Diana said: >My latest suspicion is that this whole idea of "enlightenment" was created >just so we'd go around in circles of thinkingness until our thinkingness >collapsed in a heap, suddenly removing that obstruction to our ability to >SEE. That also sounds like a good description of meditation. Any technique we use in meditation seems to me to be mostly aimed at giving the intellect something to do to keep it out of the way while the real thing happens all by itself in the background. Many years ago I studied a bit of Jyotish (Indian Astrology). It seemed very much to fit this description as well. i.e. all the calculation and analysis seemed aimed at keeping the intellect occupied and out of the way and to create a stepping stone so that the real (intuitive?) thing could happen unimpeded in the background. I eventually gave it up as I realized that everything it told me I already knew at some deep inner level. The Jyotish had just allowed me to realize this and to begin to let it happen without all the intellectualizing. So my emphasis changed from an exploration of Jyotish to an exploration of my own inner nature. >On the question of his own Enlightenment the Master always remained >reticent, even though the disciples tried every means to get him to talk. > >All the information they had on this subject was what the Master once said >to his youngest son who wanted to know what his father felt when he >became >Enlightened. The answer was: "A fool." > >When the boy asked why, the Master had replied, "Well, son, it was like >going to great pains to break into a house by climbing a ladder and >smashing a window -- and realizing later that the door of the house was >open." > >Anthony de Mello, SJ