# Am I enlightened? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 25, 2008, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581 "2008-05-25T18:44:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/121 "2008-05-28T20:19:58Z")
**Gozu** > [@](#): > > Do we have proof of this? My own experience and my limited knowledge of human history seem to suggest that a human being’s environment has a big impact over his or her state of mind. We cannot prove any of this. We are talking of subjective experience. And I totally agree that a human being’s environment has a big impact over his _state of mind_. But it does not have an impact over a _state of no-mind._ The challenge is to become aware of your ability of being outside your mind, to be “in this world, but not of it.” I have discussed the idea of no-mind upthread. Let me know if you understand or if there are some aspects which still do not come across clearly to you. > [@](#): > > Suffering is suffering. I don’t see any way of separating “physical” suffering from “suffering of the egoic mind”. All suffering is in the mind anyways. If the “suffering of the egoic mind” was under our control, why does everybody break under torture. If someone where to hit you in the face, you would certainly undergo physical suffering (pain). However, in the moments after, you could either become lost in the emotion of repetitive, neurotic thought (mental suffering), or you could practice non-reactance; loving acceptance. Since you state, yourself, that “all suffering is in the mind anyways”, then you may see how if you simply accepted the pain for what it was, and turned the other cheek, you will withhold no internal suffering (mental struggle against the now, the now which logically cannot be denied), whereupon the aggressor likely will continue to suffer, since they were angry/irritated/fearful enough to hit you in the first place. Was this an effective example? And onto the point of “everybody breaks under torture”… is this provable? What about those who die during torture? Are you counting them as “breaking”? All it takes is one example otherwise to posit reasonable doubt on this point. > [@](#): > > I’m not sure crucifixion is the greatest of physical tortures either. Quite frankly, I might prefer to be crucified than to have my testicles electrified for an equivalent time period. Further, you don’t know what Christ was thinking or what he intended unless you use the Bible as evidence. Which you cannot do as it is vehemently disputed as an accurate historical record. It wasn’t merely crucifixion. If you are interested in the _entire process of torture_ which Christ supposedly underwent, you could open a Bible or you could watch Mel Gibson’s film, “The Passion of the Christ.” But to argue that Christ wasn’t tortured _enough_ to prove the point that the egoic attachments to life can be silenced is to argue a technicality. We can always think of a more sadistic torture, if we so choose, even more so then testicle electrocution. There is no end to that debate. Personally, I think the bodily pain that Christ faced was more than enough to prove His point. We may agree to disagree on this though, if you so choose. > [@](#): > > Hunger strikes are voluntary, starvation is imposed on you. I have fasted in the past and I have been very hungry. I have never been unable to obtain food for weeks, while watching my wife and kids slowly die of hunger. That’s what I’m talking about. We know that people have died in hunger strikes, though. So, for their body, there was no difference between that and starvation, because they literally starved to death in their efforts. So then where did the difference lie? _In their minds_, or perhaps, the lack thereof. But then you bring up, perhaps what may be, a much more powerful point; the notion of starvation not only of yourself but of your family as well. As I have commented on earlier, you cannot force a state of wisdom upon anyone, so even if your own experience is one of no suffering, it may be absolutely terrible to watch those whom are closest to your earthly existence in such a state of suffering. But now I will argue why a state of complete no-mind, self-less-ness, is preferable even in this incredibly dire situation, and actually why allowing yourself to suffer in such a predicament is actually the _selfish_ route. As long as you know that earthly life is not the end, and you accept the present moment with loving acceptance of the reality which is occurring right before your eyes, you would not cause need-less suffering upon yourself (thoughts of guilt, remorse, regret, failure, etc), because it simply would do no good. It would not improve the situation. It would not bring food to your family. If anything, the most effective strategy may in fact be, the opposite, the silencing of the mind, which may allow inspiration to flow through, which may contain an answer to their intense suffering, if such an answer were to exist. But even if such an answer would not come, I ask you this: In your final days with your family, wouldn’t it be best to live in the present moment anyway, so that you can focus in your totality, your love upon them? Conversely, if you are stuck in an egoiccally based cycle of thought (of guilt, etc), you would be wasting