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

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

Expand Messages
  • Aideen McKenna
    My very deepest thanks for this post - it helps me in a way I could never adequately express. And it comes at a time when I needed it. Peace and blessings,
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment

      My very deepest thanks for this post – it helps me in a way I could never adequately express.  And it comes at a time when I needed it. 

      Peace and blessings, Sonam.

       

      Aideen

       


      From: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com [mailto:meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Marc Moss
      Sent: February 4, 2007 4:51 AM
      To: meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [Meditation Society of America ] Re: Mirror Gazing

       


      Dear Friends,

       

      I know that this post may SEEM to contradict my other posts, for in words they seem in congruent. So we shouldn't look to the words, we should look to the meaning. In the spirit of Swami Chidanada in the last post, I would like to use this post to express in another way things that I have been sharing. Maybe this language will be of benefit to someone...and may it lead others to the highest bliss:

       

      The antaratma, the Indweller. If you think in line of God being within all of us, we are not far from the Truth. The highest truth is findable here. Jesus taught this. He said that the kingdom was within. In a different teaching, one which has been labeled "gnostic", we find something very beautiful in a discussion he had with Judas, that there is a "divine spark in all of us." I don't think it's too difficult to see the same meaning here from Swami Chidananda and Jesus.

       

      If we can agree that God (or at least the word we are using to label this ultimate truth) is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, we will begin a very exciting journey to understanding ourselves. Let's first examine omnipotent in this light:

       

      All things that manifest in our lives are created by mind. For us to use the old, traditional view of God, we find that it just doesn't work. People get killed in churches, sanctuaries for believers- the storm in Florida destroyed a church and killed people inside. Buddhist temples get destroyed in Tsunamis. There are no great and powerful beings out there that created all things, for that is a past tense statement being used to describe a reality that is not past tense, but developing in stages, gradually every moment. So how do I assert the omnipotence of which I speak? In the manner of how our own minds bring about EVERYTHING, from lowest suffering to highest happiness. As though the Indweller gives precisely what you ask for. When we are down on ourselves, and we don't have any love directed toward ourselves, we are actually withdrawing from others. This divine spark gives us exactly what we create, loneliness, disparity, and suffering. We are not only dividing ourselves from others, but from this Divine Spark as well.

       

      When we give to others, when we engage in the loving, compassion and giving to others, we are actually giving to the god within, the ultimate truth inside all of us. It's reflective, like a mirror. All things that arise in front of it are made manifest, and yet leave no stain on the mirror. They arise and pass. It is the creator of all things, but there is no time in which it does not create. It's creation is not some event fixed in the past; it is an unfolding that does not cease. Even when you die, you are perceiving.. .and when you achieve enlightenement there will then, also be no time in which you do not perceive. The Great Within is manifesting all perceptions based upon what we lay before it: anger, jealousy, love, compassion - all these must bring about their result. They are all the same in emptiness, different in intent and expression. The God sends out precisely what you seek. And as you learn that negative actions bring negative results, you start eliminating them and by so doing eliminate the manifested forms of their results.

       

      As you get better at understanding how anything that you do is like laying a request that must be fulfilled before this God, this Great Within, you see the subtle messages within your mind. It will be answered, but not immediately. Examine the mind, like a mirror and you will almost always only see the reflections. ..and never the surface of that which reflects. You get angry at someone, an image that is a reflection of our mind...and our most subtle consciousness. Image that you are angry with is inseparable with this mirror. Things are not to be found separate from consciousness because upon every examination, they are invariably found in union WITH our consciousness. Our feelings, duration of thoughts about them, and intensity as we focus them all help to bring those Inner reflections into Outer manifestations. Our journey is to bridge the gap between the Inner most, the domain of God, and the outer, the things that we do that seem to be directed towards others but are actually expressions of the Inner made SEEMINGLY manifest. So, this is it's omnipotence.

       

      As omniscient, it knows all things. This is so because when one comes into contact with this Great Within, their own suffering starts to end. They understand things in an instant that many spend lifetimes studying. They have seen into the mirror and past the reflections - and now understand how that "mirror" is working. They have understood my use of the word "omnipotence" here and begin to do so much more for others, for it is not different than doing things directly for the God Within.

