Doubt before insight.

[Guest guest]

On 6/11/01 at 11:02 AM Dharma wrote:

 

º>>>Jan:

º>†>Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask (persona)

º>†>left

º>†>Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a "fixed"

º>†frame...

º>†

º>>Dharma:

º>†Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a mind/brain, a

º>†body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use one

º>†language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than

ºothers...

º>†wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what remains

º>†of a persona... something to use?

º>†

º>Jan:

º>There's no more opportunity to ask Ramana

º>So I can only speak for my self and that one-liner couldn't be

º>more concise... For "person", the dictionary gives:

º>The composite of characteristics that make up an individual personality;

º>the self.

º>And from that perspective, no personality remains as without fixed

ºbeliefs,

º>the characteristics will change in (and as a result of) the course of

º>events. >snip<

º

ºDharma:

ºYou must have a very small dictionary. My Webster's gives:

º

º>person, n. [OF. _persone_ (F. _personne_), fr. L. _persona_ a mask (used

º>by actors), a personage, part, person.]

º>1. _Archaic_. A character or part, as in a play.

º>2. A human being; a particular individual.

º>3. a One spoken of indefinitely; as, any _person_ present.

º> b A human being as distinguished from things or animals.

º> c One spoken of slightingly.

º>4. a The bodily form of a human being; also, outward appearance; as, of

º>comely _person_.

º> b Bodily presence; - in the phrase _in person_.

º>5. The real self of a human being; individual personality.

º>6. _Gram._ Any one of the three relations (that of the speaker, that of

º>one spoken to, and that of another person or thing spoken of, called

º>respectively the first, second, and third person) underlying discourse,

º>distinguished by certain pronouns and, in many languages, by inflected

º>forms of the verb (_I go_, _thou goest_, _he goes_).

º>7. _Law_. A human being (natural person), or a body of persons, or, in a

º>wider sense, an aggregate of property (_artificial_, _conventional_, or

º>_juristic person_), that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and

º>duties.

º>8. _Theol_. [_sometimes cap._] Among Trinitarians, one of the three modes

º>of being in the Godhead (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost); a

º>hypostasis*.

º>- _in person_. By oneself; with bodily presence.

º>

º>*hypostasis, n.; pl. -ses. [L., fr. Gr. _hypostasis_

º>subsistence,substance, deriv. of _hypo_ under + _histasthai_ to stand,

º>middle voice of _histanai_ to cause to stand.]

º>1. _Eccl. Hist._ a In the original Nicene use, equivalent to _ousia_**;

º>specif., the unique essence of the Godhead, and as such, of the three

º>persons of the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

º> b In later use, one of the persons of the Godhead. Also, the whole

º>personality of Christ as distinguished from his two natures, human and

º>divine.

º>2. _Med_. >snip<

º>3. _Philos_. Sunstance, subsistent principle, or essential nature of

ºanything.

º>

º>**|| ousia, n. [Gr.] Nature; substance; essence.

º

ºSeems to me you are picking one definition among many and insisting on

ºthat. And objecting to anyone else using the word in another sense. It's

ºnit-picking.

º

ºWhy not just take it in the sense that Tony meant it, which is perfectly

ºacceptable English usage?

º

ºOr do you also object to our speaking of the persons of the Trinity? )

º

ºLove,

ºDharma

 

I don't object to anything - words are but words )

Who cares?

Not even a "who" <laugh>

Nothing matters

The cat here is a realized person too

A silent one with a lot of non-verbal objections...

 

 

Joy and Light,

Jan

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony,

>> >Not really - when " " is the sole reality, there is no mask

>(persona)

>> >left

>> >Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a

>"fixed" frame...

>>

>> Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a

>mind/brain, a

>> body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to use

>one

>> language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than

>others...

>> wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what

>remains

>> of a persona... something to use?

>

>Tony:

>There was no Ramana to use anything, it was the universal mind that

>used itself.

 

You could say the same of Jesus, Gautama, and others. But there were

differences... in appearance, garb, language, habits, etc., etc...

universal mind expresses on the lower planes through some vehicle, a

Galilean carpenter, a prince of the Sakyas, etc.

 

If the realized " " is going to have no personality elements left at all,

then he will not be able to speak as a human being... he will not be

incarnate.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

>>>Not really - when " " is the sole reality,

>>there is no mask (persona)

>>>left

>>>Just an adaptive mind, empty when not 'at a task', without a

>>"fixed" frame...

>>

>>Even Ramana had to speak through personality elements... a

>>mind/brain, a

>>body... had to sit in one posture rather than another... to

>>use one

>>language rather than another... to use some gestures rather than

>>others...