valuable cognitive resources and time which you could have used in expressing your undying love for those who are dying in front of you. By living in the moment, by not wallowing in remorse, you could \*fully delve your self \*into every single last moment with them, looking them straight in the eyes, and telling them over and over, “This is not the end. Trust me. I love you,” or any number of other expressions which may ease their pain. But I will tell you this: One thing that will NOT ease their pain is watching YOU suffer as well. Therefore, it seems that self-imposed suffering is, in all its forms, by definition, selfish, because in such a state, being trapped cycling in loops of futile thought within your own mind, you literally cannot be self-less, and, therefore, you cannot be truly selfless! Thus, even in times most dire, I gracefully ask you to set the example of loving and full acceptance, and then to watch to see whether the world around you slowly adjusts to follow suite, as I believe it will. > [@](#): > > Humans have existed and suffered for a long, long time. Perhaps we’ve been trying all along to achieve the zen state you describe, using thousands of religions as guides to achieving it. So far, it’s not working all that great. Maybe it is an asymptote that can be desired but never reached. Yes, they have tried to _use_ religion, but have they tried to _use their selves_? You even mention “zen”, so then you must know that zen teaching has NO dogma, and therefore, NO religion to “teach”. It is all inner teaching, and the only thing a “teacher” can ever do is help guide you down your own path to enlightenment. This is because, contrary to contemporary Western religious thought, the answer cannot be found outside of you, unless it is first within you. ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/122 "2008-05-28T20:25:36Z")
**Liberal** > [@](#): > > What about mine? Are you going to do me? > [@](#): > > I was thinking it spoke more to the issue of credibility. Look at it this way. If I’m K, then \<\>~K -\> ~~~K, or ~K. Wouldn’t you have thought I would have been~~ K? Which, without any other context might be true. But keep in mind that a false statement necessarily implies a true statement; i.e., if something is false, then it must be true that it is false. Whether that necessity is metaphysical or epistemic, I will leave to the reader. I understand the latter part of your statement, that a false statement actually implies a true statement, in the true statement that something is false. But your math involving K is lost upon me. Perhaps you would like to re-state this in terms of English, because math, admittedly, is not my forte. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/123 "2008-05-28T20:31:38Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] What about mine? Are you going to do me? [/QUOTE] For Og’s sake, **Lib**! Are you really that hard up? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2008, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/124 "2008-05-28T22:24:35Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **Cosmosdan** Perhaps you view much of this spiritual talk as tangent issues. And I understand how you may be able to view it this way. But I would delightfully posit that when discussing a topic as infinitely broad (literally read: INFINITELY) as enlightenment, there are no tangents, _as long as it keeps coming back to the source_. In this way, EVERYTHING can be related (literally read: EVERYTHING). We speak of an absolute which either encompasses ALL human experience or NONE of it (and skeptics will view it in the latter). In this way, doesn’t it say something how Christ is able to compare enlightenment to a mustard seed, the outlook of a child, poverty, riches, lions, fishermen, a sower, fire, death, life, birth, eating, fasting, division, sin, peace, war, the senses, what exists outside the senses, beginnings, endings, infants nursing, friends, enemies, pride… and the list goes on and on. And each time, it always goes back to His source: enlightenment. [/QUOTE] Yes, I know. The point is that a discussion that is all over the place isn’t very productive IMO. Plus it’s not the tradition of the this particular board or Great Debates. We’ve had plenty of discussions on spiritual topics but we try to focus on one particular topic. That may also help keep it interesting for people who are reading and not posting. If it varies greatly with too many writing stream of consciousness it’s harder to follow. I thought the title of the thread was the topic. Seemed to make sense to me. If that was not your intention that’s fine. > [@](#): > > You have quoted my OP in such a way that I don’t understand your argument, because, in so many words, it plainly expresses what you claim it does not: I didn’t take those as separate statements. I read them in connection with the title. as in; “Let’s do these things in order to reveal or challenge my enlightenment” > [@](#): > > As I have said above, what it means to be “enlightened” can carry “implications” over all human experience. If we are to “delve ever deeper” into the topic, there actually is no end, as there is no beginning. And if I am to allow you “to find logical holes in my assessment and philosophy of life”, then I