Are things that make you feel good bad?

[Inedible]

The thing about the burning building was that dissatisfaction is a mild term. It started with getting the big corner office on the top floor. The view is incredible and everything is perfect. You are literally on top of the world. Then after you have had it for some time, you decide you need new furniture. A fresh coat of paint. Some new carpet. Everything is great again. Now imagine you smell smoke and the door is starting to get hot. It is the only way out, other than the window. Jed said to really stop and feel it. Say you decide to go out the window, but really think about the window. You are a long way up and those windows don't open. They have to be very strong. It isn't going to be easy to smash your way out, so you grab your desk chair and swing it with all your strength. The dissatisfaction you feel for your office at this point is the dissatisfaction you should be feeling for endless rebirth. The focus and determination you need to get out are like swinging that chair to break the window. Until you gain your freedom you literally have nothing better to do, but most people just don't see it that way.

Not questioning spiritual teachers? Not in Jed's book. I recall him telling someone that he should approach spiritual teachers with a question about the results they have gotten. Of all their students, how many are Enlightened? How many are keeping at it and likely to succeed? How many have dropped out? He was expecting to have all those questions thrown right back at him. He said that one or two of his students are becoming Enlightened every year and that the number is going up due to publishing his books. Asking what a teacher teaches and what the results have been is only reasonable. That way you can make an informed choice about becoming a student.

And as to having fun being bad, you see Jed doing things because he enjoys them. That is about all he does. He even washes dishes by hand because he likes doing it. Then he goes to play video games. He argues and talks Enlightenment because it is fun. He jumps out of airplanes and he gathers with people around the campfire. He liked reading "Moby Dick" and it became a core part of his second book. He moved to Mexico and rode a motorbike at top speed (until he got run off the road and crashed at full speed) because it was fun. The helicopter ride where he brought a friend and saw New York City at night sounded amazing. He just wants you to remember that until your work is done, it has to be a priority.

I read several of Jed's books more than once. Especially the main trilogy. And I did it over a few years. I don't know if I will read them again. If I do it will be for fun.

[mabw]

Attachment, aversion and Ignorance lead to suffering, it has nothing to do with the status of things as good or bad. it is normal and healthy to enjoy things, but this is not the same as being attached to them.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I don't know, sometimes I feel very put off when talking to Buddhists. As one friend used to say, sometimes it's like it's a problem to just say, "This is a nice cup of coffee."

[Johnny Dangerous]

Attachment, aversion and Ignorance lead to suffering, it has nothing to do with the status of things as good or bad. it is normal and healthy to enjoy things, but this is not the same as being attached to them.

Would you mind elaborating on this? I don't know, sometimes I feel very put off when talking to Buddhists. As one friend used to say, sometimes it's like it's a problem to just say, "This is a nice cup of coffee."

Do you just talk to Buddhists on the internet? If so, that's probably part of the problem. I've never run into that kind of attitude in meatspace, only in dry internet conversations, which don't always directly translate without in-person experience.

There is no issue with enjoying something, but -take refuge- in our enjoyments, with the underlying belief that we will somehow attain lasting happiness through them is where you run into a problem.

If you think this is not true, just observe the process for yourself, in your mind, and see if it is true or not. Chances are there is something in the future coming up for you that is either really good, or maybe it's the end of something bad. Maybe when you recollect this thing you might reflexively have the thought "ah, it will all be ok when that happens", that is an expression of what Buddhists are talking about, the false idea that conditions can bring lasting happiness, and the fact that this false conception actually creates suffering.

If you observe something else, great, maybe I'm wrong.

BTW, this is how many things in Dharma are supposed to work, we are not supposed to just always take the words of others, but test these things for ourselves. When I first started reading about Buddhism in my teens I felt the same way, this seemed like this really dour, kind of joyless view of things.

Over time I found that it was true in my actual experience, and I realized that it is a diagnosis, not a value judgement. So any emotional overlay on it is actually a thing from our conditioning, it is not part of the diagnosis. It is just a diagnosis or statement of how things are.

As I've gotten older and done a moderate amount of practice, I've found that my legitimate joy has actually increased because I can enjoy things without attachment, at least some of the time.

You can get the gist of this in your own experience, see what it is like to have a certain experience mainly by just directly observing your senses - to make it easy listen to music or something- and relax into the experience without your underlying expectations about what the music should do and your thoughts (it does not take much meditative experience to get this) being in the foreground, just focus on the sense experience.

