The Dialectical Law and the Myth of “Intuitive Insight”
(or Why Revelations Are Not Mysticism but Mathematics)
From time to time, we encounter a phenomenon: a person suddenly experiences “illumination,” “insight,” or “spiritual revelation” — and performs what society tends to call an act of genius. They write a great poem, make a scientific discovery, create a masterpiece of art, or launch a powerful philosophical impulse.
But is this truly something mystical, sudden, and spontaneous? Is there any “divine grace,” “cosmic merging,” “awakening of the heart,” “vibration of the universe,” or other romanticized explanations so beloved by advocates of intuitionism?
No. In the overwhelming majority of cases — no. What we are seeing is not mysticism but a manifestation of a fundamental dialectical law: the transition from quantity to quality.
This law, known to philosophy and science since Hegel and Marx, is far closer to everyday reality than it seems. It states that when a sufficient amount of quantitative change (data, experience, practice, observation) accumulates, a leap occurs — a qualitative transformation of the system.
This is exactly what happens to scientists, poets, musicians, and philosophers. Their sudden “insight” is not magic — it is the result of prolonged intellectual and spiritual work that accumulates a critical mass of material until the system crosses a threshold and transitions to a higher state. That leap is the qualitative change — not “revelation from above.”
Two Misconceptions About the Process
1. Mystification.
A person who does not understand the nature of the leap explains it through religious, occult, or romantic constructs. They assign themselves the status of “the chosen,” “a channel of cosmic wisdom,” “a seer.” Thus arises the entire pantheon of false gurus, self-proclaimed prophets, “carriers of vibrations,” and “conductors of light codes.” They cannot explain why “truth” came to them — but they desperately want to believe it was “from God.”
2. Confusing plus with minus.
The law works in the opposite direction too. A qualitative leap can be not an ascent, but a fall. If a person accumulates negative experience, anger, isolation, or psychological distortion over time — another kind of mass builds up. And that mass can also “break through,” producing an effect subjectively felt as “enlightenment,” “awakening,” or “new truth.” But the result may be fanaticism, darkness, and destruction — as with Manson or Moskvin. They too “had revelations.” But of what kind?
For someone lacking critical self-analysis, it is extremely difficult to discern whether their “insight” comes from the depth of a mature mind or the abyss of pathology. This is especially dangerous in cultures where intuition is romanticized, logic is distrusted, inner feeling outweighs external experiment, and authority is older than argument.
How to Distinguish the True from the False
The answer is simple and difficult at the same time: analyze. Compare. Verify. Think. Don’t take anyone’s word for it — not even your own.
In this sense, Buddhism in its original form — like science — offers the same antidote against demagogy and self-deception. As the Buddha himself said:
“Do not believe in anything simply because it is a tradition, even though it has been handed down through many generations and in many places. Do not believe in anything simply because many speak of it. Do not revere blindly the faith of the wise of the past. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers or elders. After observation and analysis, when you find that something agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Thus, even a mature religious teaching relies not on “illumination,” but on rational, experiential understanding — on verification and practice. Not on a flash, but on work. Not on “higher vibration,” but on inner honesty.
And if one is to seek light — it should be only the kind that does not blind.
Related pages: