Enlightenment Finally

[samadhi]

maestro,

sam: Do you still subscribe to the idea that all you need is a technique?

maestro: If by technique you mean a step by step algorithm, I have given no such thing.

Well, I could quote you but you know what you wrote.

All I am doing is describing coherently how the simple method of observation and logic can lead to the end of suffering. And sharing my experiences while using this method.

Right. I am not taking exception to your method per se, nor of your experience, only the results you are promising to deliver.

And Samadhi, You strike me as favoring a mystical version of enlightenment.

If by mystical you mean not strictly scientific, I agree. Enlightenment is not about following someone's else prescription, it is about realizing the truth of your own experience.

I am demystifying it and putting in squarely in the mundane realm.

This is problematic at best. Your results will not be replicable by others on any predictable basis simply because their experience isn't yours. Your observations do not guarantee my enlightenment.

I am also proposing that a method can take everyone towards it. I also believe it does not require extraordinary ability.

Your method has been taught since the Buddha. What do you think meditation is? Nevertheless, it is not a guarantee. Enlightenment depends on who is trying to be enlightened, not on the method.



Diebert,

People can have a knee-jerk reaction to words as 'method' or 'technique' as if it's just another algorithm or flight manual. Really, deep down all we're doing are following methods and executing tricks - to trick and become tricked. Mental habits are nothing but tricks that perhaps once were used to be a way to deal with something and then sort of kept hanging around, most often because it's being chained in some way forcing it to stay put. Much energy can be spend on keeping this situation in place.

I agree that all practice can be thought of as a technique. That's why I emphasize the person doing the technique, the unique commitment, intent and understanding that each brings to the practice.

Buddhists love to talk about the Way, the Eightfold Path and so on but they're all just describing 'method' in a roundabout way. Many routes might take one into the right direction but when it comes to it, it seems there's only one narrow path that winds its way to realization.

Wise - Way - Method. Think about how they basically describe the same going ons and see how there's nothing else; one is always caught up in them one way or another. Perhaps one could say that the most important trick to learn is to change at the right time into the right direction. In other words to be adaptable, spontaneous and aware of where one is going.

Sure, but being adaptable, spontaneous and aware is not a method or way. It is what is being cultivated through a practice.

Maestro appears to me as indeed describing in simple mundane manner an ancient, undisputed method to clear the way.

Self-inquiry is indeed a ancient method.

[maestro]

Right. I am not taking exception to your method per se, nor of your experience, only the results you are promising to deliver.

I did not promise to deliver any results. I only proposed a coherent hypothesis for how the method of enquiry actually works.

Your method has been taught since the Buddha. What do you think meditation is? Nevertheless, it is not a guarantee.

Well meditation can mean many things such as contemplation or even chanting a mantra, or sitting still in a particular pose. This is a specific kind of meditation.

However I have never seen anything which describes how awareness can actually bring an end to suffering. Given that the spiritual field is riddled with fraud and dogma, for someone who is skeptical of grand claims/religion the scientific description actually illuminates the path. It also has the effect of putting the burden squarely on you and to steer clear of any spiritual teachers, or falling in some cult.

It also shows that the quest for enlightenment is compatible whatever you are doing right now, you do not have to leave your home and go in the forest, or suffer austerities. That there is no magical mysterious knowledge to be gained which will make you enlightened.

[Faust]

However I have never seen anything which describes how awareness can actually bring an end to suffering. Given that the spiritual field is riddled with fraud and dogma, for someone who is skeptical of grand claims/religion the scientific description actually illuminates the path. It also has the effect of putting the burden squarely on you and to steer clear of any spiritual teachers, or falling in some cult.

Cult indeed. Much of the QRS is sheer nonsense and mental masterbation. Take what Dan said for example,

Another example of this would be physical pain. An enlightened person obviously still experiences it, but unlike other people, he does not experience the stuff that usually goes with it, such as emotions like fear, resentment, angst, anger etc.

"physical pain" is still emotional, the "pain" aspect is emotion, that's why it's "pain."

