old3bob

That was very deep Small Fur :-) Btw I'd say "attaining" can be a tricky idea if it becomes equated to 'get' which is of ego. For if the quintessential or Spirit can be got (in that way) then it can also be lost. (with fear coming into action about getting or losing It.) I like the term synchronizing and its import better...thus to sync with that which can not be gained or lost per a getting or losing by ego.

Only the Self can choose to reveal the Self, for such is not in our control and that is well because Its corruption would be possible if it was... but we can prepare to be chosen as best we can.

my wording was off somewhat but similar in paraphrasing Nagarjuna...(Btw I'm not a Buddhist although I appreciate much of it's teachings and sects, but the Upanishads are the bottom line in teachings for me.) "Nagarjuna’s dialectic revealed the shunya or emptiness of all discursive, worldly thought and its proliferating categories. For the Madhyamikas, whatever can be conceptualized is therefore relative, and whatever is relative is shunya, empty. Since absolute inconceivable truth is also shunya, shunyata or the void is shared by both Samsara and Nirvana. Ultimately, Nirvana truly realized is Samsara properly understood. The fully realized Bodhisattva, the enlightened Buddha who renounces the Dharmakaya vesture to remain at the service of suffering beings, recognizes this radical transcendental equivalence. The Arhant and the Pratyeka Buddha, who look to their own redemption and realization, are elevated beyond any conventional description, but nonetheless do not fully realize or freely embody this highest truth. Thus for the Madhyamikas, the Bodhisattva ideal is the supreme wisdom, showing the unqualified unity of unfettered metaphysics and transcendent ethics, theoria and praxis, at the highest conceivable level." And I'd also quote that "Ultimately" (in Buddhist teachings) and long before Nagarjuna there is Udāna 8.3, which could be seen through the lens of Nagarjuna's saying above... "There is, Oh Monks, a not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be no escape from this here that is born, become, made and compounded.” — Buddha

if one could catch the wind in a bottle it would no longer be the wind...(or never was)

electrifying...;-)

Are you trying to refute the very well known and long proven law of electrical inductive reactance being used as an analogy with it having some parallels in other forms of power and knowledge?

except evolution takes time and space...(which Now is big enough for) ...To be great is to go on, To go on is to be far, To be far is to return..." from Chap 25 of the T.T.C.

we have our own experiences... and btw. there are many forms of Buddhism and Hinduism and unless one has fully traversed such paths then any conclusions about them is only and really just second hand hear-say about how far they go or don't go... so thanks anyway but I'm not buying it.

there is also that saying that goes something like, "samsara properly understood is Nirvana"...thus freedom from attachments in this or any other world, which is not quite the same as not being in it, meaning was the historic Buddha still a Buddha while in human form on this earth? (or anywhere else as He was also depicted in the corners of each realm of and or outside the Tibetan wheel of life) A1wheelrealm-56a0c4133df78cafdaa4d32c.webp

no so in essence although in appearance or scale seemingly so...for at or after the return it all starts over again. (per Tao) btw if an eternal winter of black holes was the end game we would not be here now arguing about it, for that would have happened already...

hope you get more of answer on this than I did back on page 2...

the seasons on earth (which follow universal law) do not end with eternal winter and thus how could the universe...which also "returns"

would seemingly be (stuck) in converse, thus wrong view, wrong speech, wrong conduct, etc...

I'd take the liberty to add: ...and who really is the "He" spoken of above? (with "He" only being used as a convenience of language) For only the Self can really know the Self while working through a being. (a being such as a He, She, It, and or many other names)

There are a volumes and volumes of well recognized Buddhist teachings and scripture, which includes some from very different sects with various interpretations or practices ranging for instance from Zen to Tibetan Buddhism... but there is also a non-sectarian novel that someone who has never read anything on Buddhism might want to read, namely: Quote: "Siddhartha (by Hermann Hesse) is an easy, quick read – you won't want to put it down! Even for those who don't like to read, Siddhartha is not intimidating. The themes the book explores are important and universal, but the language itself is easy to understand. The book is short and the story is mesmerizing – you'll be hooked!Dec 15, 2015" Adder: I brought this up as something one could read as an option to the potentially mind blowing debates about no-self of Buddhism and the Self of Vedanta.

and to quote one line in the Isha upanishad: He who sees all beings in the Self and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from It (the Self).

Indeed, "no-thing"... eastern and common western definitions don't always match up. I suggest to the OP to take a look at some of Alan Watts material which might help to get a further handle on such meanings.

I'd say most and especially powerful forms of knowledge have built in inductive reactance factors for protection, an inductive reactance that will kick ass if or when such knowledge is misused and in that sense incomplete per purpose. (thus it's not wise to bite off more than we can properly chew)

seeing death die is revealing...the tough old nut is cracked. (one might consider checking out the Katha Upanishad)

real identity as Spirit, instead of a composite of mind (not unlike various programs running on a computer)

From The T.T.C. chap. 21 "It lies in the nature of Grand Virtue To follow the Tao and the Tao alone. Now what is the Tao? It is Something elusive and evasive. Evasive and elusive! And yet It contains within Itself a Form. Elusive and evasive! And yet It contains within Itself a Substance. Shadowy and dim! And yet It contains within Itself a Core of Vitality. The Core of Vitality is very real, It contains within Itself an unfailing Sincerity. Throughout the ages Its Name has been preserved In order to recall the Beginning of all things. How do I know the ways of all things at the Beginning? By what is within me."

On a tangent: I'm not sure how we differentiate between, "dumb and dumber"...could it also be subjective?

Thanks Dwai, some music to go with