to Lewis

[Guest guest]

Dear Lewis,

 

Can you tell me what it means

to you to get conned?

 

Thank you,

 

~freyja

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/21/05 6:52:04 AM, lbb10 writes:

 

 

> Lewis: >For example, many people the world over in jnana yoga or Buddhism

> of

> every variety, and so on are conned into believing that there is a

> distinct " awareness, " " consciousness, " " pure consciousness " " pure

> awareness without being aware, "   " apperception " " direct perception "

> " what is " and " that which is " " this, " " emptiness, " " Atman " " Anatman "

> 'mind " and that such are valuable properties of some sort to point to,

> think about or achieve or experience. These exist as they do and the

> pointing to these as something more than a word or concept is a sign of

> the conned. Trying to achieve or do something with these is continuing

> >in the self-con.

>

> That's it.

>

P So lewis, how does that differs from what Sandy and Tooms hold?

When you deny existence to emptiness what are you deniying?

When you deny there is direct perception what are you denying?

How and by what means did you come to this certainty that

there is no apperception.? How do you distinguish that certainty

from faith in your beliefs?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

carolina112900 wrote:

>

> Dear Lewis,

>

> Can you tell me what it means

> to you to get conned?

>

> Thank you,

>

> ~freyja

 

 

Hi freyja,

 

Yes. Getting conned or more closely being conned is being self-deceived,

which begins with and happens through a conning (the use of deception

for a purpose or goal with a sense of intentionality or not) by another.

If one is conned without realizing it, that one continues on content and

secure in self-deception. Realizing that one is conned is to realize

that one has " bought " or believed or attached a " worthless property " as

being worthy, important, valuable and so on. When one realizes that they

have been conned or more closely, they have conned their " self, " this is

a very disturbing experience, for some it may be catastrophic.

 

In any case, the realization and all that it brings in the sensorium,

alerts one to the presence of an " artificial self, " " grasping, "

" attachments, " " delusions " or more simply, in my experience, as

" movements that interrupt doing and that require handling in the dark. "

(These sentences can be thrown out since they refer to indefinable

experience (throw this out, too) and one would need to undergo it know

it and if two could be singularly open and fearless it could be

discovered if there are words that mutually satisfy or present a more or

less close description or story).

 

So, not experiencing yet all of what is in in this conditioned mind and

body, there is a curiosity to explore it, to see if there are those

things there. That is the meaning of it for me as it is now.

 

One way of discovering it is to be conned and then to realize the con

and to be free of that fixation. Or by doing on this forum, the self-con

can be discovered in exchange with others who expose it. This forum is

good place to experience conning of either sort related to the intellect

as it is a domain of jnana yoga that deals with that. A lot o intellects

around here. Other experiences are necessary for other cons not related

to the intellect such as those cons exposed or revealed through the

practice of bhakti yoga, raja yoga, etc. and life experiences that shake

out self-cons in their way. So I am here for de-conning.

 

For example, many people the world over in jnana yoga or Buddhism of

every variety, and so on are conned into believing that there is a

distinct " awareness, " " consciousness, " " pure consciousness " " pure

awareness without being aware, " " apperception " " direct perception "

" what is " and " that which is " " this, " " emptiness, " " Atman " " Anatman "

'mind " and that such are valuable properties of some sort to point to,

think about or achieve or experience. These exist as they do and the

pointing to these as something more than a word or concept is a sign of

the conned. Trying to achieve or do something with these is continuing

in the self-con.

 

That's it.

 

Good service point freyja.

 

 

Lewis

[Guest guest]

Pedsie2 wrote:

>

> In a message dated 1/21/05 6:52:04 AM, lbb10 writes:

>

>

> > Lewis: >For example, many people the world over in jnana yoga or

> Buddhism

> > of

> > every variety, and so on are conned into believing that there is a

> > distinct " awareness, " " consciousness, " " pure consciousness " " pure

> > awareness without being aware, " " apperception " " direct perception "

> > " what is " and " that which is " " this, " " emptiness, " " Atman " " Anatman "

> > 'mind " and that such are valuable properties of some sort to point to,

> > think about or achieve or experience. These exist as they do and the

> > pointing to these as something more than a word or concept is a sign of

> > the conned. Trying to achieve or do something with these is continuing

> > >in the self-con.

> >

> > That's it.

> >

> P So lewis, how does that differs from what Sandy and Tooms hold?

> When you deny existence to emptiness what are you deniying?

> When you deny there is direct perception what are you denying?

> How and by what means did you come to this certainty that

> there is no apperception.? How do you distinguish that certainty

> from faith in your beliefs?

 

 

There is no denying any of it, Pete. The words to notice here are

distinct, believing, valuable. As was said above, these exist as they

do. To add they can be experienced, and worked with, and talked about,

analyzed, argued over, believed in, loved, doubt, hated, ignored, thrown

away, picked up, put aside and so on. There is no denying them and there

is no reason to do so. They exist as they do in the forms they do. The

question raised is about the form and how it is apprehended and then

what is done with it.

 

There is no certainty, faith or beliefs involved. It is a matter of

uncertainty and experience that gives the word. If belief in a distinct

God, Spirit, Atman, Brahman, Ego, and so on can be reduced to mere

conceptualizations then how is " awareness et al " not subject to the same

reasoning?

 

Emptiness does not mean non-existence or nothing. The concept emptiness

means there is no inherent essence in a thing that defines it

independent of any other thing, no matter what it is or how it is

experienced from rocks to minds. So to say there is no mind when using

" emptiness " as a defining assumption, does not mean that mind does not

exist or a rock does not exist, that it does not appear or have effects.