Doesn't experience angst, and anger? Dan hasn't experienced much pain then. If Dan suddenly were afflicted with itchy anal parasites, he wouldn't be able to sleep because it would constantly itch, and he wouldn't be able to do much of anything because it would constantly itch, wriggle, squirm, pinch, etc... Having not experienced such a soul-deadening and monstrous affliction, he can't really make such an outlandish Stoic statement, "if I ignore it, It will go away." Without experiencing any such affliction, his claim is thus pure speculation, and ultimately meaningless

[maestro]

Doesn't experience angst, and anger? Dan hasn't experienced much pain then. If Dan suddenly were afflicted with itchy anal parasites, he wouldn't be able to sleep because it would constantly itch, and he wouldn't be able to do much of anything because it would constantly itch, wriggle, squirm, pinch, etc... Having not experienced such a soul-deadening and monstrous affliction, he can't really make such an outlandish Stoic statement, "if I ignore it, It will go away." Without experiencing any such affliction, his claim is thus pure speculation, and ultimately meaningless

Faust: Dan does not define pain as an emotion he defines it as a sensation. It becomes a emotion when the sensation triggers thoughts which then trigger other sensations and which trigger other thoughts in a cycle as I described in the first post.

Now Dan claims that even under severe conditions these sensations such as extreme pain or extreme hunger would not trigger any thoughts which are resentful or painful in him. Since he as banished all such thoughts from his mind. Thus sensation will never develop in an emotion.

I myself am skeptical of this claim. In my model enlightenment is similar to a skill: even if you are a skilled swimmer, external conditions can always make you sink. That sufficiently strong external conditions can make an enlightened one suffer is really plausible.

[samadhi]

maestro,

sam: I am not taking exception to your method per se, nor of your experience, only the results you are promising to deliver.

maestro: I did not promise to deliver any results. I only proposed a coherent hypothesis for how the method of enquiry actually works.

You said the end of suffering can be achieved by breaking the feedback loop. But never mind, let's just say you've gotten some results you want to discuss.

sam: Your method has been taught since the Buddha. What do you think meditation is? Nevertheless, it is not a guarantee.

maestro: Well meditation can mean many things such as contemplation or even chanting a mantra, or sitting still in a particular pose. This is a specific kind of meditation.

Okay.

However I have never seen anything which describes how awareness can actually bring an end to suffering.

Believe me, it's out there.

Given that the spiritual field is riddled with fraud and dogma, for someone who is skeptical of grand claims/religion the scientific description actually illuminates the path. It also has the effect of putting the burden squarely on you and to steer clear of any spiritual teachers, or falling in some cult.

The problem is when you cast it in scientific terms, people can demand results. If someone tells you, "I've tried your method and it doesn't work," what are you going to say? That they're not doing it right, most likely. Make them the problem. Blame, deflect, obfuscate. You would agree with me, that's ego. So what's the point of making it scientific? People are responsible for their own results in the enlightenment game, making them promises is the best way either to play guru or to undermine the very thing you want to encourage, which is their experience, independent of yours.

It also shows that the quest for enlightenment is compatible whatever you are doing right now, you do not have to leave your home and go in the forest, or suffer austerities. That there is no magical mysterious knowledge to be gained which will make you enlightened.

I agree with you here. Practice does not need to be isolating or exclusive of other activities and responsibilities.



faust,

"physical pain" is still emotional, the "pain" aspect is emotion, that's why it's "pain."

I have to agree with Dan here that physical pain isn't emotional pain. Just because there is physical pain doesn't mean you must feel either self-pity or blame.

Doesn't experience angst, and anger? Dan hasn't experienced much pain then. If Dan suddenly were afflicted with itchy anal parasites, he wouldn't be able to sleep because it would constantly itch, and he wouldn't be able to do much of anything because it would constantly itch, wriggle, squirm, pinch, etc... Having not experienced such a soul-deadening and monstrous affliction, he can't really make such an outlandish Stoic statement, "if I ignore it, It will go away." Without experiencing any such affliction, his claim is thus pure speculation, and ultimately meaningless.

Even the enlightened have discomforts, enlightenment would not keep anyone from seeking medical care in the case of acute affliction. But again, acute affliction is not a guarantee of self-pity or blame. Dan's problem I think is that he would put love and compassion in the same boat as fear and blame. They are all just emotions to him, tossing the baby out with the bath water.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Dan's problem I think is that he would put love and compassion in the same boat as fear and blame.

Love and compassion as understood or practiced by most of the people around you certainly are in the same boat. This is unavoidable as ignorance itself would prevent any truthful love and compassion to arise: one ends up with facsimiles instead.

