Formlessness><form as the uncaused, irreducible ontic fundamental

[Eugene I]

Starbuck, well said, I agree. In some suttas Buddha did say that one "enters" Nibbana through the experience of the highest jhanas (levels of formless states), however, this was clearly just a meditative technique to discern and discover Nibbana, and not a goal by itself. Avoidance of the trap of being stuck in formless states (arupalokas) is a common feature of most Buddhists schools.

[AshvinP]

And that was the Buddhas genius - all these debates on forums about ultimate reality and form/emptiness - he saw that they are born out of seeking the end of suffering which drives all beings, whether they know it or not. And yet he was also clear that Nibanna was not annihilation. Man can embody truth but he cannot know it.

That was his genius at that time. Later another genius perspective evolved - we can learn to contend with suffering, rather than end it, by seeking out sufficient meaning to justify it's existence in our lives. Thereby the focus shifts back to what we can do right now, in this lifetime, in any given moment. It becomes about deep Self-knowledge and authentic relationship with our Self and with others; about sacrifice and adoption of responsibility, i.e. spiritual rebirth and maturation.

[Eugene I]

That was his genius at that time. Later another genius perspective evolved - we can learn to contend with suffering, rather than end it, by seeking out sufficient meaning to justify it's existence in our lives. Thereby the focus shifts back to what we can do right now, in this lifetime, in any given moment. It becomes about deep Self-knowledge and authentic relationship with our Self and with others; about sacrifice and adoption of responsibility, i.e. spiritual rebirth and maturation.

That's what Buddhism does as well - justify our the existence in our lives right now at any given moment, while ending in this life the unnecessary psychological suffering caused by distorted perceptions and misconceptions of reality, and accepting the physical suffering inevitable in human form. That also involves spiritual rebirth (enlightenment) and a lot of maturation and consistent work on maturing and improving our behavioral-cognitive patterns in the direction of less selfishness and egotism and more spiritual freedom, collaboration, love and compassion . Buddhism started earlier than other traditions but never stopped and advanced quite a lot since Buddha times.

But are we back to the "my-spiritual-tradition-is-better" mode again?
There is a saying in Russian: "every duck praises his own pond" (всяк кулик свое болото хвалит)

[AshvinP]

That was his genius at that time. Later another genius perspective evolved - we can learn to contend with suffering, rather than end it, by seeking out sufficient meaning to justify it's existence in our lives. Thereby the focus shifts back to what we can do right now, in this lifetime, in any given moment. It becomes about deep Self-knowledge and authentic relationship with our Self and with others; about sacrifice and adoption of responsibility, i.e. spiritual rebirth and maturation.

That's what Buddhism does as well - justify our the existence in our lives right now at any given moment, while ending in this life the unnecessary psychological suffering caused by distorted perceptions and misconceptions of reality, and accepting the physical suffering inevitable in human form. That also involves spiritual rebirth (enlightenment) and a lot of maturation and consistent work on maturing and improving our behavioral-cognitive patterns in the direction of less selfishness and egotism and more spiritual freedom, collaboration, love and compassion . Buddhism started earlier than other traditions but never stopped and advanced quite a lot since Buddha times.

But are we back to the "my-spiritual-tradition-is-better" mode again?
There is a saying in Russian: "every duck praises his own pond" (всяк кулик свое болото хвалит)

I have always been in the "all major long-lasting spiritual traditions are nested within each other in a contiguous manner" mode, which then renders the question of "which one is better?" meaningless. They are not parallel streams of ideas where 'never the twain shall meet', but rather exist in a parallax relationship. The same contiguous streams of thought can be viewed from different lines of sight. The streams of thought are what they are and are situated where they are situated, regardless of whatever or wherever we imagine them to be - there is no moral "better or worse" judgment involved.

[Eugene I]

I have always been in the "all major long-lasting spiritual traditions are nested within each other in a contiguous manner" mode, which then renders the question of "which one is better?" meaningless. They are not parallel streams of ideas where 'never the twain shall meet', but rather exist in a parallax relationship. The same contiguous streams of thought can be viewed from different lines of sight. The streams of thought are what they are and are situated where they are situated, regardless of whatever or wherever we imagine them to be - there is no moral "better or worse" judgment involved.

OK, if so, is it Christianity nested in Buddhism, or Buddhism nested in Christianity? If they are nested, than one of them would be nested in the other, in which case the nesting one would be more "complete" so-to-speak, and we necessarily arrive at the hierarchical structure again, which is different from the parallax relationship. I'm all for the "parallax" model, but it does not seem compatible with the nesting one.

[Soul_of_Shu]

OK, if so, is it Christianity nested in Buddhism, or Buddhism nested in Christianity? If they are nested, than one of them would be nested in the other, in which case the nesting one would be more "complete" so-to-speak, and we necessarily arrive at the hierarchical structure again, which is different from the parallax relationship. I'm all for the "parallax" model, but it does not seem compatible with the nesting one.

If they are nested, like multi-dimensional Russian dolls, such that it's dolls all the way in every direction ad infinitum, then how to determine which one is 'greater' or 'lesser'?

[AshvinP]

I have always been in the "all major long-lasting spiritual traditions are nested within each other in a contiguous manner" mode, which then renders the question of "which one is better?" meaningless. They are not parallel streams of ideas where 'never the twain shall meet', but rather exist in a parallax relationship. The same contiguous streams of thought can be viewed from different lines of sight. The streams of thought are what they are and are situated where they are situated, regardless of whatever or wherever we imagine them to be - there is no moral "better or worse" judgment involved.

OK, if so, is it Christianity nested in Buddhism, or Buddhism nested in Christianity? If they are nested, than one of them would be nested in the other, in which case the nesting one would be more "complete" so-to-speak, and we necessarily arrive at the hierarchical structure again, which is different from the parallax relationship. I'm all for the "parallax" model, but it does not seem compatible with the nesting one.

Buddhism nested in Christianity and the latter is more complete. It is parallax because we are viewing the same ideal essence from different temporal perspectives. I am not denying the existence of hierarchical structure - we cannot even perceive the world without creating a hierarchy of percepts-concepts nested within each other. However the position in hierarchy does not imply moral superiority or inferiority. The fact that I am a meager consumer lawyer instead of a Supreme Court justice does not lessen my integral contribution to Reality as it unfolds.

[Eugene I]

Buddhism nested in Christianity and the latter is more complete.

Ah, here we go, Christian supremacism clams again

IMO, supremacism claims are characteristics of less developed/complete traditions.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Is the integral imago stage nested within the integral larval stage, or vice versa. What seems 'complete' is their inter-being unicity ... not unlike formlessness><form, to bring this back around to the 'OP' in more ways than one

[AshvinP]

Buddhism nested in Christianity and the latter is more complete.

Ah, here we go, Christian supremacism clams again

IMO, supremacism claims are characteristics of less developed/complete traditions.

You like to explain everyone else's views in terms of psychological temperament. Have you ever considered this factor for your own view? I would specifically be interested to know where you fall on trait 'openness to experience' which is associated with a disdain approaching disgust for boundaries, physical and psychological. Also on trait conscientiousness which is associated with the opposite. I cannot think of many other reasons why you automatically associate hierarchical boundaries with "supremacism" no matter how many times and in how many different ways the distinction between the two are made clear to you.