Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sunday February 10, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Gloria Lee
    ********************** RONSON WHITAKER s long/acknowledgement I had better say my own good-byes now. As Jerry indicated I am taking a leave of absence from
    Message 1 of 1 , Feb 11, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      **********************
       
       
      RONSON WHITAKER
      s'long/acknowledgement
       

      I had better say my own good-byes now.  As Jerry indicated I am
      taking a leave of absence from work for 6 months and going to North
      Carolina on retreat.  I will be leaving 24Feb and back in Sept.  I
      spent 12 days on holidays last year there and found worthwhile
      courses, training and lovely conscious people.  --> www.aham.com

      I will miss my lurking in the background and Sunday morning coffee
      with Jerry in Halifax.  If everyone would keep an eye on Jerry for me
      while I am gone to ensure he doesn't get too blissed out on donuts.

      Ron

      PS.  I have never seen Jerry eat a donut.


      JERRY KATZ
       
      we'll be doing a lot of starbucks in california. I'm totally into sitting out
      in front of starbucks and hoping i look like someone in show biz.

      best to you at AHAM. It's good to hear first hand accounts of such good
      places.

      jerry

      JOYCE SHORT
      apperception
       

      >But of course, the moment that someone
      >>  
      expresses how people put themselves back in the trap
      >>   of
      perceiving, that someone is making claims
      >>   based on his
      perception of what people do,
      >>   and so, is back in the
      very trap he is critiquing ...
      >>
      >> -- Dan
      >
      .............yet that does not invalidated the critique.

      Sticking my Buddhist nose in here-I loved this nugget, Dan.  "MY"
      understanding of your comment is that when "I" have such and such a
      perception, when there is the illusion that it belongs to "me", this is the
      basic error.  Moving from this I may also see the illusion "other" at this
      point and the illusion develops, now I'm really dreaming. I may see other's
      viewpoint as belonging to "them".  We may be in agreement, locating our
      "selves" in the same space for a moment and enjoy and be reassured by this
      coziness.  If "I", having owned some perception as "mine" find others in
      dis-agreement-I may decided that one or the other of us is a fool ( or not
      nice) or come to any other conclusion, I then may not "like"... "them" or
      "me".  A mind event such as perception conceptualized is simply a mind
      event-the problem arises with ownership.  It is possible to freely express
      in languge beyond the doer.  It is the doer that is renounced-not life.

      I.E. when writing anything there is never any problem arising for "me"-"I"
      do not identify ego or "my" intelligence with written expression. I don't
      have a lot of formal education and it is very evident that zillions of folks
      know more that I. BUT, when "I" work with painting, there is still the
      stuckness of the sense that "this is "mine", this is "me" -  and there is
      the mental judgment-hmm, "good" or most likely "bad".  So- the "doer" is
      seen very concretely which makes painting still a good practice.  When we
      have the "doer" and its constant inner dialogue reaffirming itself and
      occassionally putting some bit of the dialogue on a list-there is knot
      tying.  Can there be eating, walking, sitting, writing, thinking, feeling
      etc, without the sense of doer doing?  If there could be this flow minus
      doer-it could be quite "liberating"-Im guessing.

      Sasaki Roshi once said years ago that "enlightenment" did not necessarily
      make you or anyone else "nicer". This surprised me because at the time-being
      nicer, was the meaning of enlightenment for me, but it ws also a relief to
      hear. But, "who" would know one way or the other? Who would be judging? To
      see whether anyone is nice or not nice is to come from a fixed viewpoint and
      this is always self and always relative to the fiction of self.  Can this
      self see clearly about "niceness"?

      Whether a critique is "valid" or not (this will always be relative) is not
      the point that matters.  Is any critique "mine"? Or one could avoid looking
      and go into endless arguement about mental events conceptualized.  Any
      manifestations between beings freed from doer would be great fun.


      DAN BERKOW
       
      Thanks, Joyce.

      Very nice hearing from you on this.

      You took this in an interesting direction.

      It seems to me that once free of the notion
        of an ongoing "doer" here, then there is
        simultaneously freedom from the notion of
        "done to-er", "experiencer", "knower",
        and "known," "experienced."  They are
        all versions of the same construct.

      As you are this instant free of any
        attachment whatsoever to any deluding
        thought-constructs (which only can occur
        in a process over time), you are free
        from any need to detach, or to be free --
        and thus, the tension
        between being bound or free cannot be
        yours or mine ...

      Originally clear this instant, there is no
        question for you about whether or not a doer
        could be there or not be there.

      Thus, no doer is posited by you here, and thus,
        no doer can be posited there.  (As the contradiction
        understood in the notion of doer present or doer not-present
        is dispelled, it couldn't apply there anymore than here).

