Models of "Enlightenment"

Those who know me at all, know that I often talk about the idea of Models of “Enlightenment”.

I thought I'd try creating a diagram illustrating the main set of models that I usually have in mind. Like all diagrams, it has inherent limitations and shortcomings, and it's meant to be suggestive, not definitive.

There are several ways that I could have designed the diagram, and ultimately I think one would have to use multiple diagrams to really capture the breadth and depth of this idea.

I invite everyone to critique this diagram, the ideas behind it, and to make suggestions as to how it could be improved, and to suggest alternative ways of looking at this question. Please create and contriburte your own diagrams if you feel like it.

Here's the diagram:

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

A few notes to explain the diagram.

I'm saying there are 5 major classes of “enlightenment*”.

Three formal classes, represented by the circles, which I have tentatively labeled:

The “Power” models.
The “Unity” models.
The “Freedom” models.

In addition, there are two informal classes.

The “Magical and Sainthood” models.
The “Conciousness and Biological” models.

Now, In my theory, there are two other classes, which are not so clearly shown.

The “Future” models - (models unkown to us now, which will appear in the future.)
and…
The “Other” or “Wild” models - which basically mean “enlightenment”-like states that don't fall into the major 5 classes. These would mostly end up being unusual variations of either Sainthood models or Consciousness models.

I've attached keywords, like “inspiration”, “oneness”, and “escape”, to the three formal models - there's only room for one keyword in the diagram, but there are actually dozens of keywords that could and should be attributed and associated with each of these formal classes. A future diagram would have a list of associated keywords attached to each sphere in the diagram.

This diagram is organized on two axis - the bottom and horizontal axis is historical time, that is, where in history each of these models first appears. The left-hand vertical axis is rationality, which is of course tricky to define. You could also say that rationality is also a variation of the time axis, that is, the ancient mind was (or seems to us now) to be less rational tham the modern mind.

The rationality axis is divided into two basic zones - the zone of “Religious Models” and the zone of “Non-Religious Models”.

That's probably enough explanation for starters - I hope to add to the explantions over time, and, once again, invite critique, and alternative ways of looking at the same material and questions.

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

* oh yeah, about the quotes around the word “enlightenment”.

Whenever I'm writing formally, I try to always remember to put quotes around the word “enlightenment”.

This is intended to indicate that this word is NOT a technical word, and that it does not have a fixed meaning, but instead conveys a kind of cloud of possible meanings, depending on the context.

A word like nirvana (or as I often prefer it, nibbana, which is the older Pali version of the word, a somewhat more strict idea than that expressed in the more modern verison, nirvana) is a technical word that describes a specific type of “enlightenment”.

The word “enlightenment” itself is an artifact of the translation of eastern texts several centuries ago in europe. It's a western word, with no direct equivalent in the original eastern texts.

When I'm talking informally, with people that I hope know enough to understand that the word “enlightenment” does NOT have a real specific meaning, then I'll drop the quotes.

Because lots of times informal, emotional, and poetic talk is very important in really getting communication happening between people.

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

I feel the suggestions

Alignment, balance, health of body, mind and your surrounding spirit…

ºjlz

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

Hi nzira - presumably you mean these as keywords to be associated with “enlightenment”.

But which type of “enlightenment” do you want to attach them to?

And none of them are really inextricably connected to the classic types of enlightenment, at least not on the classic literature.

The idea of “balance” has an illustrious history - but what is it that is balanced, that's always the tricky question.

Since you use the word “spirit”, presumably you mean these to be placed among the religious models?

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

Hi, I can relate to 'balance' being an abstract terminology.
'Spirit' I guess is too abstract…. I'd prefer to align the term 'spirit' to “forces  of nature”  rather than the “superstitions of man” - “religion”…. i guess.. Classificationwith words comes not close to shining!


To the Mountain Spirits… I'm a keen mountain Climber . In Zimbabwe theres
“Chimanimani ” This mountain range is a “quartz crystal” .. filled with spericals of gold…and no-body can go there anymore cause of Diamond & Gold Rushes …guns etc.. danger.

Spirit terminology engrained into social cultural terms
…in Sub-Saharan Africa (Shona -  Zimbabwe)

mambo - God spirit
Nanga - Spirit Medium
Njuzu  - mermaid spirit,
Mudzimu - Ancestorial Spirit,
Kuzvikirwa - An “Arrival' of the spirits
'Muroyi' - Dark Spirit
Tokoloshi - like a small 'sprite' or 'demon'
zimbabwe - house of stone
.
Even half the religious people… mainly christian  adhear to the trational energies for birth,  marriage and  funeral ceremonies.
Many Hand Created “sculptors” are 'known' to appear out of the rocks, with-out contol of the artist, with uncanny results resembling the surrounding area… abstract… they say spirit of the stone.

