On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:32:37 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:ev8r24dmks0r8o9j5oo1njk04o4k881dng@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:54:53 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:0ImdnXLCxpgD9bDVnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dave K wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Buddha's two meditation teachers, Alara Kalama and Uddaka
>>>>> Ramaputta attained the last two formless attainments and thought
they
>>>>> had awakening. Kalama attained the "base of nothingness" and
>>>>> Ramaputta "the base of neither perception nor non perception."
Those
>>>>> are the highest possible states of absorption in the canon.
>>>>>
>>>>> In other words "You can't get any blanker."
>>>>>
>>>>> The dominant myth about meditation (which I was suprised to find
with
>>>>> Raan just now) is that it's merely something like this, a state of
>>>>> blank conciousness an nonactivity, and nothing else. It's easy
>>>>> enough to think "ok, if i stop thinking, I'll stop suffering, *BAM*
>>>>> enlighenment. These two teachers thought they were enlightened
>>>>> because of it, and lots of other people with lots of other
meditative
>>>>> experiences have thought the same thing. The Buddha knew better and
>>>>> left them.
>>>>
>>>> I have never attained to anything close to these
>>>> states, so I only talk book, but talking book,
>>>> you are flat wrong:
>>>>
>>>> <<Those are the highest possible states of
>>>> absorption in the canon.
>>>>
>>>> In other words "You can't get any blanker.">>
>>>>
>>>> To back up a little: the four form meditations
>>>> and the four formless attainments are worldly
>>>> states. Once in them, one can use them to
>>>> meditate on the contemplations of impermanence,
>>>> absence of self, suffering, emptiness, etc. and
>>>> thus turn them into world-transcending states.
>>>> They belong to calming (samatha), whereas such
>>>> contemplations belong to insight/penetration
>>>> (vipassana). As one gets up in the formless
>>>> attainments, they become more and more abstract,
>>>> more and more faint (your word: blank). As I said,
>>>> the four form meditations and the four formless
>>>> attainments are worldly states. The state of
>>>> nothingness is the third highest formless state, and
>>>> the state of neither-notion-nor-not-notion is the
>>>> highest formless state, and is also called the summit
>>>> of existence (bhava-agra), because it is the highest
>>>> form of existence, meaning the highest state of
>>>> faring-on (samsara). The Buddha calls it the state
>>>> with a remainder of the compositions (the
>>>> compositions being the fourth aggregate), and (here
>>>> is where you go wrong), there is a next higher state,
>>>> the cessation attainment (nirodha-samapatti), where
>>>> all compositions cease and Nirvana is attained. The
>>>> Buddha defines Nirvana as the complete calming of
>>>> the compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho), the
>>>> non-doing or non-acting (an-abhi-sankhara), where
>>>> sankhara "composition" comes from the stem kr- "to
>>>> do, to act" as in karman "act, deed".
>>>>
>>>> However Nirvana can also be attained below the
>>>> attainment of cessation by the complete calming of
>>>> the compositions (sabba-sankhara-samatho), the
>>>> non-doing or non-acting (an-abhi-sankhara). In each
>>>> form meditation or in each formless attainment, one
>>>> merely calms the compositions, and one is in
>>>> Nirvana. There is no other requirement to Nirvana
>>>> than the complete calming of the compositions, the
>>>> non-doing or non-acting. Thus, even as it is peace,
>>>> joy and bliss, it has no content, is content-free.
>>>>
>>>> The Buddha also defines Nirvana as the non-thinking
>>>> (an-abhi-cetayana), where the stem is cit- "to think",
>>>> as in citta "mind, thought", and the fourth aggregate,
>>>> the compositions, is also called the volitions (cetana).
>>>> Thus Nirvana is absence of doing, of acting
>>>> (an-abhi-sankhara) and absence of thinking
>>>> (an-abhi-cetayana). The attainment of cessation is
>>>> where calming and insight/penetration combine and
>>>> cooperate, so that all thinking and volition cease,
>>>> gently and not forcibly. To force it would be
>>>> contradictory because to force it would belong to
>>>> thought, to volition, to the compositions. But as I said,
>>>> all thinking and volition can also cease, gently and
>>>> not forcibly, in each form meditation and formless
>>>> attainment, and Nirvana is thereby attained.
>>>>
>>>> As to what you say: <<IMO, this may be the distinction
>>>> that is made in zen between not-thinking and
>>>> non-thinking. The buddha did not apply thought,
>>>> because thoughts are ways of chopping up experience
>>>> into bits, a bit like trying to look at a large area with a
>>>> small flashlight. But he did apply his mind, which is
>>>> better able to perceive the big picture.>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you explain, especially the distinction that is
>>>> made in Zen between not-thinking and non-thinking?
>>>> I have never heard of such, in Chinese Chan.
>>>>
>>>> There is no application of mind in Nirvana, as in it all
>>>> thought and volition cease. There is application of mind
>>>> prior to Nirvana, to attain to it, but in it there is none,
>>>> just peaceful, easeful rest. It is total absence of activity
>>>> (remember, activity is kr- "to act, to do"). The big
>>>> picture is reached when one opens up and does not do
>>>> anything. Grace is bestowed on those who don't do
>>>> anything, especially anything to deserve it.
>>>>
>>>> Tang Huyen
>>>
>>>you cannot stop doing. you cannot stop
>>>eating drinking ****ing sleeping nor stop
>>>the felicity of the parasympathetic nervous
>>>system or the many other functions that take
>>>place automatically. this subatomic particle
>>>mass in expression is bound and determined
>>>to survive and you can't do much to stop it.
>>>you're being taken for the ride of your life.
>>>sit back and enjoy. you're not living, you
>>>are being lived.
>>
>> You can stop supposing that *you* are the doer.
>
>'you' is just a word for communication.
>i can give in to your cesspooling into a decidedly
>un-necessary word correction addiction but
>i'm sure that you could nitpick that to death too.
Watch out or you'll get me vibrating to my addictions.
To clarify, I was speaking of intention-volition.
(As if you didn't know.)
|
