>>42179
Yeah but being conscious of it is irrelevant to the actual state of things. So there can't be no actual progress, just degrees of understanding based on personal preference. That is why I said to the other anon that studying this is fun. At least that is why I do it.
Also Buddhism seem to put things more in terms of negatives. So you can say the Buddhist Atman is Anatman, in the sense of "not-self". But it seems to make no sense to use that word in that way in Vedanta (I am not sure about this however), they kinda use the same words meaning different things inside different structures. Even though they talk about the same thing.
>>42224
I agree with you completely. When I said that advocating Dhyana instead of Prajna is the basis for goal oriented spiritualism, was simply because observing form without the realization of emptiness within it can be said to be exactly what everyone already does. That is why I say Prajna should be regarded as first. Though we both known there isn't a first or a second here. So basically I say it for the purposes of convenience.
Also I am aware that the word Zen is a translation of the word Dhyana. I find it quite fitting, because zen literature is filled with the most "mundane" forms one can expect. Nothing seems to stink of grandeur or divinity.
>>42266
About Taoism, I enjoy their aesthetic preferences.
>Life isn't this or that way, it just is?
Life is this way and that way, it just is.
Both statements are correct.
About progress. There is not such a thing. You might consider that getting one's own hearth/mind, or one's common sense, to be in accordance with the Nature of things a sort of progress. When that "progress" happens, it happens instantly. But weather it happens or not makes no difference to the state of things. So it goes back to personal preference.
You're in the stream weather you realize it or not.
You're in the stream weather you know how the stream works or not.
You're in the stream weather you're trying to swim against it or not.
You're in the stream.