After this little experiment, listen to the music the "normal" way, with your conceptual mind fully engaged. See which one of these seems "better" to you, and really try to investigate the difference at play in what your mind is doing. Does one feel better somehow? If so, why? The answer should come from experience, not only theory.

Not trying to teach meditation here of course, just put something out there that was helpful to me in understanding this question.

I'll admit it's a somewhat clumsy and imprecise example, but it is one way you can have a direct experience of the grasping that is the default setting of the conceptual mind, and gain a little awareness of the cognitive error that reflects the Buddha's diagnosis.

[Sādhaka]

I’m not sure if there’s any clear-cut answer, but generally being addicted to dopamine hits isn’t good, as you you can deplete your dopamine stores.

Being addicted to attention on social media, getting that dopamine hit every time you see that someone replies to your post (this can even be a hidden motivation to visit forums like this, although at least here it’s for something useful, or one would hope), drinking too much alcohol, viewing pornographic material, junk food, TV/movies, etc.

This is all a big part of why so many people are depressed and stressed out nowadays.

Look up dopamine fasting (as Dharma practitioners, it would basically mean doing nothing but meditating for 24 hours for example, to replenish dopamine stores).

Now how this all squares with calming the winds being part of Dharma praxis; well that would be a big topic to get into....

[mabw]

Thank you for being so patient with your answer.

Do you just talk to Buddhists on the internet? If so, that's probably part of the problem. I've never run into that kind of attitude in meatspace, only in dry internet conversations, which don't always directly translate without in-person experience.

No. I used to go to a vihara and some Mahayana centres infrequently before covid.

There is no issue with enjoying something, but -take refuge- in our enjoyments, with the underlying belief that we will somehow attain lasting happiness through them is where you run into a problem.
...
Maybe when you recollect this thing you might reflexively have the thought "ah, it will all be ok when that happens", that is an expression of what Buddhists are talking about, the false idea that conditions can bring lasting happiness, and the fact that this false conception actually creates suffering.

I don't know if I can attribute this to my exposure to Buddhism, but my thought process runs something like this. I am acquainted with impermanence (through Buddhism, but this seems to be quite a self evident concept. In fact, it is said the Buddha Dharma is unique in terms of the doctrine of anatman, the other 2 characteristics being capable of being realised even by non - Buddhists) and it is something I reflect upon regularly. So I enjoy pleasures, but I know they are not lasting. Sometimes I find it hard to relate to Dharma teachers when they talk of expectation of lasting happiness, since I'm not sure to what extent people actually do that. I feel like eating an ice-cream, I eat it,enjoy it and that's that.

On another level, relationship is another sticky point. I used to deny myself relationships, partly because of what i read in Buddhism. I used to see the futility in it, lovey-dovey feelings don't last. A very human part of me though, longed to be in a relationship. Anyhow, i never had one in my 30 years of existence. After the sudden passing of a family member, I saw the value of family when everybody came together for the funeral. It was beautiful. I have finally decided it is not healthy to constantly subject myself to denial and now intend to pursue a relationship with someone. in the process, I constantly remind myself that the honeymoon period doesn't last. Since I intellectually know this, I know when it happens, it is the shared responsibility and friendship that sustains the connection. I am mentally preparing myself for it. Meanwhile, I just treat each passing phenomena with gratitude. effect is, I am more able to accept circumstances. I got over my relative's death reasonably quickly. when good things happen, I enjoy the moment with gratitude, knowing it doesn't last. when bad things happen, i remind myself it will pass. I don't know how much this is worth, but it is all I can do at the moment

You can get the gist of this in your own experience, see what it is like to have a certain experience mainly by just directly observing your senses - to make it easy listen to music or something- and relax into the experience without your underlying expectations about what the music should do and your thoughts (it does not take much meditative experience to get this) being in the foreground, just focus on the sense experience.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking me to compare an open mind with a judgemental one. Well, over time, as I reflect on the teachings, I find myself less discriminatory and more open. I'm not sure if I'm giving an equivalent example, but with regards to food, I'm not picky. If the food is good, great. If the food is not good, well, okay, but at least I feel full.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Thank you for being so patient with your answer.

Do you just talk to Buddhists on the internet? If so, that's probably part of the problem. I've never run into that kind of attitude in meatspace, only in dry internet conversations, which don't always directly translate without in-person experience.

No. I used to go to a vihara and some Mahayana centres infrequently before covid.

