Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 In " nirvana is samsara " buddha found the closest way to tell people " hey, this is your life, that's it and there's no more after this, don't hope in no heavens or reincarnation " but if you insist on this line people freak out and fall in despondency (i tried), they are frail and life is hard enough, they badly need hope-dope, a whole race on the brink of " suicide " like the dodo bird race in the cartoon ice-age (wasn't that hilarious!?); so let people keep their fairy tales alive so they can perfom dutifully in daily routine without screwing up society and economy with their booboos and medications. Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 1/21/05 6:52:04 AM, lbb10@c... 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 22, 2005 Report Share Posted January 22, 2005 Eric Paroissien wrote: > > In " nirvana is samsara " buddha found the closest way to tell people > " hey, this is your life, that's it and there's no more after this, > don't hope in no heavens or reincarnation " > but if you insist on this line people freak out and fall in > despondency (i tried), they are frail and life is hard enough, they > badly need hope-dope, a whole race on the brink of " suicide " like the > dodo bird race in the cartoon ice-age (wasn't that hilarious!?); so > let people keep their fairy tales alive so they can perfom dutifully > in daily routine without screwing up society and economy with their > booboos and medications. It could also be said that it means, " What you see is what you get " with the emphasis on seeing as proper understanding. That is about as sharp as I can get, I am unable to make it sharper. The hard, sharpened edge you give to these words can be a surgical tool, if it is properly understood. I always read you to see if there is a nice sharp tool to do some work with. A surgeon is necessary to have around. Just think of all the appendixes that went bad with no one to take them out. > > Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > > > > > > Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 1/21/05 6:52:04 AM, lbb10@c... 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.