I think that you have raised such an important question and some may believe that 'enlightenment' is possible and others may remain sceptical of the idea completely. Personally, I am inclined to think that it may be possible to enter into peak experiences of consciousness, but such states of numinosity may not be the exclusive right of any particular 'religion' and, there may also be a danger of people who believe that they are 'the enlightened' seeing this as some form of achievement of 'superiority'.

This may throw a question mark on any who claim to have experienced 'enlightenment.' I am partly thinking of Krishnamurti, who was believed to be a future spiritual leader, and he had to step back from this and look at the nature of such a quest, rather than being drawn into the inflated ego consciousness of spirituality. There may have been so many who stepped into a sense of knowing, and as you say, Jung recognizes the way in which it may be a journey through darkness into light, with many perils along the way, and I believe that one writer, Alice Bailey, captures this in the idea of the 'dweller on the threshold'. Enlightenment may not be a simple idea but one with complex questions about knowledge of self and the glamours surrounding this, as well as the whole nature of responsibility connected to power of knowledge. However, many may even question the idea of 'enlightenment' in itself.

I used to spend a fair bit of time at the Adyar Bookshop in Sydney, now long-gone, the entire collection of which was devoted to this subject. One of the books I picked up was one of the 'ur-texts' of the New Age: Cosmic Consciousness by Richard Maurice Bucke. This book was published in 1901 so it's hardly new, many will have encountered it, but it's worth spelling out its main idea. And that is, according to Bucke, that h. sapiens is still evolving, and is on the cusp of a transition to a wholly different state of being, one as different from our normal condition as humans are from animals. This state is 'cosmic consciousness'. According to Bucke it has recognisable characteristics which can be discerned from the writings of notable sages throughout history. His list of exemplars include Jesus, the Buddha, St Paul, St John of the Cross, Spinoza, Dante, Mohammed and Honoré de Balzac, among others. He gives examples of five cardinal points which are attributes of this condition and shows in the writings of his exemplars where these are documented.

The typography and layout of the original was significant - the main text was set in the middle of each page, with comments and comparisons made in smaller typeface in the margins. I say that, because although the text is now available free online, the format really helped convey the meaning of the text, and reading it as a disconnected jumble of hypertext extracts undermines it. I should also note Bucke was a psychiatrist in charge of a major psychiatric facility in Canada, and that as far as he was concerned, his writing was thoroughly scientific in nature, not devotional or dogmatic.

Anyway, the reason I mention Bucke's book is because, despite its shortcomings, it was a kind of proto-anthropological attempt to frame a 'theory of higher consciousness'. And it was cross-cultural, drawing as it did on Christian, Islamic and Indian sources, and also from literature and cases from everyday life. (Read The Case of C.M.C. in Her Own Words.) At the time I read that, I also read William James, Varieties of Religious Experience, Alduous Huxley, The Perennial Philosophy, and excerpts from Ninian Smart and Huston Smith on comparative religion. From all this a pretty clear picture emerges, in my opinion: something very like Bucke's 'Cosmic Consciousness' is a real faculty, it is possessed by a very few individuals, and it provides a radically transformative understanding of the nature of existence.

I tended to associate all of this with a more 'gnostic' attitude than is characteristic of mainstream religion. In fact, I question whether it really is 'religion'. One of the things I notice on this board, in particular, is that much of this material is categorised, or should I say stereotyped, as religious dogma, therefore superstitious, anti-rational and unscientific. And that, I feel, is because of the particular intellectual history of Western culture and the way this kind of understanding has been handled and 'firewalled' from the rest of society. It's completely different in Indian culture, for example. But it means that all of these ideas are looked at through these culturally-engrained preconceptions, many of them originating from the way that the Roman church brutally suppressed the Gnostic traditions at the beginning of Western history. We're still living out the repercussions of that, but I think as of the mid-20th century, those walls are starting to crumble. (I encountered a book by an evangelical academic, Against the Modern Gnostics, which was an alarm cry from the Christian church just about this phenomenon - the encroachment of Eastern/New Age/Gnostic ideas into the public square.)

