"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:lvfr24t0pf9iuha3t7pch28bmgkfeoq1s9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:04:30 -0700 (PDT), Dave K <dkotschess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>On May 16, 6:57 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
>>If I'm reading you right (which isn't easy for me to do) you're saying
>>that the reason I'm wrong is becuase Nirvanna is "blanker" than the
>>states I described? If that's the case, of course you are right. But
>>I was referring to "worldly" states, and I meant that to be implied in
>>what I was saying, so I didn't outright say it.
>>
>>My point was that deep states of samadhi or not-thinking are plain
>>useless by themselves. I was addressing the widely held misconception
>>held by folks such as Raan, Peter Olcott, Eric Putkonen and others
>>that what Buddhists aspire to is a merely a state of blankness.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>It's just a theory and maybe I'm making an artificial distinction.
>>Where I'm getting it is from the phrase "think non-thinking." It
>>shows up in discources by Dogen and in other koans.
>>
>>I make the distinction because it would be easier to say "stop
>>thinking" indicating a mere blankness, which again (from what I can
>>tell) what many people think meditation is about - "stopping
>>thoughts." But if Dogen et al. meant "stop thinking" they would have
>>said so.
>>
>>Back when I used to read Alan Watts he had an analogy of a floodlight
>>vs. a spotlight. The spotlight is like thoughts, chopping chopping
>>chopping. You can't see the whole room at once with a spotlight.
>>Turn on the flood light and the whole thing lights up. That is why
>>thoughts don't see the big picture, hence the subject.
>>
>>So because I am a dharma geek I was just putting forth a theory. The
>>Buddha says that in the fourth jhana, in which there is no longer
>>thought (vitaka and vicara) he "inclined his mind" towards various
>>objects. Obviously there was mentation, brain activity, whatever, but
>>no vitaka and vicara. He didn't "think about" these things becuase
>>thoughts take too long to get the picture.
>>
>>So I'm equating Buddha's "inclined mind" in the fourth jhana with the
>>floodlight, and further equating it with non-thinking (since there are
>>no thoughts).
>>
>>It's completely arbitrary. I put it out there for discussion though I
>>have to admit some amusement in watching zennies get bent out of shape
>>about my theories.
>>
>>-DaveK
>
> Blankness and fullness are a rational dichotomy.
> As long as it's one thing or the other it's still not
> free of rational dualities. If it were easy to explain
> it would be less than what it is.
>
> So take the Buddha as an example. He was not
> unconscious, so unconsciousness is probably not it.
> He called it awakening and not 'enslumbering' so
> there is possibly some expansion involved. He
> was not aloof and unresponsive, so that's probably
> not it either.
>
> According to the diamond sutra it's something of
> a nothing. And apparently there's no way at all
> to think about it. So best to not think about it.
not thinking about it is still a thought
|
