On Fri, 16 May 2008 13:12:41 -0400, "^@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>---*=#" <yomama@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Dave K" <dkotschess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:76567d50-621b-4fea-8d6c-55800b993851@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On May 16, 6:57 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>wrote:
>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
>
>from what i understand from kriya yoga and
>other sources there is never a time when the
>mind 'stops' per se. nisargadatta maharaj said
>that when you reach a 'higher' state, the mind
>still works but at a higher, more rapid mode of
>functioning. it gives up on 'word thinking', so to
>speak and dwells in a type of impression state
>wherein thoughts and comprehension are much
>more enhanced.
I guess that depends on what you define as mind, what consciousness
is, etc.
I'm pretty sure consciousness experiences 'states' which rational mind
is long dropped away from, and even subtle mind has a hard time
inputting.
In fact, consciousness is always conscious, even when we are
unconscious. Even whether we are alive or dead.
We're just not able to retain or remember data or input.
not being able to re****t back to mind in no way negates the 'what is'
of 'is'.
Being in that "place" and aware of it could be defined as awakening,
oneness, etc.
You were saying something about always being dead that I was trying to
corner you on a few days ago. I don't think 'dead' is the right word.
|
