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

[Meditation Society of America] Re: Mirror Gazing

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      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 2 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 3 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.