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

3045Re: Daily Practice-Dan

Expand Messages
  • texasbg2000 <Bigbobgraham@aol.com>
    Feb 1, 2003
      Hi Dan:

      Since this is rapidly getting out of hand, at least for me, I will
      reply a little and thank you for your responses.

      > In that vein the issue was whether meditation is worthwhile, and
      > whether it resolves or is a buffer. Just to be clear.

      DB--Well, maybe another aspect of the discussion is that
      meditation means different things to different people.
      It's not one thing.
      What you're describing is how it is for Bobby.
      Which is fine with me.
      I don't think it's off-topic
      saying that meditation as sometimes construed
      ends up being a buffer.
      Because addressing that issue is an aspect of looking
      into what is worthwhile about meditation, which
      also must look into what is meditation ...

      Bg--I agree. If it is that way for me it may be for others too at
      least in a general sense.

      > > >>>so you feel that it will always need to remain in place....
      > >
      > > Bg-Yes meditation needs to remain a daily activity for everyone.
      > DB--Nothing needs to be added to "what is" -- this
      > is not a soup in lack of salt.
      > Bg--The issue was not whether to add something but whether to drop
      > something because it is no longer needed. As if the soup would
      > the same without the salt.

      DB-Well, it's not a soup.
      It's not something you're making.
      Your meditation is not making it become
      something else.

      Bg- Your metaphor ascribed a meaning to my words which was not
      warranted. I pointed that out. With the same metaphor. Give me a
      break here.

      DB-You're right, you can drop something -- you can drop the attempt
      to make it be whatever it is you're hoping or expecting
      it will become for you through your meditating (or
      any other activity intended to change perception) ...
      So, if you drop that, what is meditation to you now,
      at this point, where you're not trying to get
      somewhere or make it be something that you desire
      it to be, or an experience you desire to have

      Bg-Yes dropping the desire for meditation to take you someplace you
      are not is one of those things you feel is important to get across to
      people. If you negate something I believe is important to get across
      you may have to waste some time fending me off.
      In this case meditation should be strengthened by enlightenment and
      not abandoned because of it. This is not that complicated.

      DB--Remembering what you said about the Buddha and desire,
      I'd say not that you drop all desire, but that
      your desire and its ultimate goal turn out to
      meet here, exactly where you already always are ...

      So, with that nondivision of desire and fulfillment,
      all partialized desire-trips involving time
      drop off of themselves ...

      The pearl of great price.

      Bg-- I really enjoy your stance verbally but I have only found one
      way to say so without drawing criticism. Well said Sri Dan Ji.

      > > >>>we are not really saying such different things... one needs
      > > not sit in a certain position to be within a stilled and open
      > > mind state that is called meditation.... there comes a time
      > > when this is ongoing...
      > >
      > > Bg--There is no time when you cannot fall from grace. Spontaneous
      > > meditation is also subject to cessation.
      > DB--Of course there is such a time.
      > It is now.
      > Bg--Now has nothing to do with time. Can you imagine a time when
      > there is not now?

      DB--Quite so. So if there never is not now, and
      now involves no time, then now there can
      be no falling from grace -- as falling takes
      time, and is, in fact, the attempt to have
      a life in time ...

      Bg-- Falling is only a term. It was used to indicate the reversion
      to restricted consciousness.
      No lapse of time occurs when Consciousness reverts from the Enstatic
      to the Restricted form. If there was a lapse of time, the
      consciousness would have to change to another form (which one would
      be conscious of) or cease during the change and would thus not be
      eternal. Patanjali lists another form called one-pointed
      Consciousness but it is not in-between in the sense I am talking
      On or off .

      > DB--Whatever is subject to cessation is a phenomenon
      > with a beginning and end.
      > Bg--You are looking at it in reverse most likely because of the
      > language and the way it is used. Spontaneous meditation means in
      > sense I was referring to it, the cessation of confusing the mind
      > reality. While that is reality too, when it ceases, what we call
      > spontaneous meditation occurs. From the viewpoint of the mind the
      > meditation ceased and the pressures returned. The way it is was
      > given in the beginning was correct in reference to the way it was
      > used. But thanks for the non-dual perspective too.

      DB-Well, if it's a perspective it's dual.

      Bg--Yes I know. It's too bad about that. It can get confusing.

      DB-Your perspective and mine, you see.
      So, whatever is nondual won't be the mind
      interpreting events and experiences
      around its position.

      Whatever one believes one has put together as
      a perspective, from whatever sources.

      Perpective dissolves, drops, whatever word
      you want to use. If the dropping of
      perspective is meditation, then meditation
      is not the collection of ideas, wishes,
      and activities that the mind has arranged
      around the self's desire to improve or
      get somewhere.

      Meditation is "no mind" ... not mindless as
      unable to think ... but no mind as
      not projecting things out there or a being
      in here ...

      Bg-Perhaps we can discuss that sometime.

      > DB--Knowing is that you are without beginning.
      > Bg--I have no problem with saying things to people who would not
      > understand it if they did not it already. You never know who might
      > agree with you. But if you do it too much you stopped ceasing. :)

      DB-Probably that makes sense, and I just don't get what you mean.

      Bg.--One too many "its". It should read "I have no problem with your
      saying something which I could not understand if I did not already
      understand it."

      DB-If you can start ceasing and stop ceasing then the
      starter and stopper hasn't ceased.

      Bg--That's right too.

      DB--But what about the ceasing of the being perceiving
      in time -- if that ceases, it can't start again --
      because what ceased isn't something real, but
      an unreal center for a perspective ...

      What ceased was the belief that it ever started.

      Should that belief arise again, it would not be
      taken as a starting point for a perspective --
      but a momentary passing through of a fictional
      situation ...

      Bg-Now THAT is something I had not thought of. That's good. Thanks

      > This sure is fun.

      DB-Glad to hear it.
      I was wondering if we're having fun yet :-)

      Bg-For a limited time only. All things pass.


      Bobby G.
    • Show all 79 messages in this topic