An Overview, in handfuls I can say I regularly come across biological/freedom models for sure .. the music is so loud at one waterfall one has to wonder “what ” is actually alive ¿  (Pungwe Falls -Nyanga Park Zimbabwe)

ºjlz …

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

•) ….maybe my last “post” was too much …the “thread” seems to have halted. I am not an authority on this matter, however I feel I have experienced a path on this earth that has come accross quite a perspective of different forms of 'enlightenment' and these considerations  are as real as evolution itself evolving… taking us with her !

Light
ºjlz

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

Well, I've been contemplating the three main keywords I see you as using, nzira…

“Alignment”, “Balance”, and “Health”.

I din't fully follow what you were saying about spirit and forces of nature and nature spirit. Or rather, I did, since I personally love the 'forces of nature'; but there are some problems connecting 'forces of nature' to enlightenment, especially the traditional ideas of enlightenment.

I've been trying to think about the unspoken implications, the sub-text, of the words alignment, balance, and health.

I have some problems with the idea of health as a standard of “enlightenment” - it seems to border on superstition or religion to me. But I can see that this is a really complex and emotionally charged area, and I think it could take pages to work out all the implications.

It's so complex it almost deserves a whole thread to itself.

The question that arises with “alignment”, is, alignment with what?

“Balance” is actually a very important principle in my own experiences - and by that I mean the balance of the content of mind. Entering important states like mind without content, and the end of mind (or the shutdown of mind), requires the ability to balance the content of mind.

The question that the idea of balancing the content of mind raises, is what exactly does that mean?  I know what it feels like, I know what has to be done to do it, but what does it really mean?

So, I've just been thinking about this question - when people talk about balance with regards to self-development, what exactly do the mean?

Do they mean balancing thoughts? Balancing 'energies'? Balancing the business of life?

Since I'm still thinking, I didn't respond to your post right away.

Re: Models of "Enlightenment"

hi Bill  will return to this thread soon, I am travelling for some weeks … & yep you got  me into a complete state contemplation .. I am thinking, with the earth !

Ω Jlz

What does "rationality" add here?

HI Bill. I have been looking at your diagram, and I'm pretty sure I don't grok all of it, so I thought I'd ask some questions, one by one. First, then, what does the vertical “rationality” axis mean, or what does it add to the picture here? As you said, one could say that “rationality” (to the degree we are more “rational” than previous humans) could be incorporated in the horizontal axis timeline.

But did you have some other meaning of “rationality” here? How is it used, for example, with the POWER models or the UNITY models or the FREEDOM models? From how you ahve this drawn, even within these models there can be an increase in rationality, or perhaps, a more rational way of going about (or experiencing) the different enlightenment models.

I guess I'm must not certain what you mean by rational here, what it helps explain, and how it is useful on the Y axis.

Thanks in advance for your response.

Re: What does "rationality" add here?

Looking at it some more, maybe part of this answer is that there is a pretty big difference in “rationality” overall between, say, Magic and Sainthood (and nature mysticism) models near the vertical bottom of the diagram and consciousness and biological models at the top. States and stages associated with the former can just kind of “happen” without any rational involvement or impacts, while the latter would seem, by the very use of terms like “Consciousness,” to involve rationality.

(Of course, that gets us to different kinds of rationality, and back to Wilber and the pre/trans fallacy…)

Is this on the right track?

– J.

Re: What does "rationality" add here?

Yep, that's what the diagram is supposed to show, the slow increase in rationality from the magician, shaman, and sainthood models, thru the three main classical models, (each classical model more rational than the one preceding it) with the greatest amount of rationality tending to be in the consciousness and biological models.

The power models could all be thought of as variations of being blessed by god, or infused with godhead, or oneness with god, and are all fairly a-rational.

The unity models replace “god” with the universe, and the way the universe is viewed ranges from fairly a-rational to fairly rational.

The freedom models replace the “universe” with the mind and the individual, and tend to be the most rational and technically elaborated, altho the original idea of the freedom models, moksha, liberation from death and rebirth, is still a pretty a-rational idea.

The consciousness models don't really appear untill about 400 years ago, and only become well developed in the last 100 years - they seem to be the most rational, but they are also very much under-developed, in the sense that they lack a clear theory of what a person enlightened within that model would be able to do.

The question is, what do I mean by “rationality”? And what I mean is language based on sharable observations, rather than being based on the visions or pronouncements of charismatic authorities.