stirling

Which one? The one you posted and said you liked or the one I posted? They are saying the same thing. They aren't nihilistic - the world of people and things doesn't GO anywhere, it simply has a salient quality that dramatically shifts your understanding that you have never noticed. If anything the world is MORE meaningful, MORE joyful, MORE engaging than ever after you see how it is.

In Mahayana Buddhism there are two ways to discuss such things, from the relative or absolute perspectives: https://www.rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Two_truths I have had completely realized teachers (arhats) who have passed away. They are, in relative terms, dead. As your quote in the post after suggests, it is possible to see that death is also a delusion in this moment. Death is both a constant as we see phenomena appear and disappear (including buddhas), fluxing in this moment, but also a delusion when it is seen that emptiness is omnipresent, still and eternal.. It is ultimately the deeper unchanging emptiness that defines reality, once seen and gnown (gnosis) as experience.

It is obvious to me that it is right there in the Bahiya Sutta, however: ...not that it matters. I personally would take the word of a living Buddha over a dead one any day.

... as well as: All teachings, religions and philosophies, including teachings on emptiness and dependent origination are only rafts intended to get one to the far shore.

Just a note to say that the realization itself precludes the possibility of there being a deeper realization. It is literally seeing that the way you were perceiving reality was always wrong. From a relative perspective, once the perspective has completely flipped (in Buddhism this would be an "arhat") full realization is stable over a lifetime. It is impossible to even see things the way they were previously. I've never heard of anyone historically or living today that has had this simpler, more real perspective shift back. This has been demonstrated over thousands of years. This is naturally something I would urge anyone to explore for themselves.

Definitely form and emptiness exist as a dance together, though the emptiness is the single salient recognizable characteristic of all form, and exists within all expressions of it. The Heart Sutra, in my opinion, is the best document covering this particular question. I think I would like that, yes.

I use the term duality because it is in English, and I feel it is easy to relate to than something like sunyata, which means emptiness. Sunyata begs the question, "empty of what"? A simple answer might be: duality. Another I like to use is "intrinsic existence", but this also requires more thinking. Neither are strictly correct, of course. See my discussion above about subject/object language.

Every time either of us write a sentence we use the convention of language, which requires that we use the structure of subject and object. This necessary convention for language also creates a "duality" or a separateness between us and what we discuss, or who we interact with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_and_object_(philosophy) Buddhism considers the true nature of things to be devoid of a subject/object relationship. The subject/object delusion is actually the cause of our suffering, whether we are talking of the simple duality of "self" (no-self), or sunyata (emptiness). Carefully examined this subject object "dualism" can be intellectually taken apart: ...this is STILL, however only an intellectual understanding. An abstraction or scaffolding - NOT our lived experience. If we are fortunate there is a moment, after some practice, where the intellectual understanding can become an experiential understanding that stands the test of weeks, months, years, and eventually a lifetime, changing everything we understand about reality. This moment is awakening/kensho/stream-entry, and the insight or understanding is sometimes called prajna (wisdom). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajñā_(Buddhism) This initial glimpse makes it so that we can appreciate this "non-dual" nature of reality any time we stop contriving our reality with the mind and our "dualistic" thinking. When the mind drops out, prajna (wisdom) arises and the simple phenomenal experience of arising and passing becomes visible. Eventually, as karma (our story) is exhausted, the effort to prop of the false sense of "self" drops away, and prajna becomes the permanent way of seeing. This is nirvana (with residue). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism)# Nirvana with remainder is the highest attainment possible by a living Buddhist.

Which is all there is. In my experience the "grace" is the bit that actually matters. Waking up could happen while using the toilet or getting a speeding ticket. I think you can probably do better than that! No problem, friend

All delusion means that you no longer mistake duality for reality. Unskillful desire is a motive of self-interest, and is mostly decimated by losing "self" view, though not always entirely. Keep in mind - this is "nirvana with residue". My suggestion would to check out the "Four Stages of Awakening", one of the earliest maps for this in Buddhism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_awakening#Path_and_fruit All of these are entirely possible, but not in a way that makes sense if you believe you are a "self", or separate from the phenomena you observe.

