kbone

Again, I understand the logic you are presenting. I guess I'll have to read Huang Po's mind (or at least his daily journals) to get a better understanding of what the fuck is wrong with that guy. You remind me of a friend of mine who used to call Ramana 'diaper guy'. He liked to exhibit the same intensity; always fun to watch him get into feuds!

Yes, less ego, Breaking. Less ego. If that's what Huang Po actually thinks right now, there's be some things to hash out. But he's not here, and you don't seem to understand what he's pointing to. Of course, you're just saying that ... just saying so, does not make it actually realized. I've only agreed with that like, what,,, 4-5 times. You're talking about cognition, conditioning, and getting radically honest to break through barriers. I agree, and that what my looooong tl;dr was about. But.... AGAIN... you don't read into it, apparently. It was long, you're not a native speaker, and so maybe you just didn't read it. The synopsis was basically agreeing with your idea that it takes massive effort, massive self-honesty, and massive willingness to break out of the orbit of one's delusion. It is difficult. I have no doubts, as that what it was for me. Your conclusion about Huang Po is a logical guess based on whatever degree of clarity you 'assume' you have mustered. Just say you don't know, and make an educated guess. Is that so hard for you? Or do you feel the inner unfulfilled need to be better than Huang baby? It's starting to come across like there are some unconscious momma-poppa issues that you juuuuust maybe are not yet open to. They do run deep in the familial conditioning, and that's just part of it. Go swim in that pool a while, and see how far your theoretical modeling takes you in a dead honest, real time discussion with them. Be sure to give them a heads up on the model of thinking you want them to understand beforehand; it's only fair. But yes, living in Japan and Taiwan, you'll see that patriarchal rigidity does come through in the Zen/Ch'an stuff, less so the Taoists. That much was apparent, and I had thought that that was something you might be working towards in your convos with respect to 'existential relationship', cause-effect, phase 1/phase 2, infinity, absolute infinity, infinite absolute openness, and all the rest. But, quite often that's too 'emotionally' challenging and messy for people's mind-made cubic zirconia 'absolute infinite openness'. Best not take chances, eh? Is it still passive aggressive if I am calling it out in advance? Your 'logic' seems to only use one side of your brain.

Uh huh.

