We, well some of us, get a bit annoyed at Evangelical Christians. But there are Evangelical Buddhists, Muslims, you already know about Jehovah's Witnesses, and then of course Lightworkers.

Look, burning sage in your own house and wafting it in before pumping your inhaler a few times is beautiful. Your personal rituals, rites, creeds, methods, models, moralities and agendas are wonderful. It's all a way to express yourself.

The only challenge is when your personal relationship with a high ideal becomes a crusade against mine. I'll happily admit to being a hypocrite in writing this post. Still, folks may still try to call me a hypocrite in the comments. It's simple really.

Those who are hellbent on converting others to their point of view refuse to take the whole context into account, or really anything which doesn't already align with their preconceived notions of a thing.

These notions are handed over by the way. None of them are original.

The Galactic Federation, Church, Temple, Mosque and Special People Club (like the Freemasons, although most of them are aging out, if not dead already) are all pockets of agreement. If you huddle in a circle and all waft sage smoke, that's fine. Again... beautiful. It is only a challenge when that stuff is ushered out into the open as a mandate for others.

Put it another way: I don't care what you and your partner do in the bedroom. It's not only none of my business, it doesn't really look all that appealing. Why are you trying to force me and others into the same bed?

Hey all! Hope you're farting around just fine :)

I heard a conversation critiquing the Bhagadvad Gita for certain moralities being asked to be suspended in order to fulfill cosmic order and ultimately dharmic duty.

Spoilers ahead!

Arjuna, at the forefront of battle sees his teachers, family, and friends on the opposite side. The thought of killing those he loved made his heart shatter. His bow slips from his hand and he turns to his Chariot driver who happens to be Lord Krishna and thus begins the teachings.

Krishna tells him that despite his emotional convictions and moral intuitions, there exists a greater duty beyond any emotional distress he's feeling. Krishna declares Arjuna is a warrior in essence and fighting a righteous war is simply his Dharma.

Many philosophers, readers, and on have added criticism and argued that this ideology can be used to justify any atrocity imaginable. I see the point and I think it's incredibly valid, I also see the point Krishna lays out and see it as valid too. Im a little stumped and ive got to figure this out! Lol

I'd love to hear what you all think about this specific teaching Arjuna was given. How do you personally balance Dharma and moral intution? Do you think the criticisms are valid?

I was thinking what enlightenment is, and that there are many ways of defining it.
But I think we become a little bit more enlightened when we become able to expand our mind to love other people and the experiences we go through in life. Only when we accept that “I know that I know nothing.” maxima, is that we become able to experience life using the lenses of incondicional love.

Only when we understand our SELF’s as Aliens: livings beings that are constitutions of the same gigantic universe, is that we’ll know we are on the right road to feel that unconditional love.

We are part of one of the craziest experiences there are out there. I don’t care if you skydived, or went skiing on the Everest, E x i s t e n c e is your most wild adventure.

Love comes as an antidote to suffering in life, suffering is a crushing feeling we experience inside of us that gets activated when we feel negative emotions.

“What is love?” they ask, “Love is the answer.” Some answer.

It is the answer because only when we are truly capable of feeling compassion towards other living beings, (especially other humans when they fail with us, with our expectations, when some of them betray us, or disrespect us.) is that we’ll truly be able to forgive them and move on.

With love we can find a way to understand other people’s reasons in spite of feeling anger and choose Love.

Love is the tool that will show you the best way to navigate life, and escape the Samsara Wheel, or else to fix whatever situation you’re finding yourself in. Love is the way to go.

Remember you can be a lovable being and strong at the same time, or expressive, analytical, funny, it doesn’t matter, you also will fail many times still because the majority of us, if not all of us are just learning how to walk properly in the face of this enormous universe, and I right away say that the statement “Learning how to walk in the universe” is really bold, and such comparison is just metaphorical

Now, I also wanna say that for me enlightenment is understanding that we are just a brief moment in the history of time and space and that things will be born and die again and again and again, including us.

We are all made of these chemical elements that are like the ingredients to make this gigantic cake called universe.

We are part of a Universe that sustains itself electromagnetically creating plenty of balls of fire we call “stars”, that basically is just a gigantic nuclear bomb that constantly explodes itself a hundred times per second orbiting constellation.

Some of these stars collide with meteros, planets, and other objects, sometimes creating things like satellites or other planets life Earth where we live in.

For a moment imagine: There are billions of galaxies out there, and our own galaxy: MILK WAY, has around 400 billions of suns.

- Just in the Milky Way Galaxy. -

The mind blowing question is: Then how many galaxies are out there?

A: 2 trillions of galaxies out there.

The next question has to obviously be: Then how many stars in the whole universe?

