The essence of religiousness is quite difficult to separate from a sense of absolute conviction in a total explanation of things, yet I would argue that such a definition is quite limited, shaped as it is by post-Englightenment Western philosophical concerns with the centrality of rationality in all matters, and failing as it does to account for the richer, more complex and ‘aesthetic’ ways in which humans—traditionally and in postmodernity—actually experience and express religiousness.

Roger R. Jackson, “In Search of a Postmodern Middle” in Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars

Yes! I am pretty ambiguous in terms of my own identity and yet, I have always confidently asserted that I am religious not spiritual, despite deeply secularist tendencies. And this is the same argument I make for why we can’t force the definition of religion into its Latin roots alone. (Roger was one of my teachers in undergrad.) 

The language of enlightenment

Anonymous asked you:

Is there a difference in Buddhism between the concepts of “enlightenment” and “awakening”? Thank you.

I think it would depend entirely on to whom you ask the question. From my perspective, the two words probably in most cases are pointing to the same thing, but because of their particular connotations in English, each affects the one hearing or reading the word in a different way.

I prefer the concept of awakening, primarily because it’s a gerund - implying it is something that is ongoing, in movement, a process. Enlightenment, on the other hand, suggests an event or experience that happens (ostensibly, once) in time. The latter for me then, often results in an effort-orientation and/or pride that is actually counter to the spiritual path.

Etymologically speaking, when we see the words enlightenment or awakening, they are deriving from the verbal root budhi, which means to awaken, to understand. There are many words formed from this root. Two that may be informing our use of the words are anubodha which refers to awakening, perception, recognition, understanding and sambodha which is translated as enlightenment or highest wisdom.

You can search on the two terms, awakening and enlightenment in this Tumblr blog for greater perspective on the semantical question you raise. Also, you may find my previous response to the question: “What is the fastest way to achieve satori in the present lifetime?” of interest.

Reclaiming the word theology

Although “theology” has in recent times been deeply interwoven with theistic traditions, originally it referred not to talk about the one God, but, rather, to discourse (logia) about the divine (theo), however that might be conceived. Thus, notes David Tracy, “to speak of ‘theology’ is a … useful way to indicate the more strictly intellectual interpretations of any religious tradition, whether that tradition is theistic or not [and] to use theo logia in the literal sense of ‘talk or reflection on God or the gods suggests that even nontheistic traditions (such as some Hindu, Confucian, Taoist, or archaic traditions) may be described as having theologies.” Furthermore, adds Tracy, “theology” need not even imply belief in gods of any sort: as long as a tradition conceives some notion of ultimate reality, by whatever name, and however provisionally, “[i]nsofar as …  explicitly intellectual reflection occurs [with respect to that ultimate] within a religious tradition, one may speak of the presence of theology in the broad sense.” Because they have taken the term in its narrowest—albeit most common—usage, as referring to discourse about God, educated modern Buddhists understandably have been reluctant to apply the term “theology” to their own or earlier Buddhists’ theorizing about the sacred. If, on the other hand, they were persuaded to define it in the broader—and more basic—sense suggested by Tracy, simply as “intellectual reflection with a religious tradition,” they might then be willing to acknowledge that, right from its inception, Buddhism has been deeply involved in “theological” activity, which might fruitfully be related to theological activity that has occurred in other traditions, whether theistic or not.

—Roger Jackson and John Makransky in the introduction to Buddhist Theology: Critical Reflections by Contemporary Buddhist Scholars (London: Routledge Curzon, 2000)

Ref: Tracy, David. “Comparative Theology.” In Mircea Eliade, ed.,The Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Vol. 14: 446-455

Now that’s my kind of definition of theology (relativist/relationalist that I am)! An incidental: Roger Jackson taught me “Religions of India” in 1995. I did not do well in his class … Btw, do you like my addition of personal notes? I certainly hope so.

We need to understand that language is not ultimately true or ultimately real; it is the attempt to communicate the ineffable reality to someone else … We can stay at a simple level and just know that the Muslims believe in Allah and the Christians believe in Christ and the Buddhists believe in Buddha. But what I’m interested in is getting beyond the conventions to a true understanding, to that profound understanding of Truth. This is a Buddhist way of speaking.
Ajahn Sumedho - Is Buddhism A Religion?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:

How are you?

I have a thousand brilliant lies
For the question:

What is God?

If you think that the Truth can be known
From words,

If you think that the Sun and the Ocean

Can pass through that tiny opening
Called the mouth,

O someone should start laughing!

Someone should start wildly Laughing —
Now!

Hafiz, “Someone Should Start Laughing”, translated by Daniel Ladinsky 

Wonderful litverve.