Is it your opinion that there are actually easy to complete instructions to become enlightened? How would you describe the result? Enlightened or not, there is water to carry and wood to chop, yes? Most (all) of the enlightened "people" I know ARE pretty normal. Some are priests, of course, but that doesn't mean they don't drive cars and pay taxes. Many hold down jobs, have families, etc. While certain initial parts of the cycle can be challenging, this mostly due to not really know what happens next in my experience. Usually within a few months or a year, it becomes the normal way of being. That can be true, but I would say that most who are obsessed end up finding a moment where they realize that "they" aren't going to be what precipitates what "they" seek.

I'll bet you have, Maddie. My experience is that there are at least a few in almost any decent sized, open-minded town where there are a variety of spiritual centers. In Buddhism there are two types of nirvana: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) Nirvana with remainder is absolutely possible in this lifetime. Anyone with realization that is still embodied would fit in this category. In Buddhism, complete realization of no-self and shunyata would be the qualifications. I know a number of other teachers where this is the case based on speaking to them about their understanding, including my own root teacher, and several of my previous teachers. There are a few people on this board that meet this qualification. While rare, it is far from impossible.

Yes, absolutely... instead there is just experience the experiencing itself. Love that Advaita stuff.

To have another shake at it: It is easy to get lost in some some idea of how enlightenment is, such as "the dual and non-dual do this and that", or "everything is one thing", "there is the Self and the self, but only one self is real and it is really the Self", etc., but I often think it is more helpful to look at how actual experience presents itself. From my perspective, at its simplest, there is no: time, space, or self. All of these have been seen to be stories we tell ourselves, like the ones above. They are illusory, constructed by our assumptions about what we apprehend, not based on what we really observe is we take apart our experience. I also find the account of enlightened mind from the perspective of modern teacher Daniel Ingram to have great clarity and utility: To attempt to untangle that, he is saying here that phenomena in the sense field simply appear and disappear, where they are, not through our senses, or anywhere else other than where they are seen, and at no other time than now. What we are is simply the sense field - everything happening here. Our thoughts, bodily sensations, emotions, don't belong to us, but emerge in the sense field in this moment and dissipate naturally, with no agency (ability to control) on our part. It all happens causally, each event with other events contextually and inter-related because of their locations in time and space (here and now). To say it/we/they is a god or anything else, or is comprised of parts, or happens over time, or belongs to an "I" is an act of creative imagination, which immediately obscures the truth, as all subject/object language does. Skilled meditators of any persuasion that can rest their minds in stillness can observe this play of phenomena for themselves, which is why even the bible says, "Be still, and know I am God". It isn't hidden, obscured, or the province of some special or secret teaching. It has always been hidden in plain sight, non-denominational, free of rhetoric, rules, complications, time, or effort. Probably still not helpful.

Here is a question one can ask about how enlightenment presents: What shift in how reality is understood and seen moment to moment that lasts months, years, decades, is now and always available to be apprehended any time the phenomenal world is looked at? In answering that question, is what is being described below is entirely clear, familiar, and real to you in this moment? All of these statements are referring to precisely the same thing.

Enlightenment is the realization that what seems like a world of separate things, people, places and moments is really a unity, or wholeness and always has been. Amongst the many implications of this realization are that the separateness of a "self", the existence of a future or past, and the idea that there is any other place but here are all delusions.

? I intentionally use as little Buddhist jargon as possible. The post you are citing is entirely in English, isn't it? No Buddhism in it. I'm using words in English on purpose, and as accurately as I can based on my experience. Oh Bob. Does it really have to be so contentious?

Believe it or not, it is usually fairly easy to tell if someone has decided to believe in it, vs. actually seeing its reality in this moment, especially in an in-person conversation. This is where having a good teacher to point out your delusions is useful. Non-dual insight isn't an intellectual projection, it is an experiential understanding. It is one thing to have it shape your belief system, another entirely to see that the elements of this moment arising and passing are the fabric you once constructed an identity from. It is entirely different from a projection to understand that the once reified constructs of self, separateness of other "objects", space, and time are also constructed in this moment, here, from phenomena, thoughts, feelings arising now.

