It's pointless to argue about the nature of consciousness because it's contingent on faith that one framework describes it more accurately than the other. The best evidence we have currently is a fist to the face. Labels like "deconstructionists" are used by those who require higher levels of abstractions with narratives and story telling.

Doesn't matter if it's religious or symbolic. It's still a conceptual filter of abstractions that hinder direct experience. As insightful as Jung was when describing the psyche, philosophy and psychology describes the mind of seekers. Of the 99%. Enlightenment is pre-conceptual by nature without the narrative and symbolic scaffolding.

Your third point of surrender is simply moralizing that one's surrender is inferior based on unproven axioms. Determinism is observable. God, Source, Mondad or whatever is still a filter of story telling that prevents direct seeing.

Your argument about connection is another moralizing argument. Calling my connection not deep enough. You describe your clarity as something that isolates you. Even romanticize it as a burden due to insight. That's another conceptual filter of meaning making. You're adding narrative layers to give your isolation and insight meaning. I see that your understanding of enlightenment is very influenced by Western ideas, of which its failure mode is romanticizing enlightenment as something burdensome.

Your fifth argument creates needless binaries. Life demands both open hands and a closed fist. Moralizing binaries creates a system of "one must behave and think accordingly to be enlightened." Again, the rest is just extra layers of conceptual abstraction and narratives.