      As the universe is free from having a doer present one place
        or absent another place, there isn't for you, this instant,
        any concern about what other people are doing or not doing
        to make themselves into perceivers or to free themselves
        from notions about being perceivers.

      So, yes, you are indeed original clarity itself, undisturbed
        by any nonsense about perceivers who trap themselves
        this way or that way.



      JOYCE SHORT
      Mind (feeling) in Buddhist practice
       


      "Feeling" (sensation) in Buddhism is stressful when identified with as "me" or "mine". Seems pretty similar in all wisdom paths.  "Consciousness" will arise with any of its objects.  Mind free of all grasping is pure clear mind, rigpa, awareness, whatever.  This is both momentary and ultimate  when finally the doer packs up its bags and departs-bad habits of thinking "tamed". So if feeling arises to attention, it could be pleasureable, painful or indifferent but is only stressful when owned-"I" feel blah blah-(fill in the blanks)  No separation of "mind" and "heart" , no "Big Mind and Small Mind, just awareness or Big Mind and sometimes small "I-habit" temporarily arising and identifying with some stream of thought (consciousness) -J.


       While the Exhalted One was still alive, he frequently instructed disciples this way.

      The five-grasped at groups of suffering are as follows:

      the grasped at group of the body
      the grasped at group of feeling
      the grasped at group of perception
      the grasped at group of mental formations
      the grasped at group of consciousness.

      Many times the Exhalted One has emphasized -
      many times has he emphasized:

      The body is impermanent
      feeling is impermanent
      perception is impermanent
      feeling is impermanent
      mental formations are impermanent
      consciousness is impermanent.

      Body is not self.
      Feeling is not self.
      Perception is not self.
      Mental formations are not self.
      Consciousness is not self."

      When I identify withever is going on in the mind, I am cherishing ego support and this can clearly be seen in various views that may be held in the moment.  Ego/"I"-habit would be lost without thinking and judging, grasping, or rejecting.  I notice that thoughts which flit through the mind are either about some event old, gone or hasn't happened yet.  Or it's plain fantasy.  Mind usually grasps at some trigger and uses it to play its own games.  When I know this "me" with body and feeling, perception, thinking and sense consciousness then I work to purify this merely by seeing with bare attention/choiceless awareness.  Thus I come to know and verify that this IS all there is.  When there is, on occassion, no one here, there isn't any problem, there could not be any problem.  Problems or opinions only exist when there is someone to have them. And then there also may be some "other' to make problems about out of differing viewpoints. Various "persons", "bodies" locating themselves in various "places" in space created by grasping at feelings, perceptions, mental perceptions and consciousness.  All quite temporary delusions and taking too much energy to grasp onto or cultivate.

      "There is the deed, but no doer.  There is suffering, but no sufferer.  There is the path, but no one to enter it.  And there is liberation, but no one to attain it."



      DAN BERKOW
       
      Very beautiful, thanks for sharing it, Joyce.

      It's very clear that if the practice is
        somehow of a different nature or quality than the
        goal or outcome of practice, then a fundamental
        split has been introduced into the nature of reality.

      As there is nothing outside of reality to introduce a split
        into reality, practice and outcome cannot be two different
        qualities or natures.

      Thus, practice can only be its own goal, its own outcome,
        its own realization.

      Similarly, one can't know first what practice is, and then
        practice, for this would introduce that split.

      So, one's knowing what is the practice, and the practice,
        are the same.

      As one doesn't know ahead of time what practice is,
        one can't make assumptions about what it is not.

      How can practice be different than this?

      I've heard so many complaints about people who supposedly
        think they don't have to do anything, and they're just
        fine as they are.  But obviously, such complaints again
        split reality into doers and nondoers, and people who
        think this vs. people who think that.

      No complaint here, original clarity couldn't possibly
        find itself in a position to complain about itself.

      Original clarity takes the concept "practice,"
        "meditation," and opens it to include
        nonpractice, nonmeditation.  For, where is
        original clarity not?

      What is it that has always included in itself everything
        that it is not, and which has never taken a specific
        nature of its own, to set it apart from the nature of other
        things?  Is it Dzogchen, or Zen, or Jesus, or Moses? 
        Which one is right about
        how to know this?  Which one presents practice appropriately?
        Where is it not manifesting itself?
        What is the way to prepare to know it as it is?

      MEETING?
       
      -------- Original Message --------
      Subject: Nondualist meeting
      Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002 00:12:31 -0800
      From: 3D <dennisdd@...>
      To: umbada@...

      I would dearly love to speak to others in my area that appreciate the
      nondualist approach to spirituality. I live in Bend Oregon. I am
      particularly interested in the approach of Ramesh Balsekar.
      Dennis

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.