🤞🤞🏽🤞🏼

OK, before we proceed any further in any discussion, I have a question, but first a tl;dr background for what gives rise to it. There was a man in human form who was very very dear to me. He was the most reliable, trustworthy figure one can imagine. I was lucky to have him in my life as a core human being. Throughout life, when I was growing up, as I watched television, played in the streets with friends, went to school, played soccer/futbol, basketball, built tree houses with friends, worked on my grandparents farms, met and dated quite a few ladies, and thousands of other eventful things in life, my mind was shaped, molded, conditioned in ways that went beyond this amazing human being's mental structure to fully understand where on earth I was coming from. To be clear and up front, I was a friggin mess by the time puberty took hold, and the unconscious beliefs structure was on full autopilot. That is, I didn't understand where I was coming from either. I took advantage of that kind, thoughtful, and devotional human being as I went in search of more, which led to a downfall, which led to a collapse, which led to a complete realization & 'rebirth' I can barely put into words but for the ancient literature and deeply non-dual speerchal pointers that give it the language and contextual meaning it can. What got up from that utter devastation, rose from the dust whiter than any gown, took account of all the nonsense the 'previous self' had put so many through, and learned to speak my heart and truth. It was a profound shift. a profound dropping of a MASSIVE weight that had slowly been added over the years/decades/millenia (poor Atlas), and I was no longer interested in creating a stone to roll up a hill, only to have it rolled back down again (poor Sisyphus). Life was precious, and the mind games were just too clearly seen. The journey back was via a looooong stint in higher education in which I worked/managed programs in the field of cognition and intercultural communication and with thousands of students, women/men, etc deeply delving into what was learnable/unlearnable, how learning takes place (methodology), and deeply aware of how to keep a deep sense of respect and trust at the forefront so that we could continue to explore those tricky boundaries where theory meets the flow of the river of consciousness into which all apparent individuated streams flow. I took responsibility mistakes, became more aware of where the boundaries pop up and so on and so forth, learning how to navigate perspectives and intercultural dynamics of three continents. To sum up, it was pretty fucking thorough series of tests and consolidation patterns for informing the mind of the depths of non-dual realization. Durgint he whole time, I never once even brought up the topic of non-duality, nor really even read a lot about it... didn't really feel the need to.... just let it emerge and slowly works its magic, free of conceptualizations. Almost effortless, except for the trials and tribulations of existence. Life just kept unfolding, regardless of the mind's protests. Clarity on that was it's own reward, and all of the nonsense I used to invite, nurture, carry, and even defend... just fell away. Peace. During that time, the mind was extraordinarily humbled, to be sure, in awe really. It was somewhere in the midst of all that, that my father and I got into a massive argument (which were quite rare). But, at the time, I was making a stand as a man, an individuation with a pretty honestly structured reality that just made perfect sense to me and with respect to how the world might benefit from it. But the problem was that it was at odds with his (at least at the time). I had never really stood my ground, so it was something quite novel, and was indicative of a destruction of our previous alignment as simply father and son. He struggled deeply with it, but I held my ground.... peacefully, aware that it was just two structures of thought rubbing up against each other, but juuuuust porous enough to potentially learn from each other. I pointed that out, and expressed my deepest love, respect, and admiration for him.... pure gratitude for his being. I could tell no one had ever done that with him, especially after such an argument. Our relationship was forever changed, deeper, more respectful,... even though agitated at times. But, he knew I wasn't just a lost, mindless, and disrespectful son... I was at home with who and what I had 'become'. Two or three years later, I was participating on an online forum mostly dedicated to non-duality where ideas that are in the orbit around it are fully fleshed out. There was a guy there that was often so clear about his structured take on things, and were often at odds with any of the basics of a Non-duality 101 course. No biggie, it's often a struggle for minds to come to terms, and it's often a deeply misunderstood realization (which makes perfect sense.... minds are fickle AF). During one of the exchanges, someone brought up the term "Asperberger" which I was only vaguely knowledgeable of, so due to my natural curiosity, I decided to take a deeper look. It hit me pretty hard as I learned more and more about it, it hit me hard that it defined my Dad's life trajectory almost to a T. And he knew nothing about it (he was a hard core engineer, deeply involved in mind-splitting maths and specialized in radio frequency structures....like a friggin genius "Beautiful Mind" type of thing. Don't get me started. It shed light on the 3-4-5 major arguments we'd ever had that seemed (to me at the times) to just pop up out of nowhere. Even more, it shed light on what it must have been like for my mother, who was one of the most devoted, supportive, and loving people in the world.... truly. But the problem was, they rarely if ever saw things in the same way, never could just have a heart-to-heart, and often the conversations ended intense micro-burst arguments, followed by quiet, highly enriched periods of silence... detente's of sorts. That idea of relationship was deeply ingrained in my psyche in various ways, and it was altogether a blessing to have even that, consciously exposed and brought up for conscious examination, to be allowed to just fall away. Sure, it shed light on the constant interface and relation with life, and even to the most intimate day-to-day interpersonal relationship with my best friend. It has enriched and enabled me to have an extraordinarily deep, conscious, and loving relationship with my wife for 25+ (and counting). Out of 4 brothers, I am the only one who is still married, and happily so, but not because I am special. It's because of that special realization and the subsequent and continued falling away of so much the structured nonsense that bubbles up from deep within the psyche, regardless of what theory (ND, psychology, philosophy, or otherwise) says: I know what I don't know, and I know how the mind, with all its conditioned baggage (personal, familial, cultural, shared, human) can get in the way, can sabotage what is a gift, can obscure what's self-evidently clear, and can give rise to contraction from/as the glorious unfolding of Infinity.... just as it is. I have agreed with you on so many points because I think you are openly, honestly, and courageously exploring things of this nature (it's rare), trying to put forth a positive all-inclusive approach... perhaps 'after' SEEING somenothing that has compelled you to express its profundity. I've been pleasantly curious. But then, here, you isolate such an 'existentially speaking' innocuous line out of so much other detailed agreement, and seemingly take it personally. Then you continue on in the same vein of 'logic' as before, and that seemingly wants to portray objectivity and/or an impersonal tone in your ongoing description of "limitless absolute infinity" (and all the rest). All the while, evidently, you seem dead sure to rights what unknown people, some dead for thousands of years. were 'open to' or not. I simply don't know and, while there might be some interest in the discussion (so I point out where it may/may not diverge from Truth seeking), it doesn't really matter... what matters is if the mind is open to and truly understands what the Realization is telling it as 'real' life continues to unfold in 'realtime'. So, my question is, do you have Aspergers?

