How about philosophy that ties into cutting edge science, like cognitive theory or perceptual psychology? As an adherent of ‘scientific method’ I would assume you try to keep up with actual research results in such cutting edge fields. — Joshs

Shockingly, no - I do not. I did read Piaget on developmental psychology, with reference to Freud and Jung, but more for an overview of the feild. Generally speaking, I take a behaviourist approach - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably thinks it's a duck!

How about 'transformative'? — Janus

Is it actually transformative?

I think religious experience can definitely be transformative. The only evidence we could ever have for someone's "enlightenment" would be behavior that indicates a disposition of predominant concern for others.

That's what I've been arguing in this thread and elsewhere; that enlightenment is not a matter of knowing anything like "the ultimate nature of things", or what happens after you die, or any supposed metaphysical "truths"; it is a matter of dissolving the overarching concern with the fate of the self. Ironically, the search for personal salvation is basically a cult of the self in my view.

Of course none of us can guess at Madonna's motivations, but this all seems to be the typical trajectory of a restless showbiz type who constantly playacts with charged but superficial images and appearances in an endless quest, and by association with such images, to remain relevant and interesting. I wonder if it's all just surfaces for her and if there is any depth at all. — Tom Storm

I think it is doubtful that there can be much depth there. A lot of these pop culture celebrities tend to come from dysfunctional backgrounds and have little experience of relating to the world in a “normal” way which is why they often also have difficulties in forming proper relationships.

Their lifestyle also causes them to be pretty isolated and confined to a small circle of friends, so that they come to experience the world almost exclusively through their shows and through public reaction to them. If you add the high levels of professional stress plus alcohol and drugs, you get a situation in which it can be difficult to realistically develop a healthy and balanced personality.

And the reality is that once you have started on the path of “being daring” for the sake of attracting attention by any means conceivable, so that it has become a form of addiction, it is easy to go down a self-destructive slippery slope from where it is may be difficult to come back up again.

Madonna’s relationships do not seem to last very long, some of them being over after just a few months, while others like Lenny Kravitz, are mere flings. What is interesting is that many of her dates dumped her pretty fast. Dennis Rodman for wanting his baby, Tupac Shakur “for being white”, the Muslim Brahim Zaibat for her involvement with Kabbalah, etc., etc.

Again, if it is difficult for outsiders to tell what is publicity stunt and what is reality, this might be equally difficult for Madonna herself. In any case, though she’s got the “daring” and the cash, something seems to be missing somewhere. The age factor probably does play a role as some of her dates could have been her sons or grandsons, but this doesn’t explain everything.

If we consider Madonna’s apparent preference for black and Latino (i.e. non-white) boyfriends and children, we can see how she is applying the cultural-replacement tendency to all areas of her life. This seems to be consistent with a desire to obliterate and replace one’s original cultural and ethnic identity and clearly points to unresolved identity issues.

Obviously, Madonna is an extreme case, but I thought it is a good illustration of the point I was making. Even on the assumption that identity is a matter of personal choice, the question still remains of how that choice is made and why. What is certain is that it is not made in a cultural vacuum or independently of external influence.

Humans being imitative creatures, they tend to follow the example of others. Older stars like Madonna are followed by the younger ones like Britney Spears who are in turn followed by the next generation, and the whole lifestyle and the mindset that comes with it become quasi-institutionalized and assimilated as a matter of course both by the stars and by many of their fans.

Ultimately, the whole trend becomes like a new religion that merely replaces the old without bringing any significant benefit to the believers. “Being daring” by kissing someone of the same sex onstage, wearing a dress made of raw meat, using obscene language, etc. might give one an inner sense of satisfaction and “achievement”. But this is normally associated with teenage behavior and one would hope that in later years people have moved on and are ready to learn some new tricks. Unfortunately, this would not appear to be the case.

The perennial philosophy and the New Age movement were as popular as Netflix when I was young (I mixed in those circles for a few years) and it frequently seemed to be fuelled by a resentment of the Christianity of the West and often the West in general. I often think this is an outcome of the modernist mindset to go against the West's own presuppositions. — Tom Storm

It probably is. It also seems to be connected with a more general inclination, encouraged by the mass media, to uncritically discard the old and embrace the new just for the sake of it. If we take the case of Greece, for example, there is a growing trend to use English words and expressions, to wear t-shirts with English slogans, and even Greek music is being replaced with African American and Latin American genres. Another musical influence comes from the Mid-East, with many songs being basically Arabic or Turkish music with Greek lyrics.

