stirling

It is and it isn't, but yes, good point. I'd say it is at the limit of seeing as a "person". The Absolute is seeing as awareness.... being-ness of unity.

We disagree here, which is fine, of course. "Physical and non-physical life forms and beings" are relative constructs. A person can't do ANYTHING to wake up. Enlightenment wakes up to itself... it's own nature. So you are positing a 3rd "location" for special categories of "things". Where would this be exactly? In my experience all of that fits into either the Absolute or the Relative. Anything that isn't manifested is a construction of the mind. That includes last nights dinner. We can posit that those things exist, but until they are experiences the lack even Relative reality. Don't get me started on the "human brain". Some interesting reading on consciousness and the brain: https://tricycle.org/article/six-questions-b-alan-wallace/ I'm not sure what you mean here. Would you mind clarifying?

...oh, absolutely ( ), but expressions of the Absolute are always Relative. It makes for some interesting experiences without a doubt, (in my experience, gods, goddesses, angels, the dead, and much more) but those experiences don't teach us anything new about the Absolute. Yes, anything can manifest at any time, but none of it is in charge of, or supersedes, insight into the Absolute nature of reality. Potentially ANYTHING could arise in the Relative. Is there something beyond the Absolute, though? Once it is a permanent insight it is realized that this would be quite impossible. I'd say that which emanates from the Absolute has more than one trick, certainly. The Absolute is a "no-trick pony".

In terms of what is Buddhist or not Buddhist there are a few things I like to keep in mind: The teachings of the Buddha weren't set down in writing until 500 years after his death, and were captured by disciples generations later. How pure are they to the intent of Gautama Buddha? We will never know. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. Indian Buddhism and tantric Shiavism travelled to China and intermixed with the VERY compatible Dao, Tibetan folk/Vajrayana, and Ch'an practices creating Tibetan Buddhism, Daoism, and Zen. Teachers didn't really keep these separate as "schools" until MUCH later. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. An enlightened teacher will tell you that ALL of these (and let's add Sufi poets, Patanjali, the Upanishads and MUCH MORE) point to the same things, and that their practices works from different aspects to illuminate the students. What matters is that the authors of these works and the teachers that teach them UNDERSTAND what is being said. We do know that they have led many students to realization, and that should be the litmus test on which they are judged. My opinion is that Buddhism isn't about Guatama Buddha, it is about ALL Buddhas, including the ones at your local Tibetan Buddhist center. - Food for thought: Buddhism of any kind, and in fact any set of practices, has nothing to do with enlightenment. Holding this question in your mind might even be what "enlightens" "you".

Not making any guesses about how deep your realization might be... but you might be surprised at how the world is after realilzation. As long as there is the perspective of the human form there is seeing the universe of things. Is there something beyond that? Where/when/who would that be? Samsara is really only a deluded view of Nirvana.

Yes, that is correct. Those are all "Relative" constructs - bridges to the Absolute. This is complete realization of no-self. It isn't the end of anything, however.

My pleasure. _/\_ Duality is a persistent illusion. When you wake up, there it is. When you dream, there it is. When seen from enlightened mind... well, you get the idea. There is no "other" place enlightenment takes you... what is seen in this moment is reality. Enlightenment looks like this moment. Anything that you might think of as having its own, intrinsic (basic or unique characteristic of a person or thing) being-ness or separateness from other imagined things is illusory. Nothing exists separately. All things that appear separate of any kind, including places, times or dates, or beings and objects are ultimately not real in THAT way. Not real as a separate thing, moment, place. This is explained in myriad ways - the Cittamatra (Buddhist) school says it is all "mind", other traditions assert the reality of an outside world, etc. etc., but NONE of them are "correct". For deep reading on this topic I would suggest: Put put it succinctly, Shuryu Suzuki said: "Just THIS is it". I like to say: "There is THIS, happening now."