       

      And Arya is anyone who has seen directly the Ultimate Truth. These beings have seen the other shore and know how to get there. They now understand themselves as a stream of data always arising. We are not our experiences, for those are past. We are not separate from these experiences for we have learned from them and their lessons are with us now. But, what about the specific experiences of our immediate past lives? We don't readily remember them. If we WERE the sum total of all of our experiences, we should be able to remember them. But, we are the sum total of all of those things that we have laid before the Great Divine Inside in the past that are manifesting NOW. The ability to see this computer is from data, no matter how small that has been laid before that Indweller who manifests for us what we requested (and low self esteem is a "request" before that Great Reflector).

       

      And, it is omnipresent. There is NOWHERE that it is not. Look everywhere, see that there is never a separation with the images that you see and the consciousness you use to make contact with them. Even on a scientific level, the object that sits before you is being processed in the brain and the mental image and definitions that you associate with it happen in the brain. The brain is simply a physical expression of the inner mind, and it is connected with the Great Inner One. If we believe that we are separate from our exeriences and perceptions of things we believe to be "out there", we deny the unifying principle of God. We are denying even the very way that we exist. There is no sound in the woods where the tree fell if there was no one there to hear it...but there might have been sound WAVES, evidenced if someone comes after the fact and sees damage done sonically.

       

      Omnipresent means that this being must also be in Hell, for there is NOWHERE that it cannot be. And this is true...but it is only bringing about what one has requested - division as far as possible from this Within. Selfish craving, selfish acquiring, selfish view of independence from reality and things within that sphere, all these lead to a division from interrelationships with others which is truly just another way of union with the subtle-most consciousness and God. Therefore, we experience Hell because we laid these things before The Antaratma and this was what was manifested, from our desires. We are culpable...and not an angry and discompassionate God.

       

      So what? What could the implication be here in this very feeble and flawed interpretation of what's been said? That everything good you lay before this Inner Mind and do for the benefit of all other beings actually is being done TO this Divine Spark...and it will bring about in spite of you all the things you want. If you pray single-pointedly that someone receive wealth, your own riches increase. If you seek to purify yourself of past deeds, they can be blocked from bringing results in their highest intensity IF AT ALL by laying this before the Great Mind. That which you do to someone else, you actually do to yourself - for you are doing it to God and all His magnificent manifestations. The bad experiences may be a lesson that your thoughts are selfish, and not divine...so you must learn and will experience that which YOU made manifest. Or, they may simply be the result of a mechanism that is unerring in the way it reflects.

       

      Direct your prayers to others, think of how they are simply reflections in that Divine Mirror, and offer all these hopes that you have for your own life towards every other being receiving them before you. Feel no sense of loss, no sense of gain should they arise. Let them only be things that make your journey less tiring as you work for all beings, for there is never a time that you are not doing for God what you do to others. All happiness will now be manifesting. ..you will remove all pain from the "stream" of who you are and will tap into the mechanism of the omnipotent, who is omnipresent, and understand through its omniscience.

       

      Please forgive my poor analogies and any mistakes in describing it. I have tried to see that the words used reflect the same meaning of various Buddhist schools of thought. Words simply represent experience, and that is why they fail sometimes and succeed in other situations. May you all manifest your every dream, but without even a trace of ignorance about the way things actually are. Let your accomplishments be seen to be changing naturally, and to be decaying as they pass...and when they do pass, that your peace of mind is never disturbed. I found the love of my life this way: in deep prayers, intense visualization and offering them to all other beings - that others find a suitable companion to make this leg of the journey tolerable.

       

      Work hard to visualize peace and happiness and you are bound to see it when your perceptions shift.

       

      Love to you all, deep and sincere love to all of you - my wonderful expressions made manifest of the Divine Within,

       

      Sonam

       

       

       

       

       

       

      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

       

       

       

       


      Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
      in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
      to find your fit.

