"Ali" <lalala@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:25nr24tfr7ofefsifs360mamqj1jqntsdm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
Yes, I caught that as well. I think there is something im****tant in that
phrase and in the thought, but not sure exactly what. Definitely
something
beyond ordinary powers of description.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
|