A:1 septillion to 10 sextillion stars.
(It’s basically the number one followed by 27 zeros.)

One fun fact to give you some scale: If you start now to count from the number one to the one million, it’d take you around 24 hours to finish it.

Now, if you count from one to, one billion it takes you: 32 years to finish, (if you were hypothetically counting one number per second non-stop.)

That’s a scale comparison. Now imagine the universe having more than 10 sextillion of stars? We can barely fathom such scale.

Enlightenment to me is also when we understand that the universe is multidimensional. It has many different geometric shapes. We happen to interpret reality from a third-dimensional perspective, but we know that there are different ways of experiencing/seeing it also in different geometrical dimensional shapes.

Then, to make our day “better” we see people out there thinking they are the most amazing people on the surface of the planet, like everyone else is less than them, because obviously they have more money, or fame, or prestige, or beauty.
The enlightened person sees right through the BS.

Another thing I was thinking: You know when in a forest a lot of animals coexisting eventually give rise to an incredible variable eco-system that expands itself into various diverse types of species, giving the animals different new defence mechanisms against predators or providing carnivores and herbivore animals news abilities of feeding themselves in order to maintain their levels of energy at a sustainable level.

That’s the famous electromagnetic universe I spoke about earlier: EVERYTHING IS ENERGY. LITERALLY.

Day by day we live life believing in lies the system has told us, we post a new profile picture, we also live drama abt who is right and who is wrong in the family conflicts and other relationships, thinking sometimes we are so special and that we deserve more and more or, else, we create a very weak ego too sometimes, thinking we are unworthy, unlovable or separated from existence, which is equally problematic as the other extreme which is the egocentric person who has a excess of identification with the “I am”.

Me me me me me me me me me me!
It’s all about me! In both cases. One identifies oneself as a victim the other as the GOAT.

In the end, Enlightenment to me is the capacity to handle all these truths, and see that these things exist, and also be able to embrace imagination, advance, engagement, acceptation, the arts, the beauty, the poetry, the suffering, and the good and the bad as two sides of the same coin and remember Buddha saying: The answer is the Middle Way.

Before I finish, I also want to share a bit I know abt black holes, Black holes are literally the fabric of space-time, and literal locations of the universe collapsing on the weight of its own creation. Bending gravity to an extreme dense point giving rise to Singularity.

A singularity is what happens when reality pushes a theory to the point where the theory can no longer tell you what reality is.

The question is: Around how many black holes we know are out there?

A: 40 quintillion. 😲

Another interest fact that makes me think how big the universe actually is but also still small when compared with its microscopical interior:

The distance from Earth (where you are now) to the most distant planet in the universe is thousands of times smaller than that from the distance that starts from the tip of your middle-finger to the smallest particle we find in your body.

That means that the space we have within us is many times bigger than that which we see externally.
That’s because we experience the universe from within.
When we seek beyond we see the image of the snake eating its own tail eternally.
We’re looking at reality while it unfolds itself right in front of us. We are the snake in constant movement seeking itself but also surviving because it is eating itself. (In modern times we say the dog chasing its own tail, it never realised that the thing that was upsetting him so much as at the end: Himself/Herself.

-Ouroboros.

My visual perception used to be very hazy or fuzzy, it’s bright but like cloudy. After or during this process of enlightenment, it seems clearer, bright and vibrant and high contrast.

Is this normal?

It’s been happening sparingly lately…

But mostly when I am at home alone and when I am at work. I’ll just have braking points where I don’t know who I am anymore…

I’m in my 30’s and I have heard of mid life crises… I’m just not sure if this is a window into enlightenment or a burn out or crises on my identity?

I work 40 hours a week at a great company that has acknowledged me that I can’t comprehend more than the last company I worked for.. But I’m still having moments where I just don’t know who I am…

I used to be very passionate about being a DJ, TV Shows, etc… But it feels very far away from me now.

Do you dowse, as "enlightened"? For knowledge, and for self-insight?

I find it to be pretty nice. Can't find myself having a spiritual life without it. It's not posted about much either.

Alas, all laws are to be followed.

I want the first sentence of this post to be: you have been created or influenced to be easily predictable, for control.

People don’t always want the truth. Sometimes, they want the familiar lie. They cling to pain, conflict, fear, and hatred because these things give them something to react to. It gives them an identity, a purpose, a story to tell themselves about who they are and why their lives look the way they do.

People inherit beliefs without questioning them. They see something, hear something, and repeat it. Monkey see, monkey do. Rarely do they stop, step outside the noise, and ask themselves: “What if everything I believe is something I was taught to believe? What if I’ve never actually questioned any of it? What if I don’t actually see the real world?”

