I think that's pretty true although it risks makes light of 'the great matter' — Wayfarer

It makes sense to me that seeing beyond "the great matter" is the whole point. As I see it, nothing about enlightenment is great. Again, it's a surrender. Surrender to the mundanity, quotidianism, of the truth. Just wanted to use that word. If it is one.

'Quotidian' was one of my forum nicknames.

It is true that Zen is replete with sayings like 'to chop wood, to draw water' but there really is a purpose and an aim in Buddhism. To mistake it for saying there is no aim and no purpose is a nihilistic misreading, in my view. That's why those who are engaged in Zen actually live under a highly disciplined routine and very hard work. It sounds to me as if the surrender you're speaking of is just abandoning the idea that there is anything worth understanding, which is far from the truth.

To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so... — Agent Smith

Do you have an actual canonical reference for backing up this very popular claim?

I've always assumed spiritual practices and beliefs generated just as much acrimony and division as anything else constructed by human beings. You have done way more work in this area - what do you think enlightenment looks like?

Spiritual systems all seem to coalesce around an etherial endgame - a blissful realm that humans can achieve with the right attitudes or practices. Enlightenment seems to be one of these stories. The endless quest for perfection and arrival. — Tom Storm

Sure, in such general terms, ideas of enlightenment seem to be similar across numerous cultures, traditions, religions, etc. But once one looks more closely, the similiarities end.

Both the middle class secular Westerner and a Buddhist monk have ideas of "perfection" and "arrival", and use the same words. But they mean very different things by those words.

To be enlightened is to be free from suffering but life is suffering (one of the Noble Truths) and so...
— Agent Smith

Do you have an actual canonical reference for backing up this very popular claim? — baker

Good question. Suppose that statement is false/a half-truth like so many fake Buddha quotes doing the rounds on the www, what, in your opnion, is the correct proposition Buddha made, long, long ago?

the center point of Buddhism is suffering and the end of suffering. The Buddha said that he teaches only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering.
— baker

That’s why I don’t think there is much difference between Buddhism and other systems. — Apollodorus

What other system is organized around the idea of a complete cessation of suffering?

Yes, the idea of suffering and the idea of making an end to suffering can be found in many religions, ideologies, etc., but these systems differ greatly in the relative importance they ascribe to the problem of suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no other system but Buddhism gives such prominence to suffering (although Jainism is close).

Well, when you have a number of competing systems, I think it is legitimate for people to want to learn more about each of them. After all, anyone can claim that they can show you "the way to Nirvana”, only to take you for a ride.

This is true only for academics and academically minded people with too much time on their hands. Pretty much everyone else decides within seconds as to wether something is worth paying attention to or whether to dismiss it with an idle hand gesture.

The general view in the old days was that Western systems (especially those based on Christianity) were superior to anything the East had to offer. These days the attitude has been reversed. It has become customary to belittle all things Western and to idealize and idolize everything Eastern (or non-Western).

This is a trend, sure, but I don't see it as the main one. There is also another trend, and that is to dismiss everything from the East as "Eastern nonsense". Where I live, this latter is prevalent. Even people who are into yoga and meditation approach them with a politically corrected, Westernized attitude, so that the only thing that is "Eastern" about their yoga is the name.

The way I see it, this new trend is mostly rooted in ignorance of Western traditions, which is part of the general cultural decline in the West.

Western philosophy and Western religion have brought this upon themselves, though. Not just with bloody religious wars, but with blatant classism, elitism, and a general callous disregard for other people and other beings.

Part of the reason why "Eastern wisdom" seems so atractive to some Westerners is because it seems so available. Western philosophy is largely impenetrable for a person without a formal education in philosophy, while the Eastern one seems to be available and ready-to-use for everyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status and education level. (Of course, as some Westerners eventually realize, this isn't quite so, it's just a "seems," and Eastern philosophy is still classist, elitist, and requires formal education.)

If the objects of sensory consciousness (pravṛttivijñāna) are momentary, a higher, more permanent form of consciousness (ālayavijñāna) is needed, and if that is also not permanent, a final, absolutely permanent consciousness is required. Otherwise, enlightenment itself would be impermanent.