    • sean tremblay
      A few questions regarding Buddhist thought (Great letter by the way) What is it that continues to precieve after death, what is it that is reborn? what is it
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 4, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        A few questions regarding Buddhist thought (Great letter by the way) What is it that continues to precieve after death, what is it that is reborn? what is it that experiences hell or enlightenment. what is the divine spark in us? or the ultimate reality. I undertand the waking up to reality notion. And that letting go of attachment to suffering and falshood leading to peace. But some of the language suggests that the reality we experience is a product of our peception and therefore is false exept for it's own emotional impact on us spiritualy. I may be misunderstanding something. But now we venture into the arena of faith. And as human being we ALL posses faith weather we want to or not, call it hard wiring. The I believe portion of our conciesness is a good place to start but not to be taken as the total sum of the truth. Analogy: We at one time thought the earth was the center of the solar system. As we developed the means to see outside our imediate environment we learned this was not the case. In fact the Sun is as we know the center of the solar system. The invention of the telescope did not change the natural structure of the Universe, it was already that way before we could see it in motion. Analogy 2; Christopher Columbas dicovered the West Indies, he did not invent them. Now back to perception We as human beings a great at this and though it can lead to a path of suffering especialy when we make up crap to feel bad about, it can also lead to both invention and discovery, united in faith you have a very formidable mixture. this is what enables us to create sky scrapers and Music and space ships ect..... As far as the God thing goes I have no problem with either the internal or external examples I do not see them as mutualy exclusive, or an impediment to spiritual liberation. The Idea of God existing eternaly is not far fetched for me neither is God existing within. As far as the eternal idea goes Why not there is no reason not to think that that the All this stuff has not always been around Maybe not in it's present form. Science shows us that the Universe is continualy changing form expanding, perhaps at some point it will contract and condense then explode again and take new form always recreating itself. "In the begining there was the Word" kinda like Aum or the big bang. In my profesion I get to see the world from 300' below the ocean and as I sit watching the interactions of remakable and bizarre creatures in a veriety of perfect adaptation I can't help but feel that there is a force at work outside of and greater than myself But I am also a part of, My Grandpa is an organic farmer has been since the forties he always said "Uot of the dust you were created into the dust you shall return.
        Spell check is not responding and I'm a crappy typer sorry
        Sean

        Marc Moss <jellybean0729@...> wrote:

        Dear Friends,
         
        I know that this post may SEEM to contradict my other posts, for in words they seem in congruent. So we shouldn't look to the words, we should look to the meaning. In the spirit of Swami Chidanada in the last post, I would like to use this post to express in another way things that I have been sharing. Maybe this language will be of benefit to someone...and may it lead others to the highest bliss:
         
        The antaratma, the Indweller. If you think in line of God being within all of us, we are not far from the Truth. The highest truth is findable here. Jesus taught this. He said that the kingdom was within. In a different teaching, one which has been labeled "gnostic", we find something very beautiful in a discussion he had with Judas, that there is a "divine spark in all of us." I don't think it's too difficult to see the same meaning here from Swami Chidananda and Jesus.
         
        If we can agree that God (or at least the word we are using to label this ultimate truth) is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, we will begin a very exciting journey to understanding ourselves. Let's first examine omnipotent in this light:
         
        All things that manifest in our lives are created by mind. For us to use the old, traditional view of God, we find that it just doesn't work. People get killed in churches, sanctuaries for believers- the storm in Florida destroyed a church and killed people inside. Buddhist temples get destroyed in Tsunamis. There are no great and powerful beings out there that created all things, for that is a past tense statement being used to describe a reality that is not past tense, but developing in stages, gradually every moment. So how do I assert the omnipotence of which I speak? In the manner of how our own minds bring about EVERYTHING, from lowest suffering to highest happiness. As though the Indweller gives precisely what you ask for. When we are down on ourselves, and we don't have any love directed toward ourselves, we are actually withdrawing from others. This divine spark gives us exactly what we create, loneliness, disparity, and suffering. We are not only dividing ourselves from others, but from this Divine Spark as well.
         
        When we give to others, when we engage in the loving, compassion and giving to others, we are actually giving to the god within, the ultimate truth inside all of us. It's reflective, like a mirror. All things that arise in front of it are made manifest, and yet leave no stain on the mirror. They arise and pass. It is the creator of all things, but there is no time in which it does not create. It's creation is not some event fixed in the past; it is an unfolding that does not cease. Even when you die, you are perceiving.. .and when you achieve enlightenement there will then, also be no time in which you do not perceive. The Great Within is manifesting all perceptions based upon what we lay before it: anger, jealousy, love, compassion - all these must bring about their result. They are all the same in emptiness, different in intent and expression. The God sends out precisely what you seek. And as you learn that negative actions bring negative results, you start eliminating them and by so doing eliminate the manifested forms of their results.
         