One of the things I notice on this board, in particular, is that much of this material is categorised, or should I say stereoptyped, as religious dogma, therefore superstitious, anti-rational and unscientific. — Wayfarer

I think that this is because so many people are approaching the matter too abstractly and too passively.

The various claims being contested by so many people were/are originally part of a system of practice and a system of social relationships. Those claims don't just somehow "hang in the air", as arguments or premises, or words "with magic power". They are part of a system of virtue epistemology, where it is assumed that by doing certain practices and developing certain virtues, one will come to realize that a particular claim is true.

But many people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues, but instead believe that all it takes and all it should take is a syllogism, or the right mantra, regardless of what one otherwise does, how one behaves, or what else one knows.

Cosmic Consciousness by Richard Maurice Bucke. — Wayfarer

Good call - my mum had this book and used to gently lecture me about it. I forgot all about it. As it happens Spinoza was her favorite thinker.

it is possessed by a very few individuals, and it provides a radically transformative understanding of the nature of existence. — Wayfarer

That's interesting. I wonder too how this transformative understanding might impact upon the behavior of such a person. Are they more likely to be in harmony with others, eschew violence, have affairs? In other words and an enlightened one, do you get a humanity bypass? If not it just sounds like a case of immense wisdom in some areas and drastic failings in others.

much of this material is categorised, or should I say stereoptyped, as religious dogma, therefore superstitious, anti-rational and unscientific — Wayfarer

As you've noted, that's mainstream life in post Enlightenment age...

This may throw a question mark on any who claim to have experienced 'enlightenment.' I am partly thinking of Krishnamurti, who was believed to be a future spiritual leader, and he had to step back from this and look at the nature of such a quest, rather than being drawn into the inflated ego consciousness of spirituality. — Jack Cummins

Thanks Jack. Yes, Krishnamurti has come up a few times. I find what he says very interesting and always have. But his personal life seems to have been somewhat tawdry. It this is enlightenment then it seems to have a limited purview.

But many people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues — baker

Yes, I think this is worth developing further.

Have you checked out Making Sense?

Sam Harris is also socialized into a soulless, physicalist world, only from the point of view of an experienced meditator who studies cognitive science.

He helps dismiss the metaphysical crap thereabouts.

Thanks, I have. Some of Harris' stuff prompted me to ask the question.

any people just don't do those practices, don't develop those virtues, but instead believe that all it takes and all it should take is a syllogism, or the right mantra, regardless of what one otherwise does, how one behaves, or what else one knows. — baker

That is more typical of those who dabble rather than just rejecting them outright which is more typical of straight-ahead secular culture.

I wonder too how this transformative understanding might impact upon the behavior of such a person. Are they more likely to be in harmony with others, eschew violence, have affairs? In other words and an enlightened one, do you get a humanity bypass? — Tom Storm

In some ideal world, perhaps. This book was an eye-opener. And this article, which depressed me hugely when it came out.

Some of Harris' stuff prompted me to ask the question. — Tom Storm

You ought to read about the dubious provenance of his PhD. Of course there are propogandists on both sides of the barbed wire fence.

Sam Harris is also socialized into a soulless, physicalist world, only from the point of view of an experienced meditator who studies cognitive science.

He helps dismiss the metaphysical crap thereabouts. — Banno

How do we know that when Mr. Harris uses the same words as the " metaphysical crap thereabouts", he means the same things as the "metaphysical crap thereabouts"?

If the two are not talking about the same things, any further comparison is moot.

That is more typical of those who dabble rather than just rejecting them outright which is more typical of straight-ahead secular culture. — Wayfarer

In your view, what do those rejectors hold as proper epistemological standards? What do they believe that it takes in order to know something?

In your view, what do those rejectors hold as proper epistemological standards? What do they believe that it takes in order to know something? — baker

It's mainly influenced by the British empiricist tradition, that knowledge can only be grounded in what can be experienced by the senses and/or scientific instruments, and mathematical reasoning from those same data.

