Thank you Mat - with your comment - we have now established that the use of the term (transpersonal) is appropriate with regard to the Jhanas - and various other important topics in the Buddha’s teachings. Clearly, there is a perception among (some) Secular Buddhists that the ‘transpersonal aspects of the teachings’ are controversial or problematic - as evidenced in this thread - for (various reasons). The reasons may include a conceptual deficit - a limitation - in the language-game* of Secular Buddhism? Making it difficult to talk about the transpersonal teachings of the Buddha in a coherent and reasonable way. This seems likely - don’t you think? Different ‘forms of discourse’ contain different terms and definitions that reflect their specific areas of concern.
The other concern that some Secular Buddhists have is related to their ideology. Many Secular Buddhists lack an open-mind when it comes to the teachings of the Buddha - as found in the EBT’s. However, they may ‘pretend’ to be open-minded for ideological reasons.
Many - not all - Secular Buddhists operate from a ‘cognitive and perceptual background’ that determines what is possible - and impossible - according to their preset conclusions and ideological commitments. They then tend to dismiss or trivialise important aspects of the Buddha’s teachings. They may dismiss early teachings on the basis of a (claim) to modern understanding. They say, that many of the Buddha’s insights are the fables or myths of the ‘ancients’ - people who did not know better!
Some Secular Buddhists believe they know-better than ‘traditional’ Buddhists because they (claim) that many modern findings have discredited various teachings. Truth-claims of this nature is ideology in disguise! They ‘cherry-pick’ what they like in the teachings and ignore that which does not fit into their Secular Buddhist ideology. This leads to an intransigence - an inability to move freely - to be open to surprise! This is also true of people with a commitment to religious ideologies - that have been adopted without due reflection.
We cannot wake-up unless we are ‘open’ to ‘new’ and transformative forms of liberating insight. This is an indispensable virtue in the Buddha-Dharma.
Regarding your comment about the noosphere: “This cannot be experienced - an envelope of consciousness around the world -so must be relegated to box named ‘imagination’.”
We do not have to believe in the existence of a subtle sphere of consciousness enveloping the world to understand the meaning of the term: noosphere! We can understand it as a ‘lexical analogy’. An analogy is not an actual sphere or domain enveloping anything - it can be used to refer to the ‘world’ of human concepts and ideas! We are inhabiting that ‘world’ as we inquire and explore the theme of this thread.