is that it works... for awhile.

Looking at everything through the lens that it is "not-self" is one way to push away all negative feelings and thoughts. But this is imbalance, not integration. This insight, once integrated, isn't about disidentifying with experiences. It's about experiencing everything fully while simultaneously experiencing its emptiness. Those experiences are not actually different.

It's not about transcending suffering because suffering and not-suffering were never separate.

The Hidden Structure of No-Self

Few teachings have become as influential in contemporary spirituality as the teaching of no-self. Across Buddhist traditions, nondual teachings, and modern awakening communities, people are encouraged to investigate whether there is actually a separate self at the center of experience. For many (including me), this investigation leads to a genuine and meaningful shift. The self that once seemed obvious begins to appear far less substantial than previously assumed. This is a key part of the journey and it is beautiful in its own way.

Awakening Into New Concepts; Not Moving Beyond Concepts
Yet there is a subtle feature of this realization that is rarely examined closely. The initial no-self realization is an insight about 'the way things are', a Truth with a capital T rather than a dissolution of the category 'self vs no-self' altogether. Before the insight, the assumption is that the self exists. After the insight, the assumption becomes that the self does not exist. Something important has undoubtedly been seen, but the conceptual structure organizing the experience remains exactly the same.

The mental category is still creating an experience by which "self vs no-self" seem like real things. The identification moves from "self" to "no-self". As this deepens, it becomes clear that both are true. And further deepening shows that they are the same thing (even the word 'both' isn't accurate).

Deep Enlightenment Has Nothing To Do With A Self
In basically all nondual circles, the conversation remains centered on selfhood. When the inquiry remains centered on selfhood, there is still an assumption of self/no-self being a real category that could actually be transcended. How could you transcend something (self) that isn't real? How could you find a truth (no-self) that also isn't real? Reality is still being constructed from uninvestigated beliefs and concepts.

Ask Yourself: What if reality was never fundamentally organized based on an illusion of self? Does it even make sense that our entire reality would be based on a single concept of a self that isn't even real?

The perspective that "seeing through the self is what leads to enlightenment" is exactly what a self would say. LOL.

Deeper clarity is no longer about whether a self exists or does not exist. That's not even the right question. The deeper recognition does not involve seeing the Truth in one side of a duality: self/no-self, emptiness/fullness, or everything/nothing. It involves seeing how the framework we were looking through distorted ALL dualities. Conceptual dualities, of all shapes and forms, are interpretations, not truth. And no one category (e.g., self/no-self) is more meaningful than another.

When No-Self Becomes a New Identity

This dynamic becomes especially apparent when observing what often happens after a genuine no-self realization. Someone who previously believed "I am a separate self" adopts a new position: "There is no self." Often, it is said that there is 'no doubt'. The shift in experience can be dramatic because the content has changed so significantly. Yet the underlying duality remains intact.

No Opposites
There is still a mental reference point around which identity (and reality) is organized. Although people often claim there isn't, there is still a knower who possesses a particular perspective or understanding. In a way, there will always be knowing because knowing and not-knowing are the same thing. There isn't a real distinction between opposites. There isn't anything real to transcend, and any experience of transcendence is still within the illusion of duality; transcending from one pole to the other.

The Danger of A 'No-Self Identity'
In many cases, this no-self identity can become even more rigid than the ordinary one. The conventional sense of self often contains uncertainty and self-doubt. By contrast, genuine spiritual realization can sometimes be accompanied by a sense of certainty that one has discovered how things truly are. The insight is no longer experienced as a perspective. It is experienced as Truth itself. But this is still an illusion.

Certainty, in any form, is a strong form of positioning, of knowing. Being a self or no-self remains a category that people can be sorted into. When one experience or viewpoint is regarded as true, right, or correct while another is regarded as false, wrong, or incorrect, a conceptual duality is already distorting experience.

Regardless of how deep and genuine a spiritual teacher's realization was, they literally know no more than you do. There is no Truth with a capital T; the only truth that matters is the one you find in yourself.

