An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk
.
Yep. So in truth, we are all of the feminine mind. Oh the irony!
Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That holds just as much for speaking about a speck of dust. The speck of dust that is spoken of is not the Great Speck of Dust!
DvR the difference is a speck of dust holds no interest to us the Tao does or we would not be discussing it 3,000 years later.
It's not helping to suggest there are different types of Tao to go around.
I am not suggesting there are different Tao's I thought I made that clear there is only one Tao, enlightenment, kingdom of god - call it what you will.
Obviously a part is not complete (by definition) and a representation is not the same as what's being represented (by definition). In the same way anything said or done (movement) does not equal that what by definition not moves: the eternal and constant. Since the nature of existence is flux, the unchanging does not exist. Unless we'd say nothing exists but the eternal.
You know the answer to this. There is something that does not move or change and has always been there. It is silent, encompasses everything and has been recognised by thousands over mans life on earth.
Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk.
True very true.
More true or clear just means bringing less ignorance. Remove the contradiction and all words will resonate with all wisdom!
Ignorance is always there at this spiritual level unless you have broken through into the Tao etc. The prajna insights produced out of Samadhi reduce this ignorance somewhat but bring with it a set of difficulties as discussed with Movingalways above (I think).

It's still mostly nonsense also according to Lao Tzu himself! Didn't he just warn it's not the Great Tao he's talking about? At least that's how you read it.
No what he is saying is the opposite of what you claim.

The hardest part is letting go whatever is preventing one realizing there was never any living, thinking or walking outside any Tao.
An almost impossible task in my endeavours, primarily due to my perception that it is almost impossible.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell wrote:
movingalways wrote:
Diebert: Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk
.
Yep. So in truth, we are all of the feminine mind. Oh the irony!
Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
I am beginning to wake up to how truly absurd is the thinking mind. Absurd not in a negative sense, rather in a wholly positive sense. Like a window has been thrown open to a cool breeze that just won't quit.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Russell wrote: Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
Traditionally words are taken to be pointers to mirages? Anyway, that's probably why absolutes tend to be feminine. Maybe the problem with tao te ching is that it is not dialectical enough. It's only for those with the dialectics within.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Bobo wrote:traditionally words are taken to be pointers to mirages? Anyway, that's probably why absolutes tend to be feminine. Maybe the problem with tao te ching is that it is not dialectical enough. It's only for those with the dialectics within.
To some extent Bobo. Dialectic argument tends to take you nowhere in the world of Tao. Not sure what you mean by dialectics inside? Apart from the actions inside all of us. This was defined by the Japanese several hundred years ago and named nen or nen-action (it is sometimes referred to). If you have not read anything about this here is a paste from here: http://members.core.com/~ascensus/docs/nen.html

According to Sekida, the mind operates in a particular way. The way the mind operates is "only one nen at a time." You cannot really do two things at once because you cannot be conscious of two things at once.

Nen actions make their appearance before we are aware of them. A thought impulse occurs without our being aware of it. If you are going to become aware of a nen action, it takes a separate nen action to become aware of the first nen action.

First-nen occurs, for example, when one has an experience of a beautiful sunset. Before the awareness of "just how beautiful it is" dawns on you, you are momentarily held spellbound in the grasp of the experience. Then, immediately, there follows second-nen, which reflects on first-nen. According to Sekida,

The first and second nen come and go momentarily, and when a serial process of thought is occurring the second nen will frequently arise to illuminate the preceding nen, and the two will intermix as if they were entangled with each other (Sekida 109).
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

I mean something like one doesn't need opposition to get the contraposition to one's position. My thinking then would be that if Lao-tsu had written more in terms of a position and the opposite things could be more clear, and here I mean the form of the text because taoism is pretty much about yin yang.

