Thanks both for your responses! I would appreciate any insights into what is missing from my definition — I guess my “robust, nuanced world model” terminology is quite vague, but I’m getting at having accurate, but changeable representations of what your world objectively is, allowing a harmonious flow-state with the world where there isn’t actually space for personal suffering or attachment to outcomes.
I feel that these effects are not downstream of enlightenment, since immediately in every moment there is deep-perceptiveness and world model comparison and updates occurring.
A more spiritual friend defines enlightenment as “the universe experiencing itself”.
I claim my definition is a highly operationalisable and instrumental definition of enlightenment: for example I advised a friend who was beating themselves up about waking up late:
“In my model there’s no space for negative self talk saying things like ‘I hate that I’m so lazy’ — what exists just is; put another way there is no need to assign sentiment to the vector between different states (e.g a world where you wake up early, vs. one where you don’t).
The world you live in and your actions align in some way with your core values and beliefs — you can reflect deeply to observe your core values and beliefs (and adjust these if you wish), and observe your world model and consider how it may be updated to bring you closer in alignment with these values and beliefs.”
Not knowing you, but taking my best guess based on my model of what the mind of a person who wrote the words you wrote would look like, sounds like you are somewhere along the path but not yet to the point of having all the awakening insights. I say this because many stages along the path can look like full awakening because they are awakening but do not yet confer full understanding that persists outside the moment of insight because the habit of living awake is not yet fully stable.
Basically if you were enlightened I’d expect you to say slightly different things in a way that conceptualized your experience differently. If I were to go way out on a limb and speculate, my best guess is you are somewhere on 3rd path.
Thanks both for your responses! I would appreciate any insights into what is missing from my definition — I guess my “robust, nuanced world model” terminology is quite vague, but I’m getting at having accurate, but changeable representations of what your world objectively is, allowing a harmonious flow-state with the world where there isn’t actually space for personal suffering or attachment to outcomes.
I feel that these effects are not downstream of enlightenment, since immediately in every moment there is deep-perceptiveness and world model comparison and updates occurring.
A more spiritual friend defines enlightenment as “the universe experiencing itself”.
I claim my definition is a highly operationalisable and instrumental definition of enlightenment: for example I advised a friend who was beating themselves up about waking up late:
“In my model there’s no space for negative self talk saying things like ‘I hate that I’m so lazy’ — what exists just is; put another way there is no need to assign sentiment to the vector between different states (e.g a world where you wake up early, vs. one where you don’t).
The world you live in and your actions align in some way with your core values and beliefs — you can reflect deeply to observe your core values and beliefs (and adjust these if you wish), and observe your world model and consider how it may be updated to bring you closer in alignment with these values and beliefs.”
Not knowing you, but taking my best guess based on my model of what the mind of a person who wrote the words you wrote would look like, sounds like you are somewhere along the path but not yet to the point of having all the awakening insights. I say this because many stages along the path can look like full awakening because they are awakening but do not yet confer full understanding that persists outside the moment of insight because the habit of living awake is not yet fully stable.
Basically if you were enlightened I’d expect you to say slightly different things in a way that conceptualized your experience differently. If I were to go way out on a limb and speculate, my best guess is you are somewhere on 3rd path.
I could be wrong, but your model tastes of dualism to me whereas enlightenment is non-dualistic.