stirling

I don't personally think there is a correct conceptual designation possible for what the "world" is or isn't. It just IS. For a thorough and intellectual discussion of the various schools of Buddhist thought on this topic, I can recommend: "Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness" by Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche

Are you saying that a true guru could walk through the world and just enlighten people?

Daniel will not be darkening our doors. He internet/board stalked me when he took exception to me for reasons unknown, peppering every thread I was posting on with twisted personal history, mischaracterization, out and out fabrication. When I asked the last group of admins for help they volunteered to take action, but I asked them to be lenient, hoping he might be kinder and gentler. I just wanted it to stop. He then got into an insulting and angry altercation with Dwai and was banned for a few weeks. At the time he could have been banned permanently, but we decided against it. Daniel had plenty of opportunities to make a different choice, but his anger or whatever is going on got the best of him. This time was his last chance. Yes, it is unfortunate. I felt he had some interesting perspective to offer, but it was always HIS choice to make. No-one doing admin here is being paid - it isn't a road to fame or fortune. I think of it as a way to give back here for this fantastic resource we are afforded. Doing the job without being personally abused doesn't seem unreasonable does it? Who would do it under such conditions? I wouldn't. I don't either. I've sat with a few Soto Zen teachers who didn't know what they were talking about. No-one can possibly transmit what actually matters. Authority comes from prajna paramita. Daniels problem wasn't with authority, it was with anything do with non-duality... ironic on a Daoist bulletin board, but...

Unsurprisingly I prefer the Buddhist paradigm on this one which is that all appearances in consciousness are empty of separateness (or "empty"), meaning that everything you are used to defining as a separate object, cars, people, XGFs, demons, annoying Buddhists, all lack any true reality of their own, and arise within the wholeness of awareness. To me, "Self" is awkward in that it implies (to me) that there is some kind of ownership, or an "I" that is somehow separate from anything else. When you actually read the texts it is obvious that it doesn't mean to imply this (to me anyway)... I am sure that something is lost in the translation. Right! It is actually happening all the time underneath our thinking mind. I agree with you. Right. In Buddhism the field that all phenomena arise from is actually called the "dharmakaya" (which is actually the emptiness itself). I prefer it as an explanation, but really it is just another conceptual abstraction - not a reality to get all excited about, or hung up on. Yes! Good for you. For a number of years I kicked tires on the idea of going from doing all of the retreats to actually living at a monastery, but over time realized that those people found things to argue about as much as anyone or more... AND that being confronted by what catches you (angers, depresses, makes you anxious, etc.) is what creates progress. The dharmakaya (for lack of a better word) is in fact a mirror of all of your attachment and aversion. The way OUT is THROUGH! It isn't for everyone. Geeze... I thought it was just me. I think having that work consistently would be the single greatest upgrade this board could get. How fortunate. Yeah... He's fun... but keep an eye on him, eh? Hahahahaha! I found that a wife tends to sort all of that sort of nonsense out, but that has its own interesting complications. _/\_

I was replying to Bob, so I was doing him the courtesy of using terminology that he might use or be familiar with. So, the word "Self" with a capital "S" refers to the enlightened and realized unity of all things, or Brahman. When I use "self" I am using it to mean the imagined separate person most people believe they are. The quotes are to hopefully indicate that these terms are inadequate and, in my opinion, not real themselves. They are approximations in language. Right. The circular, generative thought process that most of us get lost in day to day, creating the believed story of our life is "self". It's built out of thoughts about the past and future. The "Self" is the appearance and disappearance of all phenomena as it happens in this moment. Space between things, or moments like yesterday, and tomorrow are illusions created by the process of the "self". I imagine you have some experience with meditation? Ever have those periods where the mind is still and there is just being? You watch dust motes float by, see a bird land in a nearby tree, see the sun transit across the floor. When the mind is still, even for a few seconds, "self" drops out and there is just seeing these appearances in consciousness, without any mental story. This is "Self", though not the whole realization of it. The moment the thought arises, "Did I pay the electric bill", and the follow on thought, "I'm such an idiot for forgetting again, and the next, "why is this so hard for me... am I mentally defective", you are once again lost in "self"... the belief in a character in reality that has personal agency and exists separate from what is experienced. Yes, that's the human condition, alright!

I haven't found the Self to be transcendent of the mind, and I don't think that quote is saying that. He acknowledging that both exist, but that the existence of the "un" parts of the equation prove that there is a way out - therefore, a reason to learn to SEE them. There is no case for transcendence made there in my reading of it.

Oh... not at all, Bob. The thinking mind doesn't GO anywhere, but is reduced to its rightful place in cognition. Thoughts arise, just like all phenomena, but are no longer believed to be the phantom personal "self" we once attributed to them. Nothing that arises in experience is believed to be a separate "self" anymore. Thoughts are heard but not identified with, so no longer result in long, painful, internal dialog or the generation of karma. Bob doesn't exist to make Bob miserable, what was Bob is just as "I" as the wind, or a lake, or an old VW rattling by. ALL phenomena could be seen as "I", looked at from one perspective. What you might call "I" or "Self" is seen to be is the simple awareness that it has always been omnipresent. Without checking to see if you have the quote exactly correct, yes, that is my experience with it. Any good meditator that can rest in stillness could see the "not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded" in this moment. It's always right here, and can be seen alongside the "born, become, made, compounded". Moment to moment the "born, become, made, compounded" arises OUT of the "not-born, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded". Not sure what you mean here, Bob. Shit Outta Luck, perhaps? If yes, then how so?

My experience is that there IS no transcendence. Transcendence of transcendence is realizing that there is nowhere to go - that enlightenment happens within the world we already inhabit. The Gateless Gate is a common Zen metaphor intended to suggest that the barrier to our own illumination is an illusion. It is ALWAYS right in front of us... the way in is simply in becoming still enough to see that is permeates ALL experience. What is seen and understood to be reality is simply seen from another perspective... a broader, more open perspective empty of the limits of separateness. Buddhism describes this entirely NON-Buddhist understanding this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) What is indicated here is that, within the "Nirvana with Remainder" there is awaking to the unity of this life completely in the world as it appears. In one moment there is the landscape of separation, and then there is the illumination and understanding that the all of the previously experienced things and beings of separateness are in fact nothing of the sor.

I've revived the topic I think you mean as a new thread.

I bring this topic back for Mark, who thinks it has more to explore. I agree. So, without further ado: What does it mean to transcend transcendence. Such ideas occur in many cultures, but the idea of going beyond the stated aims of a practice are rarely clarified or explored. Why IS that? What is there on the other side of the river? Answers from ALL traditions, philosophies, and sciences welcome.

Yeah... just love that feature.

Doesn't the "Activity" tab cover this? https://www.thedaobums.com/discover/

This particular thread was probably started in order to deliver his "punchline" knowing that he was likely to get banned. He was right. We don't take the action of banning people lightly, so there was time in there for the admins to have a discussion and for this new thread to appear. Apologies. There won't more threads of this particular ilk.

Not.

Daniel, stop.