The problem of ignorance is not about a lack of some 'true' knowledge, it's about the eclipsing of what's pure and true by what is false or illusionary. With this in mind one has to distrust what is usually understood to be love and compassion. One has to suspect it does the opposite of what people want them to mean. The darkest lies hidden behind the brightest colored curtains. This is almost like a psychological law.

If one cannot get past this hurdle, there's just no chance any real investigation of attachment or self-inquiry can take place. One quickly would be swamped by feeling or mindlessness and all progress stalls.

This is why self-inquiry has to go hand in hand with reflection, mental stimulation and penetrating doubt of everything you learned and trusted so far. Otherwise it indeed would be like trying to swallow ones own tail but never biting.

[Dan Rowden]

Doesn't experience angst, and anger? Dan hasn't experienced much pain then. If Dan suddenly were afflicted with itchy anal parasites, he wouldn't be able to sleep because it would constantly itch, and he wouldn't be able to do much of anything because it would constantly itch, wriggle, squirm, pinch, etc...

Pah, you call that pain? Let's have a gratuitous "I've suffered more" competition: over the last 12 months I have experienced severe bouts of crippling gout in ankles and knees as well as a bad dose of pleurisy. That, my friend, is pain. Pain is, well, painful. It is meant to cause physical distress; that's what it does. If it didn't we'd be dropping dead left, right and centre. But this warning system like distress needn't be associated with an ego that further experiences fear or anger or any of the other things I mentioned. And you don't ignore pain. Only a complete moron would do that, especially if it were severe. My attack of pleurisy hospitalized me. Pain that severe ought be dealt with as it almost certainly indicates a serious problem. It only takes a modicum of rationality to understand that.

My point is simple: the egotist responds differently to the non-egotist to bodily sensations, including pain. If you can't appreciate this then you've yet to experience any loss of ego.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

samadhi : Dan's problem I think is that he would put love and compassion in the same boat as fear and blame.

Diebert: Love and compassion as understood or practiced by most of the people around you certainly are in the same boat. This is unavoidable as ignorance itself would prevent any truthful love and compassion to arise: one ends up with facsimiles instead.

Is ego involved in love and compassion as commonly experienced? Sure. Does that mean there is something wrong with love and compassion per se? I don't think so.

The problem of ignorance is not about a lack of some 'true' knowledge, it's about the eclipsing of what's pure and true by what is false or illusionary. With this in mind one has to distrust what is usually understood to be love and compassion.

Distrust the ego, not the love. There is nothing wrong with love until manipulation becomes the point of it.

One has to suspect it does the opposite of what people want them to mean. The darkest lies hidden behind the brightest colored curtains. This is almost like a psychological law.

Really? So what darkness is love hiding? It is the ego that brings darkness to love when it decides to use it as an agenda to get something else. Ego can use anything to its ends but that doesn't mean what it uses is the problem.

If one cannot get past this hurdle, there's just no chance any real investigation of attachment or self-inquiry can take place. One quickly would be swamped by feeling or mindlessness and all progress stalls.

Identifying oneself with emotion or seeing emotion as an end in itself can be a problem. But the point isn't to get rid of emotion. It is to see how the ego operates within emotion.

This is why self-inquiry has to go hand in hand with reflection, mental stimulation and penetrating doubt of everything you learned and trusted so far. Otherwise it indeed would be like trying to swallow ones own tail but never biting.

Self-inquiry IS reflection. The very question, who am I? is abouting doubting conventional identity. What inquiry goes hand-in-hand with is surrender. You don't just acquire knowledge or wisdom in terms of enlightenment. You have to be willing to give up the idea that there is someone who acquires. Otherwise your wisdom simply becomes another accoutrement of the ego to wield for its greater glory.

[David Quinn]

"physical pain" is still emotional, the "pain" aspect is emotion, that's why it's "pain."

Sometimes physical pain is experienced as pleasure, such as when an athlete trains hard for an Olympic event, or when a person resolutely gives up a drug addiction. At other times, physical pleasure is experienced as pain, such as when a guilt-ridden husband has an affair.

-

[maestro]

Ok enough of detour into people's favorite conception of enlightenment.

I think I have not covered the role of the thinking mind in this scheme well enough. First of all the thinking mind does not work like a computer, i.e. it does not work linearly on propositions to generate true false statements. What the thinking mind does is model the world based on observations (and ideas from others), and devise future actions based on the model. This is done by everybody's mind.