Should the term enlightenment be reserved solely for use by spiritual traditions? It seems so connected to particular expressions of metaphysics.

It reminds me of the discussion I had with @Janus earlier about who can be called a Christian. Can someone who believes that Jesus is a myth and thinks all stories of miracles and the New Testament stories are nonsense, be called a Christian? I am inclined to say no but Janus and perhaps others disagree.

When Harris uses the term enlightenment is he talking about the same thing as a more traditional Buddhist?

Are we heading back to the themes in Evan Thompson's book, Why I am Not Buddhist?

Should the term enlightenment be reserved solely for use by spiritual traditions? It seems so connected to particular expressions of metaphysics. — Tom Storm

The provenance of the term is that it was used by Thomas Rhys-Davids, founder of the Pali Text Society, which translated the Pali Buddhist texts into English, as the translation for 'bodhi'. Bodhi is one of those many Buddhist terms for which there is no real English equivalent, but it's often also translated as 'wisdom'.

Rhys Davids selected it because of its resonance with the European Enlightenment, as a consequence of his belief that Buddhism (Pali Buddhism in particular) was a 'scientific religion'. He was part of a phase in the Western exploration of Buddhism which came to be called 'protestant Buddhism', for that very reason - Buddhism depicted as scientific (due to the alleged absence of belief in a supreme being, and 'karma' being compared to the 'laws of motion', among other things.)

Sam Harris, I've never liked. I disliked the whole 'new atheist' thing, arguing against it is what brought me to Internet forums in the first place, although I think overall it's past its peak. Dawkins said in the preface to TGD that his aim was that Christians who picked up the book should put it down atheist. I thought it was such an appalling piece of undergraduate nonsense it had rather the opposite effect on me.

As for 'what enlightenment means' - obviously a very difficult question, maybe impossible in the abstract. As said above:

They are part of a system of virtue epistemology, where it is assumed that by doing certain practices and developing certain virtues, one will come to realize that a particular claim is true. — baker

The provenance of the term is that it was used by Thomas Rhys-Davids, founder of the Pali Text Society, which translated the Pali Buddhist texts into English, as the translation for 'bodhi'. Bodhi is one of those many Buddhist terms for which there is no real English equivalent, but it's often also translated as 'wisdom'. — Wayfarer

Hence Jesus as being described by some as a bodhisattva.

Sam Harris does talk about enlightenment from several perspectives.

This quote from his Waking Up website struck me as apropos:

"What is enlightenment, which is so often said to be the ultimate goal of meditation? There are many esoteric details that we can safely ignore—disagreements among contemplative traditions about what, exactly, is gained or lost at the end of the spiritual path. Many of these claims are preposterous. Within most schools of Buddhism, for instance, a buddha—whether the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, or any other person who attains the state of “full enlightenment”—is generally described as “omniscient.” Just what this means is open to a fair bit of caviling. But however narrowly defined, the claim is absurd. If the historical Buddha were “omniscient,” he would have been, at minimum, a better mathematician, physicist, biologist, and Jeopardy contestant than any person who has ever lived. Is it reasonable to expect that an ascetic in the fifth century BC, by virtue of his meditative insights, spontaneously became an unprecedented genius in every field of human inquiry, including those that did not exist at the time in which he lived? Would Siddhartha Gautama have awed Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, John von Neumann, and Claude Shannon with his command of mathematical logic and information theory? Of course not. To think otherwise is pure, religious piety."

I've been complaining to myself that there aren't any good threads around. This is a great one. Thanks.

Great post. We can always count on you to walk the line between east and west with both sympathy and skepticism, whichever is most needed.

And this article, which depressed me hugely when it came out. — Wayfarer

I can see why the article bothered you, but for me it just highlighted the continuity between what we call "enlightenment" and everyday life. The experiences, whatever they are, are human experiences felt by imperfect humans. They are not occult or supernatural. That continuity is what attracts me to Taoism. It's aimed at people who are going to keep their day job, with acknowledgement that that day job may be general or prince.