should certainly go into great detail, particularly when asked specifically about certain points and related issues, should I not? You’re free to express yourself however you wish. I’m only suggesting that being more specific and trying to stay specific usually makes for a better discussion. Often one thread spawns another when an interesting tangent arises. In my posting here I’ve also worked on trying to express myself with an economy of words. It’s a worthwhile discipline IMO. I’m not great at it and tend to ramble on, but I hope I’ve gotten better at saying what I need to with fewer words. > [@](#): > > We agree on the latter argument completely. In fact, I have discussed it at length. However, as for the former point, let me say this: Suppose, for the sake of argument, that I am indeed enlightened. If this were to be the case, I would say with _absolute_ certainty that: I am not better. I am not worse. We are all one. And? So might a spiritual hack pedaling books, CDs and seminars. I guess that means that just saying or writing the words doesn’t tell us much. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should, and then you may see that we agree more than we disagree? Please note that I didn’t say I disagree with you. I am simply addressing what I took to be the specific topic of the thread. In broader discussions about spirituality we probably would agree on lots of subjects. > [@](#): > > Referring back to my OP: “With all your help, we will dance a dance where neither one of us is leading, but which may create great beauty out of words, thoughts, feelings, and emotions.” > > My intention with all this, as clearly stated here, is that we have a back and forth discussion on the matter, where nobody necessarilly leads. However, since I did start the thread, it is then presumable that I will be tending to it attentively, and posting often, as I have, and love doing. and I thought “the matter” you refer to was whether or not you are enlightened. No harm done if that was not the intention. I’m not trying to throw a wet blanket on the thread. Whomever is enjoying the thread should continue to do so. It is a broad subject. > [@](#): > > Well, perhaps now you see that your general commentary would be more than welcome, in that it may be part of this dance of expression I make reference to in my OP. So dance away, my friend. 🙂 Maybe some other time when the topic is more specific. ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/125 "2008-05-29T01:44:06Z")
**cosmosdan** > [@](#): > > Maybe some other time when the topic is more specific. Ok, so let’s get down to business then. Here is a specific question of mine which I addressed to you earlier (regarding exactly the OP title), which you overlooked in your subsequent responses, and in trying to keep this thread on topic as you have requested of me, I will ask it again, free for you to respond if you choose to. > [@](#): > > But, in my comment above in regards to Lau Tzu’s quote, I feel I made an adequate [and concise] commentary on the topic. Do you agree with the commentary I am referring to, and my modification of the quote which fits my philosophy? Refer to post 105, if you forget what commentary I am referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/126 "2008-05-29T01:53:34Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **Liberal** I understand the latter part of your statement, that a false statement actually implies a true statement, in the true statement that something is false. But your math involving K is lost upon me. Perhaps you would like to re-state this in terms of English, because math, admittedly, is not my forte. [/QUOTE] It’s just stating that if it’s possible that I don’t know, then it’s not necessarily the case that I don’t not know, or it’s not necessarily the case that I don’t know. The question is whether those are the same even though they’re opposite. Just like there being a false statement implies that there is necessarily a true statement (that the false statement is false.) ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/127 "2008-05-29T02:05:26Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] It’s just stating that if it’s possible that I don’t know, then it’s not necessarily the case that I don’t not know, or it’s not necessarily the case that I don’t know. The question is whether those are the same even though they’re opposite. Just like there being a false statement implies that there is necessarily a true statement (that the false statement is false.) [/QUOTE] :smack: Why didn’t I think of that!! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/128 "2008-05-29T02:27:58Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **cosmosdan** Ok, so let’s get down to business then. Here is a specific question of mine which I addressed to you earlier (regarding exactly the OP title), which you overlooked in your subsequent responses, and in trying to keep this thread on topic as you have requested of me, I will ask it again, free for you to respond if you choose to. Refer to post 105, if you forget what commentary I am referring to. [/QUOTE] I addressed something very similar in post 118 but in regard to 105 > [@](#): > > He who knows does not need to say, Makes sense to me. I’ve heard actions speak louder than words too. > [@](#): > > He who says does not need to know. Doesn’t make any sense to me. ---
**Author:** ![devilsknew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4da419/32.png) [@devilsknew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/devilsknew)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/129 "2008-05-29T03:20:33Z")
Haven’t read any of this thread… too many words here for enlightenment. There are no arguements for enlightenment. It doesn’t really matter, focusing on a particular state of being is its loss. Realizing a"you" in enlightenment is missing the point. ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/130 "2008-05-29T09:28:42Z")
