The conclusion being that people cannot force enlightenment, which I agree with — Punshhh

I agree with you, that you cannot force "enlightenment." However, I would vary from what seems to be implied in your suggestion that one must be ripe for enlightenment, or find institutions that facilitate it. These would involve the ego, an agent actively seeking/desiring enlightenment.

My suggestion is that enlightenment is an awakening to the fictional nature of that agent. The so called transcendental ego, remains, nevertheless, the ego. Enlightenment neither involves, nor happens to that agent. The ego, mind, and human history have displace the human's natural being. Enlightenment is a shedding of that displacement. It is an emancipation from the fictional narratives restructuring reality for humans.

However, I would vary from what seems to be implied in your suggestion that one must be ripe for enlightenment, or find institutions that facilitate it.

Let me qualify that, I meant to be ripe on one’s soul (or equivalent). Not that the institutions facilitate this ripeness. But rather enable the flowering if the soul is ready.

My suggestion is that enlightenment is an awakening to the fictional nature of that agent. The so called transcendental ego, remains, nevertheless, the ego. Enlightenment neither involves, nor happens to that agent. The ego, mind, and human history have displace the human's natural being. Enlightenment is a shedding of that displacement. It is an emancipation from the fictional narratives restructuring reality for humans.

Yes, I agree entirely, but I would caution that we really don’t know the processes involved here. All we have to go on is scripture. So we are always approximating something we don’t know, that is hidden from us.

I take it that by ‘transcendent ego’, you mean an equivalent to the soul?

So we are always approximating something we don’t know, that is hidden from us. — Punshhh

Yes

by ‘transcendent ego’, you mean an equivalent to the soul? — Punshhh

I'm taking it, that that's what those who pursue the phenomenological reduction are after--something like the soul.

But I'm suggesting that the transcendental ego is not that "thing" like a soul. That the phenomenological reduction falls short of the mark. That thing like a soul is beyond even the transcendental ego, the latter which is just the last trace of ego beyond the Subject perceiving itself as an object perceiving, i.e. as an "ego." That the thing like a soul is entirely egoless, unconcerned with perceiver/perceived/perception. That in that respect, the thing is only the "perceiving."