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however, is disagreeable and therefore not popular.”
― C.G. Jung — Tom Storm

This reminds me of a quote that I have not been able to find the original of. I think it's from Alan Watts. Something like this - What we call mysteries are just aspects of who we are that we have hidden from ourselves. That could be the darkness Jung is talking about. It's hard, painful, to bring those hidden parts of ourselves out into the open.

For me, enlightenment, in the way we are discussing it, is self-awareness. I know that I have become more and more self-aware as I've gotten older. Somewhere along the line, that became my path. To become as self-aware as I can in as many ways as I can. As I've said often in the forum, the difference between eastern and western philosophies for me is the difference between awareness and reason. For me, reason is fine and useful, but you have to have the experience, awareness first to give reason something to work with.

Apparently, during the process of increasing self-awareness, there comes a breaking point, a discontinuity, called enlightenment. I certainly don't have any expectation or ambition to reach that point.

knowledge can only be grounded in what can be experienced by the senses — Wayfarer

Considering that it would be impossible to know anything without such a grounding it’s really not that unreasonable.

Considering that it would be impossible to know anything without such a grounding it’s really not that unreasonable. — praxis

My very first lecture in philosophy was about the distinction between empiricism and rationalism. Took me a long while to grasp that distinction, and I'm still working on it. Suffice to note that in classical (i.e. pre-modern) philosophy, rationalism was concerned with arriving at, shall we say, a cosmic truth, without recourse to experience - classical examples being Parmenides and Plotinus. All very difficult texts, I know, but I thought it worth mentioning.

Thank you. :pray:

Dawkins said in the preface to TGD that his aim was that Christians who picked up the book should put it down atheist. I thought it was such an appalling piece of undergraduate nonsense it had rather the opposite effect on me. — Wayfarer

I gave it to my children as an example of a badly reasoned book.

Suffice to note that in classical (i.e. pre-modern) philosophy, rationalism was concerned with arriving at, shall we say, a cosmic truth, without recourse to experience - classical examples being Parmenides and Plotinus. — Wayfarer

Parm & Ploti’s minds both had a grounding in what they experienced with their senses. Without such a grounding they would not have developed minds.

Do you think samadhi is within the scope of empiricism?

As opposed to the scope of rationalism?

Enlightenment in the Buddist sense simply means the realization of what they call emptiness, and it has little if anything to do with the development of virtue.

Enlightenment in the Buddist sense simply means the realization of what they call emptiness, and it has little if anything to do with the development of virtue. — praxis

Empty of virtue too it seems. :razz:

My very first lecture in philosophy was about the distinction between empiricism and rationalism. Took me a long while to grasp that distinction, and I'm still working on it. — Wayfarer

That is a noteworthy distinction and I think I understood this early on - at least in principle.

For me, enlightenment, in the way we are discussing it, is self-awareness. I know that I have become more and more self-aware as I've gotten older. Somewhere along the line, that became my path. To become as self-aware as I can in as many ways as I can. — T Clark

I think I've always thought of it along similar lines. But additionally there's a flavor of being initiated into cosmic secrets. In my own life I feel that self-awareness has increased whilst other things (skills and attributes mainly) have declined. The net value of my incremental self-realization is questionable.

Is Nietzsche's self-overcoming a form of the enlightenment narrative?

knowledge can only be grounded in what can be experienced by the senses
— Wayfarer
Considering that it would be impossible to know anything without such a grounding it’s really not that unreasonable. — praxis

Which isn’t to say that there isn’t a more fundamental grounding than the senses, understood in empirical terms.

The common thread defining the state of consciousness referred to in the various traditions as enlightenment, seeing the truth, becoming the real self, becoming free, seeing the true nature of things, becoming authentic and so on, seems to be non-attachment to the ego, the opinions of others and the things of this world in general.

