stirling

Ah... but how many times has it been suggested? One veers into troll territory when they are unable to stop continually hammering someone else in a thread, despite that persons obvious discomfort, or inability to reconcile it in context. At this point you have had as much opportunity as you could possibly require to make your point. It has been heard. It would be kind and respectful to drop it now.

Yes, this was essentially MY first practice too, in the Nyingma/Dzogchen tradition. IMHO, it might be the most direct practice extant. This is an explanation of the JHANA, only. https://www.lionsroar.com/jhanas-taste-of-liberation/ The jhanas are meditative absorptions which have the flavor of enlightened realization. In this case I am referring to the character of the jhana as an analog of enlightened mind, not saying that my daily experience is a "state" which it is not. The primary characteristic in this case is the perception of being in any way a subject in a world of form.

It is in the space between thoughts most are apt to NOTICE and awaken, IMHO, but the experience of enlightened mind itself is, I agree, a continuous samadhi that has the flavor of (is?) 5th jhana, usually. Arisings in consciousness (including emotion and individual thoughts) never stop, but are lessened, and never belong to a "self" or have intrinsic nature, and pass almost immediately like all other phenomena. The Maharshi quote is an example of direct pointing, not necessarily the end of the path.

Thanks for digging that up. Good times. She was a firecracker!

Enlightenment is the end of struggle, which also means the end of "self" and identity. This is how enlightenment looked when one of my teachers, the late Jana Drakka, was alive: Many of the people in the hospice she regularly worked in called her "sir" or "Mr.". It didn't bother her. She was lesbian. If you asked her what her gender was she would say that her body appeared female, but that she HAD no gender identification. When I think of how the struggle of identity ends, she is the primary person I think of and admire, and the reason why I posted anything at all previously.

Just so we are clear, I am NOT recommending detachment as an alternative to transition. Suffering and asceticism are not a fixture of the Buddhist path (speaking more specifically) which is why it is called the "middle way". I am also not advocating for or against transitioning - that choice rightly belongs to the individual. The path to understanding necessarily INCLUDES the struggle with identity in its many guises and I applaud anyone who makes headway on it.

Wow... thanks for that, friend. I have never heard of that text before. What a corker! Deep dharma there. Adding it to my reading list.

Of course, no practice enlightens. Confusing a practice with illumination is problematic, but to practice by resting in awareness, where the mind is empty and still, IS cessation (nirodha), the 3rd Noble Truth. There is no difference between the mind where it is still and enlightened mind, even though there is no realization of it. It is only re-identification with the contrived thoughts of the mind and becoming a subject again that cessation is lost. Therefore, in Maharshi's case, he presents the very essence of practice in many traditions. As Dogen would say: .

Honestly, I’m not sure what you mean by “essence“ or “function“ in this case. Could you elaborate? 🙏

I see I have been unskillful with my language here. What I am saying is: Identity for everyone I have known, including myself, is not a fixed position. If we carry around an identification that doesn't make us happy, why wouldn't we drop that identification or even choose a new one that better represents how we feel we are in the world? Maddie has gone from soldier to acupuncturist. That in itself would be a major change in identification. The other part of my post was in reference to what you were saying in YOUR post. I support what Maddie has chosen (and have said so privately) and the right of anyone to choose to present in the world as they wish.

Even a blind pig occasionally finds a truffle. I would argue that any dharma (using an all-inclusive definition - see dharma definitions here) is a vehicle to enlightenment. All experiences in life are constantly pointing out the dualities and attachments of our existence. Really, for someone who has realized that every moment is a teaching, and is paying deep attention to experience, no tradition is really necessary, though it might be the "long" way 'round. As a child, long before meeting Eastern religion/philosophy, I had already been made aware that there was a fundamental problem with my ideas about reality. I think this is common amongst those who seek.

The Dao, the "I AM" and Buddhas are genderless. Most of my teachers (and me) would say (or have said) that they also have had substantial, or complete reductions in identification with their bodies or other identity constructs. I can see now that gender, for me anyway, was always shades of grey. Why wouldn't we, living in Samsara, drop the walls of various types of identification to alleviate our suffering? The Samantamukha Sutra has an interesting exposition on the topic of emptiness, including specifically of sex and gender, for those interested:

Broad brush there, friend. We could get into a boring discussion of who says what, but who has the patience for that? Yes it DOES come from nowhere, just like ALL teachings about the nature of reality. Arguing for some kind of exceptionalism for one tradition or another is just nonsense, IMHO. What actually matters here is that the direct pointing can be verified by another teacher who understands it, IMHO. Advaita is just chock full of gems from Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi, etc. that point directly at the important matter at hand, and with great simplicity and clarity. There are some who will resonate with that and get it in this way. A nice example: Mic drop!

I don't have a boat in this race, but appreciate both Maddie's presence here, and believe in the freedom we all have to adopt whatever identity suits us, gender or otherwise. I think Maddie is of great service here, giving us an opportunity to question our concreted ideas in the presence of someone who has been very human and vulnerable with us. I think that what is telling about us as people is our level of kindness. When we feel threatened we get angry or fearful. Self-preservation of our personal identity and adopted beliefs feels at stake. Loving kindness, on the other hand, comes from a feeling of safety and compassion for the suffering of others. I like this board because it seems for the most part kindness wins here. So, when to say something? What to say? When in doubt, I have found this is a guideline useful. I wish I followed it more often.

Got bored and decided it might be interesting to kick the hornet's nest, eh?