"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:t8hr241pua3ja3ms8tpjrdcblqgce9pj0i@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
i feel that i do think but
what are feelings besides
a simple chemical and
electromagnetic phenomena ?
|
