| | I will let Hokai answer for what he said.
As to contradictions regarding descriptions: this is par for the course, unfortunately. All descriptions, if dissected by the existential, reductionistic mind, come these problems. Welcome to the club.
As for perceiving things as they are, there are many possible standards for how things are, with one among many being sensate reality. Since this is the first foundation from which all else is extrapolated, all physics, all physiology, all theory, all speculation, all philosophy, it is actually not so crazy to adopt, for the sake of this discussion, the notion that bare sensate phenomena should be the gold standard of insight practice. It also just happens to be good, practical advice for attaining to the understanding we label enlightenment, regardless of any issues of whether or not you consider sensate phenomena to be an acceptable standard of judging reality based on whatever criteria.
As to trying to use neurological or biological models to describe enlightenment, the science on that front is insufficiently advanced at this point in terms of explanation, and on the front of making it happen is largely non-existent.
Luckily, good old simple techniques, basic instructions, retreats and the like tend work just fine those who bother to simply follow the instructions. As to the other models that can get somewhat fantastic, consider reading my take on the thing, found at www.interactivebuddha.com, either in blook or .pdf format, in the chapter called Models of the Stages of Enlightenment, and many other places.
Helpful? |