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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Mirror Gazing

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Belyea
    ... way) What is it that continues to precieve after death J. Consciousness continues. .(Not necessarily individual consciousness as a separate being ).
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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.