@Breakingthewall The Void is just an expression, but it is not meant to be the end all be all of living, nor is it enlightenment. I tend to not think Huang baby thinks so either. Ch'an was radical in its approach, but more practical in its endgame. The Void is a realizable and radical shift, but not much can be said about its depths. And yes, at least in my recollection, it is a monster collapse of everything once thought to be 'real'. 'NOTHING' was the first word that arose in the mind, after the dust had settled, and the discussion with/as the Infinite played out. It didn't even make sense to the mind at first, as it was not very aware of all the Zen theoretical literature stuff other than a few books and Alan Watts type of stuff. It didn't have to make sense, the radical shift was all that was present. The sense of existence from/as which the individuated perception is/was devoid of substance, but all was/is appearing... every thought arose within/as the NOTHING - pure awareness -, but distinct as appearances. The things were sensed as basically automagically, ornamentally existent, like a dream world, but... basically... just "perfectly so". It was like an acid trip or even like what people describe here as 5meo, but I was as sober and clear as the sky. Concepts arose, perfectly so, but I didn't give them much credence or pursue them, as the Presence in/as what IS was so very strong. So hard to explain, but that's just it. I was up in a bean field, living in a mud brick and rock hut with no water or electricity for a few months. The Presence sometimes as crystal clarity, sometimes as The Beloved was just the whole atmosphere... the I was just an arising, dancing in and out (much like the photons stuff, I suppose). I had a handful of a few books that I had bought at different book stores (computers were just becoming available at the time, but I lived up in the Himalayan foothills far from any internet cafe). I struggled to read between the lines of them or understand them before 12 Sept 1998, but afterwards, I could rip through them and easily identify the 5-10-15% of them that were useful (most of it shit). That's how I am attempting to interpret your focus on this 'closed' idea you're locked in on. For me, I could just tell where it was meant to make sense to the mind versus where it was pointing to existential Truth, in much the same way you are just cleaning house of anything that doesn't ring as "open" to you. I get it, and I think you should just stick with it and/or let it go altogether. That cleaning house phase went on for years, even after the bliss bunny stuff wore off weeks later. Stay true to your intuitive awareness of what needs to be done. I'm just providing feedback on how it can be integrated, not stating that you are right/wrong. In the deepest nirvikalpa samadhi, there is a consciousness without content (thingness). Evidently, it is the highest state of emptiness meditation that can be achieved in sitting meditation. But even then, it is considered a state, not realization. Sometimes, I suspect the Void is potentially considered as distinct from this state (alluding to kensho/satori). I dunno all the specifics. Don't really care too too much, but hard core meditators have said as much. What is considered the highest state, sahaja samadhi, is the one that rings more 'real' for this mind, though it's more or less an effortlessness than most tend to explain to me. I meditate on occasion now just to clear the cobwebs, but Truth is just happening. Point being, I don't worry too much about all the definitions and the making sense of other people's post-mortem constructs, as so many people have so many words and different interpretations based on those words, and so, very often it becomes a semantic affair. I try to hear where the person is coming from, what they're banging on about, and the intensity of their expression. Sometimes someone's expression grabs my interest, so I might chime in. I find the intensity of your search story appealing and the intensity of expression quite refreshing, but I do sense our minds have different levels of acidity and alkalinity, hehe. I do love a good show, and I thank you.