This is why three basic levels of consciousness and being are common to Buddhism and Platonism alike - each level of reality being superseded by the next higher one that generates it, until the Ultimate Source of all is reached.

The “obliteration of consciousness” that is supposed to take place in enlightenment may well be only the obliteration of lower forms of consciousness. This would make the real Buddhist position compatible with that of other systems like Platonism and Advaita Vedanta, as McEvilley suggests. — Apollodorus

And all this is said by scholars who have not practiced any of the paths they are discussing ...

Have you ever met anyone who would be happy about another's claims of enlightenment?
— baker

Well, for starters, there aren't many who actually make that claim. — Apollodorus

Must by just my karma that I've met some!

Second, you would want to first see some evidence in support of that claim.

No. Things don't work like that. But I suppose that to understand this, one needs to have first-hand experience of witnessing someone making the claim.

Third, you would need to know (a) what enlightenment is and (b) what enlightenment means in the case of the person making the claim.

Usually, people are so restricted and defined by their day-to-day concerns that they don't get involved into such things, and instead just shrug their shoulders when hearing claims of enlightenment.

So I think that, statistically, the chance of anyone being in a position to congratulate others for being enlightened is pretty small ....

The topic was how come claims of enlightenment generate so much hostility.

It is true that Zen is replete with sayings like 'to chop wood, to draw water' but there really is a purpose and an aim in Buddhism. To mistake it for saying there is no aim and no purpose is a nihilistic misreading, in my view. That's why those who are engaged in Zen actually live under a highly disciplined routine and very hard work. It sounds to me as if the surrender you're speaking of is just abandoning the idea that there is anything worth understanding, which is far from the truth. — Wayfarer

I don't mean to denigrate Zen. Eastern philosophies have something profound to tell us about ourselves and the nature of reality. I think you can, at least theoretically, get that same experience from western philosophies, but it's covered up with the trappings of "reason" to the point that it is almost unrecognizable.

For me, making light of something serious is at the heart of my philosophy, my intellect, and my way of seeing the world. That goes along with my intellectual commitment to understanding the underlying simplicity, clarity, and quotidianism (again!) of our world. Philosophy tends to be too highfalutin for it's own good.

There is no reason that something that is part of a vast complex system of doctrine and practice might not seem vague, mystical, contrary, or ironic. — T Clark

Of course, as long as one is ignorant of said system.

It seems to me that the two contrary ways of seeing things is part of the plan.

Except that the apparent paradox has an explanation.
I remember an example of this from a Hindu text: The Lord walks and he doesn't walk. This is followed by scriptural commentary explaining how it is that the Lord walks and how it is that the Lord doesn't walk.

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either.

Suppose that statement is false/a half-truth like so many fake Buddha quotes doing the rounds on the www, what, in your opnion, is the correct proposition Buddha made, long, long ago? — Agent Smith

That there is suffering.

Here's a discussion of this:
Life Isn’t Just Suffering
https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/KarmaOfQuestions/Section0004.html

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker

I have done some basic reading about Zen Buddhism and Buddhism in general, but most of my judgement about eastern philosophy comes from my experience with Taoism, which I have spent a fair amount of time with. Based on that, I see recognition of the contradictory, seemingly absurd, nature of reality and especially our place in it as a deep part of what eastern philosophies are about.

Paradoxes and contrary pairs are sometimes just literary and mnemonic means. They can sound like catchy phrases, witticisms, but sometimes they are just summaries of complex topics. Of course, if one doesn't know those topics, one doesn't know that either. — baker

That is an interesting observation. I've never taken any real interest in these sorts of 'pithy' statements but good to know that often there is a foundational underpinning. The idea of them being a mnemonic is interesting too.

Philosophy tends to be too highfalutin for it's own good. — T Clark

:ok:

I've never taken any real interest in these sorts of 'pithy' statements but good to know that often there is a foundational underpinning. — Tom Storm

One of the first books with 'Zen' in the title that me and millions of other people read in the 60's and 70's was Penguin Book called Zen Flesh Zen Bones:



It was over a hundred anecdotes - most not strictly speaking 'Zen Koans', but 'teaching stories', often amusing and invariable pithy. Many have entered popular culture.

