[blueprint]

> Since when was enlightenment equal to having perfect phenomenal knowledge?

Yes, one of the abilities of someone who attains Enlightenment is that they become able to perceive things in the world exactly as they are, and can inform them to people exactly.

> You seem to be equating enlightenment with omniscience. Are you not?

Not exactly, but it's like that. I can say that their vision is greatly widened because they see from a much higher level. There are some things they can see which are very distant, and sometimes they can help people who are also very distant, using their power of consciousness. However, I've heard Tathagata say he doesn't use his mind very much, and that he simply sees everything that is inside an object when it is in front of him.

There are many people who claim the ability to see through walls and tell where other people are (mediums). They do that by letting their consciousness contact and receive information latent inside energy that's in the air. They call that wandering energy by terms like spirits, ghosts, dead souls, etc. However, besides the fact that it can be very unreliable and dangerous to do so, a living Buddha never keeps company with the dead, and only informs people of what he saw with his own eyes.

> Please tell us what questions you are asking as a qualifier on whether or not someone is enlightened.

Answered this in a sibling question, let me know if you're left with any unanswered questions

[omarchowdhury]

Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic.

From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment.

Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right.

[blueprint]

> Look. You are not enlightened, so you cannot know what it is to be enlightened. Simple logic.

I've only claimed that Tathagata is a truly Enlightened being and asked you to confirm what happened to him. But your logic is flawed. There are certain axiomatic qualities of Enlightenment, and one of them is realizing things in the actuality. Therefore, what an Enlightened being says about truth and actuality should be verifiable (as well as stated falsifiably). So there are certain non-trivial things that ordinary people can know about the state of and get from the teaching of an Enlightened Being, even if they can't yet see from the same level or have as much virtue.

The people who make claims that Enlightenment is not externally verifiable are usually practitioners of meditation or looking to sell you something.

> From what you just wrote, you seem to think possession of abilities or 'siddhis' means one is enlightened. Buddha stated putting those into reverence is an impediment on the way to enlightenment.

I'm not sure the formal meaning of siddhi, never heard the term, but that's probably not what I'm indicating. The term ability can be applied to a wide range of things. How are you using the term (what abilities are you indicating)?

> Overall, take a look at your position. You are clinging to conventional knowledge. You are speaking of things you claim knowledge of, but never experienced firsthand. You then use your incomplete, second-hand knowledge as a basis for what enlightenment is and how a being is to get there. You are spreading false knowledge and ignorance. Become enlightened beyond any doubt and then come tell people who is wrong and why you are right.

There are two categories we can put things in the world into: those that are visible and those that are invisible. To see the visible, we need to open our eyes and we need to learn about what exists and how it exists. To see something that is invisible, on the other hand, we need a principle. What is taught at universities, however, is just how to make logic, which can easily be fed different words or the wrong assumptions and can output the wrong result. There is no one at universities I've met who satisfactorily understands the principle of how the world is operated, so they cannot perceive things which are outside their own knowledge (that of human beings) or that which is derived from their own knowledge. That is why I sometimes may point out something which falls outside your field of vision. So I would like to point out that the accusations you've brought against me are actually more applicable to your situation.