What do you mean by “externally legible”? “Understandable by someone who has not had the experience” or “provable, despite being a difficullt-to-verify internal mental state”?
[EDIT Actually, nevermind. After reading answers downstream of this comment, it’s clear to me that when I asked about ‘suffering’ I meant something quite different from your conception of suffering. I’m no longer confused about why you would say that non-enlightenment is constant suffering, but I don’t see why it would be worth getting rid of.]
The latter option would be a very tall order. What I meant was that among
Hypothesis 1: You suffered but somehow this information never arrived to verbal thoughts Hypothesis 2: You didn’t suffer, but after T=1 your perception changed and now the same things make you suffer.
Hypothesis 1. strikes me as very implausible a priori, for reasons I mentioned in my answer to Kaj. So, do you have an argument that it is not as unlikely as I think, that would be, indeed, “Understandable by someone who has not had the experience”.
What do you mean by “externally legible”? “Understandable by someone who has not had the experience” or “provable, despite being a difficullt-to-verify internal mental state”?
[EDIT Actually, nevermind. After reading answers downstream of this comment, it’s clear to me that when I asked about ‘suffering’ I meant something quite different from your conception of suffering. I’m no longer confused about why you would say that non-enlightenment is constant suffering, but I don’t see why it would be worth getting rid of.]
The latter option would be a very tall order. What I meant was that among
Hypothesis 1. strikes me as very implausible a priori, for reasons I mentioned in my answer to Kaj. So, do you have an argument that it is not as unlikely as I think, that would be, indeed, “Understandable by someone who has not had the experience”.