On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:25:33 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"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
You think?
|