@Breakingthewall Fair enough. I haven't read into Po to be all that clear on the specifics. Maybe you're right; maybe he was just a super smart Ch'am ,aster deluded on his own rice wine. Dunno, doesn't matter. I do not even know about which translations are better, and Chinese/Japanese are quite different than English. I've seen some examples of good versus bad translations, and considering the accuracy you're demanding, there's that potential. But, generally speaking, Huang baby liked paradoxes, koans, and riddles that sought to trip the mind, not feed it food for thought, or throw it a life raft after phase 1. Blasphemy in Zen? Nah. Case in point: from Mumonkan (The Gateless Gate) Monks in the Eastern and Western halls of a Zen monastery argued over the ownership of a cat. Zen Master Nansen, witnessing this, held up the cat and said, "If any of you can say a word of Zen, a word that transcends dualism, I will spare the cat. Otherwise, I will kill it". No one responded. Nansen then cut the cat in two. Later that evening, Joshu, Nansen’s disciple, returned to the monastery. Nansen told him what happened. Joshu, without a word, took off his sandals, placed them on his head, and walked out. Nansen then said, "If you had been there, the cat would have been saved". Some of the Zenners didn't mind going to drastic lengths to trip the mind. Some great stories... There's nothing wrong with saying that "actual enlightenment can't be sought"; it's either right here, right now, flowing as the spontaneous moment that every moment is, or it isn't. Period, not up for negotiation, and it IS whether one is sitting on a yoga mat, filleting fish by the river, driving a dump truck, attending a funeral, taking a bullet for a complete stranger.... always accessible, always unfolding in/as oneness. That's not limiting... on the contrary. It's spontaneous action without all the second guessing, and mind's endless strings of ifs, and, or buts. Is it OK do think things through for certain contexts, sure. It is what it is. But if the existential questions remain, cloud the present moment, of have one in a mental pretzel, it ain't Zen. Only the mind seeks. Only the mind suffers. Only the mind bifurcates this/that (even Aristotle said, "The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts"... in/as mind, it's all dependently arising). That said, it is painfully self evident that a mind divided against itself is in conflict and seeking will happen once it becomes aware that it has backed itself into a corner. No one needs to be told that. 99.9% of humanity live with existential anxiety, which is why speerchuality and religions appeared thousands of years ago. The thoughts, broken down, start to ferment like a good manure that makes the mind ripe for a healthy seed. Wisdom of one's ways starts to flourish. That's what your phase 1 dealio alludes to.... the seeking to transcend the concepts, the parts, the divisions, the categories, the words.... all the mind's bifurcated thought structure become the manure for a perfectly-timed, sound, spontaneous insight, flash to find its way through, collapsing complexity into clarity, dropping off baggage. Even if you're implying that it's all already within the infinite, sure, that's fine, but is it a declaration or a conclusion, or is it something realized (i.e., kensho/satori)? Zen is a teaching for cutting through, not a mind-made declaration about what it is that one sees after phase 1 and phase 2. I'm not saying Huang baby is right or wrong, limited or unlimited, or anything else. I was not even really a meditator, in the classic sense. I sensed it was all a mediation, a devotion, a pursuit for what is true.... what is Truth. I was more of the type that looked for and contemplated what they might point to in some given writing,,, what was in my face but between the lines. I didn't care if they said this or that, or even how consistent they were... I do know the mind feels more comfy with its own brand of consistency. I did see how many such Zen sayings are meant to engage the mind in a counter-programmed way. I don't get lost in the words, but see what they attempt to point to. In phase 1, it doesn't have to make perfect sense; it never will. Mind is within existence, not the master of it. If you want to come back and organize it all some super coherent system, fine. But what actual coherence alludes to is what is present prior to mind, and it is the mind that chops it all up into puzzle pieces for half a life, and then spends the other half putting it all back together. In the meantime, don't lose a piece of the puzzle, or else you might have to make one up!! Good pointing can hit the spot, sprout a dormant seed, or collapse of structure/node that supported suffering self, not necessarily "only" because they are right and/or powerfully and contextually delivered, but also because a mind is ready (when a student is ready, the teacher will appear type of thing). It can happen at any time.... make yourself prone. A Zen story, a shared insight, a pain in the ass ____, ... whatever can elegantly contextualize the associated thoughts directed toward a dormant insight that opens another vista. The depth of one's contemplation, the clarity of one's mind, the focus and devotion of one's attention into the mystery... all potentially indicative of being prone to the acausal apprehension of the Infinite. Oddly, it is recognized as hab=ving always been Here, just hi Words are just words, Thoughts are just thoughts. Contexts are just contexts. Things are just things. All just appearances within what is. When existential TRUTH is apprehended, one can more consciously reach out and grab any of one them and take it for a ride to see what happens.

