Hi Steve —
Interesting discussion. I thought I'd throw in a couple of ideas from the 'mystical, spiritual' perspective of a different tradition.
... would your outward life change in a way noticeable to others?
I suppose that rather depends on the nature of the enlightenment. If it's a process thing, a journey along the path, then I would say probably not. I'm thinking the koan "Chop wood, carry water" here. I doubt even the individual would necessarily notice or think that they are particularly enlightened.
One looks back, to see where it 'happened', and there is nowhere along the path that necessarily fixes the moment — I think this ties in with the aphorism that we are all already enlightened. And of course the Way never reaches an end, so there's always more to do.
Others speak of an epiphany, their subjective 'blinded by the light' moment. linding flash, an epiphany.
I've been priviliged to have met some remarkable people in my time, and some (possibly self-deluded) charlatans. Only the latter are inclined to declare their enlightenment, it seems to me.
On the other hand, if enlightenment occurs through a moment of awakening, an epiphany, then there might be an outward change that will stop those who know you and cause them to wonder what's happened, and it might also initiate a drastic change of habit within oneself.
Or would you continue doing what you normally do while observing it and the world from your newly-awakened awareness?
Again, depends on which type, as above. I'm not sure the enlightened is necessarily conscious of a 'newly-awakened awareness', unless s/he's of the second, epiphanic type. The 'big bang' moment changes everything, but of the two, it's the more precarious.
If you became enlightened, would you necessarily recognize it? Would you go to a guru, sensei, master or sage to help determine its validity?
I'd say not in that way. Does the enlightened say, 'Oh, how enlightened am I!' (pretty sure then s/he's probably not). From broad readings, I'd say the enlightened 'suffers' in the sense that s/he is aware that others do not see what s/he sees. Suffers in the sense of a cause of compassion. As virtues such as humility seem necessary quality, generally I'd say not.
But then again, the humble thinks, Am I going mad?
Would you keep your enlightenment to yourself?
Again this turns on the point of whether one who is enlightened is recognisably so. As the answer is no; the serenity of the saint might well be the vacuous smile of an idiot, the idiot might well be illumined beyond one's capacity to comprehend. The wise learns not to shove her/his wisdom into another's face.
But does one keep it to oneself: No. Enlightenment is participation of the one in the One, or the All, or It, or whatever, but it is always the gracious and unmerited gift of the higher. One cannot storm the gates of heaven, nor is there a trick or technique to get there.
From the Greek Philosophical perspective, it is in the nature of the Good to communicate itself; from a theistic perspective, it is in the nature of God to reveal Her/Himself. Is the enlightened jealous of her/his enlightenment? No.
Would you retire to some secluded place?
S/He already has a place of seclusion. One can be in the desert in the middle of the city. Does one need solitude? Not necessarily. The hermit, the monastic, whether a Tibetan temple perched on the precarious clifftop, or a monastery on a rock battered by the Atlantic — there is a great romantic appeal, but that's not what it's all about.
Someone I knew made the journey to study at a Zen meditation centre in Japan. It was next door to a power station. Some complained that they'd paid a lot of money, but the location was hardly conducive to satori, there being a continuous hum from the station next door. The response was that anyone can meditate on a mountainside, that's easy...
Would you keep your enlightenment to yourself, but talk about it when people notice that a change has come over you and make inquiries about the change?
Do the enlightened ever talk about their enlightenment? The one's whom I've met (and that's just my opinion) seemed more interested in me, than telling me about them.
Would you go out into the world and teach spiritual truths by consulting your enlightened mind and invite others to see self and world as you now do?
Em ... I don't think so... I was hooked into a cult many years ago ... I'd say if that's where someone's coming from they're probably a fraud. Might well be self-deluded, but ... I'd class them with tv evangelists, etc.
If you would decide to teach, would you teach like Krishnamurti did, without initiating students into discipleship? Or would you go the route of disciples, communes, ashrams, etc.?
Wow, that's something.
If you're initiating people into
your thing, then you are declaring yourself, before heaven, entirely responsible for their psychic-spiritual health and wellbeing, and you'd better be capable of guaranteeing and securing that, else you are in a world of trouble down the line ... If you're initiating into a Tradition, then you first need to be validated by the Tradition. Initiation is the joining of a community. So you're in and you're welcome. Now you have to embrace the values of the community, and walk the Way of it.
Initiation, I'd say, is into a Tradition. But initiation is not enlightenment, that's an age-old pseudo-gnostic con.
Opening the eyes is easy, opening the heart is something one does from within oneself, it cannot be prised open from outside, that's tantamount to rape. Even Buddha, Jesus, Moses and Mohammed were misunderstood.
