I honestly don't get the point of the article. Is it supposed to be a jab at the modern mindfulness wave? Or is it actually speaking of "enlightenment" as it's understood in most spiritual practices, in which case none of the questions even make sense?
> Or is it actually speaking of "enlightenment" as it's understood in most spiritual practices, in which case none of the questions even make sense?
You'd think that (and I agree that the article doesn't make much sense) but as a matter of fact, quite a few people seem to think that they are enlightened in the spiritual sense you're talking about, and that this means that their view of enlightenment should definitely be turned into a quasi-cult, with them at the lead. Daniel Ingram (author of Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha - a surprisingly pragmatic take, all things considered!) has repeatedly expressed his frustration with this.
Enlightenment is the action of achievement, even in a moment, of the state of Nirvana. Nirvana can mean "quenching" (like from a forge) or "blowing out".
There are definitely various interpretations what this actually means, but the early texts indicate it to be the extinguishing of Dukkha (stress) in the target subject.
The subject arrives at this state (of no suffering) by way of understanding the origins of stress to be the fact of impermanence of all things, including a soul.
Of course there are thousands of ways to become enlightened (science for one tells a lot about impermanence), but there is a single effect of those ways which is the most direct for the given context.
If you really want to see behind the curtain, go sit in Vipassana. This is what Buddha suggested, if one is interested in this attainment!
Seriously. But presumably it's easier to write a snarky article than it is to spend years learning about that enlightenment really means for different traditions.
Do you have any reason to not see it in the light of your first alternative reading? I would not necessarily have put it that way myself, but on seeing you do so, it resonated.
Upon reading it my thoughts went to yesterday's Verge article on the audio recordings of Zuckerberg's Q&As. Facebook has many vocal rank and file people who seem to believe they've arrived at Enlightenment and want Zuckerberg to toe the line. His imperfect attempts to walk a tightrope that keeps everyone happy infuriate the Enlightened, who believe tightrope walking is in its very conception a concession to Evil. They conclude that he's an Agent of Hatred and start taking steps to coerce him into compliance with Correct Thinking.
You can be the enlightened one in many things. Here is an example: Edward Snowdon. Re-read the article imagining yourself to be him and it might make more sense.
Was he enlightened? Well yes. He could see the system for what it was in a very Matrix type of way. Before he came out with facts we were tin foil hat wearers, certainly not enlightened.
Because Snowdon knows some of the truths he has a vantage point to see the rest of the way government works for what it is. He also has a vantage point for seeing his fellow human beings for what they are. You can count on one hand the amount of people in the spy agencies that came out in a way inspired by Snowdon. It didn't happen, they just hunkered down.
I would say that Snowdon has got the measure of his fellow man and is therefore enlightened.
You can achieve enlightenment in many ways and the spiritual practice world does not have a monopoly on enlightenment. There are probably more fraudsters than genuine enlightened in the religious world.
Enlightenment is a thing though and with it comes a whole host of other thoughts, as per the article.
The article desperately tries to push all the triggers like a nerd on a party who tries to small-talk about science with a beauty queen who already has achieved inner emptiness.
What i wanted to say is that it doesn't really seem to understand the subject and is directed at people who also don't understand the subject but who like to talk about it. It goes off in all angles in order to spark some kind of conversation.
Many beautiful people are not content with just being beautiful. It even gives them some kind of inner unrest that they don't feel they deserve what they have and yet can't achieve what they urge.