Muddy Road

Tanzan and Ekido were once traveling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling. Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection. “Come on, girl,” said Tanzan at once. Lifting her in his arms, he carried her over the mud.

Ekido did not speak again until that night when they reached a lodging temple. Then he no longer could restrain himself. “We monks don’t go near females.” He told Tanzan, especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?”

“I left the girl there,” said Tanzan. “Are you still carrying her?”

(There's a similar collection from the Islamic world called 'the tales of Mullah Nasudin', many of which are absurd and/or hilarious.)

I need to find that Zen book.

Most of them are published online e.g. here. (Lacks the intimacy of a dog-eared penguin edition, though.) The other invariable companion volume was Alan Watts Way of Zen.

I had The Way of Zen and Psychotherapy East and West. Watts was an influence on me for a few years. I have to have real books - I need the low-tech browsing aesthetic to properly fire up my interest and pleasure.

I would have argued vehemently against that 30 years ago but I'm now starting to see some truth in it. But the Church was in a lot of ways the author of its own misfortune in this regard. When you study the role of religion in European history it was often incredibly bloody and vicious. Sure there were episodes of comparative enlightenment and calm, but the religious wars, inquisitions and crusades were phenomenally bloody. And the inner meaning of the philosophy was hardly self-evident. — Wayfarer

True. But to be fair, it must be said that the Church was not just a religious organization. It was heir, political, administrative, military, economic and cultural, to the Roman Empire.

The Empire had been largely Christianized, but the Western part saw itself overrun by one wave of Germanic tribes after another. The East itself had to fend off Germanic, Slavic, Bulgar, and other invaders and was almost completely overrun in the process, with Pagan Slavs penetrating deep into the Greek peninsula. The East later came under constant attack from Arabs, Vikings, and Turks who all dreamed of making Constantinople their capital. The Greeks managed to repel the Vikings, but losing Syria and Egypt to the Muslim Arabs and Anatolia to the Turks was a disaster from which the East never recovered.

The loss of these territories was also a blow to Christian spirituality, as pilgrims from all over the Empire had been visiting monasteries, hermits, saints, and holy places in Egypt and elsewhere.

Arguably, the Church was forced to operate in extraordinary circumstances, with nothing less than its own survival, and the survival of European civilization, at stake. It was literally a struggle for survival where dissent, potentially leading to fragmentation, disintegration, and annihilation, was a very real danger.

If the role of religion in European history was often incredibly bloody and vicious, it is because history itself was bloody and vicious. And not only in Europe. It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. In reality, India has always been a jumble of hundreds of different kingdoms speaking hundreds of different languages and following hundreds of different religious cults, that were often in conflict and at war with one another. And the same goes for the Muslim world.

Despite all this, the works of Plato and Aristotle were faithfully preserved (that's why we are able to read them now) and Classical philosophy was taught without interruption, under the umbrella of the Church. In fact, from the early centuries of the Christian era, Classical philosophy was seen as a step to higher Christian education. The result was that the wisdom of Ancient Greece continued to be available to those who took an interest in it, at least in the East.

There is no denying that excesses did happen, but they are just one facet of a complex story. Every civilization or culture has its low points and its high points. If we ignore this fact, we can fall into the trap of opting for the wholesale denial and rejection of Western civilization and it is doubtful that going down that path can lead to much good.

For many centuries, Platonism was regarded as a spiritual path, not just mere philosophy, and Christianity itself, often under Hellenistic influence, developed its own spirituality. Christian monasticism that emerged as early as the 300’s A.D. was a spiritual movement with spiritual practices that were in no way inferior to those of Buddhism or Hinduism.

The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.