        As you get better at understanding how anything that you do is like laying a request that must be fulfilled before this God, this Great Within, you see the subtle messages within your mind. It will be answered, but not immediately. Examine the mind, like a mirror and you will almost always only see the reflections. ..and never the surface of that which reflects. You get angry at someone, an image that is a reflection of our mind...and our most subtle consciousness. Image that you are angry with is inseparable with this mirror. Things are not to be found separate from consciousness because upon every examination, they are invariably found in union WITH our consciousness. Our feelings, duration of thoughts about them, and intensity as we focus them all help to bring those Inner reflections into Outer manifestations. Our journey is to bridge the gap between the Inner most, the domain of God, and the outer, the things that we do that seem to be directed towards others but are actually expressions of the Inner made SEEMINGLY manifest. So, this is it's omnipotence.
         
        As omniscient, it knows all things. This is so because when one comes into contact with this Great Within, their own suffering starts to end. They understand things in an instant that many spend lifetimes studying. They have seen into the mirror and past the reflections - and now understand how that "mirror" is working. They have understood my use of the word "omnipotence" here and begin to do so much more for others, for it is not different than doing things directly for the God Within.
         
        And Arya is anyone who has seen directly the Ultimate Truth. These beings have seen the other shore and know how to get there. They now understand themselves as a stream of data always arising. We are not our experiences, for those are past. We are not separate from these experiences for we have learned from them and their lessons are with us now. But, what about the specific experiences of our immediate past lives? We don't readily remember them. If we WERE the sum total of all of our experiences, we should be able to remember them. But, we are the sum total of all of those things that we have laid before the Great Divine Inside in the past that are manifesting NOW. The ability to see this computer is from data, no matter how small that has been laid before that Indweller who manifests for us what we requested (and low self esteem is a "request" before that Great Reflector).
         
        And, it is omnipresent. There is NOWHERE that it is not. Look everywhere, see that there is never a separation with the images that you see and the consciousness you use to make contact with them. Even on a scientific level, the object that sits before you is being processed in the brain and the mental image and definitions that you associate with it happen in the brain. The brain is simply a physical expression of the inner mind, and it is connected with the Great Inner One. If we believe that we are separate from our exeriences and perceptions of things we believe to be "out there", we deny the unifying principle of God. We are denying even the very way that we exist. There is no sound in the woods where the tree fell if there was no one there to hear it...but there might have been sound WAVES, evidenced if someone comes after the fact and sees damage done sonically.
         
        Omnipresent means that this being must also be in Hell, for there is NOWHERE that it cannot be. And this is true...but it is only bringing about what one has requested - division as far as possible from this Within. Selfish craving, selfish acquiring, selfish view of independence from reality and things within that sphere, all these lead to a division from interrelationships with others which is truly just another way of union with the subtle-most consciousness and God. Therefore, we experience Hell because we laid these things before The Antaratma and this was what was manifested, from our desires. We are culpable...and not an angry and discompassionate God.
         
        So what? What could the implication be here in this very feeble and flawed interpretation of what's been said? That everything good you lay before this Inner Mind and do for the benefit of all other beings actually is being done TO this Divine Spark...and it will bring about in spite of you all the things you want. If you pray single-pointedly that someone receive wealth, your own riches increase. If you seek to purify yourself of past deeds, they can be blocked from bringing results in their highest intensity IF AT ALL by laying this before the Great Mind. That which you do to someone else, you actually do to yourself - for you are doing it to God and all His magnificent manifestations. The bad experiences may be a lesson that your thoughts are selfish, and not divine...so you must learn and will experience that which YOU made manifest. Or, they may simply be the result of a mechanism that is unerring in the way it reflects.
         
        Direct your prayers to others, think of how they are simply reflections in that Divine Mirror, and offer all these hopes that you have for your own life towards every other being receiving them before you. Feel no sense of loss, no sense of gain should they arise. Let them only be things that make your journey less tiring as you work for all beings, for there is never a time that you are not doing for God what you do to others. All happiness will now be manifesting. ..you will remove all pain from the "stream" of who you are and will tap into the mechanism of the omnipotent, who is omnipresent, and understand through its omniscience.
         
        Please forgive my poor analogies and any mistakes in describing it. I have tried to see that the words used reflect the same meaning of various Buddhist schools of thought. Words simply represent experience, and that is why they fail sometimes and succeed in other situations. May you all manifest your every dream, but without even a trace of ignorance about the way things actually are. Let your accomplishments be seen to be changing naturally, and to be decaying as they pass...and when they do pass, that your peace of mind is never disturbed. I found the love of my life this way: in deep prayers, intense visualization and offering them to all other beings - that others find a suitable companion to make this leg of the journey tolerable.
         
