|
Post by klaus on Feb 18, 2011 19:15:42 GMT -5
I didn't know there was a school. How could I have missed that. Maybe I should pay more attention. What to do, what to do?
Does this mean I'm up the creek without a paddle?
|
|
|
Post by angela on Feb 18, 2011 20:08:48 GMT -5
i just read this quote from scott kiloby on his facebook page. i had to beeline over here of course and share it, because it's so appropriate for today's wonderful madness.
"When we realize that we are only ever fighting over viewpoints, and that each of the viewpoints are transparent, temporary arisings within awareness, it's like watching air fight air."
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2011 21:48:01 GMT -5
IOW, the sage obviously knows what things are, both directly and intellectually, but she chooses to spend most of her time not-knowing because the world of the unknown/absolute/infinite is so much fun to play in! The sage knows nothing, and she plays happily in her unknowingness. She lets everything in and resists nothing. She is content to do whatever has to be done, without reflection. For her, there is no time or space or selfhood. She can say to God, use me however you wish. Thy will be done. She knows that all is well, and all manner of being will always be well. Perfection wrapped in perfection, she serves without serving, knows without knowing, celebrates emptiness, revels in isness, and weeps in the poignancy of suchness. ZD you are very conflicted in this post. On one hand you speak the truth that the Sage knows and then in your next paragraph you say the sage knows nothing. ZD you cannot have it both ways. If the sage knows all by direct seeing then sure the Sage may Elect to be in the not knowing but this is very different to say the Sage knows nothing as you just posted. This is why neo-advaita has no hope it's all words and nothing else. Michael I think Zen knows better than to respond to this post, but I apparently don't. Hehe. Conceptual knowledge is never ultimately true but only in a relative, contextual way. Sometimes it can be useful to use this knowledge to point beyond some limiting concept, and while this knowledge may be less constrictive for mind, it's still not ultimately true and even that must be transcended. This is the meaning of using a thorn to remove a thorn and then throwing them both away. The idea is not to end up with a collection of really cool thorns that you can declare as some ultimate knowing. So what does the sage know? He knows that all knowledge is imaginary and self referencing and means only what it is imagined to mean and nothing more. He knows that separation is imaginary on all levels that can be imagined. He knows that nobody is born, or dies, or is responsible for holding up his life in between. He knows that nothing is lacking, nothing is missing, nothing has to be done, nothing needs fixing or improving. IOW, he knows that nothing that is commonly believed to be true is actually true, and there isn't something that is actually true, and there is an enormous, unspeakable Peace in this. The Peace is the result of not knowing all these things to be true. It's easy to imagine that there is finally something known, because this is what mind does, relentlessly. Maybe it's imagined that this oneness concept finally gets verified and proven, but that concept has no meaning in the absence of the knowledge of separation. Maybe it's imagined that the sage finally knows what he really is, but there's nothing to know since mind hasn't invented anything about it yet. No sage can tell you what he is, not because he doesn't know, but because he can see the foolishness of the question. What IS rather remarkable is that the sage can talk endlessly, and even eloquently, and yet know nothing. This is an artifact of engaging conceptual knowledge from a position of transcendence of knowledge. Nothing at all is needed but to see things how they actually are instead of how we imagine them to be.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 22:09:15 GMT -5
Some good stuff here but I still disagree the sage knows all now granted something is bound to be loss when translated by the mind. Nevertheless the pointers from the sage come from direct knowledge and will benefit all that have ears to hear. To say that the sage or anyone knows nothing is only valid in the ultimate sense and since I doubt that you are there yet these higher truths will be of no help but can hinder the seeker. The ongoing danger always is taking the highest truth and trying to apply it at your own level of being. It does not work. It might give you a aha moment but is useless you need to do the work first.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2011 22:21:14 GMT -5
So do the work instead of disagreeing or dismissing or judging that I'm not qualified to talk in such a way. I AM talking about the 'ultimate sense' in which the sage knows nothing. Why are you arguing that it's not so if you know that it is?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 22:52:41 GMT -5
Not intended to you I often use the personal pronoun you don't take it personally.
