Sunday February 10, 2002
- View Source**********************RONSON WHITAKERs'long/acknowledgementI 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.
PS. I have never seen Jerry eat a donut.JERRY KATZwe'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
>But of course, the moment that someoneexpresses how people put themselves back in the trap
>> ofperceiving, that someone is making claims
>> based on hisperception of what people do,
>> and so, is back in thevery trap he is critiquing ...
>>.............yet that does not invalidated the critique.
>> -- Dan
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 BERKOWThanks, 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 SHORTMind (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 BERKOWVery 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@...>
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.