Obviously, no culture is perfect and some self-critical analysis is necessary. But when criticism becomes a lifestyle and, like Marx we develop an attitude of “criticism of everything (Western)”, it can become counterproductive because a fixation with criticism of one’s own culture can easily turn into uncritical acceptance of other cultures.

And this can be a dangerous game as your adoptive culture will likely have its own faults that ought to be identified, exposed, and addressed instead of being covered up.

This is one of the reasons why there is often a higher level of fanaticism among new converts than among those who were born into a particular culture, arising from a need to reinforce their adopted beliefs to the exclusion of old ones, which results in the tendency to respond to criticism of their new culture or religion by (a) justifying what is being criticized, (b) denying the validity of the criticism or (c) attacking the critics’ own culture or religion.

In the final analysis it looks like the road to “enlightenment” can be a long and perilous one especially when it involves conversion, and I tend to agree with the Dalai Lama’s advice to Westerners not to convert to Buddhism easily, but to first make the best they can out of the religion and culture they were born into.

Though apparently not enlightened stricto sensu, the Dalai Lama seems to be more enlightened than those who claim to be enlightened ....

Nice thoughtful response.

And this can be a dangerous game as your adoptive culture will likely have its own faults that ought to be identified, exposed, and addressed instead of being covered up. — Apollodorus

Yep. That's always been my concern - swapping and romanticizing.

This is one of the reasons why there is often a higher level of fanaticism among new converts than among those who were born into a particular culture — Apollodorus

Agree. You certainly see this with Islamic fundamentalists.

Though apparently not enlightened stricto sensu, the Dalai Lama seems to be more enlightened than those who claim to be enlightened .... — Apollodorus

Could be, I have not followed his career. There's a trick many spiritual teachers employ - it's the art of staying humble whilst presenting as enlightened. You say things like, "Hey I'm a perpetual beginner, just like everyone." Meanwhile all your marketing and key people strongly suggest or even say outright that you are enlightened.

I'd be interested to know how you feel traditions of enlightenment (however this is understood) might apply to the Eastern Orthodox faith tradition. Are there any figures currently living who might be described as such?

Not wanting to answer for Apollodorus, but I think the characteristic expression in Eastern Orthodoxy is likely to be 'divine illumination' rather than 'enlightenment'. Although when I look into that, it opens up into a vast and disputatious issue about 'hesychasm'. It seems a controversy wherein one side of the dispute spoke of the 'uncreated light' and was accused of heresy by the other side. As often the case, mysticism seems to invite accusations of heresy from some quarters.

I've often been drawn towards Eastern Orthodoxy, mainly through my affinity with Christian Platonism, although I find it culturally challenging as it is associated with Russian, Serbian or Greek culture. I've liked some of David Bentley Hart's books (see his forthcoming https://g.co/kgs/Jf5wn4).

But the image of the 'uncreated light' really speaks to me.

The only evidence we could ever have for someone's "enlightenment" would be behavior that indicates a disposition of predominant concern for others. — Janus

Why?

Codependent people, for example, engage in behaviors that indicate a disposition of predominant concern for others, but we don't consider codependent people to be enlightened.

So, all facts considered, things are not necessarily quite as simple as they might appear to be, and a degree of critical analysis can’t be a bad thing. Unless we choose to not analyze the inconvenient bits that most people prefer to overlook or cover up. — Apollodorus

If one's aim is to discredit others, that's usually easy.

Of course none of us can guess at Madonna's motivations, but this all seems to be the typical trajectory of a restless showbiz type who constantly playacts with charged but superficial images and appearances in an endless quest, and by association with such images, to remain relevant and interesting. I wonder if it's all just surfaces for her and if there is any depth at all. — Tom Storm

To me, her spiritual quest is simply a spiritual quest, the way so many other people are on a spiritual quest. It's just that in the case of a celebrity person, their spiritual quest because of their celebrity status becomes much more visible to more people and is otherwise magnified in ways that doesn't happen for ordinary people.

I wouldn't judge celebrities and their spiritual quest by the principle of noblesse oblige. For that, I would first need to consider them noble.

the miraclulous nature of everyday reality. — karl stone

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality".

