forestofclarity

Mod Note: This thread has devolved into quasi-personal attacks. Please decline from this sort of tit-for-tat in the future.

Done

If you think it's aritifical, try to feed yourself on dream food or buy a taco with imagined gold! Distinguishing relative appearances is the wisdom of discernment or discrimination in the traditions I am familiar with. Being unable to distinguish mental illness or relative illusion would be a problem, aka "the two moon problem." Some do, some don't. I try to meet people in their paradigm. Gaudapada is pretty on point with emptiness of conventional phenomenon from a Madhyamaka POV, and so is Shankara. Swami Sarvapriyananda is able to navigate it pretty well, and sees a lot of correlation. Do you follow a tradition, old3bob? It might be easier if you set forth just what you accept as authoritative.

Yes, in Tibetan nomenclature, we would say that things appear conventionally but remain ultimately empty. And yes, the formless realms (arupa loka) is not the same thing emptiness (sunyata). Within the conventional realm, we can also distinguish between valid and invalid perceptions. A hallucination and a mountain and both empty, but once has conventional validity in a way the other doesn't (which is why some distinguish between conventional reality and ultimate emptiness). Of course, some here ascribe to the Pali suttas in particular which tend to posit real atoms of matter and mind, a position rejected by Mahayana. One area of dispute among modern Buddhists is whether gods, devas, etc. are conventionally "real" or merely psychological symbols, or whether the arupa jhanas are actual lokas or merely states of mind.

According to the traditional sources, the formless jhanas are accessing the formless realms.

Interesting comment. All spiritual traditions have developed some sort of intermediary between the instantiated person and the fully divine, whether these are Messiahs, Saints, angels, Sefirot, mantras, etc. there is at some point a defined name and form that bridges the specifically appearing and the formless possibilities. It is also interesting that in many traditions this dimension is often accessed via the imaginal realm, through visualization and dreams.

Welcome!

Welcome!

I have a theory that, as the inner eye opens, one tends to see the truth more broadly. In Tibet, for instance, the political powers often adopted a very narrow view and used to persecute others who did not share it. But the truly compassionate ones tended more towards inclusivity. I see that repeated again and again.

FWIW, I think there is a difference between specifically debating politics and Maddie reporting on her experiences/fears and answering questions (thus the leeway). However, in this case, the posts that were moved were related to immigration, health policy, etc.

Mod Note: Buddhism/Hinduism Discussion Split: Mode

Welcome!

I wonder how one might phenomenologically distinguish between an expanded Buddha, nirguna Brahman, and panentheist God. I think there is something to that. There is a lot of similarity between how things unfolded with mystic Christianity and Buddhism IME-- Christianity even has protectors (i.e. wrathful angels) that appear to look after the teaching. There some different flavors. I mean, experience-reality-cosmos is what it is. But it seems like thought he bottles different, the essence is the same. I've had pointing outs in Buddhism and Vedanta that were nearly identical, FWIW (!). I think this is right, but also not right. I mean, the Traditionalists tend to prune away differences to create a mushy Perennialist model. But on the other hand, there isn't a Jewish mountain, a Vedantic mountain, and a Buddhist mountain.

Should be good to go.

Mod Note: @Lois, sales links, satirical or not, are prohibited.