It simply means the experience or concept of mind or rock has no

inherent essence in it that makes it independent of any thing else. That

is you cannot know it without reference to other things be it concept,

image, percept, experience, etc. So mind is a construct used to do

things in certain ways as it is constructed. Think of psychology as a

discipline. They conceived mind and then study it, and argue over it and

take care of it and do all sort of things to it and so on. Most of

models are made on the experiences of people in Europe and the United

Sates. When these models are used in East Asia they fall apart. The

experience of mind there is different. So they revamp them. The biggest

revamping has to do with the notion of an individual. So there are minds

for those who want them and to use them as they experience it and to

change those minds as they do.

 

So one can experience mind, talk about it, have fun with it, use it,

study it, explore it, expand, reduce it, create it, and uncreate it and

so on. If one decides to examine it closely to see if there is something

fundamental about it something " distinct " and independent, mind falls

apart into parts and dependencies on things other than mind. In this

sense it disappears into a plethora of conceptual parts be they brain

parts, quantum particles, subtle qualities or what have you. But even

so, it exists for those assuming it in the way they do, using it as they

are. So it exists in one way and does not in another way depending on

what one understands and then what one does with it in particular

contexts. To assert that mind always is disappeared or non-existent in

all people would be an error from the point of view of emptiness. If you

find that there is no mind, there is none for you. This not a necessary

condition or experience for others. People do as they do.

 

For me the biggest con would be for someone to demonstrate the certainty

of any knowledge in any domain and to demonstrate why certainty is

needed to know or do anything from sending people to mars, to brushing

my teeth, to singing a song. So far in my life experience, I have found

uncertainty to be a far better teacher and friend than certainty. This

is my experience and others may have it as well. I do not know.

 

This the reasoning behind the Nagarjuna's words " Ultimately, Nirvana is

Samsara properly understood. " Or roughly Nirvana is Samsara. That

statement keeps the appearances as they are commonly seen. Nothing

disappears, the appearances do not disappear, but they are " properly

understood " and experienced in a " natural understanding " for lack of a

better concept and this " natural understanding " allows release from all

that stuff that is written about and worried over. People who do this

see nothing different than any one else when they look at the world. So

everyone is on the threshold of that and what tips people over into the

beginning of it is a mystery. Places like this can help.

 

So it is easy to understand why someone may get upset if you tell them

what they experience daily or believe in, or focus on or work with, does

not exist at all. But this is extremism that has only a heuristic

function for loosening fixations but carried to far, within and with

others not ready to hear it freely, can be deadening.

 

Now what about direct perception and apperception? Well let's talk about

it. What are these? Only stories can be told. And the stories can be

given in many ways. Here are a few:

 

 

One set of stories can be given by persons who says they have " direct

perception or apperception. " They tell you in the best way possible what

it is like. Out come some stories and these are compared in whatever way

one likes. I suppose those who are seen as enlightened would be good

candidates for this. But I have not read or heard a good rendition from

them on how they experience first hand mundane things in daily life.

Like what do they see when they see an apple or a kid or sunset or

anything ordinary. If any one has such detailed reports or where I can

read them I would be very pleased.

 

Another set of stories can be told by people who think and cogitate and

meditate on and about direct perception, without having it, by stating

what it is not and trying isolate it, making it distinct and unique. Out

come some stories and these are compared in whatever way one likes.

 

Another set of stories is made by people who doubt the whole enterprise

say it is a lost cause ending in nothing. No stories come out, no

stories wanted.

 

Another set of stories are are made by people who do not care one way or

another and enjoy the conversation about these matters. Out come some

stories and these are compared in whatever way one likes.

 

Another set of stories are made ny people who think all people seeking

to do this are nuts and wasting their time. Out come stories about the

nuts who are wasting their time.

 

Another set of stories.....

 

So we take a story and do what with it? We try to verify it, through

experience.

 

If the above concepts are talked about so much, speculated on, and all

that, it must not be experienced by many here. If it is experienced then

those who do experience it could do a great service for those who do not

have this ability by telling of their experience. Straight from the

horses mouth. Is this not a good solution. Then others may be

experiencing the same thing and realize, My God, I have been trying to

do that for years, and I have been doing it all along! But it seems that

there is a great deal of hesitancy about sharing this way in general and

telling where one is at in this area. Something to do, I suppose, if the

curtains can come down.

 

So in terms of the con, Here is a story. You are sold a piece of land in

a certain location from a picture given to you by a con man. He says,

" This is a solid piece of land and for this price you are getting a real

deal. " " Now look closely and carefully at the picture and tell me if

this is what you want. " You examine the picture quickly and it looks

good to you for you are hoping to get a good deal and this looks like a

real chance. You then look at the man and he looks honest and sincere

and you believe him. He asks you if you are certain because there are no

refunds and you answer saying, " Yes I am certain, I am sure. "

 

So you pay the money, thank him and go to see the land you bought,

taking whatever time it takes. You finally arrive at the address given

and there is a solid piece of land but it doesn't look like the one in

the picture and so you are upset and feeling tricked and abused and wish

you could get your money back.

 

So you go off dejected, wondering and wondering how this could have

happened. Then by accident you bump into the con man again. And he says.

" Oh, good to see you and how is your land doing? " Immediately you are

pissed at the guy who you know now to be a crook, a thief, and so you

say, " You lied to me, the picture and the land didn't match, what I paid

for was a lie, give me back my money now! " The con man looks quizzically

at you for a moment and says, " Oh I see, you did not read the caption

under the picture did you. " Look at it, and you will see that it says

clearly in big black print, " Artist's Rendition. "

 

" You got what you paid for, my friend, a solid piece of land as I told

you. " " Next time, make sure you properly understand what you are told

and offered, gain a little more experience about what you are going to

buy before buying and then you will see things properly and not what you

imagine because of your desires to have something for little or

nothing. " " By such desires, I make lots of money. "

 

Lewis