The role of logic is to check whether the model is consistent, and whether it is consistent with observations. It is also used to devise future action. The modelling process is not done through logic, in fact much of it is done subconsciously and through sudden insights. Which are nothing but products of the faster subconscious processing. This can be seen in physics for example where new models are generally flashes of sudden insight. Logic merely checks it for consistency. Also these sudden insights are produced when there is a contradiction in the existing model.

Thus when the observation process provides data, there is no need for you to sit with a pen and paper and try to apply logic to to the data. What is going to happen is that a lot of this data will be contradictory to your existing model. The mind may try to furiously fit the new data with the preexisting model, but this has to be avoided. New and clearer models will emerge on their own (through insights), which will be invalidated by further observations, and so on. Until a very clear picture emerges of the self and the world.

This exposition also shows that it is a good idea to not reject ideas contradictory to you out of hand but to listen to them carefully, they are the fodder for the mind to make a better model.

The thinking process reminds me of the dialectic process. Whereas the observation process reminds me of the third eye. The idea is that just as the two eyes provide observations about the outer world, the third eye does it for the inner world.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is ego involved in love and compassion as commonly experienced? Sure. Does that mean there is something wrong with love and compassion per se? I don't think so.

As far as I'm concerned the only 'wrongness' of what most people call love and compassion is that they're misguiding or deceptive in terms of what people believe they are and what effect it has on the experience of suffering and the strength of attachments. One could say the same thing about popular catch phrases as 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

Really? So what darkness is love hiding? It is the ego that brings darkness to love when it decides to use it as an agenda to get something else. Ego can use anything to its ends but that doesn't mean what it uses is the problem.

You're ignoring here that when ego decides to use it, or anything else for that matter, as an agenda that it will now mean something entirely different but still will carry the same name. This is what I meant with hiding. It's a form of camouflage.

Self-inquiry IS reflection.

Well, I meant reflection more in a general sense as mental concentration and all careful consideration. At the deepest level I'd agree that all mentation is a form of reflection and as such self-inquiry could be called reflection in its purest form. It's really all a question of depth.

The very question, who am I? is abouting doubting conventional identity. What inquiry goes hand-in-hand with is surrender. You don't just acquire knowledge or wisdom in terms of enlightenment. You have to be willing to give up the idea that there is someone who acquires.

Doubting conventional identity is just a start. Surrendering to that process will leave one doubting way more until one sees how all boundaries are created arbitrarily, not always without reason but certainly nothing to become attached to.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: Is ego involved in love and compassion as commonly experienced? Sure. Does that mean there is something wrong with love and compassion per se? I don't think so.

Diebert: As far as I'm concerned the only 'wrongness' of what most people call love and compassion is that they're misguiding or deceptive in terms of what people believe they are and what effect it has on the experience of suffering and the strength of attachments. One could say the same thing about popular catch phrases as 'freedom' or 'democracy'.

Okay. The question really isn't whether people's beliefs about love and compassion are "wrong" but rather if they are useful or not. If someone is getting what they want from what you would consider a "wrong" belief, who are you to say that they should change?

sam: Really? So what darkness is love hiding? It is the ego that brings darkness to love when it decides to use it as an agenda to get something else. Ego can use anything to its ends but that doesn't mean what it uses is the problem.

Diebert: You're ignoring here that when ego decides to use it, or anything else for that matter, as an agenda that it will now mean something entirely different but still will carry the same name. This is what I meant with hiding. It's a form of camouflage.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean there is anything dark about love. If I pretend some interest in someone in order to get them to do something for me, it's not even love, is it? It's something else. What is dark and hiding out is the ego, not love.

sam: The very question, who am I? is abouting doubting conventional identity. What inquiry goes hand-in-hand with is surrender. You don't just acquire knowledge or wisdom in terms of enlightenment. You have to be willing to give up the idea that there is someone who acquires.

Diebert: Doubting conventional identity is just a start. Surrendering to that process will leave one doubting way more until one sees how all boundaries are created arbitrarily, not always without reason but certainly nothing to become attached to.

Whatever you are able to reason about the self, there is still the matter of surrender. Surrender isn't a logical process. Reason and logic are about being in control, surrender is giving up control. No one does that thinking it is a good idea.

[Sapius]

Sam;

Whatever you are able to reason about the self, there is still the matter of surrender. Surrender isn't a logical process. Reason and logic are about being in control, surrender is giving up control. No one does that thinking it is a good idea.

True… I think it’s a GREAT idea, hence the surrender in and off realizing it.

