15233Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Mirror Gazing
- Feb 8, 2007This is fun!!! I've never seen a group of people argue so pasionatly about the non existence of everythingPeace love and deep seaSean
Jeff Belyea <jeff@...> wrote:--- In meditationsocietyof america@yahoogro ups.com, Marc Moss
<jellybean0729@ ...> wrote:
> What is it that continues to perceive after death?
> We cannot say that the consciousness continues to perceive after
death because the very fact that perception is changing moment by
moment is the proof that it is something which grows and stops. And
the fact that we are no longer perceiving crawling around on our
hands and knees in diapers is evidence that this consciousness only
experiences that which is ripening at the moment. It is forced upon
us by our past actions that have been set in motion. The perception
of being human and all that it entails is a karma ripening upon
us...and when it ceases, we too will cease to have those perceptions.
J: The notation was that the consciousness that continues is not
necessarily as an individual separate being. The context of my reply
was about human consciousness. Buddha was conscious in his time. You
are conscious in your time. Consciousness (apart from a personal
identity continues). #
> Perhaps I'm wrong to think that the last post was sarcastic, but
it certainly sounded that way.
J: It was not meant to be sarcastic. It if "sounded" that way, it
would the inflection that you attributed (Sorry if that sounded
Nonduality? What is this nonduality that you express?
J: That there is no separation between subject and object - only
consciousness - and "Is"ness. The world view (and words that attempt
to explain) are necessarily dualistic - creating a sense of
separation from "Source". Awakening reveals this. #
What is the definition that YOU have asserted that Bergson achieved
that the "gentle Buddha" did not?
J: The suggestion that Sean read Bergson was in reference to the
continuatin of consciousness - not meant to imply that Bergson
achieved anything that Buddha did not. #
Of all the things that he asserted which were incredibly valid, he
asserted that emptiness cannot be directly perceived but can only be
conceptualized. The definition of an Arya is anyone who has directly
experienced emptiness. To discuss this "thing" philosophically is to
create concepts concerning this adjective. But, to directly perceive
this is beyond conception and takes a very disciplined mind to hold
onto such a reality. The ideals that are formed concerning emptiness
are only sign posts and maps that lead to this direct perception.
J: I think we wrote the same thought - though expressed differently.
(Perhaps I'm wrong to think that there are contradictions in the
preceding paragraph, but it certainly read that way -to me). My
understanding was that he said that the emptiness could not be
expressed - not that it could not be perceived. Your final comment
refers to "this direct perception". To editorialize a bit: To a
person who is awakened (enlightened) the expressions concerning this
subject are factual (known by direct experience), but to a person who
only intellectualizes about "teachings", the expressions are merely
speculative - or worse, parroted. #
> The fallacies of those who would deny this highest perception is
the inability to perceive it for themselves. It is not an experience
that can happen in your everyday experiences. This requires arduous
training of the mind into deeper and more subtle levels of
consciousness. Reading what someone else does little to bring one to
this "zero". Anything, regardless of how sublte cannot render
anything but a duality. There can be no experience of an "I" and an
object of meditation. This is the meaning of nonduality.
J: I didn't read ahead to find that you answered your own question.
But, once again, we are often saying this same thing. #
> To the question "what is it that is reborn", Jeff replies "pure
intuitive consciousness (enlightenment) ". This consciousness, though
not stained by experiences, by karmas, is still intermixed with the
karmas that have "entered' into it.
J: Pure is prior to the karma "entering" into it. Attempts to
express, as mentioned above, create the conceptualizing that
is "mixed" with karma. But the experience, the shift in consciousness
to Awakening is untainted. #
Your assertion would be like saying that there is a snowball that
exists independently of the snowflakes and bits of dirt and other
material in it.
