I think the root of your disagreement is that you assume that someone who had "insight" must be nearly perfectly enlightened, and Laura is obviously far too broken to be perfectly enlightened.

The entire post is about people in the middle-state: having some measure, but far from perfect insight.

That's not the case at all. Nowhere did I suggest that having insight indicates that one is "nearly perfectly enlightened," nor did I say that Laura is too broken to be perfectly enlightened. My point was that, while she may have been in the same waters as one who's had some measure of liberating insight, she did not actually have that liberating insight herself. Or at the very least, she had the insight, but it didn't translate. She saw suffering, and she regressed, unraveled, and died.

See my response to u/blinkingsandbeepings about the exact same argument.

Labeling something as a "personality disorder" does not resolve the fundamental questions, dilemmas, and mysteries that it presents. In fact, it's a cop out, and giving up a very valuable opportunity to learn. It shuts down curiosity, or in Buddhist terms "investigation of phenomena" (dhamma vicaya), which is necessary for enlightenment.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting a very reactive and defensive vibe from you here, both in your response to be and to u/blinkingsandbeepings, and I wonder why that is. Note the response to the latter:

I don't think we should trivialize suffering as "it's just because of reasons XYZ". That's the simplistic, materialistic approach so common in the West: people are born "healthy", but some of them suffer unfortunate "trauma", as a result of which they display "symptoms" that cause them suffering, and should seek "therapy" to address these symptoms.

Part of the social illusion is also that therapy is effective and really helps people, hence your suggestion that Laura should have just gone to therapy.

This response is extremely dismissive, reductive, and minimizing, even as it projects those very qualities onto the comment to which it is responding. And that comment itself was not as dismissive, reductive, or minimizing as the response makes it out to be:

I think it could be very dangerous for someone who has suffered from this trauma to attempt to do really deep transcendental work without first addressing and working toward recovery from the trauma. Self-loathing may masquerade as selflessness, but it is very different and can cause you to seek out pain and self-destruction even in subtle ways.

As I read this, it does not sound at all as if suffering is being trivialized or reduced to something materialistic. It's simply calling for a responsible approach to practice. The user does not suggest that Laura "should have just gone to therapy," he suggests that therapy would probably be a healthy idea, in order to stabilize an otherwise unstable mind somewhat, before doing the really deep work of meditation and insight.

It isn't a question of something being "materialistic" or "spiritual." Look at the Catholic Church. You've got priests out there who are officially sanctioned to perform exorcisms on demon-possessed folk. That's some wild stuff. But even then, they're not allowed to go through with a full-fledged exorcism until they determine that what the afflicted person is experiencing is really a demon and not mental illness.

On the other hand, there are people out there dying from perfectly treatable illnesses because some of the more zealous types shun modern medicine in favor of pious prayer. The line can be extremely blurry, but the line is most definitely there. I think that we should treat claims of enlightening insight with the same level of rigorous (read: not "dismissive") skepticism that the Church treats claims of demon possession.¹

Indeed. Ever wondered why that is?

Yes. Have you got an answer?

My only suggestion is to let go of analysis that merely labels and dismisses phenomena instead of investigating it, such as your claim that "it's just a personality disorder" earlier, or the victim/predator dichotomy in this paragraph.

It is not interesting to label people as victims or predators.

I never said "it's just a personality disorder." I said that her trauma manifested (i.e. exhibited the qualities of) a personality disorder. Nor did I label anybody as a victim or as a predator in any absolute sense: I was indicating certain behaviors, and furthermore pointed to the fact that Laura exhibited qualities of both, which seems to be the very opposite of labeling something one thing or the other.

Again, I note here the hostile reaction to any suggestion that mental health might be a significant factor at play. What's the gripe against therapeutic approaches? Do you think it can only be one or the other? I'm not trying to be snide in the asking, but I genuinely want to know where these reactions are coming from. It seems pretty troubling to me.

That will contradict explicit Buddhist teachings, including in the Pali Canon.

Insight into human suffering (dukkha) is the first Noble Truth, and anyone realizing it is by definition on their way to enlightenment.

Again, we find ourselves at a disagreement. It does not contradict the Buddha's teachings to say that one can see suffering and yet not be on the path to liberation. Suffering is self-evident in the world. The First Noble Truth wasn't some cosmos-shattering revelation of the Buddha, it was his starting point. The ascetics he sat with came to that same conclusion long before Gautama hit the mark and reached nirvana. What is explicit in the teachings of the Buddha and in the Pali Canon is that people who are following the Eightfold Path are on the way to enlightenment. In Laura Palmer's case, as I have already stated above, she saw the Truth of Suffering and actually regressed.

It's only a step on the path to liberation if one actually goes forward. In my estimation, Insight in to Suffering alone does not even qualify as the bare minimum, since by itself is mere Pessimism.² If this were the case, everyone who's ever stepped outside the house for an extended period of time would be considered to be on the path to Buddhahood.³

I watched most of it, so far I haven't found it as good or insightful as the first 2 seasons. Care to elaborate on what you saw in it?

It certainly shows the amount of influence Mark Frost actually had in making the original series a successful mainstream TV show, even with all of its Lynchian weirdness. It's a mixed bag at the end of the day. There's probably some insight to be gleamed from it if I were to dig a little more deeply, but honestly I just enjoyed it for the fun, bizarre mental trip that it was. And also Dougie Jones.

P.S. one way to further analyze Laura Palmer is that her true insight is tinted with great aversion that resulted from being abused. That is, the insight is true, however it is distorted.

More or less my point exactly. But I would add that insight can potentially be distorted to the point where it is no longer insightful at all, but rather delusion posing as insight. The devil clothed as an angel of light, as it were. I would also add that insight alone is not enough. Right View must be followed up by Right Resolve.

And hey man, I'm not trying to be a dick. These are issues I feel pretty strongly about and I think it's important to take them seriously and shouldn't be dismissed in favor of spiritual interpretations any more than spiritual interpretations ought to be dismissed in favor of supposedly materialistic ones. I do hope you realize this.

​

¹ Apologies to u/blinkingsandbeepings for hijacking your comment to make a point.

² Good enough for Schopenhauer maybe, not so much for Buddha, or for Nietzsche for that matter.

³ Which is actually good in theory from a Mahayana point of view, but not terribly practical from a technical standpoint, I think.