As I mentioned in the OP, I found the question, "What do Enlightened People Know that Other's Don't?", on another website. There were 44 answers to it. Some of the answers were pretty extensive, most seemed sincere, and at least a few looked about as good as you might imagine such a question could be answered.
However, the question seems to me a tricky one. I don't suppose it is intentionally tricky, but I think people could easily be misled by it. In addition to the ambiguity of the word "enlightenment", I think there might be at least five other ways the question is likely to be misunderstood by at least some of us.
First, we might ask what kind(s) of knowledge enlightened people possess? The question doesn't specify, and so it might suggest to some of us that the question is solely asking for what sort of conscious or intellectual knowledge an enlightened person might have that most of us don't. There are at least two other possibilities, however:
Second, an enlightened person might possess great knowledge, but it is non-communicable. That is, it cannot be taught. If that were the case, then the question could potentially mislead some of us if we were to assume that a true answer to the question could help bring about our own enlightenment.
Third, related to the second point above, even if the knowledge possessed by an enlightened person were communicable in some way, it seems to me that it by itself would not necessarily be transformative. That is, it would not necessarily help to bring about enlightenment. For instance, you might know that "part of being enlightened involves experiencing the dissolution of subject/object perception". You might know what that means, at least intellectually know. But such knowledge -- even if it were true, and even if you knew it -- will not transform you. Will not turn you into an enlightened person.
That point should be emphasized. Some people, of course, disagree with it. They believe that studying and understanding holy scriptures and similar literature will necessarily help them progress towards enlightenment. "If only you truly understood the Heart Sutra, you would be enlightened", or "You would move closer to being enlightened." However, I myself do not believe that is so.
Consequently the question that's the topic of this thread might be misleading in the sense that at least some of us might think that understanding any or all truthful answers to it will help us to become enlightened.
Fourth, it is possible that those folks who say "intellectual knowledge is not only useless to bring about enlightenment, but also can hinder or even prevent enlightenment" are correct. That is -- going even beyond the third point above -- it could actually be "dangerous" to study and understand even true answers to the question. I wouldn't go so far as to say that was necessarily so, but I think it could often enough be so, depending on the knowledge, the person possessing it, and so forth.
Thus, the question could be misleading in the sense that one might expect true answers to it to be helpful when in reality they are harmful to ones efforts to be enlightened.
Last, it is possible that a particular enlightened person is relatively inarticulate about what they know. We might assume anyone who was enlightened could speak volumes about it, but if we take a close look at that assumption, we might notice that it is largely a Western assumption. In the West (especially) we think of wise people as articulate or even super-articulate about wisdom. There is no real reason, however, to believe that.
Consequently, a fifth and final reason the question might mislead us is that we might assume asking an enlightened person what they know about enlightenment will get us a good, articulate answer.
Those are five ways in which the question might mislead us. I'm pretty sure there are others. Perhaps you can think of some?
However, the question seems to me a tricky one. I don't suppose it is intentionally tricky, but I think people could easily be misled by it. In addition to the ambiguity of the word "enlightenment", I think there might be at least five other ways the question is likely to be misunderstood by at least some of us.
First, we might ask what kind(s) of knowledge enlightened people possess? The question doesn't specify, and so it might suggest to some of us that the question is solely asking for what sort of conscious or intellectual knowledge an enlightened person might have that most of us don't. There are at least two other possibilities, however:
- An enlightened person might possess subconscious or non-conceptual knowledge -- rather than conscious or intellectual knowledge -- that has led to his or her enlightenment.
- It is possible that what has led to a person's enlightenment isn't knowledge (of any sort), but rather a lack of knowledge -- perhaps best described as "a lack of delusions".
Second, an enlightened person might possess great knowledge, but it is non-communicable. That is, it cannot be taught. If that were the case, then the question could potentially mislead some of us if we were to assume that a true answer to the question could help bring about our own enlightenment.
Third, related to the second point above, even if the knowledge possessed by an enlightened person were communicable in some way, it seems to me that it by itself would not necessarily be transformative. That is, it would not necessarily help to bring about enlightenment. For instance, you might know that "part of being enlightened involves experiencing the dissolution of subject/object perception". You might know what that means, at least intellectually know. But such knowledge -- even if it were true, and even if you knew it -- will not transform you. Will not turn you into an enlightened person.
That point should be emphasized. Some people, of course, disagree with it. They believe that studying and understanding holy scriptures and similar literature will necessarily help them progress towards enlightenment. "If only you truly understood the Heart Sutra, you would be enlightened", or "You would move closer to being enlightened." However, I myself do not believe that is so.
Consequently the question that's the topic of this thread might be misleading in the sense that at least some of us might think that understanding any or all truthful answers to it will help us to become enlightened.
Fourth, it is possible that those folks who say "intellectual knowledge is not only useless to bring about enlightenment, but also can hinder or even prevent enlightenment" are correct. That is -- going even beyond the third point above -- it could actually be "dangerous" to study and understand even true answers to the question. I wouldn't go so far as to say that was necessarily so, but I think it could often enough be so, depending on the knowledge, the person possessing it, and so forth.
Thus, the question could be misleading in the sense that one might expect true answers to it to be helpful when in reality they are harmful to ones efforts to be enlightened.
Last, it is possible that a particular enlightened person is relatively inarticulate about what they know. We might assume anyone who was enlightened could speak volumes about it, but if we take a close look at that assumption, we might notice that it is largely a Western assumption. In the West (especially) we think of wise people as articulate or even super-articulate about wisdom. There is no real reason, however, to believe that.
Consequently, a fifth and final reason the question might mislead us is that we might assume asking an enlightened person what they know about enlightenment will get us a good, articulate answer.
Those are five ways in which the question might mislead us. I'm pretty sure there are others. Perhaps you can think of some?
