That was my point precisely. There is NO distinction in the transcendent. No distinction means no distinction: No distinguisher and nothing to distinguish. So if that is the goal, how could it be different unless it contained some distinguishing characteristic--which, by definition, it does not and cannot. This is a philosophically precise definition, not just a definition to satisfy the casual reader.
An older commentator, Suzuki, speaks of Buddhist emptiness. I imagine he uses the locution to distinguish the transcendent from the emptiness that Existentialists speak about. But if upon merging with transcendent emptiness, one were to find a sign saying "Buddhist" then it would not be empty. Now, to the extent that any path is distinct from the goal, paths may be as different from one another as can be, but if they lead to the transcendent, then they all have the same goal. If they do not lead to this same goal, then they are not "paths" as defined in (and by) the context of the present discussion. This, again, is a philosophically precise definition. Some paths may be "shorter" or "more efficient" than others, but that is another discussion. --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], Angela > Mailander > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Are we not confusing the path with the goal here? > > There are a gazillion paths. Not all lead > somewhere > > we'd want to go--all true enough. But "One > Reality" > > refers to the transcendent, does it not? > > How could it? > > What is there to *perceive* "reality?" What > is there to be perceived? "Reality" is an > irrelevant term to the Transcendent. > > > If there is > > some content in the transcendent that would serve > to > > distinguish it from some other transcendent, then > it > > ain't the transcendent by virtue of having that > > content. > > You're missing the point. There is no one TO > "distinguish" in transcendence. There is nothing > TO distinguish. There is no perceiver, and there > is no perception. > > The Transcendent, as defined by MMY, is devoid > of characteristics or attributes. How then does > it have anything whatsoever to do with the concept > of "reality?" > > > --- TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > --- In [email protected], Vaj > > > <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 30, 2008, at 4:15 PM, > > > endlessrainintoapapercup wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what difference is there between > > > > > > > paths to enlightenment? There is > > > > > > > One Reality which is known or not > > > > > > > known. This Reality is all that is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well I know some would agree with such an > > > absolute statement. > > > > > > But no, don't believe that there is One > > > reality that is all > > > > > > there is. But absolutists do believe that. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what "absolutists" > > > > > say and believe, but I question > > > > > what is absolute about the statement > > > > > that there is one reality. > > > > > > The very language implies that there is ONLY one > > > reality. This is patently obvious, because, as > > > Maharishi said so often, "Knowledge is > structured > > > in consciousness." Same object of perception, > dif- > > > ferent realities. > > > > > > If a person in waking looks at an object, he > sees > > > one reality. Same person in dreaming or deep > sleep, > > > another. And then you move on to the more > interest- > > > ing views. From the POV of CC, yet another > reality, > > > one structured in duality. From GC, yet another, > > > also dual but with one aspect of the duality > more > > > lively. From UC, still another. > > > > > > I've always had little patience for those who > claim > > > that there is "one reality," or worse, a > "highest > > > reality." They all coexist at all moments; they > all > > > have the same source and the same Being as their > > > essence. > > > > > > Plus, as Vaj says below, if there were only "one > > > reality," then the moment anyone realized UC, > that > > > should be the ONLY reality operating in the > > > universe. > > > Right? > > > > > > > > It is a very > > > > > large and all-inclusive statement. > > > > > It acknowledges everything that > > > > > appears to exist and everything that > > > > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > It's commonly addressed as a false view in > > > Buddhist debate and it's > > > > common to hear such statements with the spread > of > > > Neovedism, > > > > Neoadvaita and other New Age doctrines. > > > > > > > > If everything were one or 'all is one' than > when > > > Buddha Shakyamuni > > > > was enlightened, everyone would have become > > > enlightened. I don't > > > > know about where you live, but where I live, > that > > > ain't happened > > > > yet (relatively speaking). :-) > > > > > > The Newagers in my 'hood say it will happen > > > Any Day Now. :-) > > > > > > > > > > We live in the illusion of many > > > > > > > teachings and many paths, but > > > > > > > when the One Reality is known, > > > > > > > it is found to be everywhere > > > > > > > equally, in all teachings and > > > > > > > paths. > > > > > > But ONLY by the individual who perceives at that > > > level. > > > > > > > > > I never was a fan of perennialism, the > > > so-called philosophia > > > > > > perennis. > > > > > > Just more philosophical BS to me > (sorry)... > > > > > > > > > > Again, I'm not familiar with perennialism > > > > > and the "so-called philosophia perennis" > > > > > which you object to. I'm only speaking from > > > > > my own experience and reflections on > > > > > reality. > > > > > > Oh? Did you find that when you popped into Unity > > > and perceived everything as One that everyone > > > around you did, too? :-) > > > > > > > > Ideas are abstract, but there is > > > > > something Real to be known, and it > > > > > is not limited or obstructed by any of > > > > > our beliefs about it. It expresses through > > > > > all that is. All of this is an expression > > > > > of it. When we try to describe and > > > > > define it, we are the metaphorical > > > > > blind who describe the different parts > > > > > of the elephant. > > > > > > > > All paths are relative. Since all paths are > > > relative, there are > > > > relative difference between them. > > > > > > And, more important, there are important > > > distinctions > > > between them if one is ever to transcend them. > > > > > > > Not all paths lead to Enlightenment / > Buddhahood. > > > Not all paths > > > > lead to the same state of consciousness. > > > > > > > > As John Lennon said: Nothing is real. :-) > > > > > > Or as Unc says, Everything is real. Perceiving > > > that the universe is illusory from one state of > > > consciousness doesn't make it illusory. It's > just > > > perception. And I'd be willing to bet that if > you > > > walked up to a gang of rogue grannies and tried > > > to tell them they don't exist, they'd whup yer > ass. > > > :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > > > Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
