Is the "awakened state" simply a realization that everything IS simply what we had always suspected? That this IS it? That there IS nothing more?
Yeah, sort of, I guess. The point in Buddhism doesn't seem to be to make the universe go away and transport us to a different paradaisical place, to a 'higher spiritual plane', to 'heaven' or wherever. It's more interested in changing us somehow, so that we finally perceive the real universe as it actually is. But seen that way, things might not always turn out to be as we formerly suspected at all. Some of Buddhism's philosophical ideas are very unlike our common-sense assumptions. If those ideas are true (certainly an open question) then we are apt to emerge from the process seeing things, and thinking about them, in new ways.
So to say it more simply, we will be in the same place as when we started, but that place might appear very different to us.
Could it be that what we have been searching for is nothing more than a delusion, and that reality IS all there is?
I think that Buddhist philosophy would typically agree with that.
But Buddhist philosophers definitely aren't agreed among themselves about what reality is truly like. There are all kinds of philosophical issues in Buddhist phlosophy, such as idealism vs realism, subject-object distinctions, the explanation of universals (general terms that seem to refer to an unchanging essence) and many more.
The present IS all that we have. The past and future are nothing more than ghosts of the mind.
The nature and proper analysis of time is another disputed issue in Buddhist philosophy.
If you have any thoughts regarding "Enlightenment," please share. :shrug:
I think that in Indian philosophical thought, a
visual metaphor has always occupied a more central place than in Western philosophy. The goal and object of Indian philosophy is to see things as they truly are.
That emphasis leads to a lower estimation of discursive reasoning in India than in the West, where philosophy essentially
is discursive reasoning. In India, knowing something by reasoning about it theoretically is a lower attainment than knowing something by actually experiencing it first-hand for one's self. (And in so doing,
being it, so the reasoning often goes.) This is why
meditation has typically played such a central role in Indian philosophy, and why Indian philosophy has often taken more psychological and idealistic directions than Western philosophy.
Buddhist enlightenment, from the purely experiential non-discursive point of view, can probably to be identified with nibbana itself. And I guess that we can say that cognitive conclusions about the enlightenment experience, translated back into discursive form, represent bodhi.
Of course, in the 2500 years of Buddhist history, that's taken multiple and at times seemingly inconsistent forms. It's still an open question, and an active topic of discussion among Buddhist philosophers, to what extent the different schools of Buddhism are trying to say similar things with different emphases and terminologies, and to what extent their ideas are truly incompatible. (Suggesting that somebody might be mistaken.) But everyone pretty much agrees that nibbana, actual first-hand enjoyment of the non-discursive enlightenment experience, is the ultimate attainment for all Buddhists that will finally make all of this stuff moot.