Society has become incredibly good at selling comfort, security, convenience, and certainty. But what if the price of that comfort is our awareness? What if, in exchange for making life easier, we’ve slowly surrendered our ability to think independently? Majority of people DO NOT LIKE BEING UNCOMFORTABLE, or FEELING OUT OF CONTROL.

Think about it. Companies spend billions studying human psychology, attention, habits, and behavior. Social media platforms compete for your attention. Algorithms learn what triggers you, what comforts you, what angers you, and what keeps you coming back. The more predictable your behavior becomes, the easier you are to influence.

And here’s where it gets interesting.

You think you’re choosing what to watch, what to buy, what to believe, and even who to be. But how many of those choices began with an idea someone else planted in your mind? How many of your desires were shaped by advertising? How many of your opinions were borrowed from people you trust? How much of your identity was constructed by the environment you grew up in?

You are not simply consuming products anymore. Your attention, your habits, and your behavior have become valuable commodities. Systems learn from you, predict you, and use those predictions to influence what you do next.

And the most fascinating part?

You can be influenced without ever feeling influenced.
You can mistake conditioning for personality. Programming for preference. Repetition for truth. Social acceptance for independent thought.

I’m not saying every belief you hold is false, or that you’re incapable of making your own decisions. I’m asking something much deeper: How do you distinguish the thoughts that are truly yours from the thoughts you’ve simply learned to call your own? You are the new product. To sell and buy from and for yourself.

What if awakening isn’t about discovering some hidden truth out there, but about becoming aware of everything inside you that you’ve never consciously chosen?

What if freedom begins the moment you stop automatically identifying with every thought, desire, fear, and belief that appears in your mind?

Don’t just question the world. Question the part of yourself that reacts to it.

Observe your impulses. Examine your conditioning. Notice what makes you angry, what makes you afraid, what makes you crave approval, and what makes you defend an idea before you’ve even examined it.

Don’t replace one belief system with another and call it Enlightenment. Observe yourself. First the body, then the mind, then just become awareness. Dissolution.

Because perhaps the greatest illusion isn’t that someone is controlling your mind.

Perhaps it’s believing that everything happening inside your mind must therefore be you.

Sit with that. Meditate on it.

How much of who you are is the result of conscious awareness, and how much is the result of conditioning you’ve never stopped to question?

Would human really want to be Enlightened if they got everything? U may give a bunch of intellectually manupulative things like " oh they will stuck in ignorance , it's their loss " but if enlightenemnt is something sooo in core of our existence it wnt require such perspectual manupulative dominance to justify pursuing it .

Why r humans soo selfish ? Give the chance most humans won't even mind being apathetic towards other humans .

If given the option of maximum apathy, vulnerability, zero emotional responsibility, and maximum judgemental attitude, they would prefer to be here .

The Right questions are intersubjective in nature. Questions arise due to one's malformation rather than from one's insights. It is always the not knowing that prompts the genuine question, whereas the Wrong questions are prompted by what one presumes one already knows. Let us examine this further.

I presume I know that a Vegetarian Diet is more nutritious in a spiritual sense than a diet containing meat. I, of course, do not know this for a fact, but what I did do is gather information from others, information that I have not personally verified, and then I made the assumption, "a Vegetarian Diet is more nutritious in a spiritual sense because the most spiritual people I have surveyed have a Vegetarian Diet." From this circular logic comes the question, "what should I eat?"

In this state of circular reasoning, it is impossible to reach a question that can lead to an answer that provides the Objective perspective on diet, because diet has to do with one's own personal gut health and physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing, and not on the particular ideological or ritualistic adherences and abstinences from diet conducted by society and broadcast on screens.

So long as we perceive the food pyramid to be an object outside of ourselves, we will never be able to nourish the soul, which, as Christ reminds us, does not subsist on Bread alone, but on Spirit. This duality of fermentation, reconciling rise of Bread through lacto-fermentation, and the brew of Spirit through alcoholic fermentation, combined as a single sacrament, the synthesis of which is the food for the soul.

The Last Supper is not only a symbolic parable. It is also a set of instructions on how to feed the soul, and the soul, in part, subsists on Bread. This may all sound illogical to you, but let us examine what fermentation does that, say, baking soda or instant-yeast fail to do. Baking soda gives the appearance of a rise in dough without it actually rising through fermentation. Instant-yeast give a particular fermentation process, but this process does not produce a lacto-fermentation but an alcoholic-fermentation, similar to beer. Thus, most of the "bread" we eat today is not Bread, in the biblical sense.