Codependent people, for example, engage in behaviors that indicate a disposition of predominant concern for others, but we don't consider codependent people to be enlightened. — baker

I don't agree that codependent people do that at all; I think they manifest inordinate concern with themselves; others are not seen as important in themselves but only insofar as they are needed by the dependee. If that were not so, they would not be codependent.

And even if a codependent person did manifest overweening concern for those on whom they were codependent, that would not be manifesting concern for all others, without prejudice, which was the point.

One point I sometimes think about is that the Christian concept of spiritual illumination is very much tied to a specific narrative, namely, that of the historical life of Jesus and the expectation of the second coming. That doesn’t lend itself to the kind of psycho-dynamic view of enlightenment which is more characteristic of Buddhism and yogic disciplines which provide a framework that is, in some ways, naturalistic, even if it goes well beyond the secular view of naturalism. That is epitomised by the Buddhist belief that the Buddha is really *a* Buddha, who is but an exemplar of a type that can appear in other times and places (and even other planetary civilisations).

I often reflect on this when I see the kindly Christian ministers intoning their Easter or Christmas messages, which is about the only time the media gives them any attention. Their message is invariably one of the importance of compassion for others, loving-kindness, and so on, which nobody would disagree with. But they’re tied to (some would say hostage to) a specific historical narrative and set of beliefs, many of which seem completely anachronistic to post-industrial culture.

Which explains why new religious movements have such a ready audience - amongst all of those who feel the need for a mythological or spiritual framework around life, but who are completely lost to the ‘sheep and fields’ tropes of Biblical theology.

In theory at least, if the unenlightened can pretend to be enlightened, the enlightened could equally pretend to be unenlightened …. :smile:

However, if it is difficult for the unenlightened to correctly identify the enlightened, it must be even more difficult for them to identify the enlightened pretending to be unenlightened, and they may end up losing their way in the more obscure recesses of their imagination (or in the cannabis smog, as the case may be).

So, the question is, why would the enlightened pretend to be unenlightened? After all, all the enlightened need to do is carry on with their physical life as before. There would be no need to “pretend” to be unenlightened in the same way there would be no need for them to shout from the rooftops that they are enlightened.

This is precisely why the idea of anyone declaring to be enlightened needs to be treated with a good amount of caution, no matter who they are. Thinking or believing, however reasonably, that someone is enlightened, is not the same as knowing that they are enlightened and even less knowing what their state of enlightenment actually is.

This means that what really matters to the genuine “seeker after enlightenment” is not whether someone is enlightened but whether and to what extent someone can assist him or her on the path to enlightenment.

So, the question of whether the Dalai Lama is or is not enlightened becomes irrelevant and even potentially misleading. What we can do, however, is take his advice and genuinely first make the best we can out of our own religion and culture before we even think of converting to other traditions.

As the saying goes, seek and you shall find. This is perfectly true in more than one sense and it obviously involves some personal effort. And this is where the difficulty lies, because if we want enlightenment to fall into our lap or to be served to us on a silver platter, then it is a different matter. In that case, even if we find the real thing, the attitude is counterproductive, placing us in the position of outsider so that we “have” the truth but we can’t access it, comparable to a relationship where you may be physically close to someone but you have no full access to their heart and mind.

If we think about it, the various spiritual traditions of the world have sufficient elements in common for truth to be discoverable in any of them, and this includes Western ones. But if we start from the premise that “Light comes from the East, and form there only”, then we are already on the wrong path and we are unlikely to find what we seek even though we might convince ourselves otherwise.

The seeker must constantly remember that it is he who has to achieve what he is seeking. Therefore, the first question must be, What can I, personally, achieve and how? And since it is the seeker who has to achieve it, he must start the journey with himself, making use of whatever guidance can be obtained closest to himself.

The second question is, Does Christianity really have nothing to teach? Do Ancient Greek philosophers really have nothing to say? I believe that the honest inquirer is sure to find something of interest and as (1) he discovers the deeper truths behind the superficial exterior and acquaints himself with them, (2) he will begin to see where those truths are manifested, put into practice, and realized. And he will discover where advice and guidance can be found. But there are no shortcuts so step (1) must be made first.

As I said before, I see idea of “enlightenment” as a Western one. This is not to say that there are no parallels in the East. But the concept of the individual being illumined by the light of a higher reality and thereby elevated to a higher mode of experience is certainly found in the Western traditions of Platonism and Christianity.

