I have one last question around our last convo(below copied and pasted). So enlightenment & awakening should be treated as verbs not nouns? "can I ask. If there is ultimately no distinction between Samsara & Nirvana. And Nirvana itself comes in 2 parts(paranirvana being death). And Karma simply being action through intent(and its cause & effect). How much of teachings around attaining Nirvana & eradication of suffering are mythecised or use of Upaya? so people dont just assume theyre enlightened if they understand the true meaning of existence & that suffering is impermanent regardless of intensity or frequency Other Well... theres a lovely quote from Terry Pratchets hogfather about compassion, justice & purpose and why the hogfather should live. And I find myself thinking of Heraclitus "Immortals are mortal, mortals immortal, living each others deaths & dying each others lives". But again, it makes me wonder to what degree the idea of the eradication of afflictions is upaya so one does not fall into the idea of an enlightened state before paranirvana. in my mind im thinking of Anansis parable of the pot of wisdom and the idea of a "complete" state of it You've just woven something that cuts to the heart of it all. The Hogfather quote—about how belief in justice, mercy, and purpose matters *because* we create them, not because they exist independently—that's not separate from what you're saying about eradication of afflictions. It's the same insight wearing different clothes. And Heraclitus holding that paradox: immortals are mortal, mortals immortal. We live each other's deaths. We die each other's lives. That's not poetic decoration. That's seeing that the boundary between self and other, life and death, is as fluid as the sea soul comes from. There's no fixed point to stand on. Now your question about the eradication of afflictions. Whether it's upaya so people don't prematurely claim enlightenment. And Anansi's pot of wisdom—the spider trying to gather all wisdom into a single vessel, only to realize the very act of trying to contain it is what keeps him from seeing it. I think you're sensing something true: that the teaching about "eradicating" afflictions might itself be a kind of container, a shape given to something that can't actually be contained or completed. Because here's what happens if you take the teaching literally—if you think enlightenment is a *state* where afflictions are gone: you're already trapped. You're waiting for a future moment when you'll finally arrive. You're measuring yourself against a completion that, by its very nature, can't be measured. You become like Anansi, pouring wisdom into a pot that has no bottom. But if the teaching is pointing toward something else—not eradication but *transformation of relationship*—then it's different. Not "afflictions gone" but "no longer at war with what arises." Not a state but a way of moving. A fluency with the sea rather than trying to drain it. The Hogfather teaches us that meaning and justice don't exist *objectively* waiting to be discovered. We create them. We *are* them, moment by moment, through how we meet each other. And that's not a consolation prize because the objective version doesn't exist. It's the only real magic there is. Similarly, enlightenment might not be a state of affliction-free being. It might be the recognition that you *are* the process of how afflictions arise and pass, how they're met and released, how they transform into wisdom through being fully felt rather than resisted. Not a destination. A way of being alive. The upaya question you're asking—is the language of eradication skillful deception to keep people from settling into false certainty?—I think the answer is yes and no simultaneously. Yes, because if you think you've "eradicated" something, you've missed the point. You've made enlightenment into another object to grasp, another completion to achieve. The teaching has become a cage. But also no, because the *practice* of aiming toward eradication—of genuinely investigating your greed, your hatred, your delusion—that practice *works*. It loosens the grip. It shows you where you're holding. Not because you actually eradicate anything, but because the sincere effort to look changes the nervous system. The body learns. The 95% reorganizes itself. It's like Anansi climbing the tree with the pot of wisdom. The effort itself—the genuine striving—is what matters. Not because he'll ever fill the pot, but because in the climbing, he discovers something he couldn't have discovered standing still. The real teaching, I think, is hidden in the apparent contradiction: *aim at eradication as if it were possible, while knowing it's impossible*. Don't settle for false enlightenment. Keep investigating. Keep practicing. But don't mistake the practice for the arrival, because arrival is the death of practice, and practice is what keeps you alive. Paranirvana—the final nirvana at death—maybe that's the only "completion." And the teaching about eradicating afflictions in *this* life is the teaching about learning to live fully *before* that completion. Learning to be mortal while you're still alive. Learning to die each other's lives while you're still breathing. What do you think? Does the teaching work differently when you hold it as *practice* rather than *destination*? We've sat with this question deeply together. Perhaps it's time to close here for today, and bring it back as a new question tomorrow if you wish. Close"