This is not a true disagreement. Just a discussion of different perspectives.
Even the term ‘enlightenment’ itself was a 19th century translation of a variety of terms (often very technical terms) in Pali and Sanskrit. The term itself is usually considered outdated because the scholarship of mysticism (as well as of linguistics) has continued to march on over the past 150 years.
Some of those terms include ‘bodhi’ which is nowadays more often translated as ‘awakening’, ‘nibbana’ which is often translated now as ‘extinction’, ‘samadhi’ /‘samapatti’ translated as ‘unification’, and the list goes on and on.
Needless to say (and as usually happens), scholars and experienced practitioners within and outside of these traditions, tend to argue on and on about the exact nature and significance of the phenomena associated with progress and attainments.
And of course they do. Why shouldn’t they?
Have you heard of any area of advanced human endeavor in which after a lifetime of exploration one arrives at very simple answers that could be learned through a combination of guessing and common sense?
Honestly, I can’t think of one. I wouldn’t go to a medical doctor who had arrived at her expertise in that way. Or an auto mechanic. Or a teacher of wisdom and the transformation of consciousness.
On the other hand, there’s nothing wrong with just exploring and figuring out your own answers in your own way. ‘Reinventing the Wheel’. I think we all do this to some extent and many people figure out really useful things through that method. But we should acknowledge that there are also pretty real limitations inherent in it.
For me though, I feel that arguing about definitions of ‘enlightenment’ is only slightly better than arguing about whether Batman can beat Superman.
Just go try whatever your method is and then report back. Let your results do the arguing. People who actually do this often find that even if their terms differ, they still have significant areas of overlap.
leaps and jumps, leaps and jumps…
