Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00050)

Thanks for your interesting comments. My responses below.

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, leonmaurer@a... wrote:
> In any event, since meditation requires full attention to the mind 
(vide, 
> Buddha's admonition for "mindfulness" and constant "vigilance") how 
do we 
> separate that from "thought"?

Mindfulness in Buddhism is not discursive. For example, are you 
aware of your left ear? If so, were you before reading the 
question? If not, then you are not mindful in the Buddhist sense. 
Mindfulness is about being in the here-and-now and in your body 
(i.e., not dissociated.

? It seems to me that to direct one's attention or 
> concentration, even on emptiness, is still in the realm of self 
determined and self 
> directed thought.

There is a difference between focusing on emptiness and thinking 
about emptiness. The former is meditation, the latter not.

> As for the purpose of a stone and its existence in relation to 
humanity, 
> doesn't theosophy say that all elements of existence will 
eventually evove to 
> become man? In the Kabala there is a saying, "First a stone, then a 
plant, then an 
> animal, then a man, then, an angel, and finally God." Thus, all 
monads have a 
> purpose, and by reflection, "as above, so below," so does the 
universe itself.

You jumped logical levels here. First you say that bugs will become 
people (which in some cases appears to me to have been a recent 
transition) and then you say that this proves the existence of 
purpose. There is a difference between purpose and destiny. All 
mortals shall die, but the purpose of life is not death.

> Maybe we should think about all that, before we start meditating on 
it.

The problem with that statement is that meditation is not 
discursive. Only by TRANSCENDING discursive reasoning does one come 
to enlightenment.