There is no issue with enjoying something, but -take refuge- in our enjoyments, with the underlying belief that we will somehow attain lasting happiness through them is where you run into a problem.
...
Maybe when you recollect this thing you might reflexively have the thought "ah, it will all be ok when that happens", that is an expression of what Buddhists are talking about, the false idea that conditions can bring lasting happiness, and the fact that this false conception actually creates suffering.

I don't know if I can attribute this to my exposure to Buddhism, but my thought process runs something like this. I am acquainted with impermanence (through Buddhism, but this seems to be quite a self evident concept. In fact, it is said the Buddha Dharma is unique in terms of the doctrine of anatman, the other 2 characteristics being capable of being realised even by non - Buddhists) and it is something I reflect upon regularly. So I enjoy pleasures, but I know they are not lasting. Sometimes I find it hard to relate to Dharma teachers when they talk of expectation of lasting happiness, since I'm not sure to what extent people actually do that. I feel like eating an ice-cream, I eat it,enjoy it and that's that.

On another level, relationship is another sticky point. I used to deny myself relationships, partly because of what i read in Buddhism. I used to see the futility in it, lovey-dovey feelings don't last. A very human part of me though, longed to be in a relationship. Anyhow, i never had one in my 30 years of existence. After the sudden passing of a family member, I saw the value of family when everybody came together for the funeral. It was beautiful. I have finally decided it is not healthy to constantly subject myself to denial and now intend to pursue a relationship with someone. in the process, I constantly remind myself that the honeymoon period doesn't last. Since I intellectually know this, I know when it happens, it is the shared responsibility and friendship that sustains the connection. I am mentally preparing myself for it. Meanwhile, I just treat each passing phenomena with gratitude. effect is, I am more able to accept circumstances. I got over my relative's death reasonably quickly. when good things happen, I enjoy the moment with gratitude, knowing it doesn't last. when bad things happen, i remind myself it will pass. I don't know how much this is worth, but it is all I can do at the moment

You can get the gist of this in your own experience, see what it is like to have a certain experience mainly by just directly observing your senses - to make it easy listen to music or something- and relax into the experience without your underlying expectations about what the music should do and your thoughts (it does not take much meditative experience to get this) being in the foreground, just focus on the sense experience.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be asking me to compare an open mind with a judgemental one. Well, over time, as I reflect on the teachings, I find myself less discriminatory and more open. I'm not sure if I'm giving an equivalent example, but with regards to food, I'm not picky. If the food is good, great. If the food is not good, well, okay, but at least I feel full.

It's just an exercise to recognize grasping and false expectations as they happens directly, and also to observe whether in fact something is more or less pleasant when there is less grasping mental activity surrounding it. I believe one of teachers would say that when the grasping mind relaxes we experience sukha as a result, less suffering, and to that extent greater well being. So, it is less about the event (music in this case) having a specific status, as it is letting go (sounds cliche but its accurate), and seeing what happens to the status of the "pleasantness" of an experience when we do.

I find it hard to relate to Dharma teachers when they talk of expectation of lasting happiness, since I'm not sure to what extent people actually do that. I feel like eating an ice-cream, I eat it,enjoy it and that's that.

Why do you find it hard to relate? You seem to have had direct experience of what they are talking about.

I feel like our whole society is built on that premise and that people probably do it constantly. That's from observing others sure, but also from observing my own mind.

That's what the exercise is about partially, to see if you can catch the reflexive expectation that the music, or whatever is going to "do something" for you that somehow will just...make things better. It's subtle but it's a consistent expectation, in my experience. You could say it's the kind of hope we are always taught to move beyond in reference to hope and fear. It's a kind of drive to constantly put false expectations on whatever it is - "ah it'll be ok because x". Living from that place is acutely miserable.

It's not a fully conscious choice I don't think, it's a habitual drive one can gain awareness of and eventually lessen, becoming more aware of it being the start of doing that. It's probably more instructive to see if we can observe it in ourselves before spending much time asking whether other people are doing it.

[mabw]

Why do you find it hard to relate? You seem to have had direct experience of what they are talking about.


That's what the exercise is about partially, to see if you can catch the reflexive expectation that the music, or whatever is going to "do something" for you that somehow will just...make things better. It's subtle but it's a consistent expectation, in my experience. You could say it's the kind of hope we are always taught to move beyond in reference to hope and fear. It's a kind of drive to constantly put false expectations on whatever it is - "ah it'll be ok because x". Living from that place is acutely miserable.