As pointed out by McEvilley, modern prejudice about Greek culture has led to a number of erroneous beliefs such as that introspection is inherently alien to Greek thought and that anything that sounds inward-looking in Hellenistic schools must be the result of “eastern” influence! Needless to say, business-minded and nationalist Indians have sought to emphasize such Western misconceptions about Western culture in order to sell their own tradition as “superior”. Spirituality in India has long become a multi-billion dollar business with some “gurus” being as wealthy as the maharajahs of earlier times.

It is part of human nature to think the grass is greener on the other side, and when this is exploited for commercial or political ends, it can result in distorted perceptions of one’s own culture. If we are using the Crusades to reject Western culture and deny its spiritual aspects, then we can equally use aspects of Indian culture (caste discrimination, untouchability, child exploitation, child marriage, female infanticide, violence against women, religious intolerance and violence, barbaric penal code, etc.) to reject Indian religion and spirituality many times over.

Incidentally, it is interesting to see that the same critics who see nothing good in Western culture, are quick to find examples to their liking (“Celtic spirituality”, “Druidism”, “Witchcraft”, etc.) when it suits their agenda.

Ignorance of Western forms of spirituality may have been excusable in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, when Westerners believed in a “new age” as a means to put the past behind them, and there was a quasi-religious need to follow the hippie trail to the East - which also coincided with the rise of Hindu nationalism and the emergence of anti-Western narratives in South Asia. However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions. Certainly, when claims of “eastern superiority” come into the picture, a good dose of caution seems indicated.

If we think about it, there aren’t many enlightened people in India despite its population of more than one billion and there is no logical reason why this should be any different with Westerners following, or imitating, Indian traditions. (One of the things humans are naturally very good at is consciously or unconsciously imitating others.) If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.

In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.

Alan Watts — Wayfarer

Ha! Some years back, as part of my own quest, I summarized my quest as "how to be a genuine fake".
Then I googled it. Turns out someone else had that idea too! But I wasn't impressed with Watts' work.

But I wasn't impressed with Watts' work. — baker

I think you need to be young in The Summer of Love for him to hit home.

Pity. I was disillusioned by that biography, but I still think he's a great popular writer in his genre and a true cultural pioneer. Way of Zen, The Supreme Identity and Beyond Theology still rate amongst my favourites.

I think you need(ed) to be young in The Summer of Love for him to hit home. — Tom Storm

:party:

I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions. — Apollodorus

The West has done a pretty thorough job of obliterating its own cultural heritage, unfortunately. Somewhere along the line the thread was lost, but analysing it in depth is a hard task. But I think, from my own perspective, in the 1960's when I came of age, the 'Eastern' perspective offered something that I couldn't identify in my own culture.

If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such. — Apollodorus

'Cultural dynamics' have a lot more to do with it.

In my own quest, I went to Uni as an adult student and pursued my own curriculum. I had gotten into Uni on the back of a long-discontinued custom, the 'adult entrance exam', which comprised a comprehension test on a long passage from Bertrand Russell's 'Mysticism and Logic', which was just the kind of subject I wanted to study. I was interested in enlightenment, whatever that meant, but I was convinced that it meant something, because I had had a foretaste of it. So I pursued that subject through philosophy, anthropology, comparative religion and psychology (the last was a write-off, although I did meet my future wife through it, so not completely.)

I formed the view that almost all modern philosophy was grounded in 'anything but God'. There was a kind of tacit agreeement that whatever fundamental ground could be sought, it couldn't have anything to do with God. Of course, there was the customary liberal tolerance for individual belief, but any beliefs of that kind that one harboured were matters of conscience, the public square was to be resolutely secular. It was very much a 'don't mention the war' kind of attitude.

My view was that the germinal experience or 'realisation of non-duality' lay at the heart of whatever was worth understanding about religion, but that this insight was generally absent from mainstream religion. This kind of realisation was what was to be sought through meditation, which at that time I had just encountered. (The novelty has somewhat worn off since then.) I had the view that this kind of realisation was probably what animated the early gnostics, who had been ruthlessly suppressed by the nascent Roman Church in the early period of Christianity. I found a lot of support for that argument in the writings of Elaine Pagels and others. I lost interest in pursuing that line of research but I still think the case can be made.