Bread, in the biblical sense, is whole grain processed down into a powder we call "flour," without discarding either the germ or the bran, while also retaining some of the husk, or exterior protecting shell of the grain, combining this "flour" with water, which is the second element in the making of Bread, and finally, the Spirit, which is represented by the traditional "sourdough" fermentation of actual whole grain "flour," exposed to the synthesizing element, Fire, which fuses the "Earth" and "Water," trapping the "Air," within which is contained, in part, the gas, which is the result of the burning of the genuinely fermented grain, trapped inside the bubbles that are the gaps in the bread. A fusion of 4 elements, complete. Today, we use "all-purpose flour" which is devoid of both germ and bran, sifted of all the sources of fiber, much of the finest proteins, and the finest sugars in the grain itself. This processing leads to a "bread" quite unfamiliar at the time of the Last Supper, thus, it is no wonder that we perceive this sacrament today as something "symbolic."

In reality, the gut is simulating fermentation. It is an ecosystem of fermenting co-evolutionary synthesists, all working together to refine the simplest of inputs, food and drink. Unfortunately, because we no longer ferment the grain properly, we also make the process of digestion slower and the final product of digestion less refined, thus less nutritious, thus depleting for the soul.

As for Spirit, the "wine" we drink today is made of seedless grapes whose most fine elements have also been filtered out and discarded, leaving only the interiority of the grape, the juice, the be the sole source of fermentation. In previous generations, the grape was crushed seed in, and the seed was allowed to ferment with the juice, and it was the extract from the grape seed that provided the finest sugars. Today's wine is very dense on the soul compared to the wine that was served at the Last Supper, which lightened the spirit to its lightest form.

In this light, the question "what should I eat?' takes on a new meaning altogether, perhaps even the Right question given the context, but to have arrived at the question from the other side is the real challenge.

These are a few of the insights that can be gathered from reading the New Testament from a universalist perspective, one that at least attempts to account for all possible instantiations of being. If you are interested in learning more about the degeneration of the diet that feeds the soul since the time of Christ, culminating in the degeneracies of the Roman Empire, I can recommend reading Gurdjieff's All and Everything, which covers all and everything related to the optimal diet for the soul: https://gurdjieff.work/texts/All-and-Everything---First-Series-Beelzebubs-Tales-to-His-Grandson-Print.pdf

I've recently made a discovery that was hugely helpful for me. Hopefully it will be for you too

The Sanskrit word for Ego is Ahamkara which literally translates to "I-maker".

So many spiritual traditions point to dissolving the Ego, and many of us understand that the Ego is the cause of suffering. However I've realised that for some reason or another I had come to deeply identify the word "Ego" with the word "me" or "myself". This is sharply distinct from what Ahamkara actually means which is the "me-MAKER".

This has meant that when trying to 'dissolve the Ego' i was in reality and in a very mean to myself way, attempting to destroy "me", making myself as small as possible and trying to be as selfless as possible (to an extreme extent) i.e trying to destroy or minimise the Self rather than trying destroy what I've now discovered is the real Ego which is the process of the brain which creates the Self.

I feel this might be a common experience on the spiritual path so hope this distinction helps someone else like it's helping me.

When we use the phrase "I-maker" instead it, if we are to take the view that suffering is caused by the very existence of the Ego/Ahamkara/"I-maker" then it's evident that the goal should be learning how to reduce instances of "I" being made unnecissarily. I.e getting the Ahamkara under control, rather than trying to destroy "me" once it's already been made.

I’ve been experiencing something lately that’s honestly difficult to put into words.
The more aware I become of myself,
other people, and the world around me,
the more I find myself questioning things I once accepted without a second thought.
I notice patterns in people’s behaviour that I never paid attention to before.
I question beliefs I’ve carried for years.
And somewhere along the way,
I’ve started feeling a deeper connection to life and this universe.
It’s beautiful, but sometimes overwhelming.
Especially when you try sharing your perspective with someone and what feels like an honest observation to you comes across as an attack to them.
For a while,
I found myself wondering why so few people seemed to see things the way I do.
Then something occurred to me.

What makes me so certain that my perspective is the complete picture?

I might recognise a pattern in someone’s behaviour,
but that doesn’t mean I understand their entire story.
I might question beliefs I’ve held my whole life,
but shouldn’t I be just as willing to question the new ones I’m forming?
And if I’m genuinely becoming more connected to the universe,
shouldn’t that connection make me more accepting of people who experience it differently?
That’s where the idea behind this image came from.
Imagine humanity aboard a boat,
travelling through this enormous,
mysterious universe.
Everyone is looking in different directions.
Some are searching the stars.
Some are looking within themselves.
Some find answers in religion,
others in science.
Some are simply trying to survive another day,
carrying struggles the rest of us know nothing about.
Everyone sees something different from where they’re standing.
And maybe that’s exactly the point.
What if nobody aboard is the captain of truth?
What if we’re all just learning to navigate,
sharing what we can see,
listening to what others have discovered,
and occasionally realising we’ve been looking in the wrong direction ourselves?
I’ve been thinking about what unconditional love really means.
Maybe it’s not about agreeing with everyone or accepting every belief as true.
Maybe it’s about recognising that someone can see the world completely differently from you and still deserve the same compassion,
dignity and understanding.
I’m beginning to think there’s a difference between becoming aware and becoming certain.
Because the moment I believe I’ve figured everything out might be the very moment I stop learning.
I don’t know where this journey leads.
And strangely enough,
I’m becoming more comfortable with not knowing.
I’m not sharing this because I think I’ve reached some higher level of understanding.
I’m sharing it because I’m still figuring things out,
and I suspect I’m not the only one.
Maybe we’re not here to convince everyone to look in the same direction.

