^@[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:
>
>> 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
>
> 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.
makes sense.
stopping thought by brute force is not meditation in any case.
robert
- - - - - -
|
