Why the translation is treacherous
Enlightenment in English is a Romantic-period word freighted with European intellectual-history baggage (the Enlightenment as a movement, les Lumières, the rational illumination of darkness). When it was reached for in the nineteenth century to translate Buddhist bodhi (literally awakening) and Hindu mokṣa (literally release or liberation), it imported associations that don't quite fit. Most contemporary teachers have moved to awakening or realisation for this reason.
What's actually being claimed
The traditions agree on this much: there is a recognition available to a human being in which the felt sense of being a separate self disappears, and what remains is experienced as continuous with the rest of reality rather than partitioned from it. They disagree — sometimes sharply — about the metaphysics of that recognition (is it pure absence or unitary fullness?), about whether it is sudden or gradual, about whether it is permanent once attained, and about whether the embodied person retains an ordinary individual self or not. Pretending the disagreements don't exist is one form of spiritual inflation.
Honest framing
Most living teachers in this index — Rupert Spira, Adyashanti, Mooji, Francis Lucille — treat enlightenment as a misleading word and prefer awakening or recognition. They also distinguish a first awakening (kenshō-class — seeing one's nature) from the long stabilisation of that recognition into ordinary life (sahaja-class — the recognition becoming continuous). The first does happen suddenly. The second usually does not.
— end of entry —