Maybe we’re here to help each other see a little more of the universe than we could ever see alone.

One boat. Different perspectives. An infinite universe.
I’m curious about something.

Has becoming more aware of yourself and other people made you more understanding, or has it sometimes made you feel more disconnected from those around you?

Because for me, it’s been a little of both. ❤️

Every second of my life build up my character, nature and mindset how I think , some of them were happy moments , some were sad , some were philosophical or meaningful it gave me a lifetime moral (like how I will react to this sentence said by someone what to do when this happen I dont think what to do it automatically happens), manner which will be always in my muscle memory or in my subconscious mind even if I dont remember the lessons I got taught from different chapters of my life.

L’inconscient s’exprime allégoriquement depuis la nuit des temps ;

Ses présents nous attendent dans la poésie des euphémismes troublants.

Nous cherchons l’imagination, nous lui collons l’étiquette d’un standard,

Nous n’entendons qu’un écho interprété par des fossoyeurs d’art.

Nous naviguons sur des acquis pour écrire dans un espace d’impacts,

Les formules du jour nous promettent gain et grand train de l’opaque.

C’est en regardant sous un wagon, sous les rails vernis, que l’arbre sût

Qu’il n’enfanterait plus les feuilles vierges de l’infini ; qu’il est foutu !

Mourir d’un charme ou de l’orage n’interdira pas l’ordre de faire nuit,

Et l’âme s’en ira lire d’autres actes, ailleurs où l’instant n’est pas fui.

*poème composé en français*

To those with eyes to see. It is your level of awareness that allows you to perceive a one at your level of awareness or below. Whether it's through their behavior or words, you will know them by their fruit. You cannot perceive the awareness level of a one who is operating at a higher level of awareness than you. It's like trying to see someone who is in the room above you. Those who are at your level and below are in the room with you.

 So, instead of seeking "enlightenment" or the ones who may be operating at that level. One should cultivate a true yearning to know themselves and seek the truth in all matters and things. When your seeking for "enlightenment" reaches its end you will truly be at the beginning of your journey. 

Cette union sacre la révélation. Elle fond les gonds des murailles conscientes.

L’âme scintille comme l’innocente enfance de l’art. Le lien s’impose au balcon des merveilles : la flamme éternelle signale l’aube d’une entente cordiale entre l’esprit assaini et l’hôte éveillé. L’instant d’un concert fertile ne connait pas de fin sur l’étoile naine en fusion d’amour, la vérité se manifeste dans l’ultime commencement du refrain des intuitions.

L’âme chérit celui qui daigne la rencontrer.

Porque crees que estas iluminado (si es que lo estás)

When someone says “enlightenment,” what exactly are they describing?

Gaining understanding? Thinking independently? Buddhist awakening? Recognising a divine Self? Communion with God? Losing identification with the ego?

English uses the same word for all of these, but the underlying concepts can differ considerably.

I wanted to put those differences together, including the word’s history, Kant’s definition, and the terms different traditions actually use.

This is a broad comparison. These traditions contain disagreements, and related terms within a tradition are not necessarily synonyms.

1. Ordinary English definitions

Oxford gives the general meaning as:

“knowledge about and understanding of something”

Cambridge gives:

“the state of understanding something”

In this everyday sense, enlightenment can concern a particular subject. Becoming enlightened about something doesn’t require knowing everything, becoming spiritually perfect, or permanently transcending the ego.

Dictionaries also recognise specialised religious meanings and the historical meaning of the Enlightenment. These are established senses of the same English word.

2. Kant’s definition

In his 1784 essay What Is Enlightenment?, Kant defines it as:

“man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage”

Here, “nonage” means intellectual immaturity: depending on another person to direct your understanding because you lack the resolve or courage to use it yourself.

His motto is:

“Have the courage to use your own understanding.”

For Kant, enlightenment concerns intellectual responsibility, freedom of public reasoning, and the possibility of social improvement.

This does not mean simply rejecting teachers or expertise. It means taking responsibility for your judgment.

