The way I see it is this.
Enlightenment is any answer to the question of existence. The question really being asked is ‘You suffer in some vague existential way because of the problem of meaning, how do you deal with that?’
Any magic system that directly answers that question leads to ‘enlightenment’.
So there are two components to any of the systems.
The answer and the method of gaining the answer. The two are not related in anyway. If the answer is the Buddhist answer of ‘non-attachment ends suffering’ then one could meditate to find that truth or go out into the world and do stuff to find that truth.
Equally if the answer is ‘embrace the world of appearance with all your heart’ then one could meditate or go out and do stuff.
The three world model is the least important part of the equation. Spirits, gods and fundamental forces are answers to the question, ‘what is the fundamental nature of reality?’. None of them implicitly or explicitly contain the answer as to what to do about it.
As an example: Nietzsche and Buddha hold very similar views about the nature of reality and the cause of suffering. Both of them would be considered mystics as far as their world view went, they even had similar methods of getting to the truth. It’s their final answer about what to do about it that marks them as different.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail