Cleansox

My bad, didn't read the entire sentence. But I managed to to the dishes and wipe my youngest daughter while trying to read and write. 😁

Is that generally agreed upon? Really, you cannot open a book about Kashmir Shaivism without seeing that it claims to be a non-dual tradition. Unfortunately, I cannot find the relevant quote just by leefing through the book, otherwise I would use one that state differently, based on the author's study of Kashmir Shaivism.

If I had seen that the first thread was about that, you wouldn't have seen a post by me in this thread or in the thread that inspired to this.

Which makes discussions frustrating, because (as you write below) the usage of terms differ between teachers, between systems, and then there are translational aspects slapped on that. So, unless one agrees to discuss a topic using defined terms from a specific system, we are likely to refer to different things using the same terms. In western psychology, it is usually the other way around: Two or three different terms are used to describe the same phenomenon. Quite a mess, actually. I would not argue with you about the Advaita perspective. Yet, other hindu traditions seems to have slightly different takes on the subject, including how one might reach the deepest realization. Just like traditions from other cultures.

True. I thought that the discussion was about "still unbounded consciousness", and that "beyond consciousness" referred to that. Now, I don't analyze things with the frame you use, and I would probably use "awareness" instead of "consciousness". And here we probably differ in opinion and experience: In the daoist tradition I have trained in, the experience of still unbounded awareness is just a stage, and than we move on to things that are in the blind spot (what we still are unaware of) which is based on a rather specific body based method. That leads to an integration and an expansion of awareness (beyond still unbounded consciousness) but still not beyond awareness, because, as you said, that is not possible (in my understanding).

Yes, when someone discuss this subject, it tend to strike a chord. Yes, there are not that many here that post regulary, mainly the usual suspects. Which, by all means, include you as well. Lets see. If I bothered to look up the exact quotes from published works on Kashmir Shaivism, you would just state that it is poorly translated material, so why go through the effort? From what I have read, there are groups that have written about the subject after that as well, but since you seems to believe that translations into english suffer terrible, they must have fed me with misunderstanding. Ah, I thought that you were commenting recent posts in another thread, and looking at it through Advaita Vedanta glasses, but hey, if you were only discussing translations from sanskrit, that is another thing. Doesn't know that lingo, wouldn't try to translate from it. I was under the impression that you were commenting some of the content in that thread, but now I see that the similarity between the OP here and content in that other thread that was likely to ruffle your feathers was just an unhappy coincidence, and I will leave you here with this discussion about the finer points about glossing (sanskrit?) terminology, which is somewhat beyond my paygrade.

The use of the word "ludicrous" here is definetly an attempt to establish dominance instead of discussing ideas. That's fine, it is firmly established in the tradition of inter-sect arguments passed down through milennia. More relevant to the latest discussions on the subject is the historical fact that different spiritual groups have had different ideas about consciousness, and different ideas about what constitutes reality. There are also examples where a group with a new development say "we accept the ideas you have, but we add a layer or two on top of your model which incorporates more and therefore more all-encompassing and complete". Probably silly and new agey western misunderstanding, but it has been around for quite a long period of time in various asian countries.

What about the babysteps when one believe that one have understanding, just to find out that it was partial understanding, slightly more expanded than the contacted view one started up with?

Mark Dyczkowski writes about this in the context of Kashmir Shaivism (The doctrine of vibration).

Then, if I understand it correctly, one or both are still in that which is called unreal. Per definition of of the shared experience of people from multiple traditions that reap the benefit of the result of a serious amount of spiritual cultivation, that is, a wording from a very specific point of view.

In the context of a western physiological discussion: Saying that jing is not a substance but a metaphore for a bunch of healthy functions would not require any amount of evidence. Saying that jing is a substance would, on the other hand, require that one can hand over said substance or at least proof that someone has performed some tests on said substance.

With anger, yes and no. Anger is what happens when the mind prepare us to remove obstacles, by mobilizing energy. Having obstacles (being obstructed in life) is unbalancing, unfortunately overusing anger unbalance us in the other direction.

Meaning that few people really believe that life is fair and composed of equal opportunities, including but not limited to the justice system.

That's slamming down an open door...

Didn't say that, now did I? I just did a broad generalization, the fine print would tell the numerous exceptions to the basic idea.

No, that is semitic religion bovine feces. The law punish those that breaks the law, good and evil isn't relevant.

There is no other way to answer that question.

Unless you know something noone else is aware of, "is" doesn't apply. "Was" might be better. The answer would be "five deciliter", on average.

I found this worse, actually.

No, if you sit and she stands, you are one inconsiderate bastard. Enlightened or not.

I know, technically he stated where the action should not come from, as in the sense of self. What is left is no-self. Se also the post by @manitou above.

See the last post from @freeform, it is stated there.

Ehh so you are going down on someone and feel the need to share your experience? There is a special section for that, you know.

What? Accusing Google Translate of a mistake? How dare you? 😁

Awaken wrote, and Google translated: Yes, Taoism and Buddhism are the same after practice In fact, Taoism does not start from qi, but from yin and yang. Starting from qi is a simple way of transporting Taoism. Buddhism omits qi and light. In fact, in the Buddhist scriptures, the sense of qi and light, and even various interior scenes are mentioned. These are the same as Taoism. When we talk about Buddhism and Taoism, we must know what kind of Buddhism Buddhism is referring to. Both Pure Land and Zen are very distorted, so we have to go back to the original scriptures, such as Langka Sutras, Ahan Sutras, so that we can find the same path as Taoism from the classics In the same way, Taoism must also figure out which aspect of Taoism it is, the Taoism under the twisted transfer method? Or is it the Taoist cultivation mentioned in the Enlightenment Chapter? That's two different things When we can understand the Taoist practice of Wuzhen, and we can also understand the Buddha's Akan Sutra, and we can practice to the extent that it says in it, then we will know that what they say is all same content. But for a person who is lost in the Daoist transport method, and a person who is lost in the Zen Buddhism of the Pure Land School, they are completely different paths, and there is almost no common ground. Here, the commentator takes over While there are overlaps, depending on practices and interpretation in any single lineage, I would still disagree with the OP.