There is no issue with enjoying something, but -take refuge- in our enjoyments, with the underlying belief that we will somehow attain lasting happiness through them is where you run into a problem.

I gather what you are trying to say is hoping for external conditions to make us happy is the problem. Happiness that comes from non- attachment (within) is more stable while that from external conditions is inconstant and hence unsatisfactory. Am I right? I can appreciate this. It's the "lasting" happiness that I'm not sure what some teachers are referring to, since I'm assuming that happiness is fleeting is a pretty given thing.

So anyway, is being more equanimous the key here? If so,

On another level, relationship is another sticky point. I used to deny myself relationships, partly because of what i read in Buddhism. I used to see the futility in it, lovey-dovey feelings don't last. A very human part of me though, longed to be in a relationship. Anyhow, i never had one in my 30 years of existence. After the sudden passing of a family member, I saw the value of family when everybody came together for the funeral. It was beautiful. I have finally decided it is not healthy to constantly subject myself to denial and now intend to pursue a relationship with someone. in the process, I constantly remind myself that the honeymoon period doesn't last. Since I intellectually know this, I know when it happens, it is the shared responsibility and friendship that sustains the connection. I am mentally preparing myself for it. Meanwhile, I just treat each passing phenomena with gratitude. effect is, I am more able to accept circumstances. I got over my relative's death reasonably quickly. when good things happen, I enjoy the moment with gratitude, knowing it doesn't last. when bad things happen, i remind myself it will pass.

Based on this post, am I moving in the right direction or am I not? If I am not, what is it that I need to be doing?

[Johnny Dangerous]

I gather what you are trying to say is hoping for external conditions to make us happy is the problem. Happiness that comes from non- attachment (within) is more stable while that from external conditions is inconstant and hence unsatisfactory. Am I right? I can appreciate this. It's the "lasting" happiness that I'm not sure what some teachers are referring to, since I'm assuming that happiness is fleeting is a pretty given thing.

I think it's like "happiness" in samsara is simply non-attachment, non-fixation, or whatever term because it means less suffering, and less perpetuation of suffering. So this kind of happiness is not a discrete thing, it's the absence of the causes of suffering, like the feeling when you pull out a thorn. Maybe that's too nitpicky, I don't know. It also depends on the particular school and teacher, and the level at which they are talking I imagine..this is what I think of as the "sravakayana" type explanation, if someone was talking from a Zen, Dzogchen, Tantric, Pureland, etc. viewpoint they would explain it differently.

Anyway, for me watching examples of the actual "becoming" process of suffering in my mind was illustrative.

So anyway, is being more equanimous the key here? If so,

That goes along with the non-fixation/non-attachment.

Based on this post, am I moving in the right direction or am I not? If I am not, what is it that I need to be doing?

It seems to me like you have some insight into these things, but of course I am not a teacher and can only speak as a fellow practitioner. To get definitive answers you need to ask someone like that, I don't have the authority or knowledge to act as a guide.

[mabw]

Thanks. Your response has been helpful.

[Inedible]

The person that Jed was based on only participated in the original three books. The rest of the writings were based on him.

I was the only Truth Realized person he knew, so he asked me if I would act as a consultant. I created the name Jed McKenna for the character in his books, a variation on Ken McMordie, the name given me by my adoptive parents some 70+ years ago.

Ken McMordie
Ken Mc -------
---- Mc Ken --
Jed McKenna

Over a series of interviews, the Editor asked me questions about myself and modeled the Jed character on my ideas, my personality (such as it was), and my responses to various hypothetical situations. He would place me in Jed role and inquire, for instance, what I might say if asked a particular question, and then use my answers in the imaginary conversations that took place in the stories.

While I don't know with certainty what the writing process was, my impression is that those first books were written by what might be called a "committee" involving at least two other contributors, and that he later worked with a series of ghost writers. I don’t have any knowledge about whether any of the later writers were Truth Realized, or simply skilled writers on the topic.

In any case, I only consulted on the first trilogy, which I, perhaps not surprisingly, consider superior to the subsequent books. By the time my role in the project was complete, the Jed character was his own person, in some ways remarkably similar to me and in other ways quite divergent. Sure, he was and is just a fictional character, but so are we all. My life, at least, is based on a true story. The Jed McKenna books are works of true fiction: entirely fictional, but no less true - as paradoxical as that sounds.

