Theos-Talk Archives (April 2003 Message tt00117)

Referring to Mauri's letter below:

How can Zen be "more direct" than "thinking" (of something or nothing)? 

Constant thinking means being "actively" (willfully and contemplatively) 
aware, at every moment, of what one is doing -- as well as the reason (or 
reasons) and purposes for such action... No matter what state of 
consciousness one is in -- including sleeping and dreaming. 

That is, essentially, the practice of Zen yoga -- which, in its full 
extension, is equivalent to Brahma Yoga (that includes all other yoga's, from 
Karma, through Jnana, to Rajah, etc.). Thus, there is a Zen science, a Zen 
philosophy, and a Zen yoga of several different levels of practice -- from 
studying, to cooking, to housekeeping, to business, to personal relations, to 
martial arts, etc. 

Thinking of that "nothing" -- while thoughtfully doing "something" (acting in 
accord with one's true nature) -- would be simply the contemplation of the 
zero-point "emptiness" (no-thing, or source of consciousness) from which the 
illusory nature of Maya (being) and karma (the causes and effects of beings, 
or "things" modified by willful action) stem from and are influenced by. 
Such constant, fully aware and controlled thinking would then become an 
integral part of our living and doing. And eventually lead to full 
enlightenment and wisdom. From a Zen Buddhist standpoint, this would be the 
condition of the tenth "Bull" -- when the enlightened one who has reached 
Nirvana becomes an Adept Bodhisattva, whose very expression of his being, in 
full control of his mind, reflects on everyone he comes in contact with. See 
the "Ten Bulls" Zen koan:
http://www.cs.sfu.ca/people/ResearchStaff/jamie/personal/10_Bulls
/Title_Page.html

Thus, whatever we learn about the nature of reality (between its emptiness 
and its fullness) and, whatever consistent models of such reality we 
contemplate (concentratively think about) -- whether from a scientific, 
philosophical or religious point of view -- can only aid us in the "correct 
performance of action" (which is the aim of all yoga's)... Such continual 
dual level thinking and self guided practice will eventually enable us to 
reach a true state of Dhyana, Dzyan, Chan, Zen, or Theosophical Wisdom.

That is why such wisdom (encompassing "self realization" and the attaining of 
the enlightenment of an Adept) -- which includes all yoga's -- can only be 
achieved by a merger of rational learning (and thereby, understanding) with 
its application in practical action. And, thus, there is no way to separate 
a complete understanding of the "synthesis of science, philosophy, and 
religion" from such learning or practice. When one has reached such a stage 
of both enlightenment and wisdom, one can truly "be" what Mankind (thinking 
beings) are destined to be... "Fully awakened" and an effective teacher -- as 
the Buddha was and is.

We've never said that the understanding of the exact science of theosophy, by 
itself, can lead to such enlightenment and wisdom. But for those on the path 
to self realization, such knowledge -- aided by the graphically symbolic 
models presented by HPB, and expanded by ABC (so as to be consistent with 
modern science at its cutting edges) -- are the necessary "tools" leading to 
one's learning the true nature of reality in all its aspects, wisely applying 
such knowledge in our everyday lives, and becoming a useful and effective 
"Nucleus of Universal Brotherhood"... And, one who is capable of following, 
as a teacher, in the footsteps of the Masters... No matter in what 
circumstance of life our karma places us in.

Hope this clarifies our speculations, somewhat. </:-)>

LHM

In a message dated 04/22/03 1:46:44 PM, mhart@idirect.ca writes:

>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, categorically, 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."