Darkness cannot be seen, as nothing presents but what is imagined absent.
KG
On 10/6/2012 11:03 PM, Merle Lester wrote:
you might already be enlightened.... have you considered this?.
.searching for the light with a broomstick is about what you seem to
be doing here
merle
Thank you for your thoughts. I think you are right, for after all, I
am still being dualistic. The problem is that I can't find the lemon
to bite into.
For example, I have three kinds of "emptiness" meditations, but none
of them could be correct because none of them enlighten me. Although
they are incorrect, you asked about how I meditate, so I will briefly
describe them.
1. Ordinary space. If I sit and don't think, there is a space without
thoughts, relaxation, etc.. The space is a little like when I look at
the sky. However, that hasn't enlightened me.
2. Then there is subtle space, which I discovered by trying to see
what is behind my head. It is much subtler than ordinary space, not
really so much seen as just sort of something I am aware of. Compared
with it, ordinary space is coarse and heavy.
3. Then there is an emptiness I don't have control of, but it hasn't
enlightened me. In it, I suddenly discovered that I shrunk to a point
and disappeared, and am now re-expanding into my ordinary field of
awareness. So it is a kind of discontinuity of consciousness - more
than something like sleep. When it happens, there are unexpected ideas
in my head when I have returned from the discontinuity.
But none of those are right, because they didn't cause me to become
enlightened.
Jim
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
"billsmart" <BillSmart@...> wrote:
>
> Jim,
>
> Caveat: Everything I tell you is only my opinion.
>
> You've read a lot of books on what a lemon tastes like but now you
need to bite into the lemon and find out for yourself. The books can't
do that for you. They can encourage you and lead you up to that point,
but their usefulness ends there - and in fact I'd even say much of
what you've learned could be a hindrance to you in taking that final step.
>
> The taste of the lemon (and ONLY that)is what I call Buddha Nature,
and it is non-dualistic (no taster/lemon distintion - no
subject/object). It is what I often call 'Just THIS!' When experienced
it has no name, no description - it is Just THIS! Later we put names
on it and give it a description - but then it is not the thing itself
(Just THIS!), it is our description of it. It is what all the books
you have read are trying to do.
>
> IMO the image you described below as called
"mental-integration-itself" is illusory - samsara. As soon as you
become aware of it as something that seems to be an "...image inside
my head, I can see all parts of the image simultaneously because
something in me is integrating the parts of the image in some way."
What you are describing here is still dualistic - there is a you, you
have a head, your head has an inside, this image is located there, the
image has parts, etc...
>
> The second description starts to move a little farther away from
dualism: "In a way, this transparent mental-integration-itself seems
to be in front of the image. I then de-emphasize the image so it slips
partly from awareness, while becoming more aware of the clear empty
mental-integration-itself." A lot would depend on just what you meant
by the phrase "clear empty mental-integration-itself." If you are
still clinging to a dualistic view of this, something like, 'I am
sitting, and I experience an image, and that image has parts and then
another image appears that I call the 'mental-integration' of that
first image, and then the first image disappears from my awareness (or
at least recedes into the background)- and this new image is EMPTY'.'
I'd have to again ask, what do you mean by 'empty'?
>
> If you mean this new image that you are now aware of that exists
inside you has no form, that's one thing. If you mean 'all is empty',
no me, no image, Just EMPTINESS!, then that is another thing entirely.
>
> Again, all this is just IMO.
>
> Before I could really offer you any advice I'd have to know what you
mean by 'mediation'. How do you do about that? If you could explain
that a little more it would help. Here's an example of how I sit (zazen):
>
> I start sitting by counting my breathes, then following my breathes
and then I drop the following and there is Just THIS!. In Japanese
this is called 'shikantaza' which literally means 'just sit' or is
sometimes translated as 'no mind'. What I do NOT do is try to
visualize anything or think of anything (like a 'safe place' or a
mantra), although I know these are styles of meditation.
>
> Thanks, and WELCOME TO THE ZEN FORUM!
>
> ...Bill!
>
>
> --- In [email protected]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "jfnewell7" <jfnewell7@> wrote:
> >
> > I need some practice advice. In my meditation, I have become aware
of something I will call "mental-integration-itself" although those
words are only an approximation. I will therefore report some
background and details, below, to see if I can get this across. What I
need is advice on whether or not mental-integration-itself is enough
on the path that I should spend a lot of time noticing it. Also, of
course, if anyone sees a way I can improve on the
mental-integration-itself awareness I have so far, I would be grateful.
> >
> > Both Dzogchen and Zen say that somehow, satori and samsara are the
same. I have tried for years to understand what that would feel like.
Here are a several examples from a vast number of comments:
> >
> > Cleary, Thomas, trans. (2002) SECRETS OF THE BLUE CLIFF RECORD,
ZEN COMMENTS BY HAKUIN AND TENKEI, Boston& London: Shambhala
> >
> > Page 76, "If potential does not leave a static position, it falls
into a sea of poison ...
> >
> > "[Hakuin] The entirety of this introduction applies to the
example. `Potential' is what appears before being expressed in words;
the `static position' is the cave of satori...
> >
> > "[Tenkei] If you realize an awakening but do not eliminate leaking
of views, you stick to the absolute stasis of transcendence in the
realm of satori, which is to `fall into a sea of poison' ... "
> >
> > Rabjam, Longchen, Richard Barron, trans., Padma Translation
Committee (2001) THE PRECIOUS TREASURY OF THE BASIC SPACE OF
PHENOMENA, Junction City" Padma Publishing.
> >
> > Page 7, "However things appear or sound, within the vast realm of
basic space they do not stray from the spontaneous equalness as
dharmakaya, awakened mind...
> >
> > Page 15, "On this infinite foundation, extending everywhere
impartially, the stronghold of awakened mind does not distinguish
between samsara and nirvana..."
> >
> > Norbu, Chogyal Namkhui, Adriano Clemente, and Andrew Lukianowicz
(1999) THE SUPREME SOURCE, THE KUNJED GYALPO, THE FUNDAMENTAL TANTRA
OF DZOGCHEN SEMDE, Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications
> >
> > Page 150, "I am the essence of all phenomena; nothing exists that
is not my essence. The teachers of the three dimensions {I'm unclear
about what "dimensions" means here, Jim} are my essence. The Buddhas
of the three times are my essence. The four types of yogins are my
essence. The three worlds, of desire, of form, and without form, too,
are my manifestations. The five great elements are my essence. The six
classes of beings are my essence. All the habitats and the beings
living therein are my essence. Nothing exists that is not my essence
because I am the universal root: there is nothing that is not
contained in me ..."
> >
> > OK. Now when I am meditating while there is an image inside my
head, I can see all parts of the image simultaneously because
something in me is integrating the parts of the image in some way. If
I try to see this mental-integration-itself, the
mental-integration-itself is like transparent space yet active. I can
barely detect this transparent and it doesn't look like any of the
shapes or colors of the image. In a way, this transparent
mental-integration-itself seems to be in front of the image. I then
de-emphasize the image so it slips partly from awareness, while
becoming more aware of the clear empty mental-integration-itself.
> >
> > Intellectually, the mental-integration itself which I experience
isn't any of the shapes or colors, yet it connects all the shapes and
colors together. So it has a little bit of form, from the connecting,
plus it is empty. Does the fact that it looks like it fits Buddhist
definitions mean that what I am experiencing actually does fit those
definitions? Therefore, would it be right to continue to become aware
of the mental-integration-itself with all kinds of perceptions,
experiences, and situations?
> >
> > So that I what I need some advice on.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