BTW, who exactly surrenders?

Sorry, I haven’t read much of this thread, so I could be wrong. Pardon my interruption in that case ;)

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The question really isn't whether people's beliefs about love and compassion are "wrong" but rather if they are useful or not. If someone is getting what they want from what you would consider a "wrong" belief, who are you to say that they should change?

You wouldn't catch me using the 'wrong' word often and also this time I managed to avoid it :)

This is all in the context of ignorance being defined as erring and falling away of ignorance as the aim.

Sure, but that still doesn't mean there is anything dark about love. If I pretend some interest in someone in order to get them to do something for me, it's not even love, is it? It's something else. What is dark and hiding out is the ego, not love.

There's something dark about everything of course. Apart from that: surely there's an egotistical component to love as commonly practiced and believed in. The rare type you're introducing into the discussion might as well be called marglar, so alien it is in comparison. But I'm not even sure if you are, perhaps you're just promoting ego's favorite pastime.

Whatever you are able to reason about the self, there is still the matter of surrender. Surrender isn't a logical process. Reason and logic are about being in control, surrender is giving up control. No one does that thinking it is a good idea.

You are plain wrong (!) here. Quality reasoning is always about submitting to a process, not controlling it. Surrendering can easily be a logical decision (for example during war) and clearly is something that, like everything else, needs to happen at the right moment. And lets face it: one is never really in control but we always appear to be, responsible nevertheless.

[samadhi]

Sapius,

BTW, who exactly surrenders?

Questions like this arise when conceptual levels become mixed. On one level we experience ourselves as ego in a world of conflict but on another level there is no ego and all is one. So whatever answer you're looking for depends on the level you see yourself occupying. On one level, there is no one to surrender, there is simply an awakening to what one already is. On another level, the ego appears to surrender when such circumstances arise that make it possible. There is no ultimate perspective from which to answer any question like this since all perspectives merely reflect a particular grounding of experience. If one is grounded in ego, it appears as if an ego surrenders. If the grounding is beyond ego, surrender no longer applies.

The question also is looking for some conceptual framework within a particular understanding for a process that may not be captured by that particular framework. For instance, in the same vein, one might ask, who is enlightened? Within the egoic framework, such questions defy answers, which is fine for the ego since it has no interest in operating outside its own framework. Nevertheless, the ego is always bumping up against its limitations. The questions nag at us because there is something within us that is not ego. If it was only all about ego, there wouldn't be such questions and certainly no interest in them. Yet at some point, a recognition sets in, the questions take on meaning and the path to enlightenment becomes the only road to take.

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: The question really isn't whether people's beliefs about love and compassion are "wrong" but rather if they are useful or not. If someone is getting what they want from what you would consider a "wrong" belief, who are you to say that they should change?

Diebert: You wouldn't catch me using the 'wrong' word often and also this time I managed to avoid it :)

This is all in the context of ignorance being defined as erring and falling away of ignorance as the aim.

Well, the original question was whether love and compassion can be put in the same boat as fear and blame. I think you are trying to say yes because ego can be behind love and compassion the same as fear and blame. Nevertheless I think one can love without ego but it takes an ego to fear or to blame.

sam: Sure, but that still doesn't mean there is anything dark about love. If I pretend some interest in someone in order to get them to do something for me, it's not even love, is it? It's something else. What is dark and hiding out is the ego, not love.

Diebert: There's something dark about everything of course. Apart from that: surely there's an egotistical component to love as commonly practiced and believed in. The rare type you're introducing into the discussion might as well be called marglar, so alien it is in comparison. But I'm not even sure if you are, perhaps you're just promoting ego's favorite pastime.

All I see you doing is equating love with attachment. Loving without attachment is not that rare. I'm sure you can look within your own experience and see that not everything you love has to do with attachment.

sam: Whatever you are able to reason about the self, there is still the matter of surrender. Surrender isn't a logical process. Reason and logic are about being in control, surrender is giving up control. No one does that thinking it is a good idea.

Diebert: You are plain wrong (!) here. Quality reasoning is always about submitting to a process, not controlling it. Surrendering can easily be a logical decision (for example during war) ...

That isn't the surrender I am talking about. Recognizing a mistake is not a surrender unless one has a profound attachment to an ego position. Bush admitting he was wrong about Iraq, yeah, that would be a surrender. Bush admitting he misspelled someone's name isn't a surrender. And no one surrenders in war with being forced to.