Historically, the concept of intellectual or spiritual enlightenment (ellampsis) goes back to Ancient Greece and was adopted by Platonists like Plotinus and the early Church Fathers.

“Enlightenment” proper in the sense of “highest spiritual realization” is “henosis” (“unity” or “oneness”) in Platonism and “theosis” (“deification”) in Christianity. But the concept of enlightenment as a process of “illumination” is certainly central to both traditions.

In Christianity, the Philokalia, a collection of texts on spiritual practices, is described as the means by which the individual’s intelligence (nous) is “purified, enlightened, and made perfect”.

In the Greek Orthodox tradition the term “enlightenment” or “illumination” (photismos) is still in use. For example, you might hear it being said that if you follow the prescribed practices “your mind will become enlightened” (“tha photistei o nous sou”) the verb used being photizomai (“become enlightened”). Or someone might say “May God enlighten you”, etc.

So, the concept of spiritual illumination is very much part of (Orthodox) Christianity though, admittedly, this is not widely known to the general Western public. In addition, there is this false impression that Christianity is “against enlightenment”.

The truth, of course, is that Western "opposition to enlightenment" is a recent development and it has largely to do with the “enlightenment” traditions imported from the East in the 60’s and 70’s via the “hippie trail”. The reason it came to be associated by some with “evil” is that it often amounted to little more than an ego trip with no spiritual content in addition to displaying anti-Christian tendencies. It also involved drugs, etc., and it could literally do more harm than good.

So just as it is wrong to say that all Eastern enlightenment is “evil”, it is wrong to say that there are no enlightenment traditions in the West.

The Orthodox Philokalia tradition goes back to the early centuries of Christianity when there was a fusion of various contemplative schools, and is based on the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term Hesychasm. This prepares the mind for spiritual experience and, eventually, spiritual realization or perfection.

Crucially, the practitioner of hesychast techniques is said to attain an experience of the divine as “uncreated light” (aktiston phos). This is said to go back to Jesus' transfiguration experience (metamorphosis) on the mountain and St Paul’s vision of a “blinding light” which, again, highlights the importance of spiritual illumination in the contemplative traditions of the West and clearly shows that the claim these traditions lay on being authentic enlightenment traditions is fully justified. In fact, it was never doubted until recently, when criticism of everything Western became a mandatory fashion accessory of the “politically-correct” and “progressive” classes who are in turn followed by the misinformed and miseducated masses.

In any case, the systematic observation, analysis, and control of psychological processes, concentration, etc., are sufficiently similar to the practices found in Eastern systems like Yoga and Buddhism. Arguably, the particular experience they lead to may not be identical in every respect, but the way I see it, once a higher mode of consciousness or experience has been attained, and one has “seen the light”, even in the distance, there will be greater clarity regarding the path one has to take in order to reach the desired goal. And this can’t be a bad start by any standard, on the contrary, I think it is preferable to seeing no light at all.

Thanks, very interesting.

In any case, the systematic observation, analysis, and control of psychological processes, concentration, etc., are sufficiently similar to the practices found in Eastern systems like Yoga and Buddhism. — Apollodorus

I suspected this might be the case.

The Orthodox Philokalia tradition goes back to the early centuries of Christianity when there was a fusion of various contemplative schools, and is based on the practice of stilling and centering the mind through watchfulness or watchful attention (nepsis) and interior prayer (proseuche) leading to a state of stillness or hesychia, hence the term Hesychasm. This prepares the mind for spiritual experience and, eventually, spiritual realization or perfection. — Apollodorus

The contemplative prayer tradition. Thanks for the word 'Philokalia'.

Which explains why new religious movements have such a ready audience - amongst all of those who feel the need for a mythological or spiritual framework around life, but who are completely lost to the ‘sheep and fields’ tropes of Biblical theology. — Wayfarer

Indeed. And it has to be said that no one does Christianity the kind of disservice that Christianity has done to itself, with its emphasis on shallow-faith literalism and punishment.

More later..

