Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 ~ Do I have to know *How* to know *That*? >X_Man...when You Drop into " Not Knowing " ...how do You Know You're >in " Not Knowing " if You don't Know anything...? > > > > >~~ David: Truth is that which does not change. > > > > > >~ Xan: " I don't know " is my favorite space, David... > > > ...not limiting it to What I don't know. > > > > > >Nice. > > >...or to however I may be known or not known. > > > > ~ Actually, dropping into " not knowing " is my favorite. X > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 ~~~~ a: ...when You Drop into "Not Knowing" ~~~~ ...how do You Know You're in "Not Knowing" ~~~~ if You don't Know anything...?~~~ b: You don't. ~~~ So whatever you're talking about ~~~ is your idea of not-knowing, ~~~ not not-knowing. ~~ c: If this seems confusing to anyone, ~~ my understanding is that is the idea:~~ to confuse the ego with cyclic reasoning ~~ until it becomes so frustrated that it gives up ~~ and stops trying to be in control, ~~ thus allowing the Truth to the surface.~~ It is also my understanding this is the purpose of a Koan.~~ However, not being an expert on Koans, ~~ I am certainly open to being corrected on this point (-: ~~ or any other point I may ever try to make :-). ~ If confusion precipitates illumination ~ then surely all are eminently qualified. ~ Perhaps it may be said ~ that wrestling with koans ~ may occasion surrender to unknowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 Beck...the Mind wants an Answer...Zen Training makes It Possible for the Mind to Ask the Question and to Stop there...the Searching...the Doing to Find the Answer to the Question is No Longer Necessary...! Nisargadatta, Beck <beck@b...> wrote: > If this seems confusing to anyone, my understanding is that is the idea: > to confuse the ego with cyclic reasoning until it becomes so frustrated > that it gives up > and stops trying to be in control, thus allowing the Truth to the surface. > It is also my understanding this is the purpose of a Koan. > However, not being an expert on Koans, I am certainly open to being > corrected on this point (-: or any other point I may ever try to make :-). > Beck > > At 12:32 PM 2/7/01 , you wrote: > >At 05:40 AM 2/7/01 +0000, you wrote: > > >X_Man...when You Drop into " Not Knowing " ...how do You Know You're > > >in " Not Knowing " if You don't Know anything...? > > > >You don't. So whatever you're talking about is your > > idea of not-knowing, not not-knowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 Yes...I Believe You Do have to Know how to Do that...X_Man...are You're Missing Something...! Nisargadatta, Xan <xanma@e...> wrote: > > > ~ Do I have to know *How* to know *That*? > > > >X_Man...when You Drop into " Not Knowing " ...how do You Know You're > >in " Not Knowing " if You don't Know anything...? > > > > > > >~~ David: Truth is that which does not change. > > > > > > > >~ Xan: " I don't know " is my favorite space, David... > > > > ...not limiting it to What I don't know. > > > > > > > >Nice. > > > >...or to however I may be known or not known. > > > > > > ~ Actually, dropping into " not knowing " is my favorite. X > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2001 Report Share Posted February 7, 2001 Thomas...and when You Surrender to Unknowing...what do You Know...? Nisargadatta, " thomas murphy " <tma@c...> wrote: > ~~~~ a: ...when You Drop into " Not Knowing " > ~~~~ ...how do You Know You're in " Not Knowing " > ~~~~ if You don't Know anything...? > > ~~~ b: You don't. > ~~~ So whatever you're talking about > ~~~ is your idea of not-knowing, > ~~~ not not-knowing. > > ~~ c: If this seems confusing to anyone, > ~~ my understanding is that is the idea: > ~~ to confuse the ego with cyclic reasoning > ~~ until it becomes so frustrated that it gives up > ~~ and stops trying to be in control, > ~~ thus allowing the Truth to the surface. > ~~ It is also my understanding this is the purpose of a Koan. > ~~ However, not being an expert on Koans, > ~~ I am certainly open to being corrected on this point (-: > ~~ or any other point I may ever try to make :-). > > > ~ If confusion precipitates illumination > ~ then surely all are eminently qualified. > > ~ Perhaps it may be said > ~ that wrestling with koans > ~ may occasion surrender to unknowing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2001 Report Share Posted February 8, 2001 Hi, Beck. I'm not trying to be confusing. The ego isn't an existing thing, so it can't be confused by something. The attempt to ground existence as a center within thought is found to be an untenable attempt. The fact is, that clear insight into the instantaneous nature of reality makes this clear in an instant. Thought can never catch up to the present. It is always " lagging behind " . All thought can ever catch up to is itself. The center believed to be able to exist within thought can never impose an agenda on reality, only on its own beliefs about reality. Although koans point to this, they may not be a great pointer unless the intuitive aspect of " seeing " is catalyzed by the koan. Sans koan, it is possible for thought to comprehend its own limits, which comprehension naturally invokes the dissolution of the formerly believed-to-be-possible-to-exist center. That center, in fact, is not and has never been. There has never been a " doer " , " perceiver " , " experiencer " , nor has there been a " doer " or " perceiver " lacking. Dan If this seems confusing to anyone, my understanding is that is the idea: to confuse the ego with cyclic reasoning until it becomes so frustrated that it gives up and stops trying to be in control, thus allowing the Truth to the surface. It is also my understanding this is the purpose of a Koan. However, not being an expert on Koans, I am certainly open to being corrected on this point (-: or any