steve

I'm quite certain @stirling already understands this but I think it's worth mentioning that even when fully immersed in the direct experience of "the absolute" there is no "understanding" and no one who "understands." If there is one who understands and something that is understood, that is not "it."

Here’s another although the subject matter is very similar to Heart Essence of the Khandro -

As a comment on the formal structure for listening to and learning from wisdom teachings, I agree. Thanks for clarifying. This part "then it needs to be transformed into realization" is more where I was coming from. There is an important, I would say the most important, piece that is unrelated to and often obstructed by external and internal discussion.

I'm a bit surprised at this... which is kind of fun, otherwise things can get a bit stale here. "Discussion is necessary for realization"... not sure I agree. Some discussion may be useful for some people but not at all necessary, IMO/IME. "But more internal discussion is needed - aka contemplation"... definitely do not agree. Internal discussion is not needed for realization, it is far more likely to be an obstacle IMO/IME. Perhaps I misunderstand your comments or perhaps we simply see it a bit differently.

I find the word nature to be a useful English word when speaking of 自然. For example, it is in the scorpion’s nature to sting, the nature of water is wetness, it is natural to cry when sad. All of these things refer to the self-so and spontaneous aspect of things, no?

I find that in trying to discuss or describe the Absolute, the less I say about it the closer I am to the truth.

I think @stirling and @dwai say it better than Ken...

I don't know much about Ken Wilber or his teachings but this seems to me to be misleading and imprecise. I do understand where this comes from experientially and conceptually but I don't think it's accurate or helpful to make a judgment or definition out of it, if that makes any sense. For me this statement is conceptualizing and comparing "the Absolute" to something 'other,' "the Relative," and is already dualistic. To say both are always present is inaccurate and invalidating from the perspective of not having recognized or realized. To say one supercedes the other is a discrimination and judgement which already limits and defines the undefinable. Comparing "the Absolute" to "the whole" implies some sort of metaphysical unity which is a wrong view. Anyway, I'm not scholarly enough to be good at debate or an expert on the subject and it may be an unpopular perspective but on several levels this type of statement about the Absolute vs the Relative doesn't sit well with me fwiw.

Reminds me of one of the best desserts I’ve ever tasted - Thai fruit salad with chili’s and fish sauce. Amazing! https://www.thaitastetherapy.com/en/healthy-food-2/spicy-fruit-salad/

I found this article interesting - https://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/backbasics.pdf

Speaking of mangoes... My family is teasingly referred to as "the pickle family" at a local Indian restaurant for my love of achar!.

If I had to choose a single favorite - watermelon, partly due to how it reminds me of my grandfather. He used to sprinkle some salt on it which I still do. Sometimes he would cut an opening and fill it with vodka, let it soak in for a few hours.

I love this, each and every one of us is a "fly on the wall in the mind of the Buddha." I find that to be a wonderful metaphor for the dichotomy of samsara and nirvana.

When your prey leads you on a chase into the mud!

Hair dryer, obviously, check out the guy's 'do!

Women have had to endure millennia of male ignorance, misogyny, patriarchy, and abuse in so many cultures around the world. The regions that birthed and embraced Buddhism are no exception. As I've said elsewhere and has been mentioned in this thread, teachings of Gautama were not written down until about five centuries after his death. While it is possible that he preached such garbage as women being incomplete, somehow inferior, and incapable of enlightenment; I personally would attribute such ignorance to the prevailing ignorance and misogyny of the times, the responsibilities and limited opportunities for women, and so forth, rather than to Buddhism per se. That said, it is certainly true that Buddhism as an institution has been agonizingly slow to recognize and acknowledge equality for women in its ranks. While there are stories of female masters dating back millennia in Tibetan Bön and Buddhism, women were not permitted to study for the geshe/geshema degree (esentially the Western equivalent of a PhD in Buddhism) until the 21st century with the first graduating Buddhist geshema class being in 2016 and the first graduating Bön geshema class in 2018. At least things are changing..... finally! There is precedence for enlightened female masters in the Bön tradition dating back many centuries although they certainly are in the minority. There are also many beloved and powerful female deities and khandros holding a central role in Tibetan Bön and Buddhist teachings. One of the four major dzogchen lineages in Bön is called Yetri Thasel. This teaching was passed down by the master Drenpa Namkha (male) but transmits teachings of a female lineage of masters. Here is a wonderful book transmitting the herstories (see what I did there?) and pith instructions of 30 female lineage holders and enlightened masters in the Bön dzogchen tradition: https://ligmincha.org/product/the-heart-essence-of-the-khandro-experiential-instructions-on-bonpo-dzogchen/

I read the whole post and it only got worse... I would recommend looking elsewhere for guidance.

This statement is presumptuous and arrogant garbage, IMO. I haven't read the entire post but if this tiny extract is any indication of the precision and validity of his writings then I doubt I will read much further. It's nice to see that he has grown in his own knowledge and understanding. Good for him that he recognized that what he was doing in the past has not worked or no longer works for him. Good that he is flexible enough to modify his practice. And it is a rookie mistake to imagine that what works for me necessarily works for others and what doesn't work for me, doesn't work for others. We see that all the time on a forum like this but I don't expect it from such a well known and widely quoted "teacher."

Currently what I tend to want is simply to want less, on so many levels. I find that mostly I’m Ok with what I have. This also changes for me depending on circumstances of course. Individual lives are all transient but life itself has an aspect that is continuous, a quality that is unborn and undying, unbounded. Connection with that aspect of life liberates the wanting spontaneously and effortlessly because it is already complete, lacking nothing.

Desire also has negative aspects. If not for desire, would we have so much war, rape, murder, theft, and environmental destruction? As in everything there is the good and bad, balance is needed. Given that this is posted in the Buddhist sub-section, it’s worth mentioning that anything we acquire through desire is conditional and therefore transient. While desire certainly adds spice to life, nothing gained through desire can provide the joy, creativity, and strength we can attain through freedom from desire.

https://stunning.sci-nature.com/2023/03/physicist-wins-ig-noble-prize-for-study.html?fbclid=IwAR3MK0S5T7EQPOsY5LxoCW00B_voB6a1wvFHNtnvJ7NVyBwcLYS_iXX3jXM

Brings to mind words of the dear departed Demello

Welcome Jason! Words are powerful and have consequences - both harmful and healing. Both are a part of this life. I am glad to see you here.