If we think about it, the various spiritual traditions of the world have sufficient elements in common for truth to be discoverable in any of them, and this includes Western ones. But if we start from the premise that “Light comes from the East, and form there only”, then we are already on the wrong path and we are unlikely to find what we seek even though we might convince ourselves otherwise. — Apollodorus

Generally I agree with a lot of that. That’s what drew me to comparative religion and also the perennial ist/traditionalist schools. I’ve explained the dimension I see in the ‘East’ (which is a much a pole as an actual location) so won’t do so again (although that’s why the Catholic Zen teachers resonate). But at this point in life, I personally have to narrow down the field somewhat as there are so many schools, so many teachings. And always remembering Suzuki-Roshi’s advice, ‘give up all gaining ideas.’

always remembering Suzuki-Roshi’s advice, ‘give up all gaining ideas.’ — Wayfarer

What do you hope to gain by giving up all gaining ideas? :lol:

And always remembering Suzuki-Roshi’s advice, ‘give up all gaining ideas.’ — Wayfarer

Can you explain - It sounds tantalising and I am a little slow today.

Edit - Oops - just saw @Praxis' similar question.

Riiight. Let's go to a slaughterhouse or an abortion clinic where we can observe the "the miraculous nature of everyday reality". — baker

I eat meat, and I respect a woman's right to choose - if and when she commits to the economic life changing, body morphic trauma that is bringing another life into the world.

I've worked in a slaughterhouse - chickens, but still, I eat chicken. There's nothing like hot chicken breast on brown bread with mayo. It produces a transcendent, almost orgasmic pleasure in me. And it does strike me as miraculous all these ingredients can be harvested, and cooked together in various combinations, that provide endless delight to the human palate? How could evolution possibly have designed plants and animals so consistently improved by cooking, and so wonderously edible?

I think one has to respect a woman's right to choose, precisely because we are the only animals who cook, rather than simply eat. An animal killed in nature suffers a worse death by far than humane slaughter at the hands of humans; and there's a parallel to a child brought into the world unwanted - in that, your bleeding heart humanity would be the cause of greater suffering of which you'd wash your vegan pro-life hands.

Maybe one day, we'll transcend this material veil of tears; I think, hope, pray, humans have that potential, but if there's a heaven to discover, or create - it will be humans that find it, not chickens!

Can you explain - It sounds tantalising and I am a little slow today. — Tom Storm

The book I’m referring to is Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, by Shunryu Suzuki who founded the San Francisco Zen Centre.

He’s a Sōtō Zen teacher. Sōtō is based on zazen practice which is sitting meditation. Part of the philosophy is not trying to seek experiences or get something from it. Which is not to say there is nothing to be gotten from it, but that its real lessons only become clear when you put aside the attempt to gain or to get something, whether that be enlightenment or some other kind of power.

But that said, the practice of zazen is really pretty arduous and takes place in the context of a rigorous discipline. So I think it’s an admonition against the sense that the practice is going to generate some great power or result, as that too is a form of grasping or clinging. It’s essentially self-centered, still. Sōtō constantly deprecates the idea of ‘attainment’ or of reaching some special state, but at the same time it’s really pushing you out of your habitual comfort zone.

Like a lot of people I read that book and many other Zen books, but I also came to realise that it really is not something you can get from reading books about Zen. In practice Zen is a tough and austere discipline and very demanding. Where that saying is coming from is outside the ego-logical point of view through which we automatically interpret everything. That’s what triggers the incredulous response, ‘what, you get nothing from it?’ There’s a saying in the Diamond Sutra which is one of the core texts of Zen, where the Buddha says ‘I have realised the supreme, ultimate truth, and I have gained nothing from it’. It’s a very hard saying, that, as we automatically interpret everything through the lens of gain and loss. It’s in our DNA, you might say.

Part of the philosophy is not trying to seek experiences or get something from it. Which is not to say there is nothing to be gotten from it, but that its real lessons only become clear when you put aside the attempt to gain or to get something, whether that be enlightenment or some other kind of power. — Wayfarer

Thank you. Pretty interesting, even to a layman...

What's it like to be enlightened? Feels great!

It’s a very hard saying, that, as we automatically interpret everything through the lens of gain and loss. — Wayfarer

Who is "we'? I know the truth also. It's freeing. I don't wanna get power or any goods. Not interested. But why shouldn't it be enlightened if you do want so?

Where that saying is coming from is outside the ego-logical point of view through which we automatically interpret everything. — Wayfarer

If only people really did reason according to strict principles of validity more often. In truth though, it's the rare occasion that we do.

That’s what triggers the incredulous response, ‘what, you get nothing from it?’ — Wayfarer

It's unbelievable simply because it's not true.

