"Keynes" <Keynes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:plhr24thamcpp7s6a9a9u9shhgqv7hlmj5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
at work near the end of a ****ft they are fond of saying
that they are ready to get the hell outta here and i tell
them that it's not possible since hell is a permanent
resident of assembly factories.
|
