Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00105)

Leon wrote: <<Remember, to be thinking of nothing, or 
"emptiness," does not mean to "still our thoughts." Because 
directed thinking is a willed action, thinking of nothing is 
essentially no different from thinking of something. Their only 
difference, catagorically, is that one is "full" of forms and the 
other is "empty" of form. Thus, thinking always requires 
thoughts, and thoughts always require willful and mindful 
attention... That is, if one is to be fully in control of oneself or, 
as the Buddha said of himself, become "One who is 
perpetually awake." >>>

<<thinking of nothing is essentially no different from thinking 
of something. >>

Yes, if (as I tend to see it ...) one is "THINKING" of "nothing" 
or "something," then ... well, what's the "real difference" 
between those two ... I suspect that in order to transcend 
"somethings" and "nothings" (however they might be 
interpreted individually) one ought to phase over or somehow 
transcend one's dualistic/multiplistic "nothings/somethings" 
karma so as to, in a sense, "just be," instead. That is, I suspect 
(okay, "tend to suspect"...) that there might be a kind of "just 
being" (or "Just Being," in a sense, if you like) that's so 
"Fundamental" in its essence that references to it in the 
language of "ordinary reality" (as per "nothing/something," 
say) might be so misleading, in general, that ... as in the case 
of those with leanings (karma) toward scientizing, for 
example, such approaches, while they may be basically 
introductorily "helpful enough," might often tend to steer 
people ("essentially," in a sense) in or toward the usual 
karmic/mayavic circles ... 

In other words, I suspect and tend to suspect that "Zen 
Buddhism" makes "more sense" in the sense that "it makes 
less sense" in the sense that it's "more direct" in the sense that 
its "less direct" about its ways and means of "getting toward 
enlightenment" in the sense that "Zen" doesn't seem to overly 
concern itself (as I tend to see it) with small f 
fundamentalistic/introductory techniques and scientizings. 
I'm trying to make "sense" here by not making "too much 
sense," (as usual, eh?), "in a sense."

Speculatively,
Mauri