Big picture (was: Re: Where rubberz meets the roadz)
Dave K
>
> Also, you've probably seen the old debate come up about whether
> awakening necessarily entails compassion or not. Many touchy-feely
> folks demand it does (and they may well be right): that if you are
> sufficiently awakened, you are so interconnected to others, that you
> can't help but feel compassion and act on it. Some, including Tang,
> have taken the other view: that you can be awakened but not
> necessarily be compelled to act out of compassion. You might just
> bliss out or be an amazing artist and create, or live as a hermit,
> etc.
>
> Anyway, the concentration theme sheds light on this issue. If one
> develops high levels of concentration without mindfulness or the other
> factors in the 8-step plan, one can easily become a very aware warrior
> or hit man, who is totally focused and can kill with emotional
> detachment and with no hesitation (indeed, such hesitation or
> compassion may just do him in and allow the other to get the first
> shot in). Martial arts are filled with egoless concentration.
>
> So perhaps the focus on right livelihood, right speech, etc. as well
> as right mindfulness, are included because one can get to a very high
> level of awareness with only concentration which involves no
> compassion and is morally neutral and can help one to be a good monk
> as well as a good hitman. Vipassana teachers tend to stress
> mindfulness as the most transformational aspect of meditation and
> concentration as only a means to be able to practice mindfulness
> effectively.
>
> --DharmaTroll
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.
The problem as you mentioned is lack of insight. Once you stand up
from a blank mind everything will just come flooding back again. It's
kind of like having a really powerful microscope but not using it to
look at anything. The Buddha had his awakening in the fourth Jhana,
which doesn't have thought (vitakka and vicara - applied and sustained
thought), but he applied his mind, though not his thoughts, to
different subjects which lead to his awakening:
"I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity &
mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that
arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.
"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished,
rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to
imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my
past lives...This was the first knowledge I attained in the first
watch of the night....
...I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance
of beings...This was the second knowledge I attained in the second
watch of the night...
..I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental
fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is
stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation
of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress...
These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations...
This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to
the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing,
was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the
fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance.
With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that
'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is
nothing further for this world."
MN 36
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.
-DaveK
Déjà Flu
...
> IMO, this may be the distinction that is made in zen between not-
> thinking and non-thinking.
That's YOUR distinction, not Zen's. In fact it's
a distinction without a difference.
> 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.
Oh, bullshit. You're starting to talk like Tang.
Your mythical master, the buddha, compiled by Injuns
over 2500 years, thought. He may not have admitted it
or even knew what the rest of his brain was doing
but he did, thinking right along and putting
words in his own mouth.
Zen translates into not telling yourself the story of
yourself and talking to yourself about it ALL THE DAMN TIME.
Once you fall off that merry-go-round horse, you simply
don't get back on because you've seen where you've been.
It's as difficult as yourself makes it. When it gets easy,
when you fall off, you know. And you don't have to do it
anymore. And you don't have to be proud of that. And you don't
have to obsess about it. And you don't have to appeal to
authority to make a point about it, you practice. But practice
is only a personal reminder - from you to you - not a trip
to the Land of Awakened and Enlightened Beings or other
Walt Disney Productions.
Tang Huyen
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".
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.
There is no application of mind in Nirvana, as in it all
thought and volition cease. There is application of mind
prior to Nirvana, to attain to it, but in it there is none,
just peaceful, easeful rest. It is total absence of activity
(remember, activity is kr- "to act, to do"). The big
picture is reached when one opens up and does not do
anything. Grace is bestowed on those who don't do
anything, especially anything to deserve it.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:0ImdnXLCxpgD9bDV...@supernews.com...
you cannot stop doing. you cannot stop
eating drinking shitting sleeping nor stop
the felicity of the parasympathetic nervous
system or the many other functions that take
place automatically. this subatomic particle
mass in expression is bound and determined
to survive and you can't do much to stop it.
you're being taken for the ride of your life.
sit back and enjoy. you're not living, you
are being lived.
