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

15233Re: [Meditation Society of America] Re: Mirror Gazing

Expand Messages
  • sean tremblay
    Feb 8, 2007
      This is fun!!! I've never seen a group of people argue so pasionatly about the non existence of everything
      Peace love and deep sea
      Sean

      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
      sarcastic). #

      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
      static...nothing.
      >
      > Sonam

      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. -
      Master Shantideva

      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.

    • Show all 15 messages in this topic