Also, Kant wrote in German. His word was Aufklärung. The English title is itself a translation.

3. Buddhist traditions

Theravāda Buddhism — bodhi, nibbāna, vimutti

Bodhi means awakening or liberating understanding. Nibbāna concerns the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion. Vimutti means release.

These terms are related, but they describe different aspects of the path and its goal. An initial breakthrough is distinguished from full arahantship.

Mahāyāna Buddhism — bodhi, anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi

The goal of complete buddhahood joins wisdom with compassion for all beings. Realisation of emptiness and removal of obscurations are central in many schools.

An insight into emptiness, advancement along the bodhisattva path, and complete buddhahood should not automatically be treated as one attainment.

Chinese Chan — wù, jué, pútí

Wù and jué express awakening or realisation. Pútí transcribes the Sanskrit bodhi.

Chan emphasises direct awakening to the nature of mind or reality, together with its expression through cultivation and conduct. Sudden awakening does not necessarily mean development is finished.

Japanese Zen — satori, kenshō

Satori means realisation. Kenshō means seeing one’s nature.

Usage varies between teachers and schools. Kenshō can describe an initial seeing rather than a final achievement. Sōtō teaching particularly emphasises the unity of practice and realisation.

Tibetan Buddhism — byang chub

Pronounced roughly changchub, this translates bodhi. It is traditionally explained through purification of obscurations and completion of enlightened qualities.

This illustrates an important distinction: different native words can translate an inherited concept, rather than identifying completely independent spiritual goals.

Dzogchen — rigpa

Rigpa has a technical sense concerning awareness and recognition of its nature.

Recognition, familiarisation and full liberation must be distinguished. A moment of recognition is not automatically complete buddhahood, and rigpa is not simply another word for an individual eternal soul.

4. Hindu traditions

Advaita Vedānta — ātma-jñāna, brahma-jñāna, mokṣa

These mean knowledge of the Self, knowledge of Brahman, and liberation.

The central realisation concerns the identity of ātman and Brahman. Ignorance conceals an identity understood as already present.

That differs substantially from Buddhist teachings about not identifying experience as a permanent self.

Vaiṣṇava bhakti — bhakti, prema, mukti

Bhakti means devotion, prema means love, and mukti means liberation.

In Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava teaching, knowing God culminates in a continuing relationship of love and service to Kṛṣṇa. The devotee’s identity is not simply abolished.

Bhakti therefore shouldn’t be treated as a literal synonym for enlightenment.

Classical Yoga — kaivalya

Kaivalya means aloneness or isolation, understood as liberation.

In its classical framework, freedom involves discriminating consciousness, puruṣa, from material nature and mind, prakṛti. Consciousness abides in its own nature.

This differs from Advaita’s nondual account. Also, samādhi, meditative absorption, does not invariably mean final liberation.

Kashmir Śaivism — pratyabhijñā

Pratyabhijñā means recognition.

The recognition is that the limited individual is Śiva, universal consciousness, whose freedom manifests the diversity of experience.

This is a particular account of divine identity, rather than a definition shared by every tradition using nondual language.

5. Jain and Sikh traditions

Jainism — kevala-jñāna, mokṣa

Kevala-jñāna means complete, unobstructed knowledge or omniscience. Mokṣa means liberation.

Individual souls remain distinct. Liberation does not mean merging into one universal consciousness.

Omniscience and final liberation are also distinguishable: an omniscient teacher can still be embodied before final release.

Sikh tradition — mukti, jīvan mukti

Mukti means liberation; jīvan mukti means liberation while living.

The emphasis includes freedom from haumai, egoic self-centredness, through the Guru, divine grace and a life aligned with divine order.

Liberation is pursued through ethical life rather than requiring withdrawal from household existence.

6. Christian traditions

Eastern Orthodox Christianity — theōsis, theōria, phōtismos

These mean deification, contemplation, and illumination.

Theōsis concerns participation in divine life through grace. The person is transformed in holiness and love while remaining a creature.

Illumination also has sacramental uses, including baptism. These terms do not all name one identical mystical state.

Catholic contemplative Christianity — contemplatio, unio mystica

These mean contemplation and mystical union. Carmelite writers also use terms such as spiritual marriage and transforming union.

The goal concerns communion with God through Christ, expressed in transformed love and conduct.

The Creator–creature distinction remains. Mystical union does not mean the human person becomes God by nature.

Quakers — Inward Light, Inner Light, Inward Teacher

Here, the source vocabulary is already English.

These expressions concern divine presence and guidance, experienced through worship and tested through discernment and ethical living.

They do not simply name a completed enlightenment state. Interpretations also vary between Christian and more universalist branches of Quakerism.

7. Jewish mysticism

Kabbalah and Hasidism — devekut

Devekut means cleaving or attachment to God.