**cosmosdan** The commentary I was referring to: > [@](#): > > However, if we are to believe this, then that would imply that all of our great teachers (who said quite a bit) did not know. Meanwhile, who knows how many teachers sat in silence, keeping their enlightenment secret to themselves? > > Personally, I read it as simply a warning against false prophets whose ego is their pulpit. To shut down all discussion of theological and spiritual matters because to discuss them would be dooming ourselves to “not knowing”, I feel is a misconstruing of the heart of the message at hand here. Quite the contrary, I see no topic of discussion as being more consistently relevant and relatable than that of the nature of life and the mind/body/soul connection. Further, it would be oppressive toward the heart’s disposition to ignore its regular beat for attention. With this closely in mind, allow me to be more specific as to what I am asking you. For argument’s sake, suppose someone is enlightened. In your opinion, can they discuss their newfound spiritual development with others, in order to mutually deepen a conceptual understanding of the enlightened state of being, or does engaging in such a conversation inherently imply a NEED to have recognition and validation from others, and thus, the supposed enlightened one is not in fact enlightened? And if such an exchange of conceptual ideas is possible, assuming now that this taking place does not necessarilly refute enlightenment, how would they best go about sharing their spiritual awakening, without falling into the linguistic pitfalls of the ego? I look forward to your response. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/131 "2008-05-29T11:00:06Z")
What about mine? Why do you make me beg? ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/132 "2008-05-29T11:23:33Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] What about mine? Why do you make me beg? [/QUOTE] 😃 oh stop you rascal!! ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/133 "2008-05-29T12:58:24Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **cosmosdan** The commentary I was referring to: With this closely in mind, allow me to be more specific as to what I am asking you. For argument’s sake, suppose someone is enlightened. In your opinion, can they discuss their newfound spiritual development with others, in order to mutually deepen a conceptual understanding of the enlightened state of being, or does engaging in such a conversation inherently imply a NEED to have recognition and validation from others, and thus, the supposed enlightened one is not in fact enlightened? And if such an exchange of conceptual ideas is possible, assuming now that this taking place does not necessarilly refute enlightenment, how would they best go about sharing their spiritual awakening, without falling into the linguistic pitfalls of the ego? I look forward to your response. [/QUOTE] I can give you my thoughts on the subject for what they’re worth. There is no rule or definitive guide about this. The Lao Tzu quote is merely food for thought. Great teachers spoke in order to teach. That doesn’t mean they didn’t really know. I’d note that Jesus taught spiritual principles through simple metaphors that the average person could relate to and mentioned to his apostles before his crucifixion that there was much more to learn that they weren’t ready for. It’s a process more than a point we arrive at. With that in mind I’d say that one of the gifts of spiritual growth is a deeper more realistic sense of who we’re relating to. A discernment of spirit. That will temper what is said to different people. I’m sure different people have different ideas about what enlightenment means. In my mind I’m thinking of a pretty high ideal of spiritual insight and understanding combined with consistent actions that reflect, compassion, love for the life around us, humility, and the courage of their convictions. IMO very few people have been at that level. Perhaps my standards are to high. Perhaps we achieve enlightenment when we have made enough effort and grown enough to be irrevocably on the path. We may still have our moments of human failings but the spiritual quest is consistently stronger than those qualities. That would mean as we continue on the path there are degrees of enlightenment. I really don’t know. I’ve been a member here for some time and the many spiritual topic threads I’ve participated in have helped me to understand and refine my own belief system. By having others question and challenge my beliefs intelligently I’ve had to examine them. It’s a