ego-check

Your article on the enlightenment trap seems extremely arrogant, as it appears to come from the perspective that you know better than the subjects you write about.

Just like the monks in Migalandika’s time, Emily believed that she had reached a sort communion with a divine truth. Enlightenment was a destination that she could observe just like a natural law. And her insight meant that she was infallible. Her journey was complete. At that point, what would it matter if she took her own life?

This passage from that article seems to be intended to be read sarcastically, like you are mocking the mindset. Can it not also be read straight truthfully? What she HAD reached a communion with the divine truth? What if she was infallible, and her journey complete? What exactly does it matter if she took her own life?

one thing that we do know is that people who claim to understand ultimate knowledge most often don’t feel that they need to follow the same rules as everyone else.

What exactly is the value in following the "same rules as everyone else"? This is the final line and seems to be some damning accusation, though I don't understand why. Can't everyone follow whatever rules they want, from a spiritual perspective?

Does not seem to improve the world to whom though? What does improve even mean? That seems very dualistic and very un-enlightened.....

we should make the most of the time that we have here.

It sounds like she did make the most of the time she had here. She just didn't have as much time as you think she should have had.

Those questions will have to wait until I've passed on

Seems like quiet a cop out if you are going to live a spiritual life and make a living writing about things of this nature... Plenty of people found these answers in their time here, and I think all of them would disagree with how you've tried to frame this "problem".

Neither of those two points.

My point is rather that enlightenment exists in a place outside of duality, right-wrong, good-bad. Yet you are trying to frame it in a dualistic view in which you write with the assumption that you know whats good and bad, in a mocking tone that reeks of ego. (such as the sarcastic section I quoted)

To your points, I have no idea if she became enlightened or not. I believe she could have grasped enlightenment and still took the same actions, and I disagree with your notion that her actions were somehow wrong or "bad".

I don't think anyone should do anything... I do however think she had no choice in the matter, and that it was neither good nor bad that she jumped off that ledge. It simply is.

I think you dishonor her memory by calling her actions damaging, and writing as if you know better than she did. I think you should instead seek to understand her in an enlightened, non-dualistic way, and only then seek to comment on her memory. It seems as if your article seeks to "take away" her enlightenment, which to me seems like spitting on her grave. I don't know her specific reasoning, but I could certainly understand it...