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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 15 , Feb 8, 2007
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 15 , Feb 9, 2007
              View Source
              • 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.