@Breakingthewall Right, the path of Zen is cutting through the worldly nonsense, without giving much to the mind to hold on to... transcending to and realizing _______ is phase 1 (in some Zen circles, it's realizing the Void/Nothing/Emptiness/No Mind/etc). The phase 2, emanation/immanence of/as _______ , is quite hard to come to terms with without phase 1. Many do get stuck at phase 1 and/or somewhere in the return to ______ as the ALL/Wholeness/Everything. The expressions vary throughout cultures, schools of thought, speerchal literature, etc, but ______________ , in its purest essence, is the same. Poetically speaking, the bird in an empty cage can only actually fly absolutely freely with two wings fully realized: a wing of Nothingness and a wing of Everythingness.... and in between the two its life flows (tips hat to Parsons and Niz).

@Breakingthewall If you haven't come to appreciate the directness zazen and how it's aligned with the bare bones philosophical pointing, then it may be that you've missed the entire dealio. Not sure. But I don't see it as limiting, just on point in its own way. Every single fleeting thingy experienced in/as life, including every self-referential thought, that arises or argument made is ABSOLUTELY unplanned, spontaneous, and new. Absolutamente, Full stop. No hay mas. Let that and its full on implications sink in, and sink in some more, until you can't hold back the laughter about what was being sought. If one has fully realized that, not just intellectually or even as just an insight, but fully and undeniably to the very core of their very Being, I suspect there's a greater chance to openly and spontaneously enjoy/appreciate reading Huang Po, Ch'an/Zen stories, or koans. All literature is written with a context in mind (purpose, audience awareness, genre, literary devices, etc). Unless I'm reading a how-to manual on an undertaking I'm about to carry out, I don't expect to read about what I'm going to do after I finish reading, if you know what I mean. Traditional monastic Ch'an/Zen had a one-liner how-to mentioned (for how-to transcend and potentially experience/realize IT). They also had a number of inspired literary devices as contemplative expressions of the fleeting nuances of mind and the fading, eloquent beauty of existence in its present impermanent state (emanation), but they typically did not sit around and argue about stuff like the Greeks, who contemplated the nature and state of reality, and the like. Zen/Ch'an, practically speaking, were just specifically focused on 'experiencing/realizing/fully embodying' the nature of reality, cutting through and stripped bare of mind's insatiable need to understand or organize it (philosophical/religious emanations). In the tradition, if you could express that depth of clarity to a ZM, you got an honorable bow or a hearty round of laughter. That's about it, and honestly, it doesn't matter at that point. It's that freeing... and you can do whatever you want, free of the mind's limitations (even its wants to be free). What else could one want or expect? More freedom to do whatever? Even less limitation to get up off my ass and do whatever? Watch mind come up with an answer. Such a wittle wascal!! So I laugh! If the mind doesn't like what Zen points to, then that's on the mind, not Zen. But, fully realized, there's a less obscured reality to more fully experience, as one GNOSSISES there are no existential questions about god's demands, the meaning of life, etc. That's why you get such simple answers found in Zenny dialogues. Some of them are just funny AF. "No man ever slips into the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." ~Heraclitus Heraclitus and Huang Po both pointed to the same impermanence and the same no-self. That's why I asked, "So, do you think Heraclitus ever realized what the Zennies (like Huang Po) point to?" After all, it was said he was a bit on the melancholic side, but not sure how often that was or whether he died that way. Democritus supposedly was the laugher, but I haven't read into him much either. It may be that you feel limitaton in what Zen doesn't say. There's often a silence (沈黙) evoked in Japanese linguistic contexts that is loaded with emergent contextual meaning, if ya know what I mean. But I suspect you prefer more explicit pronouncements than what Zen, in general, has to offer. It's a Western thang. No biggie. Full Disclosure: I am not saying one should or shouldn't like, practice, or believe anything to do with Zen/Ch'an. I am not a practitioner, teacher, or whatever. Just pointing to what I understand it to be pointing to.

