XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: cuddly@mindless.com
On 11/12/2016 11:38 PM, Ned Ludd wrote:
>
> "brian mitchell" wrote in message
> news:re0f2c98d4lrgp4dbj6lf3l14fg1ka743t@4ax.com...
>> "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.
>>
>
> Inward and Outward Views
>
> To cling to oneself as Buddha, oneself as Zen or the way,
> making that an understanding, is called clinging to the
> inward view. Attainment by causes and conditions, practice
> and realization, is called the outward view. Master Pao-chih
> said, "The inward view and the outward view are both mistakes.
>
> - Pai-chang
>
The essential kernel of the teachings of Gautama was to promote and
achieve permanent self-hypnosis. Or, in Tang Huyen's case,
self-hypgnosis.
I - not Pai-Chang - have spoken this day, the 13th November 2016.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