Dive Deeper Into Nonduality

Book a Session

Beyond the No-Doer

Many spiritual traditions include examining the sense of agency. People are encouraged to investigate whether there is actually a doer behind actions. Upon careful observation, it often becomes difficult to find a separate entity initiating thoughts, movements, or decisions. Actions appear to happen, but the doer who supposedly controls them becomes increasingly difficult to locate.

This realization can be deeply liberating. The burden of constantly managing life may begin to soften when actions are no longer viewed as the responsibility of an isolated individual. Yet even here, a conceptual framework remains active. The duality still holds. The mind simply moves from the belief that "there is a doer" to the belief that "there is no doer," but the apparent distinction between doing and non-doing goes unquestioned.

Within the dream of consciousness, beliefs create reality. So the new belief creates a different experience of reality. This change in experience gets mistaken for something special, like enlightenment.

Categories, Themselves, Are Not Real
What exactly distinguishes doing from non-doing in direct experience? At first glance the distinction appears obvious, but closer examination can reveal something surprising. The boundary between action and non-action becomes increasingly difficult to locate. Experience unfolds as a seamless process, and the concepts of doing and non-doing begin to look less like features of a self or no-self and more like ways of interpreting experience (i.e., this is still thoughts).

The question is no longer whether a self is doing an action. The question becomes whether there is an actual, identifiable experience that we can even call "action". And there isn't.

Beyond the Decision-Maker: Free Will Versus No Free Will

A similar dynamic can be found in discussions about choice and decision-making. Many awakening teachings emphasize that there is no individual decision-maker standing outside experience and selecting among possibilities. Decisions seem to arise on their own, much like thoughts, emotions, and perceptions.

Once again, the conversation often remains organized around a conceptual duality. The focus shifts from the existence of a decision-maker to the absence of a decision-maker. The illusory difference between decision and not-decision is not even seen.

What Is The Experience of 'Decision'?
What is the actual difference between decision and not-decision? A non-dual teacher will tell you that decisions arise, but not for a self. But have you ever actually looked directly? The idea (and experience) that there is a separate event called "a decision" that is different from not-decision is completely conceptual: it's all interpretation.

The mind says, I decided to take that job. Or, the more spiritual version. "A decision was made to take that job." But this assumes there is an experience that is 'not-decision'. Literally, every single movement of our body, grinding my teeth at night, the heart beating, going for a walk, calling a friend, taking a deep breath. Everything could be labeled 'decision' or nothing could be; it all depends on your perspective, or your mind. There is no actual experience of "decision" that can be found in direct experience.

Beyond Emotions

Many spiritual teachings encourage people to recognize that they are not their emotions. Fear, anger, sadness, and joy are described as real experiences arising within awareness (or, once you see through awareness, they are often described as flow or 'just this'). Learning to observe emotions without becoming completely identified with them is often an important stage of the awakening path.

However, at this level of realization, the emotion is still treated as a clearly identifiable object that a self can separate from. Fear is still fear. Anger is still anger. The concepts continue to create experience in the same old ways.

Just Look!
With sufficiently careful observation, emotions will reveal that they a nothing more than physiological sensations with labeling attached. Consider fear. Ordinarily, fear appears to be a distinct and recognizable experience. It seems fundamentally different from courage, excitement, or bliss. But when fear is examined closely, felt into deeply without immediately naming it, it reveals that it becomes what it is labeled, not the other way around.

The same energetic intensity is present for both bliss and fear. It's just the mind using external cues, context, and past memories to guess what emotion is present. Eventually, if you sit in it long enough, fear can reveal itself as fear, not-fear, both fear and not-fear, and everything else simultaneously.

Once this is seen, the categories become increasingly difficult to maintain. What once appeared to be a fixed, real experience starts to reveal what the conceptual construction concealed. Categories aren't real.

Beyond Insight

Even spiritual insight is not exempt from this process. Many teachings point toward the recognition that insights simply arise. For those using the framework of a map or fetter process, there is no separate person or "I" manufacturing awakening experiences. Realizations appear spontaneously, just as thoughts and perceptions do.