Where do you live or where have you traveled? You look exceptionally familiar.

Noice. From the stand point of Realization, one could engage the mind and say, God IS. Apparent thought is ITs mind. Apparent reality is ITs body. Sometimes the simplicity is just too damn simple for the mind, especially when it is ignorant of its Source and almost miraculously unaware of its entanglement with appearances (all a matter of degree, and it's OK to go unconscious.... it's what makes up the tragio-comic drama). As such, paradoxes can ALWAYS be seen as entanglements in the mind.

I've stated this point more or less word for word elsewhere, and have also expressed it has Awareness (stillness) in/as which Consciousness (movement) appears/happens (i.e., Conscious of the Movement). This is also what I mean by being conscious of when the mind is engaged. So, perception is creation (movement), which is how an ingenious friend of mine stated it. It does indeed seem like splitting hairs, but for any peep who practices meditation with the 'goal' of transcending mind (such a rascal ), it can be a subtlety that points to their emotional 'annoyance' as to why realization doesn't happen. Realization is acausal, and contemplation, logic, meditation, taking medicines, hanging out in nature, and other such practices might make one more prone, but cannot 'make' the final tip of the existential scale. Only IT can make that 'happen'. God (Stillness) just keeps on Godding (Movement), hehe.

So, do you think Heraclitus ever realized what the Zennies (like Huang Po) point to? Just asking for an opinion, of course. So, your ongoing argument seems heavily influenced by/aligned with his idea of the self as being real, which might also imply that you also agree with his idea/belief in perpetual rebirth. That surely sounds 'limited'. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by the words self, rebirth, and real/reality, existentially speaking. Heraclitus was more focused on the 'outer' appearing existence, (maybe from the stand point of being Realized) ... 'the unfolding', rather than the Zen focus on the 'inner' dynamics which might give rise to 'suffering' (for practitioners of Zen who are seeking from the stand point of 'unrealized'). That is, though they have many similarities, the philo of the Greeks tended more towards stating what reality and its structure is, rather than point to and provide admonitions for (re-)discovering/uncovering/re-cognizing that which is immediately realizable right Here, right now. In this approach to the discussion, I am not 'taking sides', but more or less see where the ways of thinking likely meet and what the resolution offers. I mostly just see them as same same. but different expressions, don't get lost in the details, and feel at peace where wisdom emerges. But, you've stated that the Zennies are more limited. I'm thinking that conclusion may just arise from a misunderstanding of the theoretical 'goal', and misses the contemplated appreciation of the contextual outcomes pointed to in the Zen stories of spontaneity or bare bones expressions. That might shed light on your consistent appeals for a very rational approach and the very logical nature of your expressed jnani approach focused on limited versus unlimited.

