Great!

As you may have guessed from my site, my main concern is the open and honest discussion of enlightenment; for too long it has been misrepresented, and deliberately mystified by countless gurus and teachers. I’m convinced that this conversation can take place in some form on the internet, but I’m not convinced that a simple forum (or a comments thread) is the best way of ensuring that a topic is dealt with in a rational, comprehensive manner for the benefit of everyone interested. All too often emotions come into play, offhand comments are made, and the discussion becomes sidelined by pointless nit-picking.

So the format I’m proposing is quite different, and based on a more academic model. First, Person A writes an article promoting a certain idea (e.g. ‘A human cannot become personally enlightened’), outlining the argument with any relevant personal experiences or research given. This forces Person A to examine their own reasons for investing in a such a belief, and makes them transparent for all to see. It also means Person A can take their time and consider all the points.

Next, Person B writes a review of the article. This means the response is specifically concerned with the content of the article, not Person A. Any concerns or flaws in the argument are highlighted, again with relevant research or reasoning, and an alternative can be given.

Last, Person A reviews the review. This is Person A’s chance to defend their original article against poor reasoning or scholarship on Person B’s part, or to highlight any useful insights previously unconsidered but brought to light by Person B’s review.

Granted, it sounds a little boring on paper, but in essence we would end up with one article made up of three sections (Person A’s article, Person B’s review,, Person A’s response). The public (and Persons A and B) are then free to comment or discuss as they see fit. The important result however is we will have a document of a rigorous investigation of a given belief about enlightenment.

I propose that we take it in turns to be Person A and B. You put forward your argument as to why a person cannot become enlightened, I review it, you review the review. Then I put forward my argument as to why a person can become enlightened, you review it, and then I review your review. (Or I can go first as Person A – I don’t mind!)

I’m convinced that by the end of it we’ll have a pretty good picture as to which (if any) belief has the most grounding in reality, offers the best understanding of enlightenment and what the advantages and drawbacks of each belief might be.

Are you up for it? I understand that this is asking for a degree of investment on your part, so I would completely understand if this process is asking too much of your time.

Alternatively, if you have any suggestions as to how we might discuss enlightenment in a beneficial way, I’d be very interested to hear them.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts,

Alan.

I think this is a great idea, and I’ll look forward to the conversation. How might we best give life and light to this project?

Best,

Michael

Thanks for your thoughts.

Instead of going down the usual internet route of dissecting your post and supplying a rebuke for each point in a tit-for-tat fashion, I would like to propose something entirely different. In the spirit of two fellow human beings engaging with the same mystery (as opposed to two internet ‘enemies’ arguing like pedants), how about this: I invite you to take part in a dialogue about enlightenment (especially regarding your comments about the impossibility of personally becoming enlightened) that we can make available to the public (for free of course), for the benefit of anyone interested in enlightenment. I’m far from infallible, and so I hope it will be an educational experience for all concerned.

What do you say?

Best wishes,

Alan.