The context is a sutra where the buddha Avalokitesvara has deep and complete realization of reality and is sharing that realization with the bodhisattva Sariputra. In Mahayana Buddhist terms this expression from the Heart Sutra points to the deeper reality that "emptiness" (or Dao/Unity) is the underlying quality of everything that appears in consciousness, it is in FORM ("things") that this "emptiness" is visible. You never have the unity without the illusory appearance of separate things. This is what is being pointed to. It is true, you can't have one without the other for this reason. Forgetting the theory of it for a moment, this is something anyone can be shown enlightenment or not. Seen from enlightened mind, this is obvious and is seen always and everywhere. "Emptiness" happens outside of space, time, and "self". It is not a quality OF seemingly separate things (form), yet it can only be seen in them since separate things are what there is to see it in. Indeed, it is in fact this emptiness/Dao/Unity that is the one salient characteristic of ALL phenomena that can be perceived, and the only permanent quality. Space time and "self" are delusions. Enlightened mind sees that there is no separate "self", no separate here and there, and no separate time, only now. Anything else is a mental construction. "Self" is a construction of the mind created by deciding that certain phenomena and sensations belong to "me". Space is imagining that there is any other place to be than here, or that there is any space between the imaginary "I" and anything else. Time is always now... the past and future are always thoughts you are having now. All thoughts, artifacts, and beliefs about a past or future always arise now. When the mind is still all of this can be seen. - Emptiness is the ABSOLUTE quality of "things", impermanence is a RELATIVE quality. Both can be seen at the same time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine Ultimately all of these explanations in ANY "non-dual" tradition are just mental constructs which are themselves intended as bridges to understanding. To say that ANY intellectual explanation is actually the absolute "truth" is an error:

This is the "self" realizing that it has dropped out and grasping at its illusory existence. It is not uncommon. Yes... no need to force anything.

Meditation is just being. When the mind is still it is no different from enlightened mind. It has no qualities. There is no "self" when the mind is stilled, so no-one to own those qualities. Many students will get up from a meditation session and say that they feel so good... so relaxed. They will ask themselves why the don't do it more often. Later when you ask them how they feel about it they say it is "difficult" or "a struggle". This is the thinking mind talking. Often a student will say, "I don't enjoy meditation. It is boring." My response is always, "If it is boring, there is an "I" there. Bring your mind back to stillness." Depending on the technique, Vipassana is often a much more effortful and exhausting practice. Shamatha practices are much more about just "being", especially Zen and Dzogchen. We could probably all use more compassion in our approach to life. _/\_

This! Meditation is not taking on complicated intellectual ideas, instructions, actions, etc., it is DROPPING all of that and allowing mind to be what it actually is. Meditation is not a technique or practice, it is the moment that technique and practice fall away and there is stillness. It is actually something that the mind does naturally all the time and takes NO EFFORT. In fact, it is effort that impedes it. Most people will stumble across stillness within a week or so of adopting a simple daily practice like watching the breath, or putting attention on an object. With someone experienced available to point out what stillness is, most will recognize it in that time and then eventually be able to drop the practice and just witness the action of mind for seconds at a time or more. Within a month or so there will be brief periods of resting the mind in stillness. Continuing the practice of resting the mind in its own nature is transformative.

There is being... presence in this moment. Space, time, and a the experience of a separate "self" are understood to be delusion. No center, no "self", no agency, just being... now.

"Zest and ease" arise in the context of the meditation absorptions called the "jhanas". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhyana_in_Buddhism Leigh Brassington is widely considered to be THE chap to consult on the jhanas. https://www.leighb.com/ His book "Right Concentration" is a fantastic manual of instruction and description on the topic. https://www.leighb.com/rc/index.html A free excerpt can be found here: https://www.lionsroar.com/entering-the-jhanas/ Really, these are fairly difficult to work into without a teacher. Ultimately, since, like anything other than realization they are impermanent, they are eventually unsatisfying.

An interesting watch:

You always say that. Practices and systems have their place, yes. I always say THAT. Haha. - There are mystics and monastics. They have an uneasy alliance because their understanding of the "truth" is very different. The mystics have realization, then tell others about their lives and experiences, but many ask that what they say not be written down, knowing that if someone copies their life exactly it is unlikely that such a person will arrive at illumination. Monastics have no realization. They hear the teachings of a mystic and copy it down, codify and solidify it into a rigid set of practices and rules that might still be helpful, but can only point at the deeper reality. They protect this secret knowledge at all costs. Sometimes another mystic in that tradition appears, but often the teachings from that mystic (while utterly compatible from the perspective of any other mystic) are different and sometimes seemingly contradictory to the monastics. Those mystics are often outcasts in the systems they practiced in, though not always.

