Transcending Transcendence - Redux

[stirling]

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.

[Jenn]

I probably have a weird answer, but to me the way to transcend transcendence is to stop fixating on the supposed end goals of spirituality / spiritual practices and instead just follow our own paths filled with the curiosity to seek and find the answer ourselves, without any fixed expectation of what is at the end, or whether there even is an "end". Otherwise how would you ever know what you find is authentic versus the mind giving us what we expect to find? Could chasing transcendence (or enlightenment, release from the cycle of rebirth, etc) ultimately become another trap / side path if one clings too dearly to that goal?

[dwai]

Transcendence and immanence are two aspects of spirituality.
 

As the apparent individual expands beyond their seeming limitedness, they become aware of that which they seek to grow into (True Nature) was always immanent in and through every aspect of existence.  

[Nungali]

Great !

 

Here is my view , modified by my personal philosophy and experience  (and observation of others involved in this path ). Please excuse the 'simplistic expression' - that is deliberate   , trying to be brief and simple .

 

many people enter various practices with the aim or promise of transcending  certain limits .... some 'impossible' .  So why ?

 

Every one has a limit of personal  potentials .  Due to various conditions we 'suffer'  that is often masked or we think , are told or bind ourselves to a limitation .  These practices are to help break through those  imposed limitations. But the cannot move you beyond the limit of your potential .   That is where a great 'miss' or problem can lie - to believe you can and keep trying to go beyond that limit * .

 

So the problem is two fold  ;  not seeing one's potential , or seeing beyond it and trying to achieve it . Of course its different for different people , so some may have great success and some 'limited' success , but its still an advancement for that person . The other issue is using the wrong method for the  particular person or situation .

 

* One of my first lot of  posts here highlighted that ... in a joking way .   I posted that I was determined to learn to fly by flapping my arms , and I postulated that if I could get enough moment , it would be possible ; by jumping off a cliff , zooming down to build up speed and then commence flapping .  

 

I received all sorts of advice     , including from Marblehead  " Good luck with that son ."   and someone ,  Well,  with that method you will find success ... at least for a while ,  when you are 'flying down ' .

[stirling]

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:

 

Quote

There are two types of nirvana: sopadhishesa-nirvana literally "nirvana with a remainder", attained and maintained during life, and parinirvana or anupadhishesa-nirvana, meaning "nirvana without remainder" or final nirvana. In Mahayana these are called "abiding" and "non-abiding nirvana." Nirvana, as the quenching of the burning mind, is the highest aim of the Theravada tradition. In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, in which there is no abiding in nirvana.

 

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. 

[old3bob]

 

Playing on words are we?  The Self is transcendent of the mind otherwise we would be SOL.

 

The historic Buddha said something along the lines of:

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

thus also SOL

[Cobie]

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

...  SOL

 

what does SOL mean?

 

 

Edited Monday at 01:23 PM by Cobie

[stirling]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

Playing on words are we?  The Self is transcendent of the mind otherwise we would be SOL.

 

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. 

 

Quote

The historic Buddha said something along the lines of:

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

 

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". 

 

Quote

thus also SOL

 

Not sure what you mean here, Bob. Shit Outta Luck, perhaps? If yes, then how so?

[old3bob]

36 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

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?

 

 

"if yes then how so", the Buddha quote is clear on that is it not?  

[stirling]

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.

 

 

[old3bob]

11 minutes ago, stirling said:

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.

 

 

why twist into a pretzel to accommodate?

[dwai]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

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". 

 

that is what I was referring to as recognizing the immanent after "transcending" 

[old3bob]

the transcendent remains transcendent but has no (attachment) problems with the immanent.  

Edited Monday at 06:29 PM by old3bob

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, old3bob said:

the transcendent remains transcendent but has no (attachment) problems with the immanent.  

They are the same  

[old3bob]

48 minutes ago, dwai said:

They are the same  

 

not really although connected...

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, stirling said:

 

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.

 

 

Maybe you can clear this one up for me   , I thought it was definition but I see both types of "self" above are in inverted commas ; one appears to be 'phantom personal self', the other  is 'separate self' .  

 

Thoughts arise  but  are not believed to be the self  - yet nothing arises that is not self .

 

I suppose somewhere in there the distinction lies in  'phantom personal'   and 'separate '   ?    or what ? 

 

Even if I juggle it  ;   nothing that arises in experience is separate  from self .  But thoughts that arise in experience are separate from self ?  Even if they are  thought to be self , which they are not , because everything is self ?

 

I think i confused myself with my thoughts   .       

[Nintendao]

ordinary transcendence: the ability to break free from the matrix.

 

transcended transcendence: the decision to go back in and help others out.

[old3bob]

such is no stranger to us...

 

 

[dwai]

20 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

not really although connected...

Interesting. How are they different, in your opinion?  

[old3bob]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Interesting. How are they different, in your opinion?  

 

all springs from the Self (Chandogya Upanishad) but the Self is not bound by them...

[dwai]

Just now, old3bob said:

 

all springs from the Self (Chandogya Upanishad) but the Self is not bound by them...

How does anything bind the Immanent? 

The ishavasya Upanishad states - "Ishavasyam Idam Sarvam" - That permeates the whole world (Isha/God/Self) - that is Immanence. 