>>wear one kind of clothing rather than another... Isn't that what

>>remains

>>of a persona... something to use?

>

> Dear Dharma -- What happens when there is no separation between a

>"user" and "something that is used" ...

 

Maybe a Mast? Fortunately, in India people revere them and take care of them.

>what is a persona then?

 

None there, I suppose. But I have no personal experience of Masts.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

> Dear Dharma -- What

happens when there is no separation between

a

>"user" and "something that is used"

....

Maybe a Mast? Fortunately, in India people revere them and take

care of them.

>what is a persona then?

None there, I suppose. But I have no personal experience of

Masts.

Love,

Dharma

Dear Dharma,

Are you sure there is a separation

between the persona "Dharma" and

something using that persona

for something?

Love,

Dan

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

>Are you sure there is a separation

> between the persona "Dharma" and

> something using that persona

> for something?

 

"Dharma" is a name used for all of me.

 

Don't mean to evade your question, but that's the wrong way to ask it.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

, Dharma <deva@L...> wrote:> >

> >Tony:

> >There was no Ramana to use anything, it was the universal mind that

> >used itself.

>

> You could say the same of Jesus, Gautama, and others. But there

were

> differences... in appearance, garb, language, habits, etc., etc...

> universal mind expresses on the lower planes through some vehicle,

a

> Galilean carpenter, a prince of the Sakyas, etc.

>

> If the realized " " is going to have no personality elements left

at all,

> then he will not be able to speak as a human being... he will not

be

> incarnate.

>

> Love,

> Dharma

 

Namaste Dharma,

 

The differences are the surviving karmas of that particular body,

restricted to that body involuntarily,,,,,no ego...a Jivanmukti. The

body continues on like a wheel whose motor has stopped but it still

spins its final revolutions.

 

I am not sure about incarnating aleady realised, that seems

contradictory. The Bhodisattvas put off final realisation in favour of

returning to help. Jesus seems to have become a jivanmukti in his own

lifetime.....ONS....Tony.

[Guest guest]

I am not sure about incarnating aleady realised, that seems

contradictory.

The Bhodisattvas put off final realisation in favour of

returning to help.

Bodhisattva vows to 'save' all sentient beings. Bodhisattva vows to

'free' all sentient beings. How? By relinquishing all clinging to

'I' and 'mine'. Thus thought may arise, but there is no thinker of

the thought and the thought is suchness or magical display of

primordial mind. The doing is done but no doer found. There is no

Bodhisattva to return or to not-return yet Bodhisattva returns again

and again. Pine tree teaches dhamma. Wind teaches dhamma. All Being

teaches the Law beyond all hope and fear.

All dhammas = emptiness

All dhammas = Bodhisattva

Bodhisattva = emptiness

Bodhisattva frees each being one at a time, thinking, feeling, seeing,

hearing, sensing, tasting, touching. Everything appears but nothing

has left or entered.

Joyce

[Guest guest]

, "Joyce Short" <insight@s...> wrote:

>

> I am not sure about incarnating aleady realised, that seems

> contradictory.

>

>

> The Bhodisattvas put off final realisation in favour of

> returning to help.

>

> Bodhisattva vows to 'save' all sentient beings. Bodhisattva vows to

'free'

> all sentient beings. How? By relinquishing all clinging to 'I' and

'mine'.

> Thus thought may arise, but there is no thinker of the thought and

the

> thought is suchness or magical display of primordial mind. The

doing is

> done but no doer found. There is no Bodhisattva to return or to

not-return

> yet Bodhisattva returns again and again. Pine tree teaches dhamma.

Wind

> teaches dhamma. All Being teaches the Law beyond all hope and fear.

>

> All dhammas = emptiness

>

> All dhammas = Bodhisattva

>

> Bodhisattva = emptiness

>

> Bodhisattva frees each being one at a time, thinking, feeling,

seeing,

> hearing, sensing, tasting, touching. Everything appears but nothing

has left

> or entered.

>

> Joyce

 

Namaste Joyce,

 

It seems to me that a 'thought', however subtle is required to put in

motion the process that ends up a body.

 

Realised is no thought at all.

 

I have always had this question about Bhodisattvas, even Buddha wasn't

born 'realised', or why the couple of weeks under the Bodhi tre ending

his search for Nirvana?

 

OM Namah Sivaya.....Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Joyce,

Namaste, Tony.

It seems to me that a 'thought', however subtle is required to put in

motion the process that ends up a body.

