This post is evoked by this one from thoughts of Gregory.
To brutally summarise it;
The self tricking itself into sitting in a different bit of itself which it identifies and labels as “knowing” or whatever and then has a great time watching all the other bits coming up and saying;
“Look! That’s not me .. oh .. and that’s not me .. and that’s a belief .. and that’s not real .. Oh .. how free I am ! Now I’m free .."
No enlightened person will say "I am enlightened" for obvious reasons, well obvious to another enlightened person anyway.
The reason being that enlightenment begins with a realisation (that is the act of making it real) that the "i" or "me" was always an hallucination. A concept built and maintained by the verbal functions of the brain.
Therefore, there is no I to be enlightened.
BUT we have a problem when it comes to communicating any aspect of what it is to not be ruled by a story of a self.
So talking about enlightenment is one thing.
Being (enlightened) is a wordless experience. (well not actually an experience) ...maybe wordless experiencing.
Somebody (not someone) that has seen through the illusion of a self, no longer conforming to a story about who they are, no longer concerned with the characteristics of an acceptable personality, would not have a running commentary about how they are (or should be), about how they react to circumstances. They would be reacting to the actuality of the situation they find themselves (not them not selves - see the problem with communicating.)
For example, when speaking to someone known, the enlightened would not consider remembered information about that person, nor would they imagine how that person might respond to the conversation. Past and future are thought constructs better left untouched lest they interfere with the actual.
So communication is a problem as it always can only be about it.
