Jim, What do you imagine you are lacking?
There is nothing lacking - ever. Let me rephrase that. Individual things can be lacking but Buddha Nature is never lacking since everything is a manifestation of Buddha Nature... It's just a matter of realizing that directly... Edgar On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:32 PM, jfnewell7 wrote: > I don't see how. There are good teachers who can do a lot of things I can't > do. > > Jim > > --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > Â 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 > > > > > > Â > > 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], "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], "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 > > > > > > > > > > >