great board for that and I understand your enthusiasm. Wanting to engage in those type of discussions may be a reflection of ego, {look how much I know} or it may be just the desire to learn more. Likely a bit of both. It’s helped me to realize more than ever that high minded discussions and the exchange of profound phrases doesn’t mean much and the true revelation of who we are is reflected in our interaction with others. That is the best way, the only true way, IMO, to share whatever enlightenment we have achieved. It occurs to me that just an attachment to the term reflects some ego. whenever I think, “Gee I’m really a spiritual guy” or I realize I want others to think of me in that way, I am made aware of the work I have yet to do. Maybe we are enlightened when we lose all concern about those type of labels. So, in case it got lost in the rambling, No I don’t think \*talking \*about enlightenment necessarily means you’re not or that the motive must be ego. Too much concern about the label itself may indicate that. Discussions are indeed one way to share an awakening. More than that they provide an opportunity to learn and find the areas where we still need work. Discussions pale in comparison to the actual deeds of our day to day life and the tests and challenges that presents. ---
**Author:** ![Mellivora\_capensis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mellivora\_capensis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mellivora_capensis)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/134 "2008-05-29T14:46:41Z")
Just wanted to say that was a profound story in post #113, **RoOsh**. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/135 "2008-05-29T15:03:19Z")
[QUOTE=mswas] I take enlightenment literally. Are you still made of protons and electrons? Yes, no not enlightened. Call me when you’re made of Photons. 😉 [/QUOTE] For those who may doubt there is such a thing as enlightenment, please listen to this video. > **[My stroke of insight](https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_insight)** > > Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness -- shut down one by one. An astonishing story. ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/136 "2008-05-29T19:05:02Z")
**cosmosdan** I agree completely with your post, most particularly this part which I have quoted here. > [@](#): > > whenever I think, “Gee I’m really a spiritual guy” or I realize I want others to think of me in that way, I am made aware of the work I have yet to do. > Maybe we are enlightened when we lose all concern about those type of labels. It reminds me a bit of two things: Consider walking on water as a metaphor for enlightenment (being in this world, but not of it): So Peter walks on water after Jesus, but the moment his egoic mind tries to wrap itself around this event taking place (ie: "Gee, I’m a really spiritual guy, equal to Christ??!!), he begins to sink. And, of course, Jesus has no way of lifting him back up (even He cannot force enlightenment in another), so he says, “Oh ye of little faith!”, indicating that it is entirely unto you to find your own enlightenment. Thus it seems that if you bring about this faith of self through faith in Jesus, that is sufficient, but not necessary. The key element is faith in self. It also reminds me of Wily E. Coyote for obvious reasons. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/137 "2008-05-29T19:36:06Z")
**lekatt** That link was perfect in its relevance to the discussion. Thank you for sharing that. I remember attending a lecture about practiced Buddhist meditators, who underwent a study whereupon their brain activity was measured against novice meditators, and average controls. The crucial difference was that the Buddhists had extreme right brain activity peaks with very low valleys of left brain activity. Compare that with the novices, who were, to a lesser extent, in the same way, and then compare that to the controls who had it going the opposite way, with high left brain activity, and relatively low right brain activity. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/138 "2008-05-29T19:39:29Z")
[QUOTE=Friedah35] **lekatt** That link was perfect in its relevance to the discussion. Thank you for sharing that. [/QUOTE] Ooooooo-kay… [stepping away quietly] ---
**Author:** ![Merhouse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Merhouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merhouse)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/139 "2008-05-29T20:55:37Z")
[QUOTE=Mellivora capensis] Just wanted to say that was a profound story in post #113, **RoOsh**. [/QUOTE] I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for pointing it out! And FTR, I still dunno whether **Friedah35** is enlightened, but IMO, **RoOsh** sure is 😃 Edited because I can’t spell. ---
**Author:** ![Friedah35](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Friedah35](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Friedah35)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581/140 "2008-05-29T21:27:02Z")
**lekatt** By the way, I am curious as to what you thought regarding my take on the emotional aspects of enlightenment, namely love. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/am-i-enlightened/450581.md?page=8)