This article appears to be deeply confusing two drastically different meanings of "enlightened".
There's the spiritual sense, which might be described as fully understanding and accepting the impermanence of the world and the "artificiality" of meaning.
Separately, there's "getting" something in a knowledge area. E.g. you finally understood how pointers work in C.
The author seems to start with the first... but then immediately goes wrong. He assumes if you're enlightened then you want to spread it -- but this is the exact opposite of enlightenment, so the author has it 100% backwards.
Then he eventually veers into "But what do you know about education and foreign policy, ecology and immigration, tax reform and monetary policy?" Which is the second sense of enlightenment, but has nothing to do with the first.
Spiritual enlightment has nothing to do with applied knowledge in any of those.
This is... really just a bad article. The author doesn't seem to understand what enlightenment is at all, and is trying to satirize/criticize it because of that. It's kind of sad, in a way.
>if you're enlightened then you want to spread it -- but this is the exact opposite of enlightenment, so the author has it 100% backwards.
I have to disagree there. Many people who achieve benefits through enlightenment want to spread it to as many people as possible, so that others can receive help in achieving their own enlightenement.
I don't think we're talking about the same thing, because according to what is classically meant by spiritual enlightenment, you don't "achieve benefits through enlightenment". You certainly don't "achieve" anything, and there are no "benefits" to spread.
Perhaps that may sound somewhat paradoxical, but that kind of paradoxical understanding is somewhat representative of enlightenment as a whole.
Can you really think of anyone you believe to be truly enlightened spiritually, who is busy trying to "spread it to as many people as possible"? I think the answer is no. The enlightened may help you out if you seek their assistance, but they are almost the exact opposite of "evangelicals" who seek to spread a message.
Enlightenment to me means the realise the nature of the universe and the nature of Man in it. Also to realize the nature of your happiness and desires, and the extent of your control over it.
To me, enlightenment in Europe picked up pace in the 1700s. It most certainly involved religious reform and the generation of new cults.
I think you are confusing the buddhist definition of enlightenment with other possible definitions. Perhaps you even believe that the buddhist definition is somehow final and absolute.
The buddhist definition of enlightenment lies far from mine, and both lie far from what a devout Christian might consider enlightenment.
There's the spiritual sense, which might be described as fully understanding and accepting the impermanence of the world and the "artificiality" of meaning.
Separately, there's "getting" something in a knowledge area. E.g. you finally understood how pointers work in C.
The author seems to start with the first... but then immediately goes wrong. He assumes if you're enlightened then you want to spread it -- but this is the exact opposite of enlightenment, so the author has it 100% backwards.
Then he eventually veers into "But what do you know about education and foreign policy, ecology and immigration, tax reform and monetary policy?" Which is the second sense of enlightenment, but has nothing to do with the first.
Spiritual enlightment has nothing to do with applied knowledge in any of those.
This is... really just a bad article. The author doesn't seem to understand what enlightenment is at all, and is trying to satirize/criticize it because of that. It's kind of sad, in a way.