        Work hard to visualize peace and happiness and you are bound to see it when your perceptions shift.
         
        Love to you all, deep and sincere love to all of you - my wonderful expressions made manifest of the Divine Within,
         
        Sonam


         
         
         
         
         
        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
         
         
         


        Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know.

      • Jeff Belyea
        ... way) What is it that continues to precieve after death J. Consciousness continues. .(Not necessarily individual consciousness as a separate being ).
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 7, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay
          <bethjams9@...> wrote:
          >
          > A few questions regarding Buddhist thought (Great letter by the
          way)

          What is it that continues to precieve after death

          J. Consciousness continues. .(Not necessarily individual
          consciousness as a separate "being"). Suggest you read some Henri
          Bergson and then check out nonduality to go along with your healthy
          helping of teaching from the gentle Buddha.

          S. what is it that is reborn?

          J. Pure intuitive consciousness (enlightenment) - an ability that
          transcends rational and linear thought - that we may have known
          naturally before we were socially coerced to "sit in our seat".
          Rebirth in the spiritual context is not a reincarnation, but a
          rebirth of conscious awareness in a holistic way that is not known to
          our linear rational process - and so is therefore not "perception" in
          its first cause. It is experiential, but is related as perception in
          the attempt at "telling" about it. It is a rekindling of Love in a
          whole new light. If you taste an orange or burn your finger, you
          experience and perceive, but you cannot "tell" of the experience in
          any way that will bring understanding - no more than we can "teach"
          enlightenment. And only those who have tasted an orange or burned a
          finger can really empathize and "Know" what you are talking about.
          (Sorry if these are cliches that you read before). Any attempt to
          explain "enlightenment" and how it brings an end to suffering and ego
          attachment boggles the rational mind, because the mind that has been
          shut off to the "light of understanding" in the unique manner that
          enlightenment brings cannot comprehend another way of "Knowing". As
          you continue to look at Buddhism, you will hear (or may have heard)
          of "nothingness...and the emptiness that is not nothing". It is in
          this realm (not a very accurate word) that is without space or time
          that awakening (and potentially enlightenment - for those who make a
          distinction between the two) "occurs".

          S. what is it that experiences hell or enlightenment.

          J. Consciousness.

          S. what is the divine spark in us?

          J. Consciousness of the naure of Love

          or the ultimate reality.

          J. Consciousness of the nature of Love. Ops, not only have I included
          cliches, here's a quote...from Ramana, "The very form of God is Love."

          S. I undertand the waking up to reality notion. And that letting go
          of attachment to suffering and falshood leading to peace. But some of
          the language suggests that the reality we experience is a product of
          our peception and therefore is false exept for it's own emotional
          impact on us spiritualy.

          J. Good ponts. A couple of comments/questions: What is your basis for
          writing "...perception and therefore false..."? If you perceive an
          oyster bed on the ocean floor, it is not false.

          S. I may be misunderstanding something. But now we venture into the
          arena of faith. And as human being we ALL posses faith weather we
          want to or not, call it hard wiring. The I believe portion of our
          conciesness is a good place to start but not to be taken as the total
          sum of the truth.

          J. Right on the button. Knowing about, or believing in, is
          not "Knowing" in the manner of direct personal experience.
          Nice analogies and flow of thoughts that you've written below.

          Love, as always,

          Jeff

          S. Analogy: We at one time thought the earth was the center of the
          solar system. As we developed the means to see outside our imediate
          environment we
          > learned this was not the case. In fact the Sun is as we know the
          center of the solar system. The invention of the telescope did not
          change the natural structure of the Universe, it was already that way
          before we could see it in motion. Analogy 2; Christopher Columbas
          dicovered the West Indies, he did not invent them.

          Now back to perception We as human beings a great at this and though
          it can lead to a path of suffering especialy when we make up crap to
          feel bad about, it can also lead to both invention and discovery,
          united in faith you have a very formidable mixture. this is what
          enables us to create sky scrapers and Music and space ships ect.....

