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

Re: The Blank Screen Meditation

Expand Messages
  • medit8ionsociety
    ... Yes W, I kinda, sorta saw my thoughts going towards a leaning towards a Buddhist vs Advaita Vedanta seeming conflict, as what you were pointing to. But
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 21, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > > "Your inner Witness is what is capable of observing
      > > > your minds creations. It is always here, now. Your
      > > > senses operate when you are awake, and you react slave-like
      > > > to their input. Your mind alone is in operation when
      > > > you dream."
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > FWlittleIW, Sri Bob, that is not my (Bhuddist/Humean) take on the matter.
      > > >
      > > > As Chandrakirti states:
      > > >
      > > > "A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
      > > > Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
      > > > It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
      > > > It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
      > > > [The self and the aggregates are] similar."
      > > >
      > > > And Padmasambhava states:
      > > >
      > > > "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
      > > > It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
      > > > Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
      > > > If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
      > > >
      > > > "This is not the case, so were the second true,
      > > > That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
      > > > Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
      > > > The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging."
      > > >
      > > > http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > W
      > > >
      > > Yo W,
      > > Interesting stuff! Not really over or under-standing
      > > exactly or even semi-exactly what the quotes are
      > > getting at or concluding. I did witness my thoughts
      > > being stimulated as they flowed by when I read the
      > > quotes, so a seed has been planted and I'm interested
      > > in how you would say this in Ameri-English if you
      > > feel inclined to share some commentary. And if not,
      > > "Never-mind" as is said in Zen practice. And that's,
      > > as St Martha would say "A good thing".
      > > Peace and blessings,
      > > Bob
      > >
      >
      > I guess I'm just (look at the two "I"s there!) in the "no-self" school, Bob. That is, I don't think there's any ME (or "inner witness") over and above/other than my thoughts, memories, feelings, body, etc.
      >
      > That position has been very controversial for over a thousand years, of course, and--as I've often said here--I'm quite often wrong. But FWIW, I think one of the main (perhaps the most important) advance of Buddhism over earlier Vedantic thought, was getting off the whole Atman/Self thing.
      >
      > I'm sure there are people on this list with much more expertise/knowledge of the historical and doctrinal matters than I have, though. So, leaving those alone, I'll just say that, like Hume (and Parfit), I find no self--outside the passing show. Somehow comforting that take, too.
      >
      > Best,
      >
      > W
      >
      Yes W, I kinda, sorta saw my thoughts going towards
      a leaning towards a Buddhist vs Advaita Vedanta
      seeming conflict, as what you were pointing to.
      But personally, my person's presentation in this
      incarnation has had virtually, identically the
      same experiential events and "results" that methods
      of "Self-enquiry" as well as those of insight and
      mindfulness have initiated. To the so-called "me",
      both can be characterized as sticks that help the
      fire be stimulated and then are thrown into the fire
      to burn up with the rest of the kindling. And...Ah,
      the warmth, light, sounds, etc are then simply enjoyed.
    • aneternalnow
      I too have practiced self-inquiry and attain self-realization i.e. realized the I AM and Witness. Then further insights revealed more about the no-self
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 23, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I too have practiced self-inquiry and attain self-realization i.e. realized the I AM and Witness. Then further insights revealed more about the 'no-self' nature: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

        --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, medit8ionsociety <no_reply@> wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > "Your inner Witness is what is capable of observing
        > > > > your minds creations. It is always here, now. Your
        > > > > senses operate when you are awake, and you react slave-like
        > > > > to their input. Your mind alone is in operation when
        > > > > you dream."
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > FWlittleIW, Sri Bob, that is not my (Bhuddist/Humean) take on the matter.
        > > > >
        > > > > As Chandrakirti states:
        > > > >
        > > > > "A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
        > > > > Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
        > > > > It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
        > > > > It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
        > > > > [The self and the aggregates are] similar."
        > > > >
        > > > > And Padmasambhava states:
        > > > >
        > > > > "The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
        > > > > It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
        > > > > Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
        > > > > If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
        > > > >
        > > > > "This is not the case, so were the second true,
        > > > > That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
        > > > > Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
        > > > > The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging."
        > > > >
        > > > > http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > W
        > > > >
        > > > Yo W,
        > > > Interesting stuff! Not really over or under-standing
        > > > exactly or even semi-exactly what the quotes are
        > > > getting at or concluding. I did witness my thoughts
        > > > being stimulated as they flowed by when I read the
        > > > quotes, so a seed has been planted and I'm interested
        > > > in how you would say this in Ameri-English if you
        > > > feel inclined to share some commentary. And if not,
        > > > "Never-mind" as is said in Zen practice. And that's,
        > > > as St Martha would say "A good thing".
        > > > Peace and blessings,
        > > > Bob
        > > >
        > >
        > > I guess I'm just (look at the two "I"s there!) in the "no-self" school, Bob. That is, I don't think there's any ME (or "inner witness") over and above/other than my thoughts, memories, feelings, body, etc.
        > >
        > > That position has been very controversial for over a thousand years, of course, and--as I've often said here--I'm quite often wrong. But FWIW, I think one of the main (perhaps the most important) advance of Buddhism over earlier Vedantic thought, was getting off the whole Atman/Self thing.
        > >
        > > I'm sure there are people on this list with much more expertise/knowledge of the historical and doctrinal matters than I have, though. So, leaving those alone, I'll just say that, like Hume (and Parfit), I find no self--outside the passing show. Somehow comforting that take, too.
        > >
        > > Best,
        > >
        > > W
        > >
        > Yes W, I kinda, sorta saw my thoughts going towards
        > a leaning towards a Buddhist vs Advaita Vedanta
        > seeming conflict, as what you were pointing to.
        > But personally, my person's presentation in this
        > incarnation has had virtually, identically the
        > same experiential events and "results" that methods
        > of "Self-enquiry" as well as those of insight and
        > mindfulness have initiated. To the so-called "me",
        > both can be characterized as sticks that help the
        > fire be stimulated and then are thrown into the fire
        > to burn up with the rest of the kindling. And...Ah,
        > the warmth, light, sounds, etc are then simply enjoyed.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.