The first thing I would question about nen is how the process of learning relates with it, probably it doesn't relate directly to things that can be learned in a methodical way.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Bobo wrote:I mean something like one doesn't need opposition to get the contraposition to one's position. My thinking then would be that if Lao-tsu had written more in terms of a position and the opposite things could be more clear, and here I mean the form of the text because taoism is pretty much about yin yang.
No its not, its about how to live in this world without the fears and greed that generally controls human behaviour
The first thing I would question about nen is how the process of learning relates with it, probably it doesn't relate directly to things that can be learned in a methodical way.
The nen process has nothing to do with learning as such it's proposed more as the automatic functions of the brain. This is also linked to how the brain via the ego brings so much of what you try to do undone. The first nen is clear and unadulterated and is what many claim is the world where the enlightened live. The second is a recognition, the third, forth and onwards is where the ego has some influence ie:

Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action.


The pale cast of thought being nen at the behest of the ego arguing opposite propositions to counter other propositions, until we turn into dribbling incompetents fearful of our decision making and the potential impacts. That is why in the Upanisads Krishna urges Arjuna to ignore his conscience and carry out what needs to be done as the outcome is not in his hands. What is proposed is that all decisions we make are not guaranteed to end up as we planned.

So we bounce from thought to thought never really knowing what is right and is part of the reason why reason has its place but never controls the table, that nobody controls.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy: Dialectic argument tends to take you nowhere in the world of Tao.
Precisely. Which is its job. You believe you have left the Tao:
Diebert: The hardest part is letting go whatever is preventing one realizing there was never any living, thinking or walking outside any Tao.
You: An almost impossible task in my endeavours, primarily due to my perception that it is almost impossible.
Dialectic if you choose to make it so:
ardy: There is something that does not move or change and has always been there. It is silent, encompasses everything
If "it" encompasses everything, then it is one with everything. Are you not one of the everything?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

ardy wrote:No its not, its about how to live in this world without the fears and greed that generally controls human behaviour
As the tao undo its own doing, you should be able to answer your own questions.
ardy wrote:So we bounce from thought to thought never really knowing what is right and is part of the reason why reason has its place but never controls the table, that nobody controls.
In this case I would reccomend thinking at least twice if not thrice before acting, maybe in time people will get when they need to think and when to act.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

movingalways wrote:
Russell wrote:Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
I am beginning to wake up to how truly absurd is the thinking mind. Absurd not in a negative sense, rather in a wholly positive sense. Like a window has been thrown open to a cool breeze that just won't quit.
More of a retort than a response, no? You don't have to give up thinking just because you used "feminine" wrong there! :)

Bobo,
Bobo wrote:
Russell wrote: Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
Traditionally words are taken to be pointers to mirages?
No.. not sure how you got that out of my quote.. but once more: most people are unaware that words are merely pointers to mirages.
Anyway, that's probably why absolutes tend to be feminine. Maybe the problem with tao te ching is that it is not dialectical enough. It's only for those with the dialectics within.
In what sense are absolutes feminine?

---

The Tao Te Ching seems plenty dialectical to me, and so do all teachings of wisdom. The lesson in general is about seeing through duality into non-duality. To be hung up in the dialectics means that one hasn't yet sufficiently broken through to formlessness, in one's understanding, self dialect, or nens.
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

Following from what you said about words being pointers, absolutes in language tend to override this view.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

Russell:
movingalways:
Russell: Well, actually, to be in the feminine mind traditionally means to be in the dark to the fact that words are just pointers to mirages. "In truth" implies knowledge of this fact.
I am beginning to wake up to how truly absurd is the thinking mind. Absurd not in a negative sense, rather in a wholly positive sense. Like a window has been thrown open to a cool breeze that just won't quit.
More of a retort than a response, no? You don't have to give up thinking just because you used "feminine" wrong there! :)
Indeed, my answer to you was more of a retort than a response. I'll try again. In your response to me in the first quoted post, by way of the word "actually" you implied there is an absolute definition of the feminine mind in the same breath that you said that words are just pointers to mirages. Do you see the contradiction, the absurdity?

In moving on to your most recent response, in the light of your perception that words are just pointers to mirages, how can I use "feminine" wrong?