other point I may ever try to make :-). Beck At 12:32 PM 2/7/01 , you wrote: At 05:40 AM 2/7/01 +0000, you wrote: >X_Man...when You Drop into " Not Knowing " ...how do You Know You're >in " Not Knowing " if You don't Know anything...? You don't. So whatever you're talking about is your idea of not-knowing, not not-knowing. Sponsor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2001 Report Share Posted February 8, 2001 Dan...when You say... " Sans koan, it is possible for thought to > comprehend its own limits, which > comprehension naturally invokes the dissolution > of the formerly believed-to-be-possible-to-exist > center. That center, in fact, is not and has > never been. There has never been a > " doer " , " perceiver " , " experiencer " , nor has > there been a " doer " or " perceiver " lacking. > > Dan " It seems to Me You're Wrong about this Matter of Being able to Dissolve the Believed-to-be-Possible-to-Exist Center. This center You are Talking about is One's Imagination and if It No Longer Exists then One cannot Function in this World. I Believe what You are Talking about is It's Possible to Dissolve One's Attachment to this BPE Center which Means One No Longer Believes Everything It Has to Say or Puts Up on the Screen of the Mind...!...I Look Upon this BPE Center as Our Secondary Imagination...the Imagination We are Experiencing the Now Moment would be the Primary Imagination...There has to Be Two Objects to Compare to for Consciousness to Come Into Being while the Observer is Always a Hidden or Unconscious Process...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 You seem to assume there is a me who needs to function in the world. You also assume that two objects can exist for comparison. There is no separable me functioning in the world. And, the fact is that with no perceiver there is no perceived. That the world doesn't exist doesn't mean that there is a world lacking. Thus, the world can't really be said to not exist nor exist. How can an object be said to exist? Only if there is validation of the perception of the object. How can there be simultaneous validation of the perceiver and the object? You need one to validate the other. This means that any validation of observer and observed is hypothetical and imaginary. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% >It seems to Me You're Wrong about this Matter of Being able to >Dissolve the Believed-to-be-Possible-to-Exist Center. This center >You are Talking about is One's Imagination and if It No Longer Exists >then One cannot Function in this World. I Believe what You are >Talking about is It's Possible to Dissolve One's Attachment to this >BPE Center which Means One No Longer Believes Everything It Has to >Say or Puts Up on the Screen of the Mind...!...I Look Upon this BPE >Center as Our Secondary Imagination...the Imagination We are >Experiencing the Now Moment would be the Primary Imagination...There >has to Be Two Objects to Compare to for Consciousness to Come Into >Being while the Observer is Always a Hidden or Unconscious Process...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2001 Report Share Posted February 9, 2001 there you are talking to yourself here i am talking to myself you: 'That the world doesn't exist doesn't mean that there is a world lacking.' precisely. present or absent concensus 'reality' perceiving subsumes perceiver and perceived not as another 'it' but as process of universal awareness ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~You seem to assume there is a me ~ who needs to function in the world. ~You also assume that two objects can exist ~ for comparison. ~ ~There is no separable me functioning ~ in the world. And, the fact is that with no perceiver ~ there is no perceived. That the world doesn't ~ exist doesn't mean that there is a world lacking. ~ Thus, the world can't really be said to not exist ~ nor exist. ~ ~How can an object be said to exist? Only if ~ there is validation of the perception of the object. ~ How can there be simultaneous validation of ~ the perceiver and the object? You need one to ~ validate the other. This means that any validation ~ of observer and observed is hypothetical and ~ imaginary. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~It seems to Me You're Wrong about this Matter of Being able to ~~Dissolve the Believed-to-be-Possible-to-Exist Center. This center ~~You are Talking about is One's Imagination and if It No Longer Exists ~~then One cannot Function in this World. I Believe what You are ~~Talking about is It's Possible to Dissolve One's Attachment to this ~~BPE Center which Means One No Longer Believes Everything It Has to ~~Say or Puts Up on the Screen of the Mind...!...I Look Upon this BPE ~~Center as Our Secondary Imagination...the Imagination We are ~~Experiencing the Now Moment would be the Primary Imagination...There ~~has to Be Two Objects to Compare to for Consciousness to Come Into ~~Being while the Observer is Always a Hidden or Unconscious Process...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2001 Report Share Posted February 10, 2001 As seen here, from these typing fingers: there is neither process nor awareness nor lack of awareness -- simply immediacy. And I would go so far as to say you don't know what I mean by this and neither do I. And ... if this is understood, there is nothing further to understand. Posting here isn't to communicate or to understand. All that is to be understood is already always present, and is itself " understanding " . Dan >there you are talking to yourself >here i am talking to myself > >you: 'That the world doesn't exist >doesn't mean that there is a world lacking.' > >precisely. >present or absent concensus 'reality' >perceiving subsumes perceiver and perceived >not as another 'it' >but as process of universal awareness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.