Keynes
You can stop supposing that *you* are the doer.
^@%>---*=#
"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
news:ev8r24dmks0r8o9j5...@4ax.com...
'you' is just a word for communication.
i can give in to your cesspooling into a decidedly
un-necessary word correction addiction but
i'm sure that you could nitpick that to death too.
Keynes
Watch out or you'll get me vibrating to my addictions.
To clarify, I was speaking of intention-volition.
(As if you didn't know.)
^@%>---*=#
you can stop supposing that *you* are the doer
dt
I don't know about y'all, but I don't *want* to be the doer. At least
on the cop shows, the doer is always in jail or dead within an hour....
DT
^@%>---*=#
"dt" <dal...@ATnewsguy.com> wrote in message
news:g0kdmb$eu2$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
not if you can escape the helicopters, the
50 police cars, television cameras and a
nationwide all points bulletin manhunt.
Keynes
What an outrageous suggestion.
^@%>---*=#
take it in small bites
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.
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
^@%>---*=#
"Dave K" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76567d50-621b-4fea...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
-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.
Keynes
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
Keynes
You think?
^@%>---*=#
i feel that i do think but
what are feelings besides
a simple chemical and
electromagnetic phenomena ?
Keynes
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 shift 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.
Dave K
> Dave K wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > IMO, this may be the distinction that is made in zen between not-
> > thinking and non-thinking.
>
> That's YOUR distinction, not Zen's. In fact it's
> a distinction without a difference.
Did you miss the IMO?
> > 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.
>
> Oh, bullshit. You're starting to talk like Tang.
Oh Fu, my sweet and loving son.
> Your mythical master, the buddha, compiled by Injuns
> over 2500 years, thought. He may not have admitted it
> or even knew what the rest of his brain was doing
> but he did, thinking right along and putting
> words in his own mouth.
It depends on what you mean by thought. That's why I say he used his
mind, so there's mental stuffs going on, but to me this is different
than the usual type of thinking.
> Zen translates into not telling yourself the story of
> yourself and talking to yourself about it ALL THE DAMN TIME.
> Once you fall off that merry-go-round horse, you simply
> don't get back on because you've seen where you've been.
Translating zen, eh?
> It's as difficult as yourself makes it. When it gets easy,
> when you fall off, you know. And you don't have to do it
> anymore. And you don't have to be proud of that. And you don't
> have to obsess about it. And you don't have to appeal to
> authority to make a point about it, you practice. But practice
> is only a personal reminder - from you to you - not a trip
> to the Land of Awakened and Enlightened Beings or other
> Walt Disney Productions.
I'm my own authority first, the Buddha is second, and I'm afraid you
didn't make the list at all. But keep trying.
-DaveK
Ali
wrote:
Can we think in its general direction?
Keynes
Do you think you can? 8-)
Probably it is best appraoched indirectly
through insight meditation as the Buddha taught.
Or koan meditation-concentration.
From here the end looks like bafflement.
The end of conjectures and certainties.
When there's nowhere to go, then there you are.
Ali
wrote:
>
>"Dave K" <dkots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:76567d50-621b-4fea...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>On May 16, 6:57 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
>wrote:
>It's just a theory and maybe I'm making an artificial distinction.
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 report 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.
Evelyn Ruut
"Ali" <lal...@yayaya.com> wrote in message
news:25nr24tfr7ofefsif...@4ax.com...
Yes, I caught that as well. I think there is something important in that
phrase and in the thought, but not sure exactly what. Definitely something
beyond ordinary powers of description.
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn
Robert Epstein
makes sense.
stopping thought by brute force is not meditation in any case.
robert
- - - - - -
Tang Huyen
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 (mańńita), and the Buddha adds: "mentating
(mańńamana, Skt. manyamana) is to be bound by the Evil
One (marassa baddho), not mentating (amańńamana, 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 mańńamano) [and the other aggregates] is to
be bound by the Evil One, not mentating (amańńamana,
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 nabhisańcetayati) for becoming (bhava) or
un-becoming (vi-bhava). "[I] am" (asmiti) is a thought
(mańńita, 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-mańńitanam 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
Déjà Flu
...