There’s a saying in the Diamond Sutra which is one of the core texts of Zen, where the Buddha says ‘I have realized the supreme, ultimate truth, and I have gained nothing from it’. It’s a very hard saying, that, as we automatically interpret everything through the lens of gain and loss. It’s in our DNA, you might say. — Wayfarer

It's actually very easy to say. Religious leaders are forced to mystify because if their preachings weren't mystifying they would not be needed.

What did the Buddha realize? Emptiness. Emptiness is not a something, so in that sense, he gained nothing. You might say that he actually lost something, his sense of self. And if that were the case then there would have been no one to gain something, so even if there were something to gain there was no one to gain it. What's gained is a beneficial experience, to put it plainly.

There are, bhikkhus, other dhammas, deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Tathāgata, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others; and it is concerning these that those who would rightly praise the Tathāgata in accordance with reality would speak. — Brahmajāla Sutta

The Philokalia tradition has an interesting history. Greek philosophy had long been the dominant philosophical system in Greece and, later, in the Roman Empire. Its prestige was such that all educated (and even some uneducated) men and women wanted to be associated with it. This went so far as for wealthy Roman citizens to have portraits or statues made of themselves wearing philosophers’ robes to enhance their status in the public eye.

Inevitably, unprincipled individuals styled themselves “philosophers” and purported to teach “secret doctrines” or “higher truths” in exchange for cash. To distinguish themselves from such individuals, Christian leaders, who incidentally also wore philosophers’ robes (as does Jesus in early iconography), decided to call their system “philokalia” (“love of the beautiful”) instead of the more traditional “philosophia” (“love of wisdom”).

This was in reference to the Christian aspiration to moral and spiritual perfection that was to be attained through the love of the beautiful as a revelation of Truth, in contradistinction to what was regarded as the more worldly wisdom of mainstream philosophy.

The Philokalia itself began as a collection of ascetic and mystical texts compiled in the 300’s AD and it became central to the contemplative tradition within Orthodox Christianity down the centuries.

When the secularizing tendencies of Western Europe began to penetrate the Orthodox space in the 1700’s, the leaders of the monastic orders of Mount Athos resolved to launch a counteroffensive by compiling and disseminating the various texts bequeathed by the spiritual masters of the tradition which by then amounted to many volumes. This compilation was published in 1782 under the title of “The Philokalia of the Neptic (Watchful) Saints by means of which the intellect (nous) is purified, illumined, and made perfect”.

In addition to its title, there are numerous references in the compiled texts to spiritual illumination or “enlightenment” which parallel those of the “Psalms of Illumination” or “Photagogica Hymns” of the modern Byzantine Rite and other prayers:

The more the heart becomes purified, the more the intellect becomes enlightened. The more the intellect is purified, the more the heart shines. Intellect and heart must unite and travel together on the road of the Jesus Prayer* (Philokalia Vol. 1, p. 196, #188).

The Prayer purifies the clouds and fog which wicked thoughts create. And when it is cleansed, the divine light of Jesus cannot but shine in it, unless we are puffed up with self-esteem and delusion, and so are deprived of Jesus’ help (p. 193, #175).

Truly blessed is the man whose mind and heart are as closely attached to the Jesus Prayer as air to the body and flame to the wax. The sun rising over the earth creates the daylight; and the venerable and holy name of Lord Jesus, shining continually in the mind, gives birth to countless intellections radiant as the sun (p. 197).

Enlighten my eyes, O Lord my God, lest I sleep the sleep of death; lest my enemies say: “I prevailed over him” (Ps. 13:3).

Send out, Lord, your light and your truth; let them lead me to your holy mountain, to the place where you dwell (Ps. 43:3).
For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we see light. For you are the fountain of life, the light by which we see (Ps. 36:9).

As the Gospel also says:

I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light (John 8:12)
Therefore, if your whole body is full of light, and no part of it dark, it will be just as full of light as when a lamp shines its light on you (Luke 11:36)
Believe in the light while you have the light, so that you may become children of light (John 12:36)

We can see that Christian spirituality is right here, in front of our own eyes, at least for those who, as the Gospel says, have “eyes to see and ears to hear”. And what can be easier to see than light?

These few passages are more than enough to reveal the core of a veritable spirituality of illumination based on the multiple function of light as a guide on the path, as an opener of eyes, as a purifying, darkness-dispelling, and enlightening force, and as the salvific and life-bestowing light of Truth which is the goal of all spiritual endeavour, all in one.

