Sunday February 17, 2002
- **********************JAMES TRAVERSEThere is no such thing as enlightenment.Greg Goode wrote:
> There is no such thing as a thing!Thanks Greg,
So one says, 'The thing is that there is no such thing as a thing!'
And the other says, 'The thing is that the thing is that there is
no such thing as a thing!'
Infinite regression...and the exploration is reflected in infinite
In this way,'absence is a statement of presence AND presence is a
statement of absence?'
And, the nature of exploring and language is revealed.
(en)IN **this** LIGHT **what is** (en)MEANT?
JamesREMEZ SASSONIllusion and RealityGood day,
life looks so real, but is it?
When we watch a movie, it seems so real to us. We get involved with
the events on the screen.
Suppose there is a power failure while we are watching the movie. We
are suddenly snapped out of the illusion. But we can also close our
eyes and not see the pictures on the screen. We can stay in the
cinema without watching the movie. It may go on, but you know it is
By making the mind silent, through concentration and meditation, we
get the taste of Reality and get out of illusion. Then we know what
nonduality really is. The movie may go on, but we are no longer
involved in it.
Remez SassonJAMES TRAVERSEThere is no such thing as enlightenment.
Questions and Answers...
A question is an absence that reveals presence.
An answer is a presence that reveals absence.
The question, 'Who Am I?'
The answer, 'I am!'
Opposites are a polarity. By itself, each half is unreal,
united in their quiddity, there is Reality-Unreality, '______'
I Am Who Am I
RONSON WHITAKERYou are all twisting my mind is such weird directions. You run
around the topic saying nothing - oohhh such beautiful nothing.
RonGREG GOODEHave you guys read Wei Wu Wei? He made a career out of talking like that, the presence of the absence and the absence of the presence, etc...
I?'> The question, 'Who Am
> The answer, 'Iam!'
That's interesting. Who is giving you that answer? JMATTHEW
......lol, the same one who gave the question.
Yes. Who is giving that answer!
(I don't know is playing second and I think has been thrown out
of the game.)
JamesHARSHA'Realization' defined ..Thoughts are an experience whether intense or not. The notion of
"intensity" itself requires criteria by which intensity can be judged. This
criterion is also in the conceptual realm. All ideas of reality (intense or
not) depend on the mind only. Therefore giving up speculation about
perceived reality, one should focus directly on the perceiver. This is the
direct path and leads to Jnana or Self-Knowledge.
Self Realization transcends thoughts and concepts totally and utterly,
revealing Absolute Beauty of the Self, which is devoid of all things and
manifests as the Self-Radiance free of any support. The ancients called it
Sat-Chit-Ananda-Nityam-Poornum for a reason. A person who knows the Self
Knows that thought cannot reach it no matter how intense and subtle. All
notions of a "true idea" "false idea" die and vanish like a phantom before
Self is neither an experience nor that which arises from experience and yet
from the perspective of the mind, it is the purest experience that is
possible. Experience perpetually and continuously experiencing ItSelf.
It is neither the center nor the circumference because it is the ultimate
subject. Although it is simple and obvious to the sage, it has no point of
reference. It can have no point of reference, as it is its own infinite
This is why Advaita Vedanta beautifully applies the Neti, Neti, Neti method
and points to the Silence of the Heart
Love to allJAN B.On 2/17/02 at 12:15 PM remezsa wrote:
ºlife looks so real, but is it?
What if life is a series of events?
Judged by the feeling entity that feels 'separated'?
ºWhen we watch a movie, it seems so real to us. We get involved with
ºthe events on the screen.
On whose behalf are you writing?
I don't get involved in canned pics at all.
The whole lot (movies) is about faking feelings!
Still surprised there are so many divorces for instance?
The daily shows of faked feelings :)
ºSuppose there is a power failure while we are watching the movie. We
ºare suddenly snapped out of the illusion. But we can also close our
ºeyes and not see the pictures on the screen. We can stay in the
ºcinema without watching the movie. It may go on, but you know it is
Why expose the mind to such faked scenes (movies) in the first place?
That pleasure could be obtained from that is "THE" illusion to begin with..
As mammals could be labeled as 'pleasure animals', arguments won't convince.
Wired to pursue even 'illusory' pleasures...
ºBy making the mind silent, through concentration and meditation, we
ºget the taste of Reality and get out of illusion. Then we know what
ºnonduality really is. The movie may go on, but we are no longer
ºinvolved in it.
The activities of the mind only continue as long as it is thought, pleasure
is derived from those activities. That is why meditation and concentration
are 'slow' paths: Until it has become clear experientially that
"world" does not add any pleasure, only temporarily unblocks the door to
happiness, mind will stay in the old groove, irrespective of the consequences.
I believe what you say here is of utmost importance to beginners like
myself!! Thanks for the reminder!!
JOYCE SHORTObfuscations of saying nothing well
> Tibetan Buddhism tells us that the clear light of Rigpa - innate awareness,
> spontaneous wakefulness - dawns momentarily for everyone at the moment of
> death. Anybody who is sufficiently aware can merge consciously with this
> transcendent pure light at that crucial moment of transition.
Definitely a Great Feat for the "one" who can "do" this-Laugh! All schools
of Buddhism tell us that this innate awareness comes and goes all the time
if one can but recognize it. Hard to do-too obvious, too common, too
> Guenther, one of the foremost Buddhist scholars of our time, defines Rigpa
> as ecstatic presence or ecstatic radiance. Think about this a little bit:
> ecstatic, not static. Rigpa, innate awareness, is ecstatic radiance. I
> think this is a very important thought. I'm quoting a respected scholar
> because I don't want readers to think that I'm cobbling together some
> outlandish New Age Dharma here.
Yes, always quote a great scholar (or Lama) when you recognize yourself
cobbling together outlandish New Age McDharma. Best you recognize this
before others do. Great Feat #2.
Bit of translation of Longchepa by Guenther -
"Attend to the self-existent pristine cognitiveness that is with you,
(In which) value-cognition is an incessant stream because (its) setting has
There occurring no depression, no gloominess, no elation,
No attachment, no striving, free from every movement.
This is the instruction in the most profound."
Being able to follow this instruction-Great Feat #3. (Dan might care to
What is wrong with any ordinary expression from any ordinary person in any