          As far as the God thing goes I have no problem with either the
          internal or external examples I do not see them as mutualy exclusive,
          or an impediment to spiritual liberation. The Idea of God existing
          eternaly is not far fetched for me neither is God existing within. As
          far as the eternal idea goes Why not there is no reason not
          > to think that that the All this stuff has not always been around
          Maybe not in it's present form. Science shows us that the Universe is
          continualy changing form expanding, perhaps at some point it will
          contract and condense then explode again and take new form always
          recreating itself. "In the begining there was the Word" kinda like
          Aum or the big bang. In my profesion I get to see the world from 300'
          below the ocean and as I sit watching the interactions of remakable
          and bizarre creatures in a veriety of perfect adaptation I can't help
          but feel that there is a force at work outside of and greater than
          myself But I am also a part of, My Grandpa is an organic farmer has
          been since the forties he always said "Uot of the dust you were
          created into the dust you shall return.
          > Spell check is not responding and I'm a crappy typer sorry
          > Sean
          >
        • Marc Moss
          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
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 7, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            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.
             
            Perhaps I'm wrong to think that the last post was sarcastic, but it certainly sounded that way. Nonduality? What is this nonduality that you express? What is the definition that YOU have asserted that Bergson achieved that the "gentle 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.
             
            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.
             
            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. 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. 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". 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.
             
            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. 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. 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.
             
            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.
             
            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


             
             
             
             
             
            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
             
             
             


            Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
            in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
            to find your fit.
          • Jeff Belyea
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.
              >
            • sean tremblay
              Don t get upset buddy, I m just bouncing Ideas off of you guys because you are all very well read and things pop into my head based on the volly of letters
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Don't get upset buddy, I'm just bouncing Ideas off of you guys because you are all very well read and things pop into my head based on the volly of letters I've read on this sight. I'ts been fun. Also some the points that you have responded to are Jeffs I don't have the education to make some of the points in the last question. The questions of what and who are genuine I actualy wanted to know what you thought. But I do not claim to be a Buddhist or anything for that matter, and I do play devils advocate because it's more fun educational than Blah blah blah (Insert sanscrit) or blah blah blah (Chapter, verse) For instance the church I attend is so open minded they will entertain any hair brained idea I come up with. and thats freekin boreing! anyway I still maintain in my own "perception" that some things are realy real, the fact that they are changing from one moment to anouther does not invalidate the existence of the thing itself. I'm not trying to call you out Sonam. But you realy do write great letters and once again I enjoyed it
                thank you
                peace love and motorcycles
                Sean

                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.
                 
                Perhaps I'm wrong to think that the last post was sarcastic, but it certainly sounded that way. Nonduality? What is this nonduality that you express? What is the definition that YOU have asserted that Bergson achieved that the "gentle 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.
                 
                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.
                 
                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. 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. 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". 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.
                 
                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. 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. 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.
                 
                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.
                 
                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


                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
                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
                 
                 
                 


                Don't pick lemons.
                See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

              • sean tremblay
                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 ... death because the
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  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.

                • Marc Moss
                  In the spirit of good debate in the buddhist context, both Jeff and I are correct with each other. We both agree upon the same thing...just one or both maybe
                  Message 8 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In the spirit of good debate in the buddhist context, both Jeff and I are correct with each other. We both agree upon the same thing...just one or both maybe taking the "devil's advocate" position. It is the goal of debate to come to the truth TOGETHER...not to win. So, depending upon your disposition currently, you may choose to agree with one of us or the other. But, quite honestly, none of these positions is of ULTIMATE value because they are still what is called "stained" knowledge. That means it has to use the vocabulary of ordinary thought to convey a pale meaning...I like to call it a verbal map of how to get to where no words can exist.
                     
                    Jeff and I are making a huge mistake, though if we are to debate this topic with others. We must take the level of knowledge of the individual with whom we are corresponding and lead them with what they already know. Any debate with one who does already understand, yet has failed to tie them together correctly, will only bring about deep confusion and not the desired result of a raise in consciousness.
                     
                    I'm not angry...I haven't been for a long time. It's the damnedest thing!!! I have found something so much more beyond just studying suffering and causes for hours a day like I used to. I'm now working on manifesting all the wonder and joy by using that same mechanism toward the latter of the Four Arya Truths...creating cessation (but also attaining every imagined dream).
                     
                    Jeff is a terrific (and I would assume holy) being. There is much to gain from his wisdom...and it will all lead to the same ends as well. If you do not understand him or I, I'm sure he would agree we wouldn't mind "dumbing it down." Spirituality is not about being higher in philosophy as someone else. That itself would deny that we know what we're talking about since praising oneself is not the path of a bodhisattva...but, becareful- a bodhisattva has all of your best intentions in mind and if they have manifested before you and present negative situations, they may be doing so to expand your mind and lead your through that.
                     