Much more recently, I read an interesting book called The Theological Origins of Modernity, by M A Gillespie. He too is concerned with cultural dynamics and, I suppose, a kind of Hegelian dialectic between (scholastic) realism and nominalism. He argues that contrary to popular opinion theological arguments have had an enormous influence on the formation of modern secular culture (which is visible in the form of contradictions and conundrums inherent in modern thought.)

But now there is a new synthesis beginning to emerge, which is neither the standard-issue neo-Darwinian materialism or old-school theological. I mean, nobody can plausibly argue against the empirical evidence, whatever philosophy you have has to be able to accomodate that. But if you let go any form of literalism with respect to the interpretation of ancient texts, and read them allegorically, then it's possible to arrive at a holistic understanding based on both scientific discovery and spiritual principle.

In highschool, I went with a small group of classmates to a tarot reader or palm reader (or whatever it is those people do). Nobody can say I'm not open-minded, so let's try that. She read my palm and said I was a very old soul. Her dislike of me was palpable. She gave me much less time than she gave the other young women.

But now there is a new synthesis beginning to emerge, which is neither the standard-issue neo-Darwinian materialism or old-school theological. I mean, nobody can plausibly argue against the empirical evidence, whatever philosophy you have has to be able to accomodate that. But if you let go any form of literalism with respect to the interpretation of ancient texts, and read them allegorically, then it's possible to arrive at a holistic understanding based on both scientific discovery and spiritual principle. — Wayfarer

And what use is that understanding?

What are you? The Red Guard?

She gave me much less time than she gave the other young women. — baker

Maybe she worked out you were not someone to con? :smile:

*sigh*

Maybe you're the kind of person who just likes to know things for the sake of knowing, someone who enjoys knowing.
I'm not. Knowing things should help one do this and that. Or knowing itself should do something, make a difference.

Maybe she worked out you were not someone to con? — Tom Storm

It made me feel shitty. I saw her praising the others. But I was again the black sheep.

Maybe you're the kind of person who just likes to know things for the sake of knowing, someone who enjoys knowing. — baker

Guilty as charged.

It is easy to construct India as a nation of enlightened sages devoted to prayer, meditation, and the study of scripture. — Apollodorus

I never understood that. To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. And cholera. A dreadful country I hope I never have to visit. I wish to have nothing to do with it. Or any Eastern country.

The belief that earthly existence is painful; observance of abstinence and strict dietary rules; moral and spiritual purification through control or eradication of negative emotions and impulses, and cultivation of opposite inclinations; the attainment of detachment and impassibility (apatheia); meditation and contemplation, etc., are found in Western (Greek, Christian) and Indian (Hindu, Buddhist) traditions alike.

Sure, but they differ in the level of detail and in how actionable their advice is.
They also differ greatly in how approachable they are, depending on a person's level of formal education and socio-economic status.

Moreover: Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. For many people, this means that they are facing the prospect of not accomplishing much and dying miserable. Hardly something to look forward to.

However, with the possibilities offered by the latest information technologies, I think it would be advisable for Westerners to first acquaint themselves with what is best in their own culture, before uncritically embracing other traditions.

The Dalai Lama advises people not to convert to Buddhism easily, but to first make the best they can out of the religion and culture they were born into.

If anything, what these Westerners have to offer is an enhanced feeling of inner happiness and peace (and perhaps a certain degree of self-importance), all of which may be equally achieved with practices that are available closer to home.

Such as by reading Machiavelli?

In fact, the term “enlightenment” itself is of Western origin and is not used in Indian traditions. So this may be a case of Westerners Westernizing Eastern traditions and believing their own perception of them as a substitute for the Western spirituality whose existence they choose to deny in the first place. If so, then the whole thing may have more to do with psychology than with spirituality as such.

Sure. In some of the Buddhism I have come to know there is actually a lot of criticism of Westerners, similar to what you're saying. But the mainstream Western Buddhism is usually louder and stronger.