The search requires a LOT of 'missing the mark' (i.e., sin). Forward.

That's more or less what I said. The 'form is formless, formlessness is form' realization is easily a deeper and inclusive of nothingness. Sometimes, teachings intending to help beginning meditators or seekers focus their minds less on the 'everyday' objects/objectives in which the left-brained intellect is constantly engaged, choppy, and in solid control, might try to get them to shift their attention. A lot of the approach you advocate is engaging that aspect of the mind, rather than the right-brain (which you allude to indirectly). Check out a TED video by Jill Bolte-Taylor in which she describes her stroke experience. It has some clues.

I understand that and am open to it, yes.

Oh, sure, one can be very wrong. If they get knocked down by such wrong decisions or reach a dead end in their search, the mind is put on notice. If open, even a wee bit, they may get up and/or try a different way. If closed, stagnation starts to set in. Typically, mind can only handle that for so long until it gets up off its ass and tries something else. It's a relative thing, of course. @Davino is making guesses about people he knows close to nothing about based on his his mind's (with all its supercharged 5meo self knowledge-bearing experiences) interpretations, maybe even hoping he's right. Doesn't matter, like at all.

Aaah, OK. Yeah, those are better questions.

You can think whatever you want to think, reason whatever you want to reason, judge whatever you want to judge, etc. Paint the picture; see what you want to see...

Does what do what?

I understand your desire to explore Ralston. How about this... state and label what you find interesting, constructive, valid, revealing etc about Ralston's message. Those statements will provide springboards into the more in depth discussion you are seeking. The focal context will invite debate, rather than invite sweeping approvals or condemnations: you want the former, Breaking wants the latter, but you both want to flesh it out.

Tranquiiilo. But sure, finding and trusting the only 'guru' you really 'know' is a massive milestone. The return to the market place is a strange one, indeed. Now you know why Jesus went on the rampage flipping tables at the temple, hehe.

Very telling. I wonder what Ralston would say about many of the posts you (seemingly unconsciously) write. Would you want that kind of attention?

I'll eventually get around to listening to Ralston's expression more, but maybe there's a point to be made. Not sure if Ralston distinguishes this or not, but this mind might express that people are seeking a transcendent experience, and they may/may not follow it/them to its most trans-rational, trans-logical end... into the realization of the NOTHINGNESS you speak of. Yes, that is the realization of the formlessness. It is neither necessary, nor guaranteed, nor even likely that that 'penultimate goal' of seeking will emerge. Dunno. A lot of it depends on the existential necessity arising, or so it seems. Here's where @Breakingthewall feels the rub, and that's fine. Most 'teachers' in the various schools of unlearning, at least the one's worth listening to, are teaching to those that are seeking to transcend. The NOTHINGNESS is not the end all be all. In fact, when listening to certain teachers, one has to be aware of whether or not they get stuck and attached to nothingness, in which case the mind has taken credit for realization (as in, my seeking caused/succeeded in finding and now I'm gonna teach the only path, I'm special, everyone else is just dumb and blind... I alone hold the truth, so drink up). Breaking calls this 'limited', because it is. After the realization of NOTHINGNESS (i.e., infinite potentiality, fully pregnant as Beingness), things get even weirder as one grapples with the complexities of informing mind as one uses it to re-engage the world as it is unfolding. During that process, many/most will become enraptured by and attached to freedom itself. They get stuck in the returning phase. Only those that make it fully through this phase are said to be 'enightened'. Typically, there are certain nuances and qualities in the expression that can be intuited if one KNOWS how.