Dave K wrote:
> 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.
Fu once replied to Colin Hankin (3 Jul 2003):
<<You wrote:
"What makes us happy is good and what makes us unhappy is bad."
Then you say "Good and bad refer to our actions, happy and
unhappy refer to our state of mind." Obvious poppycock,
since we enter mind states of 'suffering', which we label "bad",
and of pleasure/happiness, which we label "good".
There's probably some way out of this apparent contradiction,
but perhaps it's only a matter of semantics. "Happiness" or "sadness"
is a thought/emotional reaction to an event/perception.
There is no happiness/sadness in/to/of 'nirvana'. There is nothing
left of emotion/thinking. We are not "aware" of an 'it' - there is no
mirror of awareness left. It's not "logically impossible", it's
mentally impossible to go beyond that point.
It is a misstatement to call it, as you do, "perfect happiness"
and, in fact 'it' cannot be 'called' anything at all because there
are no emotion/thought referents left. If one doesn't progress past
the 'bliss' of jhana, one misses the whole point, winds up
'stuck in the void' and becomes dysfunctional, unable to act in samsara.
If you're going to hijack buddhism, it's all well and good,
but at least hijack the whole method and don't leave the 'real
goods' behind on the sidewalk. Eckhart Tolle's victims pay
a lot for tapes and 'happiness' sessions - quite hypnotic until
they step outside and wonder where to go from there.>>
That is about as blank as anything can get.
<<There is no happiness/sadness in/to/of 'nirvana'. There is nothing
left of emotion/thinking. We are not "aware" of an 'it' - there is no
mirror of awareness left. It's not "logically impossible", it's
mentally impossible to go beyond that point.
It is a misstatement to call it, as you do, "perfect happiness"
and, in fact 'it' cannot be 'called' anything at all because there
are no emotion/thought referents left.>>
Fu contradicts Buddhism, as the Buddha calls Nirvana
"happiness" (piti) many times. It seems that Fu negates all
existence to arrive at what he describes.
> 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.
I often quote SN, IV, 202 (35, 207), SA, 1168, 312a-b,
where the "I am" (asmiti) is declared to be a thought or a
mentation (maññita), and the Buddha adds: "mentating
(maññamana, Skt. manyamana) is to be bound by the Evil
One (marassa baddho), not mentating (amaññamana, Skt.
amanyamana) is to be released from the Evil One (mutto
papimato)." This sentence is repeated at SA, 21, 4c, SN,
III, 74-75 (22, 64), where it is expanded on as: "Mentating
form (rupam maññamano) [and the other aggregates] is to
be bound by the Evil One, not mentating (amaññamana,
here not mentating is absolute as the aggregates are not
mentioned) is to be released from the Evil One." Later the
Scripture on the Meeting of Father and Son
(Pita-putra-samagama-sutra) from the Siksa-samuccaya,
251 clones the Buddha's words: "Great king, thinking is the
name of the domain of the Evil One, non-thinking the
Buddha's (manyana ca nama maharaja mara-gocarah,
a-manyana buddha-gocarah)"; so does the Descent into
Ceylon (Lankavatara-sutra, ed. Vaidya, 72): "As far as the
effervescence of mind extends, so far extends the domain of
the world (yavad ... mano-vispanditam ... taval lokayatam)."
However the state of non-mentation is arrived at gently,
not forcibly.
<<If the monk with regard to the four formless places
contemplates them with wisdom as they are, he does not
accomplish them, does not move into them. He therefore
neither composes nor wills out/mentates (n‘eva
abhisankharoti nabhisañcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or
un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought
(maññita, Skt. manyita), "I am this" (ayam aham asmiti) is
a thought, "I will be" is a thought, "I will neither be nor not
be" is a thought, "I will be with form" is a thought, "I will
be without form" is a thought, "I will be with notion" is a
thought, "I will be without notion" is a thought, "I will be
neither with notion nor without notion" is a thought; the
monk thinks: "If there is none of these thoughts, agitations,
etc., the mind is quiesced." The Pali says: "when he is
gone beyond all thoughts, the sage is said to be at peace"
(sabba-maññitanam tveva samatikkama muni santo ti
vuccati).>> Chinese Madhyama-Agama, 162, 692a, MN,
III, 246 (140).
That is as explicit as it gets, specifically about absence of
thinking. It is explicitly equated with liberation. In Chinese,
the expression is wu-nian, as in Hui-neng.
Tang Huyen
|