Also, no more Jed.

Yesterday’s message was not sent by Jed, and this one isn’t either.

Jed asked me to post these messages on his behalf. He is no longer here to do it himself.

As you probably know from Jed’s recent messages, he believed he had COVID-19 a couple weeks ago. Then he believed it was just a cold. Then whatever it actually was morphed into pneumonia.

Breathing became increasingly difficult. He spent several days in a hospital, where his condition seemed to be stabilizing. They confirmed that he did not, in fact, have COVID. The pneumonia was not related to the medications he took when he thought he did have COVID. The cause was unclear.

After some days, his breathing became more compromised until he lost the ability to breathe altogether. Interventions did not help. Eventually, he lost the ability, or the will, or both, to animate the body he had apparently been occupying.

Jed was 74 and in great health. He almost never got sick. He practiced qi gong every day, yoga frequently, and rode his bicycle everywhere. He certainly did not seem to be seeking death.

Jed was not, however, averse to dying. On the contrary, he spoke of it often, with great enthusiasm, over the last few years. At times he seemed almost eager to try it out, so to speak. In a recent piece, he wrote:

“Death is a beautiful secret hidden by a lie.
The best place to hide that secret is under the fear and illusion that it is painful.
Such is not the case.”

He knew that he was not the body, nor the mind or personality that accompanied it.

“It is impossible for ‘You’ to die because ‘You’ were never born.
Granted a body, that we tend to call ‘me, my and mine’, has arisen.
But what appears as ‘your’ body is not you,
and you can manage quite well without the thought that it is ‘you’.”

That body, as he wished it to be, was transmuted into smoke and ash, dispersed into the air of the country he loved, and scattered into the Mekong River to feed the fish and merge back into the ecology of things.

If any of this matters to you.

[MagnetSoulSP]

The thing about the burning building was that dissatisfaction is a mild term. It started with getting the big corner office on the top floor. The view is incredible and everything is perfect. You are literally on top of the world. Then after you have had it for some time, you decide you need new furniture. A fresh coat of paint. Some new carpet. Everything is great again. Now imagine you smell smoke and the door is starting to get hot. It is the only way out, other than the window. Jed said to really stop and feel it. Say you decide to go out the window, but really think about the window. You are a long way up and those windows don't open. They have to be very strong. It isn't going to be easy to smash your way out, so you grab your desk chair and swing it with all your strength. The dissatisfaction you feel for your office at this point is the dissatisfaction you should be feeling for endless rebirth. The focus and determination you need to get out are like swinging that chair to break the window. Until you gain your freedom you literally have nothing better to do, but most people just don't see it that way.

Not questioning spiritual teachers? Not in Jed's book. I recall him telling someone that he should approach spiritual teachers with a question about the results they have gotten. Of all their students, how many are Enlightened? How many are keeping at it and likely to succeed? How many have dropped out? He was expecting to have all those questions thrown right back at him. He said that one or two of his students are becoming Enlightened every year and that the number is going up due to publishing his books. Asking what a teacher teaches and what the results have been is only reasonable. That way you can make an informed choice about becoming a student.

And as to having fun being bad, you see Jed doing things because he enjoys them. That is about all he does. He even washes dishes by hand because he likes doing it. Then he goes to play video games. He argues and talks Enlightenment because it is fun. He jumps out of airplanes and he gathers with people around the campfire. He liked reading "Moby Dick" and it became a core part of his second book. He moved to Mexico and rode a motorbike at top speed (until he got run off the road and crashed at full speed) because it was fun. The helicopter ride where he brought a friend and saw New York City at night sounded amazing. He just wants you to remember that until your work is done, it has to be a priority.

I read several of Jed's books more than once. Especially the main trilogy. And I did it over a few years. I don't know if I will read them again. If I do it will be for fun.

I don't know if he's right that you aren't the body considering evidence in science seems to suggest otherwise. Same with saying that you were never born, you clearly were. If we weren't then there would be no point in him writing to anyone or publishing stuff.

I don't think the burning building is a good analogy either because you will die horribly. Not to mention why is breaking that window freedom and how does he know he won't be reborn? It just seems like a lot of presumptions and poor analogies.