How did you come to the conclusion that absurd = desire to be rid of? Especially since I qualified my perception of the absurdity of thinking to a a wholly positive one. Allow me to try again. Thinking is absurd because we don't know why it is, where it is, how it is, what it is, and yet, here we all are, thinking about thinking. The best joke ever!
Russell: To be hung up in the dialectics means that one hasn't yet sufficiently broken through to formlessness, in one's understanding, self dialect, or nens.
To be hung up on the dialectics is not at all the same thing as using dialectic to break though one's perception of a dual existence. I am not saying you believe this, I just wanted to make this important point and your thought above gave me the perfect opportunity :-)
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

Bobo wrote:Following from what you said about words being pointers, absolutes in language tend to override this view.
Language is not complete in itself, as expressions of language are just that, expressions: representatives of something other than the words themselves. Absolutes in language, in regard to the ultimate, cannot fully paint the picture of what the ultimate actually is. Put another way, the inherent dualistic nature of language prevent complete accuracy in expressions of the non-dualistic nature of ultimate reality.
____
movingalways wrote:Indeed, my answer to you was more of a retort than a response. I'll try again. In your response to me in the first quoted post, by way of the word "actually" you implied there is an absolute definition of the feminine mind in the same breath that you said that words are just pointers to mirages. Do you see the contradiction, the absurdity?
Yes, I used "actually" but I also used "traditionally," which was in reference to the way "feminine" is commonly used to express various dualities of the observed world. No absurdity there.
How did you come to the conclusion that absurd = desire to be rid of? Especially since I qualified my perception of the absurdity of thinking to a a wholly positive one. Allow me to try again. Thinking is absurd because we don't know why it is, where it is, how it is, what it is, and yet, here we all are, thinking about thinking. The best joke ever!
But it is also a joke to think that thinking itself is absurd. It isn't really absurd, is it? It's an absolute necessity. As long as there is consciousness, dualistic thinking persists. The intent of my response was to point this out in jest.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

movingalways wrote:
Diebert: Didn't you notice we're all doing that all the time even when talking about the mundane and ordinary? We know nothing really and yet talk
.
Yep. So in truth, we are all of the feminine mind. Oh the irony!
No it was just about talking and things. If you want to introduce "feminine" thinking to it, that would be more like the common notion that there's something special or intricate to Tao that it couldn't "be spoken of" as some mystical quality. In the end it's all about right speech.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:That holds just as much for speaking about a speck of dust. The speck of dust that is spoken of is not the Great Speck of Dust!
DvR the difference is a speck of dust holds no interest to us the Tao does or we would not be discussing it 3,000 years later.
But since the topic is the nature of things (the way of existence) then it actually would not matter. Speaking of "Tao" is poetic license and usually it's the powerful seductive image that is being talked about longest.

Perhaps it's an idea to burn the Tao Te Ching to ashes? If nobody could write anything better in 3000 years something has gone horribly wrong. But more likely we prefer ancient stuff as to sanctify and consider it more pure and validated. This is a funny aspect of how our mind looks for truth in a dead past or over-processed text.
There is something that does not move or change and has always been there. It is silent, encompasses everything and has been recognised by thousands over mans life on earth.
Why would it be silent? It clearly cannot have such fleeting state. It even does not stand still as we need movement to conceive of this. This is why it's fairly certain you're not describing any true Tao. You know, when you accept the truth of a verse, the least you can do is living by it and applying it constantly!
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Russell wrote: The Tao Te Ching seems plenty dialectical to me, and so do all teachings of wisdom. The lesson in general is about seeing through duality into non-duality. To be hung up in the dialectics means that one hasn't yet sufficiently broken through to formlessness, in one's understanding, self dialect, or nens.
You are correct Russell but even once you have broken through there is still nothing one can say/write about it that is a description of it because it is as you say formless and beyond duality.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Bobo wrote:As the tao undo its own doing, you should be able to answer your own questions.
Sorry Bobo I have no idea what you are talking about..
In this case I would recommend thinking at least twice if not thrice before acting, maybe in time people will get when they need to think and when to act.
No this is not a architectural plan or an engineering design where it is polished up and refined (even then there are a thousand little issues over looked). It is also not people making emotional decisions without thinking about them, their ego already has them before they make that emotional decision.