Clinging to thought as 'my' thought will put one in an identification

with thought or thought-body, and yes, clining can be both subtle and

gross. With any clinging of 'me' or 'mine' thought-habit, body and

mind arise each moment, endure and then dissolve or return to

Suchness. This is the meaning of 'a lifetime' in Buddhism. All

thought, all appearance is the magical display of primordial mind.

Not recognizing this, mind takes appearance to be permament, solid

and self. Clinging = suffering arising from delusion, the mistaken

view of self. When there is clinging or identification to any sound,

there may arises liking or disliking. This will appear, endure and

dissolve. hey presto, born and died again. But, "lest ye be born

again as incorruptible seed", etc. Supreme Self realization,

primordial mind, the incorruptible. Fear of death is the false

identification of 'this is my body.' Beginning point of Buddhist

path...Right View.

Realised is no thought at all.

There is the state of no-thought, and the state of non-birth but this

is not the realization of emptiness, sunyata, not final

relinquishment of 'I' and 'mine', Supreme. Not being 'realized I

can't speak to this. There are many teachings on realization from

those who may know but no-thought doesn't apply and is not sought

after. Realization in Buddhism is experienced as both sudden and

gradual and always means the truth-discerning wisdom where mind

recognizes the truth of impermanence, suffering and non-self.

Practice is like the drop of water spreading out over the pond.

Moments of wisdom, of recognition of truth by mind until the full

realization. There is no 'I' that gets realized, juts a shift in

orientation. Realization is seeing the truth of this -quite funny.

Buddha is seen to merely have recognized this characteristic of mind,

all characteristics, how clinging causes suffering and the truth of

non-self, and the characteristics of emptiness, pure radiance, energy

and potential. "pure' because nothing added, no separate self

addition. He experienced much more, the whole forest of reality but

taught only a handful of leaves from the forest.

I have always had this question about Bhodisattvas, even Buddha wasn't

born 'realised', or why the couple of weeks under the Bodhi tre ending

his search for Nirvana?

The traditional Pali scriptures (Theravada) refers to Buddha as

Bodhisattva before he became Buddha. Buddha is not seen as seeking

Nirvana for himself. Having seen the truth of suffering he sought the

path for the freedom from suffering for all sentient beings. This is

the teaching of the Dhamma of Samana Gotama. There are other Dhammas

or teachings such as those of Nigantha Nataputta who founded the Jain

sect. At the time, people would study the Dhamma of whatever

resonated, still true. I guess you could also discuss the Dhamma of

Ramana Maharshi in these terms. Eveutally all dhammas=emptiness, or

perhaps the fullness and completeness of Supreme Self. The Buddha

did not discuss this, he only taught the Way.

But, there are and have been many Buddhas and many understandings and

expressions of Buddha. And the Buddha's teachings of the Law of

Nature are on many levels, for many different beings, so one can't

really sum them up except to say that there is nothing to clinging to

as 'me' or 'mine' and then investigate. Nothing worth having or being.

Only through investigation for oneself, free of beliefs, can mind of

truth-discerning wisdom experience the truth. Truth is a path

experience arising in mind. Haven't found anything that isn't mind,

yet when I look, I can't find any mind at all. Very funny.

As a man thinks that is what he is -in any given moment. Should death

occur in any moment, as it might, the bardo of life stops and other

bardos arise, all mental karmas unfold unless there is full

recognition of Truth, Clear Light of primordial mind. When the body

is dropped, whatever the mind of any being is at that time is what

they will experience if they do not recognize primordial mind. The

training is to die before you die, and if that doesn't work, to die

when you die. Interesting topic. Meant for practice and not for

mental proliferation so you can see im not a very good student.

Joyce

[Guest guest]

, "Joyce Short" <insightfound

> anything that isn't mind, yet when I look, I can't find any mind at

all.

> Very funny.

>

> As a man thinks that is what he is -in any given moment. Should

death occur

> in any moment, as it might, the bardo of life stops and other bardos

arise,

> all mental karmas unfold unless there is full recognition of Truth,

Clear

> Light of primordial mind. When the body is dropped, whatever the

mind of

> any being is at that time is what they will experience if they do

not

> recognize primordial mind. The training is to die before you die,

and if

> that doesn't work, to die when you die. Interesting topic. Meant

for

> practice and not for mental proliferation so you can see im not a

very good

> student.

>

> Joyce

 

Namaste Joyce,

 

Yes that seems to be the teaching of the 'Tibetan Book of the Dead',

and Lama Lodo and Kalu Rinpoche on the Bardo Teachings. This is

obviously Mahayana stuff not Theravada. Mahayana is so similar to

Catholicism and Hinduism with its demons, saints and rituals. There is

a lot of emphasis in Mahayana, its seems to me, on Bardos.

