The Two Paths Of Enlightenment
My layman’s working definitions of enlightenment is: seeking truth.
Simple enough, right? Not really.
You see, there are two paths, or conclusions, that ultimately result from this spiritual ‘quest’. That is to say, that after seeking truth and enlightenment a person will eventually decide one of two things.
On one side, a person pursues the truth and ultimately decides that…there is no truth.
No, for real. I’m not making a joke here. The basic premise is that God is infinite, so we humans cannot understand Him. Furthermore, because God is infinite, we humans do him a disservice by trying to define him like religions do. And if you limit God by trying to understand Him in human terms, you are not working toward enlightenment. You need only know that he can’t be known–and that he is love. (Whatever love means in this ambiguous context.)
In other words, there is no truth. Or, more accurately, all truth is true.
So to clarify this particular conclusions and mode of enlightenment:
- The purpose of enlightenment is to discover that nothing can be known.
- Seeking truth only reveals there is no truth.
- Searching for knowledge only reveals nothing can be truly known.
Then there is the other conclusion. On the other side, a person seeks truth and ultimately decides…there is truth.
In fact, this person finds, decides, and names that truth. That’s the side I fall on.
I’m of the mind that If there is a God, and he is worth worshipping, than he better define his expectations a little. He better tell us what he likes and what he dislikes. Otherwise God is like an abusive father. The kind where the kids never know what to say or how to act. They just walk around the dad in fear afraid that the slightest thing will set him off, but they never really know what that is.
What kind of relationship is that? I think truth can be known. I think the relationship can, and must, be defined.
The irony is, that those from the other side, or path, of enlightenment view this as closed-minded and primitive. Holding to the view that there is truth only serves to actually stunt your personal enlightenment and keeps you spiritually primitive. According to this view, I am ‘primitive’, but I say the other view of enlightenment is cowardly.
You never have to commit to anything. You never have to stand for anything. You never have to stick with anything. In fact, you can do whatever you want and call it enlightenment. You can say you’re just trying to find the truth in [insert anything that tickles your fancy here]. That’s just cowardly and dangerous.
But I believe there is truth and that it can be known. I guess I’m a primitive caveman. Oh well.
Where’s that chicken bone to chew on?