Someone wrote me insisting that what some translate as "transcendental" was precisely Kantian.
Well maybe for Schopenhauer, in his darkly inverted way--we can't get our paws on the will that structures the world.
But "transcendent" is a translation of paramita. Paramita means "reaching the other shore," the other shore being enlightenment. You can reach it. It's not transcendental. It has empirical, even physical qualities.
Paramita means beyond ego, but not beyond altogether.
Bravo. That's more than enough work for one day! Now hows about… if we can only ditch that old persistent nugget "supernatural" once and for all… what could they have possibly been thinking with that one? And: could it survive any contextual translation (hope not)…
ReplyDeleteConsider the "super": If everything has its own nature -- and especially regardless of whether that would even show up on our radar -- then what can possibly transcend nature, or suchness… and would that be taking it with itself or beyond itself?
At this point, enter enlightening superhero TATHAGATA -- who proclaims: "Suchness only" (which, admittedly, he does perhaps to qualify Dogen's two cents, "Arising only"… (Now, enough from me.)