>...I'm afraid you didn't make the list at all.
...
Superb! That's a good start, but I was more concerned
with the top of your list:
"I'm my own authority first, the Buddha is second."
Déjà Flu
...
> Fu once replied to Colin Hankin (3 Jul 2003):
> That is about as blank as anything can get.
Thank you.
Dave K
> Dave K wrote:
>
> ...>...I'm afraid you didn't make the list at all.
>
> ...
>
> Superb! That's a good start, but I was more concerned
Don't be.
-DaveK
Déjà Flu
Don't worry.
^@%>---*=#
mind has its roots in that 'field' of
consciousness and this is the medium by
which we comprehend thought and also
the medium in which thought arises. the
process of mind includes both the thoughts
and that by which we cognize them. at the
ending of existence consciousness is still
there but without the vehicle in which it knows
that it is it soon becomes only aware of itself
once again.
Keynes
And they all lived happily ever after...
That would make a cool movie
if there was lots of dancing and shooting.
So should we pray for the day of
conscious unconsciousness?
(Beats working maybe. But what doesn't?)
^@%>---*=#
have you seen the movie 'mindwalk' ?
Keynes
Nope. Haven't even seen the Matrix although
we have it on tape. Don't watch many movies.
I like Hensen's 'Labyrinth', and 'Dark Chrystal'.
Gilliam's 'Time Bandits' (for the ending mainly).
'Liar Liar', and nutso comedies.
Mindwalk looks interesting on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindwalk
Hey, watch it for free --
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9107401959308808776&q=mindwalk
Maybe, when I have the time...
Allen L. Barker
> ^@%>---*=# wrote:
>> 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.
That seems like a reasonable description, for
"word describing." The "more rapid" thing still
seems to imply logical-sequential, but just at a
higher clock-rate. Well, every metaphor fails at
some point (otherwise it would be the literal thing).
> makes sense.
>
> stopping thought by brute force is not meditation in any case.
At most levels of cognition, stopping thought by brute
force is a contradiction in terms: it is an oxymoron.
The very thought of "stopping thought" is a thought
itself, always hovering there, always keeping one in
the realm of thought.
You can force it a bit, like in the barreling Rinzai
way, but if you force it too much you only get farther
away from it. There is the old saying: "When you seek
it, you cannot find it."
You actually *can* stop verbal thought by brute force
(at least after some training, for most people). But
you still haven't completely "stopped thoughts," and
you haven't transcended concepts.
Nonetheless, the ability to stop verbal thoughts and
to transcend verbal thinking is sort of a milestone
along the path. So it should not be underestimated or
overestimated, but should just be put into perspective.
When one reaches such a point, he or she should just
take the time to observe the world from that
perspective, as much a possible in the circumstances.
And keep practicing, and keep pushing on.
Ali
wrote:
Annnnddd.....Action!
>So should we pray for the day of
>conscious unconsciousness?
>
>(Beats working maybe. But what doesn't?)
>
Beats unconscious consciousness by a big, fat whisker.
Awaken21
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 12:01:08 -0400, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> >> On Fri, 16 May 2008 11:32:37 -0400, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"Keynes" <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote in message
> >>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 10:54:53 -0400, "^@%>---*=#" <yom...@hotmail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:0ImdnXLCxpgD9bDV...@supernews.com...
> >>>>>> thought and volition cease. There is application of mind
> >>>>>> prior to Nirvana, to attain to it, but in it there is none,
> >>>>>> just peaceful, easeful rest. It is total absence of activity
> >>>>>> (remember, activity is kr- "to act, to do"). The big
> >>>>>> picture is reached when one opens up and does not do
> >>>>>> anything. Grace is bestowed on those who don't do
> >>>>>> anything, especially anything to deserve it.
