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

Heart and mind Re: Self-Improvement & Physical Practices

Expand Messages
  • dan330033
    ... What I wrote, Tony, is the me intends to see not that it sees. The me can t see. When me is not in the way, seeing is, as it always has been, and never
    Message 1 of 53 , Jul 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, asimpjoy
      <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In meditationsocietyofamerica@yahoogroups.com, "dan330033"
      > <dan330033@y...> wrote:
      > > Hi Tony --
      > >
      > > > **** T: Hi Nina. : -)
      > > >
      > > > > N: It seems there is a tendency to
      > > > > denigrate the affects of embodied
      > > > > and ego-ed life, which include
      > > > > the ability to set goals, to entertain
      > > > > a practice (physical or otherwise),
      > > > > to experience suffering and pain,
      > > > > to listen to the mind.
      > > >
      > > > **** T: Rather, it is imperative that one
      > > > see directly for one's self the limits and
      > > > problems associated with the identification
      > > > and attachment to the body, as well as with
      > > > all the many physical goals that are the
      > > > outcome of one's egotistical demands in the
      > > > process of psychological becoming – "the me"
      > > > always wanting to improve and become more.
      > >
      > > D: It is the me which intends to see directly for
      > > one's self the limits and problems
      > > associated with the identification and
      > > attachment to the body.
      > ***** T: No, it is not "the me" that "sees",

      What I wrote, Tony, is "the me intends to see"
      not that it sees.

      The me can't see.

      When me is not "in the way," seeing is, as it always
      has been, and never has not been the case.

      > it is "Seeing" that sees, and "for one's self"
      > is perhaps a poor choice of words to express
      > the necessity of having to have a direct experience
      > that is not dependent on authority, or any kind
      > of conceptual or intellectual understanding.

      It is the me that wants to have a direct experience,
      and therefore ever is missing it, feels it lacking.

      There never has been a lack of direct experience,
      for you have never not been as you are.

      The sense of lack is the me, and is perpetuated
      while it intends and tries to have a direct
      experience that has never been missing.

      > ... In other words it is no good to simply have
      > the concept, or believe it because somebody else
      > says so - it must be a personal insight of your own.

      What is your own timeless being isn't interfered with
      by time -- it is just that the me conceptualized
      as a being in time strives to have an experience
      of its own, for its self, and that appears as if
      a barrier.

      > > D: Seeing through the me allows the body to be
      > > the body, what is not the body to be not-the-body,
      > > without any imaginary separation, as if there
      > > could be two.
      > **** T: Separation is the illusion taken to be the
      > reality when there is identification with the particular.

      There is no separation. Believing that there could be
      someone who identifies or disidentifies is intertwined
      with the misperception of actual division, separation.

      Particular things don't cause separation, which has never
      been the case at any time. Therefore, belief in separation
      can be considered delusion, never based in anything real.

      > > D: There never has been anyone which could identify
      > > or disidentify, other than an imagined me.
      > **** T: No there is no real entity, but still there
      > is the illusionary entity that does just that, and
      > believes it to be so.

      There is no illusionary entity. That it why the word
      illusion is used. To believe that an illusionary
      entity can do something, is delusion.

      > > > Physical pain and suffering, and well as pleasure,
      > > > are inherent in body dynamics, but psychological
      > > > suffering ends at the very moment that identification
      > > > and attachment to body, and ego, with its desires, ends.
      > > D: No, psychological suffering depends on perceived and believed
      > > separations. That includes any perception of a separable
      > > being which could identify or disidentify with body or
      > > the body's ego. The body's ego isn't separable from the
      > > body -- and needn't be ended, unless one wants to end
      > > the body for some reason. And why would one want to
      > > end the body, if there is clarity that body and not-body
      > > have never been two?
      > **** T: Yes, the "believed" and therefore "perceived separations",
      > are imagined and maintained through identification and attachment
      > to the particular by thought.

      No, that is an explanation that itself implies separation.

      Believing one needs or requires an explanation implies a
      separable self that wants to get somewhere by having
      an explanation.

      There is no way to identify if there is not a separable one
      who can identify or disidentify. The truth is that
      illusions and delusions aren't maintained, they just seem
      to have some actual reference point -- when none such
      reference exists. Believing that they are maintained is
      itself a belief in separation -- otherwise how could
      one posit something unreal which is being maintained?
      The instant one is clear that it is unreal, it isn't
      being maintained!

      The body itself need not be ended,
      > only the identification and attachment to it need be. The ego does
      > not belong to the body, the ego is thought thinking it is a separate
      > entity from thinking, which then claims ownership of the body.
      > The clarity of non-separation requires an insight - such clarity
      > is rare, and that is why there are so many illusionary entities
      > thinking they are a separate and independent ego, with a body.