 

Buddha probably was a Bhodisattva before birth, indicating final

dissolution or Nirvana/Nirguna Moksha had been put off, as seems the

case with Jesus. Cayce say that Jesus was a planetary deity that

'fell', on descending with the 'Sons of God', and therefore returned

to show the way of no death. It is interesting that Jesus spent time

in a Tibetan monastery.

 

However it seems to me that the end of everything can only be Nir/ Not

Vana/ Blowing, or Nirguna. Any kind of energy, is at best at the

Saguna Level and therefore not nirvana.

 

Om Namah Sivaya......Tony.

[Guest guest]

Hi Joyce --

Thanks for what you share here -- excellent stuff.

One thing occurred to me to say:

This stuff about not being here, then dissolving,

then being here.

How is that being observed?

Is it being observed by someone, or some awareness

who is here, or who is not?

I submit that profound expressions like the ones you

cite, are yet teaching tools. Valuable at the

point

where they incite or entice attention and

investigation.

However, those teachings themselves automatically

drop when it's clear that if anything's here, I'm here,

and if something's not here and/or everything's

not here -- I'm here.

If I'm not here,

then there's no way to know.

So am I "really" here or not here --

can't say.

The only reason for saying, "if anything's here,

I'm here" is because using language determined by

consensus (of beings who all agree they are here),

the words sound like this ;-)

Love,

Here?

Again??

Namaste Joyce,

Namaste, Tony.

It seems to me that a 'thought', however subtle is required to put in

motion the process that ends up a

body.

Clinging to thought as 'my' thought will put one in an identification

with thought or thought-body, and yes, clining can be both subtle and

gross. With any clinging of 'me' or 'mine' thought-habit, body and

mind arise each moment, endure and then dissolve or return to

Suchness. This is the meaning of 'a lifetime' in Buddhism.

All thought, all appearance is the magical display of primordial

mind. Not recognizing this, mind takes appearance to be permament,

solid and self. Clinging = suffering arising from delusion, the

mistaken view of self. When there is clinging or identification to any

sound, there may arises liking or disliking. This will appear,

endure and dissolve. hey presto, born and died again. But,

"lest ye be born again as incorruptible seed", etc. Supreme

Self realization, primordial mind, the incorruptible. Fear of death is

the false identification of 'this is my body.' Beginning point of

Buddhist path...Right View.

Realised is no thought at all.

There is the state of no-thought, and the state of non-birth but this

is not the realization of emptiness, sunyata, not final relinquishment of

'I' and 'mine', Supreme. Not being 'realized I can't speak to this. There

are many teachings on realization from those who may know but no-thought

doesn't apply and is not sought after. Realization in Buddhism is

experienced as both sudden and gradual and always means the

truth-discerning wisdom where mind recognizes the truth of impermanence,

suffering and non-self. Practice is like the drop of water

spreading out over the pond. Moments of wisdom, of recognition of

truth by mind until the full realization. There is no 'I' that gets

realized, juts a shift in orientation. Realization is seeing the

truth of this -quite funny. Buddha is seen to merely have

recognized this characteristic of mind, all characteristics, how clinging

causes suffering and the truth of non-self, and the characteristics of

emptiness, pure rad

I have always had this question about Bhodisattvas, even Buddha

wasn't born 'realised', or why the couple of weeks under the Bodhi tre

ending his search for Nirvana?

The traditional Pali scriptures (Theravada) refers to Buddha as

Bodhisattva before he became Buddha. Buddha is not seen as seeking

Nirvana for himself. Having seen the truth of suffering he sought the

path for the freedom from suffering for all sentient beings. This is the

teaching of the Dhamma of Samana Gotama. There are other Dhammas or

teachings such as those of Nigantha Nataputta who founded the Jain sect.

At the time, people would study the Dhamma of whatever resonated, still

true. I guess you could also discuss the Dhamma of Ramana Maharshi

in these terms. Eveutally all dhammas=emptiness, or perhaps the fullness

and completeness of Supreme Self. The Buddha did not discuss this,

he only taught the Way.

But, there are and have been many Buddhas and many understandings and

expressions of Buddha. And the Buddha's teachings of the Law of

Nature are on many levels, for many different beings, so one can't really

sum them up except to say that there is nothing to clinging to as 'me' or

'mine' and then investigate. Nothing worth having or being. Only

through investigation for oneself, free of beliefs, can mind of

truth-discerning wisdom experience the truth. Truth is a path

experience arising in mind. Haven't found anything that isn't mind, yet

when I look, I can't find any mind at all. Very funny.