J: Huh? My assertion is that being "reborn" (typically a Christian
term that has been watered down)is a connection with a new reality -
the emergence of a new being or state (though neither term is
precise - darn duality!) typically known as enlightenment. It is
independent of prior experience, and comes as a rush of "sudden
wisdom" - beyond anything previously thought or imagined - a direct
perception that is perception Itself - in which "consciousness" takes
on an entirely new fashion statement. #
The snowball simply IS the accumulation of all of that. The mind that
has not seen directly the fact that these things are as much a part
of the flow of the mind that is perceiving the APPEARANCES of these
objects is subject to carry them on until they have run their course
or with strong countermeasures to diminish the energy that they will
render. The assertions made prior are much like those of the
Svatantrika- Madhyamika of Buddhist philosophy. They say that we
should "transform" our problems into good, presupposing that a
problem somehow exists "out there".
J: Agreed with where you went with your snowball. The teaching of
those who follow "founders" or realized and awakened teachers is that
they often translate a description of the result of awakening with a
prescription to "be good" and "solve problems out there" as a means
of awakening, rather than a report of the result.
If there is any essence to things
> at all, they would simply be impossible to overcome and liberation
would be impossible. Therefore, the perceptions that you are having
are simply you...your past actions of body, speech, or mind rendering
the accumulated energies into your perceptions now.
J: You mean of course, before the direct perception, right?
> Consider the color blue, it is something which is devoid of being
of a separate substance from the valid perception which perceives it;
because it is invariably found in combination with it.
> Any attempts to imply a disparity fails: that is nonduality.
> You say that we cannot "teach" enlightenment. I would agree to a
point. It is, however, a mistake to think that things can just
randomly arise in the mind. We do rely on those in higher planes of
perception to guide those in the lower.
J: Agreed. We can listen to awakened teachers, and they can and do
serve as guides, but the direct perception can only be experienced -
not described, only pointed indirectly, as a "witness".
Tathagatagarbha is not something that means that we all have a buddha
inside of us but have yet to uncover it. That is not the case. There
are so many ignorances and delusions that riddle our consciousness,
many laying latently. Once these are removed, all forms of suffering
have been removed but the highest form of enlightenment is still out
of reach. The force of perception is always there, even in
enlightenment. There is never a time that the consciousness is not
conscious of something.
J: There is a "beyond time" where only consciousness "Itself" exists
and "there' it is only consciousness - conscious of everything
(emptiness that is not nothing). Why would you speculate about
a "highest form of enlightenment" and write that it is "still out of
reach"? The process of perception is limited when we limit ourselves
to being only a sensory, thinking apparatus. #
As our perceptions shift and allow us the openness to receive
information from another being, helping us to reorganize data that we
just haven't put together correctly, we make further progress. We
cannot do this alone. There are beings around us all the
> time teaching and guiding, corporeal and otherwise.
J: Teaching about, not "teaching" directly. Linear progress doesn't
not take us beyond the door. This is where most "teachers" leave
their students. Jesus said ot those he called hypocrites, "You stand
guard at the door, but you do not know what is behind the door." #
> If you perceive an oyster on the ocean floor, you are perceiving
the APPEARANCE of an oyster. The projection of a thing called oyster
is real, very real and it works! But, as for a self existent thing
that is not dependent upon your consciousness to experience it, there
is none. This would be false. This would be the slip of the foot on
your acceptance of the notion of nonduality that you presented.
J: Check the context of my response. Sean has written
that "perception. ..is false" and I was responding to that.
We live, therefore, we are dualistic in our perceptions. With
enlightenment we "see" the duality, and awaken to nonduality.. .but we
continue to live in duality.
> I'm sorry, the appearance of my self-existing eyes, though they
do not exist that way, are having an appearance of being tired,
though they do not exist in that way either. So, this appearance of
an appearance of a man appearing to be tired must appear to make the
appearance of himself appear to go to the appearance of a bed for the
appearance of a night of an appearance of sleep. Never
J: Emptiness that is not nothing. #
> As long as space remains, as long as living beings remain, until
then - may I too remain to dispel the sufferings of the world. -
J: A nice Boddhisattva. It's been fun, Sonam.
> ------------ --------- --------- ---
> Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
> in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
Get your own web address.
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>