It seems an appropriate question for this forum. Whatever our differences, its members have probably spent an average of 30 years each being fascinated by enlightenment and the pursuit of it. And we still are, or we wouldn't be here. Whether we still believe in the concept of enlightenment or not, we're still here every week discussing it, or things related to it.
Over the years, we've all been presented with a number of ideas about enlightenment -- what it is and what it is not. These ideas have ranged from the ordinary (enlightenment is nothing more -- or less -- than waking up to what is already going on) to the extraordinary (enlightenment -- "full" enlightenment, whatever that is -- is so special that those who achieve it cannot help but be perfect in their thoughts and actions, and can do things that normal humans can't, like levitate and know The Truth About Everything). We've also been taught -- in most of the spiritual traditions represented here -- that achieving or realizing one's enlight- enment is the highest path available to human beings. I know that I have certainly been told that everything else -- EVERYTHING else -- is secondary to the pursuit of one's enlightenment. Or that it should be. I just realized that today is the anniversary of the first time I formally meditated, and thus stepped onto a spiritual path. And here I am, 42 years later, still on it. Go figure. And at the end of 42 years on that path, I find myself still believing in the existence of something called enlightenment. Heck, I can't very well doubt that one -- I've spent days and weeks at a time in subjective states of consciousness that mapped one-to-one to all of my spiritual teachers' descrip- tions of enlightenment. And they were neat, these periods of time spent out of time, but they tended to be more ordinary than extraordinary. They came, they went, and they still do. But the bottom line for me is that the time I spend in those states is no more special or meaningful than the time I spend in the ordinary waking state. As for the *really* extraordinary shit, the siddhis, I have performed a few of the minor ones myself, and have seen a few of the major ones being performed by someone else. And that was fun, but to be honest, over time the extraordinary shit turned out to be pretty ordinary, too. So, as a result, I have to find myself saying, in answer to the question in the Subject line, "No, I don't think enlight- enment is all it's cracked up to be." I think it's much less than what it's cracked up to be. And more. It can't EVER be what it's cracked up to be, because it was "cracked up to be" something to us in words. When it comes to enlightenment, words just don't cut the mustard. I think that if you get off on the idea of enlightenment more than you get off on the other things in your life, then by all means you should pursue it. And you should pursue it gung-ho, one-pointedly, if that's how you think such things should be done. But I'm going to pass on that one. Been there, done that, didn't find "there" that much different or better than "here." I'm going to focus on appreciating here, and now, and leave pursuit of something that lies in their future to those who like that sorta thing. What do you think?