Yes, the idea of suffering and the idea of making an end to suffering can be found in many religions, ideologies, etc., but these systems differ greatly in the relative importance they ascribe to the problem of suffering. To the best of my knowledge, no other system but Buddhism gives such prominence to suffering (although Jainism is close). — baker

Suffering is certainly central to Christianity. The goal of Christianity is salvation from suffering and death, which is also the goal of Platonism and Buddhism.

Life is painful due to ignorance and sin (i.e., wrong conduct). This is what motivates all three traditions to engage in ethical conduct and seek higher knowledge.

I don’t think scholars need to personally practice any of these systems in order to identify parallels between their intellectual frameworks.

If you happen to live in Eastern Europe it is probably correct to say that non-European systems there are not in general highly regarded. But in the West the reverse is often the case, especially in large cities across the English-speaking world.

I’m assuming that Eastern Europe was also spared the West’s counterculture movement of the 60’s and 70’s, at least to some extent. The movement had been instigated after WW2 by CIA operations like the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF), purportedly "to combat communism", but the most notable result was that it turned whole generations against Western culture, and the trend has remained strong ever since ....

Congress for Cultural Freedom - Wikipedia

Such as by reading Machiavelli? — baker

Of course. The West has never produced anything other than Machiavelli. And India does not have its own Machiavellis.

Western spirituality has no equivalent to (serial) rebirth or reincarnation, thus making a person limited to what they have here and now and to what they can do here and now. — baker

Not true.

Some are reborn in the womb, those who are wicked in the underworld, the righteous go to heaven, those who are pollutant-free are emancipated (Dhammapada 22.1)

This is exactly what Plato is saying in his dialogues like the Phaedo:

The impure souls wander until the time when they are bound again into a body by their desire for the corporeality that follows them around (81e).
The soul that has performed an impure act, by engaging in unjust killings or perpetrating other similar deeds goes to the lower regions of Hades where it suffers every deprivation until certain lengths of time have elapsed and the soul is by necessity born into the dwellings suitable for it (108c; 114a).
On the other hand, each soul that has passed through its life both purely and decently receives Gods as companions and as guides alike, and then dwells in the region appropriate to it (108c).
The pure soul goes off into what is similar to it, the unseen, the divine, immortal and wise, where after its arrival it can be happy, separated from wandering, unintelligence, fears, and other human evils ... (81a).

Interestingly, Plato describes reincarnation as an “old doctrine”, which suggests that it had been in circulation for some time.

Platonism of course places less emphasis on reincarnation than Buddhism and Hinduism. But this is exactly what one would expect from a system that focuses on liberation.

To me, India has always first and foremost been a country of cholera and poverty. — baker

I don’t know about cholera, but leprosy and poverty, definitely.

The country itself is beautiful, for sure. Some places are like heaven on earth, even though poverty, disease, and death are never far. But the most shocking of all is the extreme materialism that can surpass even what we see in the West.

Having said that, even Nepal and Tibet aren’t much better. Apparently, before it was annexed by China, Tibet outside Buddhist monasteries was ruled by war lords, bandits, and large packs of stray dogs.

This is one of the reasons why I think that Buddhism’s ability to create an ideal society is more wishful thinking than reality. And if that is the case, claims of Buddhist or eastern “superiority” should be taken with a large grain of salt.

The way I see it, in order to find spirituality you need to be spiritual yourself. In which case you will tend to find spirituality wherever you are.

Realistically speaking, “Nirvana” or whatever we choose to call it, is either (a) unattainable (which is the case in the vast majority) or (b) it is attainable through meditation or introspection.

If (b), then Nirvana or enlightenment cannot be something distant, or different, from the meditator. If it is experienced, then there must be an experiencer. And the experiencer is the consciousness that gradually disengages itself from lower forms of experience until it experiences itself.

We may not be in a position to say what is beyond that, but I think all forms of meditation, Platonist, Buddhist, or Hindu, must logically lead to a point where consciousness experiences itself qua consciousness, i.e., not thoughts or consciousness of things.

If we posit a reality other than consciousness, we need to explain what that reality is, which is an impossible task especially in non-materialist terms. Even if we were to deny the existence of consciousness we would merely confirm it, as consciousness is needed to conceive that denial.