On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:36:57 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"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 ?
According to the latest scientific findings
of 998, it's all angels and demons. We ought
to be casting out more demons. Cast em right
out of the whitehouse and see if that works.
|
