On Normalizing Enlightenment

I haven't used these forums that much in quite a while, but I recall a phrase being used at times in the past, which I wanted to comment on. The phrase was "normalizing enlightenment" or this idea "to normalize enlightenment."

I understand the sentiment of this phrase. Behind it is the idea that people's views of enlightenment are wrong and therefore should be normalized or brought in line with what enlightenment actually is. However, I think the phrasing is a little off and it might actually promote a wrong view of enlightenment, which is quite contrary to its intent.

The problem with this phrase is that "normalizing enlightenment" implies that enlightenment is abnormal.

For if it was already normal, then why would it would have to be normalized? Only when is it abnormal does the idea of normalizing it emerge.

If you look at the phrase "normalizing enlightenment", there's this struggle to it. It's as if one is trying to force something to be that which it is not. And I think this is removed from the actual process of enlightenment which seems to have more to do with being as one is or in one's own natural state than forcing something to be that which it is not.

So I think other phrases, which I have already seen used on this site and are imbued with the same intent, are more appropriate to use, such as:

Enlightenment is possible. Enlightenment happens. Enlightenment is normal.

Hey John, I've met a decent number of people who are in the "enlightenment is this amazing unachievable state where you levitate, turn invisible, can blast things with the power of your mind, etc." school. So "normalizing" (or "it's normal") is a great antidote to that extreme. Now and then I meet people who fall to the other extreme, which tends to be something like "enlightenment is just when you realize everything's ordinary and you don't care about anything anymore, and that's how I feel: I just don't care. Therefore enlightenment isn't any kind of transformation, it's just kind of an attitude you decide to take on." I'm exaggerating for effect in these examples, but i've heard both from real people. Even the "being in the natural state" sort of idea can be corrupted into a belief that this means just doing whatever the heck you feel like on impulse. So I think I'm largely agreeing with you. (giragirasol=Ona, in case you didn't know; too much of a pain to change my login)

Well, in most meditation circles (in the US and Europe at least), enlightenment is *seen* as abnormal. It's a vague legend, something that only happened to some bad ************* in the olden days. These days it's damn near impossible, and not something we can hope to get ourselves. So, "normalizing enlightenment" is just saying that enlightenment is a skill set that can be learned and attained (at least to some degree) by us today. You want to learn piano, you go to a piano teacher and practice. You want to learn to be awake, you go to a meditation teacher and practice. Normalized. Nothing special about it.

That's how I understood the phrase. All about interpretation, eh?