                    I have heard it said by a wonderful lama that we have no idea whether Hitler, the Jews during WWII and the Germans during that time weren't really manifestations of holy beings appearing to demonstrate the evils of mankind that we lesser beings could learn how NOT to be...and the end result is that we've climbed a ladder of consciousness. So, ultimately we do not know. Conventionally, we can be sure to do everything to prevent those situations again.
                     
                    I would ask Jeff if he has studied the Tibetan lineages (particularly the Gelukpa) of if he is presupposing that any Buddhist remark is coming from the Zen and other familiar schools. The arguments against my points seem to be anything from The Vaibashika schools to the Madhyamika-Svatantrika views. I have yet to encounter anything which would accord completely with the Prasangika-Madhyamikan point of view completely...though flirting with it. This could be my misreading as well...I tend to raise an eyebrow when I feel that the Buddha's teachings have been belittled (especially since they have yet to be disproved).
                     
                    I must admit, these posts are a beautiful part of my day. Jeff is a wonderful teacher and has much to offer. I bow to his feet as not just one who is enjoying the excitement of debate (the path of finding truth between two beings) but as a student.
                     
                    Have a great day!!!!
                    Sonam


                     
                     
                     
                     
                     
                    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
                     
                     
                     


                    No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
                    with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
                  • Jeff Belyea
                    Yes. Fun is the idea. The passion has a soft smile all the while. I suggested Bergson because he wrote so much of consciousness, the internal and external, and
                    Message 9 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Yes. Fun is the idea. The passion
                      has a soft smile all the while.

                      I suggested Bergson because he
                      wrote so much of consciousness,
                      the internal and external, and
                      the growth and stops...so much
                      of what you wrote about. I think
                      you would enjoy his views.

                      No labeling intended. That's
                      for soup cans.

                      I like to come onto this group
                      once in a while to stir the soup.

                      Nice to find you here.

                      Love,

                      Jeff

                      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, sean tremblay
                      <bethjams9@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > 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 meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.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.
                      >
                    • Marc Moss
                      Sean, Of all enemies in the world, Hitler, Hussein, Bush...ignorance is by far the worse of all (even in regards to the latter name). HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You SHOULD
                      Message 10 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Sean,
                         
                        Of all enemies in the world, Hitler, Hussein, Bush...ignorance is by far the worse of all (even in regards to the latter name). HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You SHOULD find that when ignorance is involved, with the knowledge of all that emptiness and karma and enlightenment entails, you will find passionate "war". The only enemy IS ignorance. When it raises its ugly face it brings into being the Hitlers, Husseins, Bushs, ...and a few Pat Robertsons!
                         
                        Love,
                        Sonam


                         
                         
                         
                         
                         
                        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
                         
                         
                         


                        Any questions? Get answers on any topic at Yahoo! Answers. Try it now.
                      • Marc Moss
                        Jeff, I did a paper in college about the reverse Bergsonian Humor in R2D2 and C3PO. Very fun. Yes, I enjoy you here. The only way we can expand our mind is
                        Message 11 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jeff,
                           
                          I did a paper in college about the reverse Bergsonian Humor in R2D2 and C3PO. Very fun.
                           
                          Yes, I enjoy you here. The only way we can expand our mind is from debating our views, assessing our position and the other and learning whether we are correct or not.  Or, we could just have a direct perception of emptiness and then we pretty much have already understood the point of all of the Buddhist scriptures.
                           
                          I'm really tired today...damned karma!
                           
                          Sonam


                           
                           
                           
                           
                           
                          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
                           
                           
                           


                          Don't pick lemons.
                          See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
                        • sean tremblay
                          Marc Moss wrote: What is it that continues to perceive after death? We cannot say that the consciousness continues to perceive after
                          Message 12 of 15 , Feb 9, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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.
                             
                            Perhaps I'm wrong to think that the last post was sarcastic, but it certainly sounded that way. Nonduality? What is this nonduality that you express? What is the definition that YOU have asserted that Bergson achieved that the "gentle 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.
                             
                            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.
                             
                            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. 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. 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". 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.
                             
                            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. 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. 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.
                             
                            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.
                             
                            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


                             
                             
                             
                             
                             
                            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
                             
                             
                             


                            Need Mail bonding?
                            Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.

                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.