I also doubt that him enjoying stuff is compatible with the words he has said so far, despite what he would have you believe. It's not impossible for people to be disingenuous. He goes on saying that anything helpful to you is bad and so is anything enjoyable, but then according to you goes right around and does the opposite. That's either a hypocrite or a psychopath. Not to mention that being unattached to things means you won't enjoy them as much, doing something for the "fun of it" doesn't really exist. On some level we feel such a thing matter and is important to us. If we hollowed out our "selves" (through whatever means) then you wouldn't really enjoy anything because you wouldn't be attached to anything. There is no personality or person to bond with the thing you're doing.

It just seems like he writes whatever the hell and appears to be wise but when looked at closely is more of a hypocrite. That's just what I feel and the sense I get. It almost reminds me of Eckhart Tolle. Not to mention that his words caused me a lot of suffering and was wrong about a lot of things. The one I still get reminded off is non-attachment, doing that led to anhedonia. I couldn't enjoy anything because I didn't get invested in it, not to mention not having any sort of functioning career that I would have enjoyed because investing in it was attachment which was bad.

I'm starting to wonder if these teachings aren't true and whether they apply more to monks living apart from the world than people in it.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Since you won’t actually read any Buddhist literature or evaluate it, and just rely on your initial impressions to form opinions on this stuff; you viewpoint on things is really neither here nor there.

[Malcolm]

Of all their students, how many are Enlightened? How many are keeping at it and likely to succeed? How many have dropped out? He was expecting to have all those questions thrown right back at him. He said that one or two of his students are becoming Enlightened every year and that the number is going up due to publishing his books.

Basic question: what do you think "enlightenment" is? What does it mean to be "enlightened"?

[Inedible]

Between Jed and Editor, they tell a convincing story. It is easy to follow along and put aside disbelief, like watching a movie. If you go somewhere and it says "Free Enlightenment" on the door that doesn't guarantee that what goes on inside has anything to do with Enlightenment. Jed said so in his books. And just because it says Enlightenment on the cover, that doesn't prove anything about what happens in the pages. My job is to scrub toilets, not defend Jed. I just wish people would read his books more carefully and get a better grip on what he actually wrote instead of reacting too quickly.

[Malcolm]

Between Jed and Editor, they tell a convincing story. It is easy to follow along and put aside disbelief, like watching a movie. If you go somewhere and it says "Free Enlightenment" on the door that doesn't guarantee that what goes on inside has anything to do with Enlightenment. Jed said so in his books. And just because it says Enlightenment on the cover, that doesn't prove anything about what happens in the pages. My job is to scrub toilets, not defend Jed. I just wish people would read his books more carefully and get a better grip on what he actually wrote instead of reacting too quickly.

Bad answer.

[Inedible]

Maybe I didn't understand the question. But the real person that Jed is based on has died at 74 years old. He died young. I just wish we could have had him here to answer for himself.

[Malcolm]

Maybe I didn't understand the question. But the real person that Jed is based on has died at 74 years old. He died young. I just wish we could have had him here to answer for himself.

I didn't ask them. I asked you. I have to assume if you cannot answer, you do not know. And if you don't know, your representation of someone's "enlightenment" is just a vague, ill-defined concept you have.

[Inedible]

Jed didn't really define Enlightenment in his books. He did say you get to Truth when you are finally done seeing through all the false stuff. It feels like you will work at it forever and it may take some time to realize it is over. Then you have to find something else to spend your time on. And the funny thing is he said there is no such thing as an Enlightened person. He just couldn't find a better term for it.

Anyway, Enlightenment is a Christian term. So much gets lost in translation.

[MagnetSoulSP]

Jed didn't really define Enlightenment in his books. He did say you get to Truth when you are finally done seeing through all the false stuff. It feels like you will work at it forever and it may take some time to realize it is over. Then you have to find something else to spend your time on. And the funny thing is he said there is no such thing as an Enlightened person. He just couldn't find a better term for it.

Anyway, Enlightenment is a Christian term. So much gets lost in translation.

That still sounds awfully vague though. How do you tell what is Truth and what is the false stuff?

Since you won’t actually read any Buddhist literature or evaluate it, and just rely on your initial impressions to form opinions on this stuff; you viewpoint on things is really neither here nor there.

I have and already explained that in previous treads that not being attached doesn't lead to enjoyment.

[Inedible]

That still sounds awfully vague though. How do you tell what is Truth and what is the false stuff?

Keep challenging and testing your results over a long period of time. Most of the time questions will just drop away and become meaningless to you. Truth is what is left behind after you destroy everything else. It can't be described directly, although if it could that would really make it easier to teach.