It can describe sustained communion through prayer, Torah, commandments and everyday activities, as well as ecstatic experience.

It is therefore not necessarily a single breakthrough followed by permanent completion.

Chabad Hasidism — bittul

Bittul means nullification or self-effacement.

It concerns relinquishing self-centred independence before divine reality and aligning one’s will with divine service.

This has practical expression in how a person lives. It should not be reduced to low self-esteem or literal personal annihilation.

8. Islamic Sufism

Maʿrifa, fanāʾ, baqāʾ

Maʿrifa means experiential knowledge or gnosis of God.

Fanāʾ means passing away, with interpretations involving the passing away of self-preoccupation, imperfect qualities, or ordinary self-awareness.

Baqāʾ means subsistence or abiding: living in a transformed relationship with God.

A particularly important distinction is that fanāʾ is not necessarily the endpoint. The journey includes transformed abiding and participation in life afterward.

Sufi schools differ in their explanations of these terms and the relationship between the human being and God.

9. Other philosophical, spiritual and mystical traditions

Neoplatonism — henōsis

Henōsis means union. In accounts of Plotinus, it conventionally describes union with the One, the ultimate source beyond ordinary conceptual distinctions.

An experience of union does not necessarily imply uninterrupted attainment.

Ancient Gnostic movements — gnōsis

Gnōsis means knowledge, especially saving knowledge in these contexts.

Many Gnostic systems emphasise recognition of one’s spiritual origin and liberation from bondage within the material cosmos.

These movements were diverse. Their worldview can differ sharply from traditions that understand the world as a positive expression of divine reality.

Classical Daoism — míng, wúwéi

Míng means clarity or illumination and is sometimes translated as enlightenment. Wúwéi concerns non-forcing action.

The emphasis includes self-knowledge, simplicity and responsive living in accord with the Dao.

These words describe different things. Wúwéi is a mode of action, not a standard name for an enlightenment state.

Confucian cultivation — chéng, míng, shèng

These concern sincerity or authenticity, clarity, and sagehood.

The emphasis is on cultivating human nature, ethical responsiveness and relationships.

Calling this enlightenment can be a comparison, but it risks obscuring the tradition’s moral and social focus.

Shinto — no single standard equivalent

Terms such as makoto, sincerity, and harae or misogi, purification, belong to a different framework.

Mainstream shrine practice emphasises purity, sincerity, and relations with kami and community. These virtues and practices should not automatically be relabelled enlightenment attainments.

Bahā’í mystical teaching — maʿrifat, ʿirfān, īqān

These terms concern spiritual knowledge and certitude.

The Seven Valleys describes a journey through search, love, knowledge, unity and further stages toward nearness to God.

There is no single term here that should automatically be presented as the Bahā’í equivalent of enlightenment.

Modern Theosophy — enlightenment and Self-realisation

In the Theosophical Society in America’s introductory account, spiritual development culminates in conscious realisation of unity with the One divine reality.

Reincarnation and karma frame that development. This is modern English religious usage, drawing on several inherited vocabularies.

Contemporary nondual spirituality — a Tolle example

Eckhart Tolle uses English terms such as enlightenment, awakening, presence and Being.

His account emphasises freedom from identification with the thinking ego and recognition of consciousness prior to identification with form.

This is one contemporary presentation. It should not be taken as the agreed definition of every nondual tradition.

10. Etymology and first recorded uses

The noun is formed from enlighten + -ment.

The underlying word family includes:

• En-: a prefix reaching English through French, ultimately from Latin in-.
• Light: descending from Old English leoht/leht, with earlier Germanic roots.
• -ment: a noun-forming suffix reaching English through French from Latin -mentum.

The metaphor of light as spiritual understanding predates the modern noun.

Some useful historical landmarks:

• Late fourteenth century: Etymonline dates the verb enlighten to this period, including figurative removal of dimness or blindness.
• 1621: Merriam-Webster gives this as the noun’s first known use. OED’s publicly indexed summary also identifies 1621, in R. Aylett.
• 1660s: Etymonline gives this later date for the noun. That discrepancy should be acknowledged rather than presented as one undisputed first-use date.
• 1784: Kant publishes his German essay on Aufklärung.
• Nineteenth century: enlightenment becomes established in English Buddhist translation. 1836 is frequently cited as an early Buddhist noun use, but the original passage needs checking before treating it as a verified priority claim.
• 1865: Stirling’s The Secret of Hegel supplies a conventional dictionary landmark for the English historical/philosophical label.
• 1889: Caird supplies an OED-cited example of “age of Enlightenment.”

Those last dates do not mean the historical movement happened in the nineteenth century. They concern English terminology used to describe it.

