Seems to me you think Enlightenment is something you just catch glimpses of out of the corner of your mind when you are meditating. I assure you I can be fully self-aware standing with my eyes wide open. It is not action or debate that is capable of pulling me from my state. It is attachment.
I just don't believe enlightenment is something that can be directly talked about and the less said about it, the better. It doesn't make sense to me why one would boast or proclaim that they are supremely enlightened, especially in an online forum in which nobody really knows who they are.
There is plenty to be learned from others who disagree with me, but I am not learning truth from them. I have spent a lot of time online probing a lot of people, figuring out the patterns that usually go along with insane groupthink in many worldviews, often finding them repeating among people who disagree vehemently. As far as me being so deluded that I cannot tell if I lost an argument or not, I've had a lot of debates here. Show me where I err.
So you can learn from others, but nothing that you learn from them is true? I'm not interested in picking out flaws in your debates. I'm just curious as to why you are unable to admit that you're not perfect. Do you honestly believe that you are incapable of err? I don't really know you, admittedly, but you must see how it may translate as arrogance through this particular medium.
So, you can't actually demonstrate anything wrong with anything I say, but you want to call me possibly deluded anyway. This is one approach. *shrug*
Someone who's fallen victim to grandiosity cannot see where they may be in err, even if a thousand people logically demonstrated that they were on some occasions. They cannot ever admit when they are wrong. What would convince you that you may be in err?
Others before me like Socrates, Jesus, and Siddhartha Gautama also believed that they had uncovered the absolute questions of reality and, since they taught others, they must have also believed that those answers can be meaningfully conveyed through language. What of them? Were they as deluded as I?
By what manner and criterion do you think you are on the same level as those listed? What have you accomplished of similar feat?
It's not like they're all in the same club anyway. Socrates was a philosopher and questioned the existence of the gods, the Buddha taught the question of gods to be irrelevant to enlightenment, Jesus was a Rabbi and possible mystic very much rooted in his traditional Judaic values... Just pointing out a few differences that should be acknowledged.
They found answers that were meaningfully conveyed within the social and cultural context of their times, and some of it has carried over to the modern era. Also, they probably would have disagreed a great deal with one another. I don't know whether or not any of them were deluded nor to what degree, but I do doubt that they were capable of conveying the absolute nature of reality with words. Language itself is rooted in a relative context. They all had insights to share that were useful to others. It's just that the truth that can be known is not the Final Truth and the word that can be uttered is not the eternal Word IMO.
I apologize for using the word 'deluded' to describe you. I am capable of admitting a wrong because I am not perfect. I'm just completely baffled as to why you would even expect anyone to believe that you are perfectly enlightened when we only know you through your interactions on these forums. It has the appearance of arrogance and it's impossible for us to tell otherwise. What do you hope to achieve by spending time on here? Isn't there some greater good you could be pursuing out in the world with your enlightened insight?