XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   brian mitchell  wrote:   
   > "Kitty P" wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   >> news:rgvc2cp8busdrng14sng534clu6ph6c0h6@4ax.com...   
   >>   
   >> noname wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> brian mitchell  wrote:   
   >>>> noname wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> brian mitchell  wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> ..., so much as the total incapacity of   
   >>>>>> thought to approach that which begins where thought ends.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Thought can eliminate the places it isn't...   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Sounds contradictory. Can you elaborate?   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> What good will it do for me to speak of that about which too much is   
   >>> already spoken to no effect?   
   >>>   
   >>> If you want to go to the place where there thought transcends itself, you   
   >>> can start by eliminating all the places where it doesn't transcend   
   >>> itself...   
   >>   
   >> It's not real to me that thought can transcend itself, so perhaps you   
   >> have a different notion of what thought is than I do. Can you say what   
   >> thought is --without going into the various things it does? How does   
   >> it transcend itself?   
   >> ______________________________   
   >>   
   >> The only time I can stop thought is when meditating. My ex husband was great   
   >> at it with alcohol.  I would love to know how to magically transcend it by   
   >> what? More thought?  Really am interested in knowing..   
   >   
   > It's often stated that by observing thought one comes to perceive the   
   > silence between thoughts but I've not (yet?) had that experience. What   
   > I've found is that even when the chatter dies down there is still an   
   > ever-present consciousness of self, which is simply a wordless   
   > thought.   
   >   
   > What is interesting, though, and I think worth pursuing, is that   
   > there's no essential difference between thought and perception. It's   
   > the same mind that perceives thought inwardly or objects outwardly. A   
   > thought is, after all, only an inward object. The bigger problem, I   
   > come to think, is not that we have thoughts which need to be stopped,   
   > but that our thinking so comprehensively monopolises attention. I   
   > suppose it is inevitable that it would because it is a) the very   
   > nearest object, and b) *my* object. So whether attention is captivated   
   > inwardly or outwardly, we are the prisoners of objects.   
   >   
   > What I now wonder is whether one can de-couple the mind from its   
   > automatic grasping of objects. Jean Klein, a figure in the modern   
   > Western advaita movement, advocates this. He suggests that we should   
   > take the heard back to hearing, the seen back to seeing, etc. The   
   > direction of this is inward and towards letting attention come to rest   
   > on the singleness and homogeneity of consciousness. This may not be   
   > anything more than a description of the meditation we all do, except   
   > that I think the notion of de-coupling from objects is something that   
   > can be carried off the cushion in a practical way.   
   >   
   > Sensation, perception, feeling, thought... it's all one thing.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)