... and clearly is something that, like everything else, needs to happen at the right moment.

Of course but that begs the question, how does one get to the right moment?

And lets face it: one is never really in control but we always appear to be, responsible nevertheless.

Whether anyone is "really" in control isn't the point. There is an illusion of control that the ego functions within and is quite comfortable with. If you think this isn't so, why not post your name, ssn and bank account number on a web site for identity thieves since you are not in control anyway.

[Sapius]

Sapius,

BTW, who exactly surrenders?

Questions like this arise when conceptual levels become mixed. On one level we experience ourselves as ego in a world of conflict but on another level there is no ego and all is one. So whatever answer you're looking for depends on the level you see yourself occupying. On one level, there is no one to surrender, there is simply an awakening to what one already is. On another level, the ego appears to surrender when such circumstances arise that make it possible. There is no ultimate perspective from which to answer any question like this since all perspectives merely reflect a particular grounding of experience. If one is grounded in ego, it appears as if an ego surrenders. If the grounding is beyond ego, surrender no longer applies.

The question also is looking for some conceptual framework within a particular understanding for a process that may not be captured by that particular framework. For instance, in the same vein, one might ask, who is enlightened? Within the egoic framework, such questions defy answers, which is fine for the ego since it has no interest in operating outside its own framework. Nevertheless, the ego is always bumping up against its limitations. The questions nag at us because there is something within us that is not ego. If it was only all about ego, there wouldn't be such questions and certainly no interest in them. Yet at some point, a recognition sets in, the questions take on meaning and the path to enlightenment becomes the only road to take.

Really? All is one? Well, I don’t really mind an ego (“I”) expressing it so.

Thanks for all that ‘muuing’ however ;D

[samadhi]

You know, after I wrote that, I realized it's easier to discuss through analogy.

Suppose in a dream, you were to ask me, who is it that awakens? And I were to reply, nobody awakens. True as it is, that wouldn't make any sense to you. Someone must awaken! But from the dream perspective of course, no one does. Awakening from the character's perspective isn't awakening at all, it is disappearing, and nor does the character have anything to do with it.

Anyway, I agree, it's all muuuuu to the character!

[maestro]

Shit! Despite my best efforts Samadhi hijacked the thread into a discussion of his version of enlightenment.

[Dan Rowden]

You'll just have to win it back. Good luck ;)

[Shahrazad]

Maestro, you're doing great in not letting yourself get annoyed by Sam. You do practice what you preach.* That is awesome.

* By this I mean you have broken the feedback loop.

Dan's "good luck" means he has no sympathy at all. Not that you need it.

-

[maestro]

Maestro, you're doing great in not letting yourself get annoyed by Sam. You do practice what you preach.* That is awesome.

* By this I mean you have broken the feedback loop.

You cannot really call it from the net actually, but yes I cannot allow any more suffering to go on.

Dan's "good luck" means he has no sympathy at all. Not that you need it.

On the other hand I thought Dan was being sympathetic, I interpreted his good luck as an acknowledgment to Samadhi's Hijacking and the hard task ahead of extricating this thread from his clutches.

[maestro]

I think Dan also has a role in the Hijacking, because he supported Sam for his own reasons.

Essentially Dan/David are attached to the idea of the enlightened being as that of a shunned bearded guy, who just opposes and annoys common people (like Diogenes/Socrates/Nietzsche (no beard but a walrus mustache)), and is dedicated to the spread of wisdom. And that of enlightenment as thinking and deducing metaphysical facts using pure logic.

They have forgotten that enlightenment's main theme was the ending of suffering and not being either a gadfly or a logician. Thinking is as much help in enlightenment as it is a hindrance.

[Shahrazad]

I interpreted his good luck as an acknowledgment to Samadhi's Hijacking and the hard task ahead of extricating this thread from his clutches.

Yes, he meant that too. But do keep in mind he told me that my impatience with Samadhi was completely uncalled for.

[Jason]

They have forgotten that enlightenment's main theme was the ending of suffering and not being either a gadfly or a logician.

Using the mainstream definition of the term "enlightenment" I don't necessarily disagree(that enlightenment is about ending suffering), but what about truth? I know some people will argue that truth is the necessary antidote to suffering blah dee blah blah, but making the elimination of suffering the "main theme" seems like it would leave people vulnerable to being satisfied with comforting delusions.