> Or is it actually speaking of "enlightenment" as it's understood in most spiritual practices, in which case none of the questions even make sense?
You'd think that (and I agree that the article doesn't make much sense) but as a matter of fact, quite a few people seem to think that they are enlightened in the spiritual sense you're talking about, and that this means that their view of enlightenment should definitely be turned into a quasi-cult, with them at the lead. Daniel Ingram (author of Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha - a surprisingly pragmatic take, all things considered!) has repeatedly expressed his frustration with this.
Enlightenment is the action of achievement, even in a moment, of the state of Nirvana. Nirvana can mean "quenching" (like from a forge) or "blowing out".
There are definitely various interpretations what this actually means, but the early texts indicate it to be the extinguishing of Dukkha (stress) in the target subject.
The subject arrives at this state (of no suffering) by way of understanding the origins of stress to be the fact of impermanence of all things, including a soul.
Of course there are thousands of ways to become enlightened (science for one tells a lot about impermanence), but there is a single effect of those ways which is the most direct for the given context.
If you really want to see behind the curtain, go sit in Vipassana. This is what Buddha suggested, if one is interested in this attainment!
You'd think that (and I agree that the article doesn't make much sense) but as a matter of fact, quite a few people seem to think that they are enlightened in the spiritual sense you're talking about, and that this means that their view of enlightenment should definitely be turned into a quasi-cult, with them at the lead. Daniel Ingram (author of Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha - a surprisingly pragmatic take, all things considered!) has repeatedly expressed his frustration with this.