For you to 'rescue" another 'being', depends on attachment to being a
separate 'self' that can do so.
A simpler "possibility", is to first ask:
"Who is identifying and counting such beings, who is finding them to be
suffering, who desires to save them?"
If you can find this being, let it be the first you "rescue". No others
may ever be found so lacking.
If you don't find this being, you may realize this without effort. AKA -
'Cessation.'
KG
PS - To "project an insight" would seem to miss the point of same. ;)
On 10/7/2012 4:15 PM, jfnewell7 wrote:
What I am lacking is the ability to project an insight which would
almost instantly rescue every being in the universe from suffering.
That probably, actually, isn't even a possible goal. However, I am
still lacking the ability to quickly rescue a reasonable number of
beings on a single planet.
Jim
--- In [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
>
> 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]
<mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, 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]
<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
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