Have a read of the Upanisads and the intrinsic idea will hopefully resonate with you.

Why do you think so many actions we take come undone?
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Perhaps it's an idea to burn the Tao Te Ching to ashes? If nobody could write anything better in 3000 years something has gone horribly wrong. But more likely we prefer ancient stuff as to sanctify and consider it more pure and validated. This is a funny aspect of how our mind looks for truth in a dead past or over-processed text.
DvR you can believe any damn stupid idea you like, it does nothing to allow you to understand 'What is Enlightenment'.
Why would it be silent? It clearly cannot have such fleeting state. It even does not stand still as we need movement to conceive of this. This is why it's fairly certain you're not describing any true Tao.
It is impossible to describe it and I have stated this several times. But your iron head will not allow you to think there is anything in this world you cannot rationalise.
You know, when you accept the truth of a verse, the least you can do is living by it and applying it constantly!
Another logical statement which is almost impossible to do. I try to deal with what is placed in front of me (ie I don't go looking for problems) with some awareness and compassion, not the compassion that involves emotional reactions but a hard-nosed reality based compassion. To this end at a very limited level, I attempt to do what you are suggesting. The difference I would make to your statement "living by it" the immediacy of enlightenment changes your statement to "living in it" although there is no in our out.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

ardy: There is something that does not move or change and has always been there. It is silent, encompasses everything
If "it" encompasses everything, then it is one with everything. Are you not one of the everything?
Movingalways. Buddha stated that we are all enlightened it is just that we don't recognise it. Although I accept that I am part of the earth, planets, stars and galaxies, to understand that is very hard you have to feel it deeply which I have done but I don't think it is enlightenment.

Then as DvR asks in his logical way you have to 'Live by it". God! I wish I could make statements like DvR, life would be so simple but it would not explain anything about enlightenment.
Pam Seeback
Posts: 2619
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:40 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Pam Seeback »

ardy: Movingalways, Buddha stated that we are all enlightened it is just that we don't recognise it.
And you are the Zen guy, go figure!
Although I accept that I am part of the earth, planets, stars and galaxies, to understand that is very hard you have to feel it deeply which I have done but I don't think it is enlightenment.
You mention being part of the Tao of the earth, planets, stars and galaxies but what you don't mention is being part of the Tao that wrote the words above or is reading my response to these same words. Could it be that the reason you can't "break through" into recognizing your enlightenment is that you exclude your thoughts as being part of the all-encompassing Tao? If this is the case, can you not see how illogical is this exclusion?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

ardy wrote:
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Perhaps it's an idea to burn the Tao Te Ching to ashes? If nobody could write anything better in 3000 years something has gone horribly wrong. But more likely we prefer ancient stuff as to sanctify and consider it more pure and validated. This is a funny aspect of how our mind looks for truth in a dead past or over-processed text.
DvR you can believe any damn stupid idea you like, it does nothing to allow you to understand 'What is Enlightenment'.
Yes, it's really time for you to burn some books and your old worn out beliefs about those books!
It is impossible to describe it and I have stated this several times. But your iron head will not allow you to think there is anything in this world you cannot rationalise.
It's impossible to describe it unless you do? So it's not "silent", "encompassing everything" and "been recognised by thousands" then? That was all crap oozing out of your mind? That must be it!

Have you any idea how hard it really is to remain consistent, reasonable and truthful in the face of all this? But really, why bother since it's all indescribable and all-compassing anyway, right?
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote:
Russell wrote: The Tao Te Ching seems plenty dialectical to me, and so do all teachings of wisdom. The lesson in general is about seeing through duality into non-duality. To be hung up in the dialectics means that one hasn't yet sufficiently broken through to formlessness, in one's understanding, self dialect, or nens.
You are correct Russell but even once you have broken through there is still nothing one can say/write about it that is a description of it because it is as you say formless and beyond duality.
Yes, but say someone said to you, "I've heard you know a bit about the Tao, please describe it to me." After some thought, you either A) to say something to the effect of "the spoken Tao is not the Great Tao" or B) sit there silently. Which would be more correct?