      This explanation is full of holes, and isn't needed when there
      is no separable entity which would want an explanation.

      You don't have to explain something that isn't there.

      You just have to be clear that it isn't there.

      That is why Gautama, called "the Buddha," said: "if one has
      an arrow in one's flesh, one doesn't ask why is this arrow
      in my flesh, one removes it as quickly as possible."

      > > > > N: It seems there is also a parallel tendency to
      > > > > elevate residing in the heart, letting go of action,
      > > > > desire, and connection to the ego and body.
      > > >
      > > > **** T: The "Heart" is only a word to symbolize
      > > > "Consciousness" that is NOT bound by the limits of
      > > > one's ego, and therefore is NOT identified or
      > > > attached to the body.
      > > D: As "this" has never had any problem with attachment or
      > > nonattachment, one instant of clarity shows that
      > > the entire universe already is and always
      > > has been fully "this" -- and nothing needs to be added
      > > or subtracted.
      > **** T: One instant is not enough, because then you are
      > dependent on the memory - it must be a constant living
      > reality, otherwise it is just another concept of the ego.

      There aren't separate instants -- that perception
      itself is a delusion of separation.

      There is only this present, this now, inclusive of
      all apparent "instants" simultaneously.

      One instant is timeless, is all of time.

      To know this, is to be this -- all.

      > ... And it isn't a matter of "addition" or "subtraction",
      > but only a problem of identification and attachment to the
      > particular, which give the illusion of separation.

      Just be this, and explanations dissolve.

      > > > Ego is nothing but thought thinking that it is a
      > > > separate and independent entity apart form the
      > > > thinking process itself - it is thought that identifies
      > > > with the body, and it is thought that projects goals in
      > > > which it can fulfill itself.
      > >
      > > D: Thought isn't a problem, as there is one instant
      > > of clarity.
      > **** T: "One instant of clarity" in the next instant becomes
      > memory, which then is reduced to just a concept of the ego,
      > which is only more thought.

      You are, apparently, afraid to lose something you would find
      "this instant."

      But, when what you find is that you are this instant, there
      is no next instant, and nothing to lose -- just this
      timeless being which you are.

      > ... And then the "absolute perspective" is only a concept
      > of "not two, only one", which is entirely different than
      > the actual constant realization of the living fact.

      There is no perspective when one embodies this now, and is
      embodied as now -- perspectives come and go -- this
      does not come and go.

      > > D: It doesn't matter what concept occurs, whether it is
      > > a concept of a me or no-me -- concepts dissolve
      > > as arising -- this is the truth of so-called "Consciousness."
      > **** T: Concepts dissolve only when there is no attachment
      > and identification with them, otherwise they are augmented,
      > and expanded upon by various forms of egocentricities, causing
      > more and more "perceived" separation.

      No, that's not true.

      Only "this" is, anything else is fiction.

      > > > ... But is there an Action that is not the product of
      > > > ego, with all of its desires, and its identification
      > > > and attachment to the body???
      > >
      > > D: Of course -- the action that is called "all of
      > > phenomenality" ...
      > **** T: There is no conceptual answer to this question. The
      > answer to such a question must be realized and lived, otherwise
      > it is merely an idea that means nothing.

      On the contrary, unless you already are this realization
      being lived, there is no way to realize it and live it.

      If it is something in the future, then it is only conceptual
      for you.

      > > > > N: What I observe is that these two 'ends' are merely that,
      > > > > ends of a spectrum, which is, perhaps, more of a cycle.
      > > > > Permanent residence in one or the other, seems to be a sham.
      > > >
      > > > **** T: What is NOT contained in ANY "cycle", and is NEVER
      > > > limited to a particular position on some "spectrum",
      > > > ... And has no opposite???
      > > D: Nothing anyone is going to comment on here.
      > **** T: Exactly! No "comment", because the answer to such
      > questions must be directly experienced! :-)

      Not "because" anything!

      No explanation.

      Just this, alone, who you are, uncommentable-upon (to
      coin a very poor phrase).

      Lordy, lordy, have mercy on us all,

      Dan :-)
    • texasbg2000
      ... Hi Dan: Always good to hear from you. If you decide to run for prez I will vote for you. Love Bobby G.
      Message 53 of 53 , Jul 15, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > You're welcome, and glad for the chuckle, Bobby.
        > And yes, we must always keep in mind the
        > unrembemberable.
        > Love,
        > Dan

        Hi Dan:

        Always good to hear from you. If you decide to run for prez I will
        vote for you.

        Bobby G.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.