Theos-Talk Archives (March 2004 Message tt00052)

> From: "stevestubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Theos-World Re: Scientist Claims Proof Of Afterlife
> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2004 22:43:58 -0000
>
> 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.
I don't think that's what mindfulness is about. I think it is similar to the 
objective "watcher" state, or self-observer. It has nothing to do with the 
left ear or body, imo.

> ? 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.
I agree, generally, Could you elucidate?

> > 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.
Interesting. I'm sure some German such as Kant or Schopenhauer has already 
played that theorem to death, but the difference between purpose and destiny 
looks like a nice big discussion, if not delusion? Or are we talking 
subsets?

> > 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.
Have you proved that by coming to enlightenment?

regards-

Ali

_________________________________________________________________
Fast. Reliable. Get MSN 9 Dial-up - 3 months for the price of 1! 
(Limited-time Offer) http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200361ave/direct/01/