Should Lao Tsu have written about it at all, or was he doing the Tao a disservice, so to speak?
Bobo
Posts: 517
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:35 pm

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Bobo »

ardy wrote:
Bobo wrote:As the tao undo its own doing, you should be able to answer your own questions.
Sorry Bobo I have no idea what you are talking about.
I thought I was paraphrasing tao the ching in 'the tao undo its on doing' and the next phrase is what I think it would mean in terms of dialectics for the sage. More interesting maybe would be how it is brought forth in our relation with nature and other people. The sage doesn't find himself in opposition to the way.
Why do you think so many actions we take come undone?
I read recently about a new theory of mind that proposes that counsciouness is just make up rationalizations for what happens in the brain.

What do you think of accounts that describe enlightenment as having nothing to be gained?

I think the current discussion on Lao-tsu would be more productive if any of you participating on it focused on what he wrote and why he wrote what you think is relevant to this discussion (why the tao that can be named is not the enduring tao), rather than any interpretation based on the apparent fact the he wrote about it, which I think is a bit off the mark.
User avatar
ardy
Posts: 341
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by ardy »

Russell wrote:
ardy wrote:
Russell wrote: The Tao Te Ching seems plenty dialectical to me, and so do all teachings of wisdom. The lesson in general is about seeing through duality into non-duality. To be hung up in the dialectics means that one hasn't yet sufficiently broken through to formlessness, in one's understanding, self dialect, or nens.
You are correct Russell but even once you have broken through there is still nothing one can say/write about it that is a description of it because it is as you say formless and beyond duality.
Yes, but say someone said to you, "I've heard you know a bit about the Tao, please describe it to me." After some thought, you either A) to say something to the effect of "the spoken Tao is not the Great Tao" or B) sit there silently. Which would be more correct?

Should Lao Tsu have written about it at all, or was he doing the Tao a disservice, so to speak?
There was a book written by Katagiri (sp) called "You Have to Say Something" which is an excellent read on this subject.

His view is that although thousands of pages and millions of words have been stated about it, there is nothing you can say - BUT to sit in silence engenders nihilism and takes you nowhere (my words not his), therefore you have to say something. That is where the master identifies the development of the student or recognise when a breakthrough occurs via Mondo - A short zen dialogue between master and student, usually from the past. The student asks a question that is troubling him or her, and the master responds not with theory or logic, but instead in a way that encourages the student to reach a deeper level of perception. Many great mondos became koans.

Lao Tzu's efforts allowed the unenlightened to catch a flash of light from around a corner and open an enquiry about it within themselves. More correctly it was a baited hook about something beyond the average persons understanding.

Still the gateless gate sits there waiting for us to understand.
User avatar
Russell Parr
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:44 am

Re: An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?

Post by Russell Parr »

ardy wrote:There was a book written by Katagiri (sp) called "You Have to Say Something" which is an excellent read on this subject.

His view is that although thousands of pages and millions of words have been stated about it, there is nothing you can say - BUT to sit in silence engenders nihilism and takes you nowhere (my words not his), therefore you have to say something. That is where the master identifies the development of the student or recognise when a breakthrough occurs via Mondo - A short zen dialogue between master and student, usually from the past. The student asks a question that is troubling him or her, and the master responds not with theory or logic, but instead in a way that encourages the student to reach a deeper level of perception. Many great mondos became koans.

Lao Tzu's efforts allowed the unenlightened to catch a flash of light from around a corner and open an enquiry about it within themselves. More correctly it was a baited hook about something beyond the average persons understanding.

Still the gateless gate sits there waiting for us to understand.
This all makes great sense, but must it be only this way? You seem to devalue simple logical discussion as a means to express, for example, the indescribable nature of the Tao. Mondos and koans may have a more profound impact on an aspirant, but isn't this because the student logically unravels the riddle in order to solve it on his own?

Perhaps we understand logic differently. To me, to be logical simply means to be able to reason correctly.

While I don't disagree with logic itself being seen through in enlightenment, I do disagree with it not playing a part in advancement. Otherwise, the student would never be able to understand the teachings.
Locked