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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.