In all these cases, the force that performs these functions is consciousness or intelligence itself, the source of all knowledge and all truth. This is why in the Western tradition, intelligence or nous which is the soul’s faculty of intuition, insight, illumination, contemplation, and transcendence, plays a central role in the enlightenment process.

And because that intelligence (a) shares the nature of divine Intelligence, (b) is within us, and therefore (c) we literally are, “the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwells in us” (1 Cor. 3:16), there really is nowhere to go in search of light. It follows that the true, spiritual “East” as the source of light is not a geographical location, but a place outside time and space, where the Sun of Reality or “Light of the World” shines eternally, and that is at once in us and beyond us but never far from us “in some distant and exotic land”.

This I believe to be the inescapable conclusion that honest inquiry into comparative religion leads to. The individual who has genuinely found even a scintilla of light in the East cannot fail to see the light that he has left behind in the West and which he now knows to be shining always and everywhere. For if beauty is found everywhere, the light by which beauty is seen must be present everywhere even more. As for the source of that beauty and that light, what can we say that can be expressed in words, heard by the ear, or grasped by the mind? And who can understand except those who are able to understand?

On a different level, another thing which I believe to be important in understanding Eastern Christianity and the Philokalia tradition is to have some knowledge of its invaluable musical and artistic heritage. Without a personal visit to remote monasteries, hermitages and retreats, this small Bulgarian, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, and Russian sample cannot but convey some idea, at least as far as this is possible from sources in the public domain:

Megaloschemos II (Bulgarian Orthodox Hymn) - YouTube

Kabarnos - Agios O Theos (Greek) - YouTube

Aramaic rendition of Lord’s Prayer in honor of Pope Francis - YouTube

Komitas Vardapet: Patarag, Armenian Divine Liturgy - YouTube

Jesus Prayer (Russian) - Female Choir - YouTube

Byzantine chant - Δεύτε λαοί - YouTube

Though the music of the Eastern Church may at first seem to have an "alien" ring to it, it is essential to bear in mind that, as St Augustine says, the songs of the Western Church (as represented, for example, by Gregorian chants) originated in the East.

*The Jesus Prayer in English translation is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me” which is repeated mentally as a device for disengaging the mind from other thoughts and focusing it on an higher reality. In Greek, this is often shortened to “Kyrie eleison” (“Lord have mercy”) and is used as such as a liturgical formula in the liturgy of all Christian denominations.

Again, it can be seen that spiritual content is present everywhere in Christianity, if we only know how to see it - and if we take the time to look. In any case, the spiritual progression in the tradition entails a “practical”, “natural”, and “theological” stage. The practical is the development of virtues (aretai), the natural is the attainment of detachment or dispassion (apatheia), and the theological is the attainment of knowledge (gnosis), all of which clearly follows a similar pattern to those of other enlightenment traditions.

So, though each tradition understandably likes to assert its own superiority over others, the reality is that, in practice, they tend to have much in common.

:pray: Appreciate that. As I've said, I'm drawn to Orthodox spirituality, along with the mystical stream in Christianity generally. I've long had an interesting book A Different Christianity, by Martin Amis, which was composed over many years of visits to Mt Athos.

Kyrie eleison — Apollodorus

I think back to J. D. Salinger. Sweet Franny illumined the meditative path - repetition of any name of god - in my hour of desperation two decades ago. And although I don't always find content - or seek content - in that pliable and procrustean word, its quake-and-tremble powers continue to console.

Thanks again. A succinct and engaging summary.

Enlightenment means litterally throwing light in the dark. By lighting a match in the dark room we come to know what creatures under the bed are monsters.

It's the experience, the revelation, of a previously not seen truth that's enlightening. Like the epiphanies all of us experience once in a while.

I think back to J. D. Salinger. Sweet Franny illumined the meditative path - repetition of any name of god - in my hour of desperation two decades ago. And although I don't always find content - or seek content - in that pliable and procrustean word, its quake-and-tremble powers continue to console. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Unfortunately, I haven’t read any of Salinger’s books, but apparently his wife had a copy of The Way of a Pilgrim which was based on the hesychast tradition of the Orthodox Church, and may have been an influence on Salinger himself.

I don’t suppose God would be too concerned over what we call him. What matters is the inner attitude with which one approaches the divine. In any case, spiritual exercises do seem to stimulate some form of energy in the practitioners that has a transformative effect on their lives.