:up:

Plotinus and Parmenides

For Plotinus, man "is in some sense divine, and the object of the philosophic life is to understand this divinity and restore its proper relationship with the divine All and, in that All, to come to union with its transcendent source, the One or Good". Plotinus's philosophy is difficult to elucidate, precisely because what it seeks to elucidate is a manner of thinking that precedes what one terms 'discursive thought'.

Discursive thought is the sort of thinking we do most often in a philosophical discussion or debate, when we seek to follow a series of premises and intermediate conclusions to a final conclusion. In such thinking, our minds move from one point to the next, as if each point only can be true after we have known the truth of the point preceding it. The final point is true, only because we have already built up one by one a series of points preceding it logically that are also true. In the same way, the meaning of the sentence I am now speaking only builds itself up by the addition of each word, until coming to its conclusion it makes a certain sense built of the words from which it is constituted. Because discursive thinking is within ordinary time, it is not capable of thinking all its points or saying all its words in the very same moment.

But Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it ¹. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, meaning its thought is no longer chronological but eternal ². To even use names, words, to think about such a thinking is already to implicate oneself in a time of separated and consecutive moments (i.e. chronological) and to have already forgotten what it is one wishes to think, namely thinking and what is thought intuitively together. — Plotinus, Lecture Notes

1. This 'union of knower and known' is frequently encountered in non-dualist philosophies.
2. Signifying a form of divine union - in Plotinus case, it is described as 'henosis' and differentiated from the Christian 'kenosis' in that it is supposed to entail complete loss of individual personality. The wiki page notes:

Henosis for Plotinus was defined in his works as a reversing of the ontological process of consciousness via meditation toward no (discursive) thought (nous or demiurge) and no division (dyad) within the individual (being). As is specified in the writings of Plotinus on Henology one can reach a tabula rasa, a blank state where the individual may grasp or merge with The One. This absolute simplicity means that the nous or the person is then dissolved, completely absorbed back into the Monad.

This state is similar to what in Advaita is called 'nirvikalpa samadhi'. This illustrates the connection between rationalist philosophy and mysticism.

Parmenides’ poem began with a proem (i.e. prose-poem) describing a journey he figuratively once made to the abode of a goddess. He described how he was conveyed on “the far-fabled path of the divinity” (fr. 1.3) in a chariot by a team of mares and how the maiden daughters of Helios, the sun-god, led the way. These maidens take Parmenides to whence they themselves have come, to “the halls of Night” (fr. 1.9), before which stand “the gates of the paths of night and day” (fr. 1.11). The maidens gently persuade Justice, guardian of these gates, to open them so that Parmenides himself may pass through to the abode within. Parmenides thus describes how the goddess who dwells there welcomed him upon his arrival:

And the goddess received me kindly, and in her hand she took
my right hand, and she spoke and addressed me thus:
“O young man, accompanied by immortal charioteers
and mares who bear you as you arrive at our abode,
welcome, since a fate by no means ill sent you ahead to travel
this way (for surely it is far from the track of humans),
but Right and Justice.” (Fr. 1.22–28a)

Parmenides’ proem is no epistemological allegory of enlightenment but a topographically specific description of a mystical journey to the halls of Night. In Hesiod, the “horrible dwelling of dark Night” (Th. 744) is where the goddesses Night and Day alternately reside as the other traverses the sky above the Earth. Both Parmenides’ and Hesiod’s conception of this place have their precedent in the Babylonian mythology of the sun god’s abode. This abode also traditionally served as a place of judgment, and this fact tends to confirm that when Parmenides’ goddess tells him that "no ill fate" has sent him ahead to this place (fr. 1.26–27a), she is indicating that he has miraculously reached the place to which travel the souls of the dead. — Parmenides, SEP

Both Parmenides and Plotinus are amongst the seminal figures of Western metaphysics.
Parmenides is also of the 'axial age' (along with the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoroaster, the Vedic seers).
Neither rely on or espouse empirical or sensory knowledge but aim at an insight into a 'higher truth' through visionary or non-ordinary states.
At least some of their teachings were incorporated into later Christian Platonism, where they can still be found in e.g. the Christian mystics.