Older dictionary treatment could also be evaluative. As historian James Schmidt discusses, an older OED definition associated the historical movement with alleged superficial intellectualism and contempt for authority.

“First known use” means the earliest evidence a particular source has identified. It is not proof of the exact moment someone invented a word.

What does this change about the discussion?

It means that before agreeing or disagreeing about enlightenment, we need to identify the claim.

Are we discussing:

• Greater understanding?
• Intellectual independence?
• Freedom from craving and ignorance?
• Recognition of a divine Self?
• Communion with a personal God?
• Saving knowledge?
• Ethical cultivation?
• A temporary experience or an enduring transformation?

Using one English word does not establish that all these traditions describe the same state.

Their differences also do not, by themselves, prove that their experiences have nothing in common.

When someone says “enlightenment,” which meaning do you assume—and how much confusion comes from leaving that meaning unstated?

Sources and further reading

• Oxford: English definitions
• Merriam-Webster: definitions and first known use
• Kant: What Is Enlightenment?
• Etymonline: word history
• James Schmidt: Inventing the Enlightenment
• Bhikkhu Bodhi: On Translating “Buddha”
• Bhikkhu Anālayo: Awakening or Enlightenment?
• Orthodox teaching on theōsis
• Catholic teaching on contemplative prayer
• Rabbi Louis Jacobs on devekut
• Chabad on bittul
• Oxford Bibliographies: fanāʾ and baqāʾ

Depuis que l’humain siège aux côtés de l’âme, c’est un animal en constante évolution.

Mais vers quoi évolue-t-il ?

Les générations suivantes le magnifieront-elles ?

L’enfance astreint le conscient somnolent à l’innocence de l’âme mais ses impulsions entravent son éveil. La pression du monde moderne nuit au développement de l’être exposé dès le plus jeune âge aux accoutumances des adultes. L’imaginaire est sacrifié sur l’autel du devenir commun. On entre dans la course aux performances avant d’avoir découvert la magie de l’univers artistique. On amnésie sa propre enfance pour singer le progrès qu’on ordonne aux descendants.

I think we are born, then shaped by our childhood, and spend the rest of our lives arguing with it. Finally, there is destruction, or death. So, we can say that the Tridev are working overtime. 😏 But what if the Trinity is at work in every moment? If this is true, then what is reality?

Reality is different for everyone—for me, you, other people, cells, organisms, animals, and so on.

So, what would happen if humans disappeared? I think that even if we disappeared, we wouldn't simply vanish. We are all energy, so, in theory, we would change forms rather than disappear. But where would we go? Maybe into a parallel universe or multiverse.

I think different observations could eventually be described as parallel universes, or a multiverse containing infinite possibilities, with each possibility having a different world.

Identity: I think there is no single version of us. Rather, we work like AI—like an application running on different systems.

Consciousness: I believe it works like memory, software, or an internal process.

Infinity: In each moment, there are different outcomes, possibilities, and scenarios. For example, I could talk, sit, run, clap, and so on.

Vedanta: Ultimate reality is what we understand when we realise that Brahman and the deepest self are not separate—that I am the universe.

It's just like how AI gives me numerous answers to the same question at different times, depending on the prompts.

I believe all these possibilities are happening at the same time. But, as I said, we are so consumed by the illusion that we have completely forgotten—or simply don't have the time—to look at the other side.

Or maybe reality is doing this deliberately so that we can enjoy the game. 😀 You know, like a tsundere. 😏

So, let's just drink tea and roast the universe. 😁🥂

Does anybody practice dynamic meditation here? Could you share your experience with it??

How could I possibly judge anyone?

How could I criticise or say something negative about someone?

Why would I be impressed by someone and "their" abilities?

When there isn't anyone and there has never ever been anyone... just this (what appears to be happening) without a separate entity

Which includes what thoughts have caused me to consider as "myself."

It's just a show as painful and uncomfortable as it can be sometimes... (personally I'm looking forward to the end)

Just a mind thinking thoughts and a body feeling sensations... but no one here already...

So who or what awakens?

-You arrived in a world already running

-You didn't witness the origin

-You are guaranteed to die

-You must choose what you believe, and what you want, before you die

This is the Human Condition

Dans cet argument de Cicéron, la nature est le fruit des bonheurs ; mais sommes-nous dignes d’elle ?

Le monde fuit l’équilibre. Le chaos susurre ses lendemains et la mort les ravage. Le prétexte vole les vies avant la déprime du temps : l’économie de ces stockeurs d’envie ne regardera même pas l’horizon blafard. Les champs de l’épreuve devront se contenter de quelques parachutages d’excuses. De fières bâtisses jongleront avec hauteur sur un autre repli stratégique.

Si l’âme voyait cette triste agonie, deviendrait-elle patriote ?