>
> >>>>>> Tang Huyen
>
> >>>>>you cannot stop doing. you cannot stop
> >>>>>eating drinking shitting sleeping nor stop
> >>>>>the felicity of the parasympathetic nervous
> >>>>>system or the many other functions that take
> >>>>>place automatically. this subatomic particle
> >>>>>mass in expression is bound and determined
> >>>>>to survive and you can't do much to stop it.
> >>>>>you're being taken for the ride of your life.
> >>>>>sit back and enjoy. you're not living, you
> >>>>>are being lived.
>
> >>>> You can stop supposing that *you* are the doer.
>
> >>>'you' is just a word for communication.
> >>>i can give in to your cesspooling into a decidedly
> >>>un-necessary word correction addiction but
> >>>i'm sure that you could nitpick that to death too.
>
> >> Watch out or you'll get me vibrating to my addictions.
>
> >> To clarify, I was speaking of intention-volition.
> >> (As if you didn't know.)
>
> >you can stop supposing that *you* are the doer
>
> What an outrageous suggestion.
Says who?
jfe...@googlemail.com
It's not that kind of non doing.
jfe...@googlemail.com
> "Dave K" <dkotsch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:76567d50-621b-4fea...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 16, 6:57 am, Tang Huyen <tanghuyen{dele...@gmail.com[remove]>
> 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.
>
>
>
> 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
> 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.
Wasn't it Ramana Maharshi who said something like, the more advanced
you are the less thoughts? I don't think it's so much about stopping
thoughts but seeing what thoughts are trying to 'do'.
^@%>---*=#
<jfe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:4bbaa425-cf1f-44aa...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
you are not the doer nor the
non-doer
^@%>---*=#
<jfe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:edcd96fe-11f2-4054...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
in the above i tried to define what thought
really is and not what it appears to be from
the standpoint of a psyche caught up in
identification with slow moving word
thoughts. 'thought' can be at the speed
of light and beyond. word thoughts are
what they mean when they say something
about thoughts stopping.
Tang Huyen
jfe...@googlemail.com wrote:
> "^@%>---*=#":
>
> > 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.
>
> Wasn't it Ramana Maharshi who said something like,
> the more advanced you are the less thoughts? I don't
> think it's so much about stopping thoughts but seeing
> what thoughts are trying to 'do'.
There is a state where all thinking has been (gently,
not forcibly) quiesced and all thought has stopped.
There is also an attitude that takes everything
(including thought) to be airy and fluffy and
nothing to bother about, be it present or absent.
Both are for real, and do not exclude each other.
The Buddha teaches both, and both are in the early
canon. The former is a state of full consciousness
and no thought, the latter is a state of full
consciousness where there is permission for
everything, and nothing, whether present or absent,
bothers the person, but everything is divine, so to
speak the gift of God. The issue is not to get
bothered or not, but to enjoy the munificence of
the divine, a cornucopia of exuberance which
oozes out from everything and overflows all
limits, all borders, all boundaries. That is the
difference between a small mind (to get bothered
or not) and a great mind, which has room for
everything because everything is a blessing, in
full, without qualification. From the former to
the latter, the perspective has wholly changed.
"If a man throws a grain of salt into a little cup of
water, the water in that cup would become salty
and undrinkable owing to that grain of salt. But if
a man were to throw a similar grain of salt into
the river Ganges, because of the great mass of
water therein, it would not become salty and
undrinkable". Kalupahana, Causality, 131,
referring to AN, I, 250 (III, 90). See also GS, I,
228.
In eternity all is fleeting and all is eternity. In
grace all is fluff and all is grace. There is no truth
to truth, otherwise truth would be encumbered
with truth.
"The vast sky does not hinder white clouds from
flying."
Tang Huyen
Robert Epstein
Ramana went so far as to say that he was literally not perceiving the
conversation he was having with the questioner while having it. He said
that although he was capable of having the conversation and that to the
other person it would seem like two people talking, all he perceived was
the Self, with no differentiation. "There is no guru, there is no
disciple, there is only the Self."
Robert
- - - - - - -
jfe...@googlemail.com
He was just a floating cloud of consciousness or something :)