This is already a deep recognition. The pressure to reach enlightenment softens when realization is seen as something that happens rather than something an individual accomplishes. Yet even this perspective retains a conceptual structure. Insight remains distinct from non-insight. Awakening remains distinct from ordinary experience.

There Are No Real Distinctions
At a deeper level of investigation, even these distinctions may begin to lose their reality. What exactly separates an insight from a non-insight in direct experience? Typically, experiences are labeled as breakthroughs after they occur. The designation arrives retrospectively. The category is applied after the fact.

The distinction emerges only when memory and interpretation begin organizing what happened. When the mental mechanisms that apply categories to raw experience stop automatically arising, there is nothing left to sort experiences into insight versus not-insight. For example, the clarity that is being expressed in this article did not come from an insight or realization. It's just here. I have no idea when it arose, and it has no cause.

Turtles All the Way Down

One of the most common patterns in spiritual development is the tendency to replace one reified concept with another. The movement often feels like progress because each new concept appears subtler and more sophisticated than the last. Yet the underlying tendency to turn ideas into fixed realities remains largely unchanged.

The process frequently begins with identification as a separate self. Through inquiry or meditation, attention shifts toward awareness, which is treated as the deeper truth underlying all experience.
That identification may begin to dissolve and no-self becomes the new understanding. Then no-self itself becomes a position.
Eventually 'nothingness' may become the next answer. Then 'no-thing' becomes the new ground. Or "just this" becomes the next thing.

At every stage, something genuine may be recognized, but the structure, the reification of concepts continues operating in the background until the background is seen for what it is. Not separate from the foreground.

The mind continues searching for a final conceptual resting place. It continues attempting to locate the one description that captures reality correctly. This tendency can persist through every stage of spiritual development. Maybe it never ends; I don't know.

How to See Reification in Spiritual Communications

Many teachers acknowledge that language is limited. They openly state that reality cannot be captured by concepts and that words are merely pointers. While this recognition is valuable, it does not necessarily mean that conceptual categories have been seen through but that teacher. (99% of the time, there are still concepts operating that they don't see).

One way to recognize reification is to notice whether a teacher continues to divide reality into what is ultimately true and what is ultimately false. Awareness may be presented as the True Self. Consciousness may be described as the true nature of existence. No-self may be said to be the ultimate realization. Although the language points to genuine realizations, the hierarchy of concepts is still unseen.

Practice Is No Different Than Non-Practice
Another indicator is the suggestion that a given practice will help you reach a particular outcome. Here, the concept of 'good' is creating categories about what actions are likely to lead to awakening. There is no practice or action that is any better than any other for causing awakening. There isn't even really time or cause and effect. Once these have been seen through, it's obvious that all spiritual practice arises within conceptual reality.

It's All Perfect
This is not meant to be a criticism of spiritual teachers. Most are describing genuine experiences as clearly as possible. All are operating from their unique level of clarity. Most are genuinely speaking their truth. And there is nothing good/bad, right/wrong about any perspective. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. All perspectives, all teachers, all students, all people who have no interest in this whatsoever are the same. The mind is the thing making these distinctions seem important.

And Yet...
I do think some spiritual seekers might want to know that a teacher who says they are speaking non-conceptually is actually still speaking about unseen concepts such as awareness, no-self, emptiness, no-thing, etc... as if they are real things that you could experience. And often, they won't know it. So, just food for thought.

Final Thoughts on Categories

Much of modern spirituality remains organized around conceptual categories. The debate may concern self versus no-self, awareness versus thought, or enlightenment versus ignorance, but the underlying category structure remains unchanged. Reality continues to be interpreted through conceptual distinctions that are rarely questioned themselves.

From this perspective, enlightenment is not a matter of finding the correct side of a conceptual divide. It is not about replacing self with no-self or ignorance with liberation. From this perspective, all of that is still illusion. But there is nothing right or wrong about illusion.

Want to chat about nondual awakening?