If it would entertain you we could attempt to talk without using subject/language? There is a certain percentage of the neo-Advaita population that eats that stuff up. I don't think it is particularly helpful. "Enlightenment with remainder" is what we call enlightenment where there is still the experience of personhood, but it is always seen through as a delusion. In this case there is realization that "awareness" or "Self" or Rigpa, or whatever term you prefer is what the phenomenal world is comprised of, but in the presentation and appearance of that world, the previous "self" and the dualistic world are still present. Still, however, it is obvious that those constructs are "empty". This is the meaning behind the famous Heart Sutra phrase: ...form in this case referring to duality and its appearances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_(Buddhism) Anyone who presents as a person and has complete realization is talking about the former. Does the latter even really exist? Who knows. Is it important to even believe in it? I don't think so.

Repeated personal experience builds confidence, and therefore faith that the practice works. This is the basis for any faith in meditative Buddhist, anyway. I can see the non-dual quality of reality in any moment, anywhere. Most people I have trained can learn to do the same with some difficulty, though not necessarily at the level of insight. Once there is insight, there will be a future moment where seeing non-dual reality as it is is permanent. It can be that, OR it can be entirely without anything but Self (or "empty" as my team-mates would have it). This non-dual insight is the view from enlightened mind in any tradition. I think we essentially agree on these points?

Yes. Even someone else's belief that we adopt ends up colored by our personal biases, fears and hopes. This is how something like a book about the life of Jesus can be turned into reasons not to be loving and compassionate. I agree with you here. A good teacher will demonstrate to the student what "bare naked reality" (or "awareness") is, vs. the (m)ind, or (s)elf. Once seen, any meditator with a month or so of good practice will be able to identify which is which and learn to drop their process of obscuring BNR/awareness with some difficulty. Learning to allow being ("nothing") to naturally arise in experience isn't impossible, or even that hard compared to most human endeavors, but having the fortitude to actually learn how, inexplicably, IS. That's fear talking. The thing is, BNR/awareness is ALWAYS here. It isn't something special, it is something entirely commonplace. When your mind is quiet and still, and you stare at a sunset and are speechless, THAT is it! It arises and is rested in ALL the time. As for the "personal mind", it doesn't go anywhere, your relationship to it does. You see it for what it has always been, just another sensory input, not the "self" you thought you were. It eventually has the same importance as any other phenomena happening in the field of experience.

A belief is something we construct when we don't have personal experiential knowledge. I would say that ALL beliefs are a kind of psychosis, being that they never represent bare, naked reality. Even if you and I believe in the same occult, mystical, deist, unity-based, you-name-it belief system what you think it means and what I think it means will be colored by our personal story and biases. Better to hold beliefs lightly, and pay more attention to what can be apprehended directly, in my opinion.

I personally would recommend trying a meditation in the open awareness traditions, such as Mahamudra, Dzogchen, or Zen. In this case the one-pointedness is simply in resting in the nature of mind itself, just as any enlightened master does. The theory in this case is, once the nature of mind is introduced and recognized, the practice is simply the process of inclining the mind toward its own nature as often as possible until there is the "click" of complete insight. This is a nice introduction to a practice in this area, and some theory. https://www.lionsroar.com/how-to-practice-mahamudra-meditation/

The right advice in the ear of a person ready to listen to it is helpful. The same advice in ear of someone who is fearful, deluded or mentally unbalanced is fuel for much greater fear, delusion, and mental unbalance. The discernment of the teacher, in Buddhism, is called "skillful means", or "upaya". From the Lotus Sutra: The most "secret" teachings in Buddhism (and many other traditions) are often VERY simple, but obscured because such direct statements about the true nature of reality can make SOME people angry, frightened, defensive, or even lead to madness, and therefore reserved, at the discretion of the teacher, for those most ready to capitalize on them. They are also often only taught by enlightened teachers because a teacher without complete understanding can misrepresent them, or be unable to help someone caught in a delusion about their true meaning.

I could explain to you why Buddhism is a lot more than just meditation, but I already know that this discussion goes nowhere. I disagree with you, and have made it clear why. I don't think there is any advantage in discussing this further.