Walking the plank a bit further:
In regards to the "irrefutable" nature of the process explicated by crow:
Looking at it, it does seem proper that it is, in a sense, irrefutable: he recognizes the change in himself prior to some moment(s) of understanding, and thus achieves a higher state from which he can look back at and compare his prior attempts at understanding. Now, this obviously is the height of subjectivity; which poses a problem for those of us who want to test everything before not-ever-fully trusting it. We cannot know whether he ever had this enlightenment experience, nor what it contained, nor what was actually realized by him.
However, we hold various characters in history in high regard: Lao-tse, Buddha, Jesus [the philosophic compassion of enlightenment aspect, not the liberalism/Christianity™], along with usually unnamed pagan teachers, though identities of some survive, such as among the Greeks. We know far less about these humans than we do about crow, we don't even know whether these people actually existed; however, their ideas confer value to us and we measure their effects upon us as individuals.
To state that all off this is a misapprehension and derives from a psychological pretense seems erroneous, which is probably why crow dismisses those claims without providing any further evidence or explication, as it isn't necessary and wouldn't convince the people who make them anyway.
If we then accept that there is value to this type of attempt to describe an individual's "process of becoming", we must be confronted that when objectively analyzed, there is a common strand running through all of them. We must then use our judgment to determine whether or not this is represented honestly by crow. If it's a deception, at least it's based upon valuable ideas that are worth coming back through again; if it's an honest endeavor, then it retains that while adding far more value of dignity.
Additionally, there isn't an iron hard "THOU SHALLT" coming from any of the afore-mentioned teachers [their followers, on the other hand...]. They "simply" offer their perspective on a similar process of achieving a differing state. There is a large difference in the individuals' beliefs which are additional to the moment of understanding [science, religion, politics, etc]. These people could probably have quite conflicting discussions about all of these areas, all while not denying the original process which led to their understanding. It seems that crow is irritated not by that, but by the method of conversation which denies the understanding can ever occur.
[Insert copy-crow charge here]