As a man thinks that is what he is -in any given moment. Should

death occur in any moment, as it might, the bardo of life stops and other

bardos arise, all mental karmas unfold unless there is full recognition

of Truth, Clear Light of primordial mind. When the body is dropped,

whatever the mind of any being is at that time is what they will

experience if they do not recognize primordial mind. The training is to

die before you die, and if that doesn't work, to die when you die.

Interesting topic. Meant for practice and not for mental

proliferation so you can see im not a very good student.

Joyce

 

Sponsor

/join

 

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always

Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to

be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome

all to a.

Your use of is subject to the

Terms of

Service.

[Guest guest]

Hi Dan,

Hi Joyce --

Thanks for what you share here -- excellent stuff.

'But'....she laughs.........

One thing occurred to me to say:

Great!

This stuff about not being here, then dissolving,

then being here.

How is that being observed?

Is it being observed by someone, or some awareness

who is here, or who is not?

Yes, the initial pointing out of things appearing to arise, endure and

then dissolve is a teaching device to begin break down fixation- the

sense of a permanent witness to events that are moving (or not) can

remain but with a little less grasping at what is obviously

impermanent. And even here one can encounter the fear of death, the

fear of impermanence.

Then it becomes clearer that moment to moment, a witness to any event

appears with the mental event and dissolves with the event. Thus the

birth and death of witness moment to moment. The lesson being that

mind recognizes that clinging to anything impermanent is delusional

and causes more suffering. Here one can experience real fear and

loathing towards what one is clinging to, the experience that 'I' am

dissolving along with events, but eventually this is replaced with

equanimity and dispassion. 'Mind' and it's objects disappear

together. And to make a long story short, when mind recognizes that

clinging to all phenomena is unsatisfactory, it lets go of the habit.

And this is partial until complete relinquishment with moments of

full insight, complete letting go of all body/mind. This gives mind

an inkling into reality. I couldn't really say that this experience

comes because any practice or teaching. All interpretations of

experience comes after the fact and is filtered through customs and

tradition. Seems we create reality through agreement about

experience. I enjoy hearing about others experience and am informed

by it.

So - when I attempt to communicate about experience in this moment -

there is really nothing at all to grasp on to to speak about.

Sometimes there is awareness 'of' witness arising with mind object

and disappearing with it. Sometimes awareness 'as' an event...no

separation. Much of the time, there is nothing occurring at all about

which to speak. No separateness from 'events' -no witness, although

obviously there is something moving through daily tasks. Mind just

'heard' bird singing, bird has been singing for awhile but just now,

mind contacted this through hearing. So awareness occurs as bird

song. Bird just now flew through 'me'. And something else will occur

as something else. But, this knowing seems to come out of a space of

not-knowing -at which point I wonder where is/was everything? There

seems a vast space of awareness and on occassion awareness focuses on

some-thing which can be seen as other than awareness, or an expression

of awareness, or not.

I submit that profound expressions like the ones you

cite, are yet teaching tools. Valuable at the point

where they incite or entice attention and investigation.

However, those teachings themselves automatically

drop when it's clear that if anything's here, I'm here,

and if something's not here and/or everything's

not here -- I'm here.

Yes, teaching devices, and only an indication such as when one is

writing about the ocean which is naturally a limited expression, to

actually swimming in it. Thinking about death or actually dying

which is rather total. I'm currently stuck with love of Dharma and

any and all expressions of it. This 'Joyce' objectifies 'Joyce' and

objectifies 'Dharma', which she loves...if that doesn't sound too

mad. It's not even 'my' Dharma -I love the teachings, I love the

teachers, I love my Dharma brothers and sisters, I love the whole

human production. It must be a bit like those who love God. In order

to completely find God, you have to let go of even one thought of God.

I doubt whether willing anything can make it happen at this point.

So -I examine stuckness. Probably this small love clinging is a way

of 'being here.' laugh. Still, pine tree teaches Dharma. Bird

teaches Dharma.

Thank you for taking the time to ask questions and plowing on through

this verbiage. This is valuable to me as is your constancy. I have

actually always been more curious about who we all are, what is this

universe and so forth. No one ever seems to ask except physicists.

Understanding Who Am I seems to be as close as we get to 'it'.

Just here, and then, not, and then.....

Love Joyce

If I'm not here,

then there's no way to know.

So am I "really" here or not here --

can't say.

The only reason for saying, "if anything's here,

I'm here" is because using language determined by

consensus (of beings who all agree they are here),

the words sound like this ;-)

Love,

Here?

Again??