Yes of course you are talking in the ultimate sense but you should look and see if that is any benefit to the seeker. I will challenge you on this. I can show you how it will hinder but never a help. Plus it's not even logical if you are driving in a unknown area tell me if the map only gives you the end how can get help? This is exactly the problems with neo-advaita you like to go direct to the end of things while missing everything in between it does not work like that all you will end up with is wasted time and a intellectual understanding nothing more. This is why I disagree you or ZD or whoever does no help just telling the end of a story I completely dismiss it. Many teachers will warn you to not even listen to a higher truth unless you are there yourself.
Also I am not convince that the ultimate is not known by the Sage. Nis speaks of this in prior to consciousness. I doubt he made up stories in his head he was not smart enough to do that. It's one of the reason he was a authentic teacher.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 18, 2011 23:05:29 GMT -5
This is a fun thread, lol. A bunch of non-beings jibber jabbering about jibber jabber. Good times
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 23:12:14 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by question on Feb 18, 2011 23:48:53 GMT -5
Zendancer: I understand how conceptual not-knowing (as in "seeing that all concepts are illusory" and not necessarily the "seeing of absolute truth") and the simultaneous understanding of concepts don't exclude each other. What I'm concerned with is what implications the seeing of the false as false has. I am concerned because I can see a tendency of attention getting stuck in the reveling of the emptiness of concepts, which seems very dubious, because the seeing of the falseness is itself at least partially conceptual (or is it?).
I may have found a clue though. In an earlier post I suspected that the main implication of "conceptual not-knowing" is the cessation of the spiritual search because the search is seen as an idiotic activity. What I overlooked is an obvious implication that is at least as relevant. In the same way that the seeing of the spiritual search as idiotic results in the cessation of the search, the seeing of the believing in false concepts as idiotic equally has to result in the cessation of the belief in concepts, which in effect implies the turning of attention away from beliefs and therefore toward the actual. This would mean that the turning of attention toward the actual doesn't necessarily require any justification and can be a natural result of seeing the false as false.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 18, 2011 23:58:37 GMT -5
Not intended to you I often use the personal pronoun you don't take it personally. This wasn't referring to me?: Then who were you talking to? We're not talking about some "end of the story". We're talking about one simple and obvious realization that everyone here is capable of noticing if they haven't already. If you need to take it more slowly then feel free to ignore it, but why declare it's not true while also saying it's the end of the story and shouldn't be talked about to the average seeker? Do you think your confusion is not plain to everyone? Oh, nobody's saying sages make up stories (though the 9 day thingy certainly sounded like a whopper). As I said, a teacher will speak in the context of the student's understanding, which ironically is what you suggest should be done here.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 19, 2011 0:00:33 GMT -5
Question good insight. Any kind of belief false or true will have the same result. The only problem I see if you have a lot of false beliefs you are digging a big hole for yourself. Therefore it may take longer to get the attention turn to the actual. But it will happen regardless but you will never know when.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 19, 2011 0:09:43 GMT -5
This wasn't referring to me?: wrong use of 'you"Then who were you talking to? DittoWe're not talking about some "end of the story". We're talking about one simple and obvious realization that everyone here is capable of noticing if they haven't already. If you need to take it more slowly then feel free to ignore it, but why declare it's not true while also saying it's the end of the story and shouldn't be talked about to the average seeker? Do you think your confusion is not plain to everyone? Yes you are talking about the end. Look up in the word Ultimate. And no I doubt that Enigma or most any one here on this board had this realization what you have is a made up story that fits you that's it.. There is no way except to lie to say that at the end of the day the Sage is in not knowing. What happens here is you get twisted but your own words, seriously that is all you seem to have to go on just words. Well words are cheap and pretty useless for this subject. Oh, nobody's saying sages make up stories (though the 9 day thingy certainly sounded like a whopper). As I said, a teacher will speak in the context of the student's understanding, which ironically is what you suggest should be done here.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 19, 2011 0:21:30 GMT -5
This wasn't referring to me?: wrong use of 'you"Then who were you talking to? DittoWhat 'you' are you talking about this time? Realizing that all thoughts are illusory is not the same as Self realization, but you will find it useful. I clearly saw you get twisted by your own words rather than me. Projection is a symptom of unconsciousness.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 19, 2011 0:25:59 GMT -5
Your speaking to the Choir. Ok now I need to leave the board and watch Spartacus Gods of the Arena.
But keep plugging away it seems to serve you well.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Feb 19, 2011 3:58:21 GMT -5
I think its past the counselling stage. Take him to the padded cell and let him take his tv with him!
|
|