"Nature of mind" is an allusion to it being what is ultimately underneath all thoughts, concepts, and states... not any kind of super computer. God/Buddha/nature of mind/buddha nature/Dao/emptiness/void, ad nauseum are all just terminology. I'd be happy with "Self" if you prefer it, but even that is hopelessly wide of the mark. I would say that NONE of these words are actually any kind of proper appellation for what is being alluded to. Hui Hai says this for this to mean that the "Self" or whatever you might want to call it makes ALL systems of religion or philosophy fall away when understood. No "system" is accurate, or was ever necessary for illumination.

Absolutely. All appearances that seem to have their own intrinsic separateness are ultimately god/Buddha/nature of mind. The Buddha that matters is the one you can see RIGHT NOW. Anything else is a story - a belief the mind has adopted.

The wind on your body can be the Dao, or it can be Hurricane Katrina... a non-duality, OR a duality, both existing in the same moment. In order to communicate with words we must assume the garb of separate beings, and exchange the symbolic, dualistic, mirage of language. Some would never wish to do that and exist in silence, but here we are instead. You replied to me, with no great hardship, using an exact quote you wanted to reply to. Thank you. I have also quoted you with your actual words. If I am polite I might ask you for some clarity, when I am not sure I understand what you have said. You might reasonably expect me to reply to your actual words too. What I am suggesting my earlier post is that we ALL offer the courtesy of replying with a quote from the person we wish address rather than a personally constructed, paraphrased, or even purposely twisted response. I would also hope that the intention is to assume the best about others, rather than instantly make up our minds about the nature of what has been said by them. _/\_

It would make sense to include accuracy of quotes and attributions in that equation, wouldn't it? Misquoting seems pretty lazy when there is an actual quote tool built into the board, doesn't it? A misquote where the actual quote is literally inches away would garner an "F" in my estimation.

.., again, what do you really want to achieve? There are tried and true paths for this kind of knowledge.

Yes, please.

What I said was: ...but yes, meditation itself, even outside of retreat can be dangerous from a mental health perspective. Meditation in therapeutic dosages WILL dig up your obscurations, emotional/psychological damage and much more. In fact, meditation IS psychedelic. You will see visions, have time distortions, unitive experiences and much more. In small doses it can make you more calm and less reactive, but in doses intended to be transformative it can cause significant cognitive dissonance at the very least. It isn't a bug, it is a feature. Retreats are where the rubber meets the road. As a meditator of over 30 years, with many retreats under my belt I have witnessed many people spontaneously burst into tears next to me as great traumas have arisen and often resolved, have to leave the retreat, or even have realizations. To learn more about the dangers of meditation and retreats some judicious reading here might illuminate: https://www.cheetahhouse.org/ I would appreciate it greatly if you could please stop assuming there is some malicious motive or intent in my posts. If you would like to address your concerns I would be happy to speak to you directly via messaging. _/\_

Not really any more dangerous that going on a meditation retreat or working with the most direct practices. Real, transformative spiritual practice digs up our most protected and ancient pain, attachment, aversion, and leads to a "death" of sorts - it inherently includes risk, and inevitably creates some difficulties for the practitioner. Realization necessarily breaks all of our closely held beliefs about who "we" are what "reality" is, any clinging to what you thought was "true" or "real" has to be let go of.

Aren't entheogens a fairly common cornerstone to shamanic ritual? They were in my experience, but I was admittedly only ever a dabbler. I know a couple of people who have had entheogens as part of their "path" or even the moment of illumination, myself included. While it wasn't part of the moment when understanding dawned for me, it was part of the story. I wouldn't discount it entirely, myself. These substances CAN be quite beneficial in softening or even removing conceptual concretions of the "self" when there are experiences of "unity"/no-self or other/etc. The danger they pose is primarily to those who already have intense grasping to "self" or underdeveloped and weak "self" to begin with, like those with more profound mental health issues such as schizophrenia. Of course, these substances can be unpredictable and have mixed success without some screening and supervision, and aren't really necessary in most cases. Whatever method or lack thereof that works for one person very likely won't work for another. It can happen in countless ways - for some there will be the sound of a pebble on a pot, for others it might happen while in a dentist's waiting room, or while skydiving, or even after ingesting Lysergic acid diethylamide. Most are never going to worry, or need to worry, about abstract conceptual underpinnings as they are entirely dualistic in nature and have no real bearing on the complete realization.

I'll just say that combining entheogens, or medically treatable mental illness with meditation (especially on retreat) is asking for trouble and should be carefully monitored by a mental health professional.