[forestofclarity]

I'm not sure what people mean by transcendence. It could mean, variously, renunciation, the atman, God, a deep state of samadhi/absorption, manolaya, manonasa, etc. 

 

 

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Maybe you can clear this one up for me   , I thought it was definition but I see both types of "self" above are in inverted commas ; one appears to be 'phantom personal self', the other  is 'separate self' .  

 

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. 

 

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

Thoughts arise  but  are not believed to be the self  - yet nothing arises that is not self .

 

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". 

 

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I suppose somewhere in there the distinction lies in  'phantom personal'   and 'separate '   ?    or what ? 

 

Even if I juggle it  ;   nothing that arises in experience is separate  from self .  But thoughts that arise in experience are separate from self ?  Even if they are  thought to be self , which they are not , because everything is 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. 

 

17 minutes ago, Nungali said:

I think i confused myself with my thoughts   .       

 

Yes, that's the human condition, alright!

[liminal_luke]

If only Daniel were here to make all this clear.  

[Nungali]

48 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

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.

 

Ah ... right , I missed the  S   s  distinction . 

 

....   wait ,  you didnt make that distinction before , all small  s in self .    So all of that post was about small  s  self .

 

And now , you use it and make the distinction .  OK

 

 

The quotes are to hopefully indicate that these terms are inadequate and, in my opinion, not real themselves. They are approximations in language. 

 

OK....   ( tentatively     ) 

 

 

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. 

 

Yes.

 

The "Self" is the appearance and disappearance of all phenomena as it happens in this moment.

 

OK  but I would ask  (rhetorically   ie .   when being an enlightened master     )    When this state is realized  where is 'Self' ... there is no distinction so any idea or awareness or experience of 'S/self is gone .   I understand what you mean , I hope, by that state  but is 'Self' seems a strange word to use for it . 

 

Space between things, or moments like yesterday, and tomorrow are illusions created by the process of the "self". 

 

Yes

 

(and now the post breaking works again  ) 

 

Quote

 

I imagine you have some experience with meditation? Ever have those periods where the mind is still and there is just being?

 

(now it doesnt work again  again ! )  Anyway, yes, but not just in 'meditation' . 

 

 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.

 

I am still 'urking' at the term , I cant see that as "Self" ... I agree  with you on its limited use here . No doubt its an issue with English, I am sure your tradition has a better term in another language for this .  ... other than just 'Brahma ' ?    I suppose 'the state of Brahama   might satisfy me .

 

 

The moment the thought arises, "Did I pay the electric bill", and the follow on thought,

 

  and that is why I dont have an electricity bill !  And that is why I have devoted nearly all my early life to get into the situation I can  ( a fair bit ) where those things dont occupy me .     Oh, I got plenty of distractions of course !  But  I find  the more of them I have eliminated  , the more I can 'dissolve into Nuit ' .   But soon they will all go away and my dissolution will be complete .   

 

Still , life has its necessities ;     I have even managed to  arrange things so that the distraction of chopping wood and carrying water has been eliminated .   But then I got tied up with having to fix the chainsaw and the water pump    .  But  further beyond this illusion ,  I know , when maintaining the 'state'  (of your 'Self' )    chopping the wood and carrying the water  (or spraying it around with the hose  ) is , as well  'in the continuum ' .    I suppose the further state is to accept the pump and chainsaw into that as well    

 

 

"I'm such an idiot for forgetting again, and the next, "why is this so hard for me... am I mentally defective",

 

Errrr .... ummm  ... yeah ,    I tend to see that in the  'others'  that keep  popping up and disturbing me  and wanting to know the answers to those questions  ... or ,  have their behavior  and words  indicate that but seem to believe something else is going on for them or with me .  And lately , boy has that one been manifesting  .    ( I think there is some intense Pluto stuff going on atm ? )

 

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. 

 

That ?    You mean that Nungali chap that keeps posting on Daobums ?

 

Quote

 

Yes, that's the human condition, alright!

 

I have managed to set myself up so at least my environment is often  conducive   to the opposite .  But will I be invaded again today by  distractions  ?    " Begone warped reflections of myself that are a ripple in the continuum !  " 

 

( Eg .  Last night , XGF from years back  turns up un announced . marvels at my little cabin abode  (she used to live here  , but I done a LOT of work on it since then   and , to boot, just finished a tiresome  4 day clean out , de clutter ,  scrubbed and washed all the woodwork and then oiled it  ( its all local woods , stone glass , old retro local cedar furniture  etc .  ) cleaned all the soft furnishings ,... so she was very impressed   (but, is that  alchohol I can smell on her breath ?  )   sat back in one of  the old retro lounge chairs  and ....

 

projectile vomited  .

 

yes, some people can be a 'distraction' .

 

Anyway , time to go out side now , sun is up , spray some water around with the hose  , and water my  garden and plants / "Self" , feed the fish/"Self"  and  give the possom/"Self" a spoon of honey and a pat .  

 

I will get back to you after I have transcended transcendence  and 'realize'  " I  " am also my XGF   ( and 'her' projectile vomit as well, I suppose ) .

Edited Monday at 08:54 PM by Nungali