|
Post by question on Feb 18, 2011 13:32:41 GMT -5
Hi ZD, we're probably talking about two different things. If the child learns to speak and conceptualize, does it lose "not-knowing"? I suppose essentially it doesn't. But in another context it kind of does, right? It's like there appears a contextual "knowing" of stuff that ultimately is really an emergence of a different kind of ignorance compared to the not-knowing that the child is happily immersed in. And yet from within conceptualization there is the possibility to notice that conceptual knowing is relative and illusory. The possibility is a given because since conceptual knowing is based on assumptions, how could there not be the possibility of doubt? In its own context conceptual unknowing is helpful but I wouldn't dare to suggest it to be even remotely of more relevance than the child's happy "non-knowing" that you describe.
I have a hunch that ultimately your method is indeed the most effective, but folks like me just won't sit down and look, probably because there are lots of barriers that prevent the motivation/willingness. Or, to put it differently, if I do sit down and look then it's for reasons that I can't justify, which is maybe why I can't sustain the effort or even bring the necessary amount of willigness. So I kind of don't have much of a choice but deconstruct the coneptual barriers and go from there.
I reckon that in the context of our discussion the child's happy not-knowing is kind of self-sufficient in a way that it takes care of itself and doesn't need any commentary, advice etc. But the "conceptual not-knowing" in the way I think we're talking about here seems to be more of a stepping stone and yet at the same time it seems to exhaust itself. So there is a strange dichotomy that needs clarification.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2011 14:08:00 GMT -5
If I change my name from Robert to Roberta, will I be allowed to join the girl's group? At the moment it sounds like a lot more fun. LOL.
Zen Master Seung Sahn in his broken English used to lightly poke students in the stomach with his Zen stick if they were tentative or ambivalent and say, "Must make center stronger, stronger." Then he would say, "Equal important; no get attached to ideas." Ha ha. I guess 50% is 50%.
Sometimes he would say, "Attachment emptiness very bad Zen sickness. Very hard cure." I think that was a bit of understatement.
One day ZMSS was giving a dharma talk and he suddenly started spouting all kinds of weird stuff about karma and reincarnation. One of his senior students raised his hand and said something that loosely meant, "What in the world are you talking about?" This sort of snapped ZMSS back to the reality of the American students listening to him, and he said something like, "Yah. Total emptiness. Buddha Nature. Forget nonsense. That just my conditioning. I Korean monk. Understand?"
This happened one other time a few years later. He was giving a dharma talk and wandered off into a discussion of karmic relationships. He began to talk about the relationship between the Germans and the Jews during the second world war, and he said something that implied the Jews had done things that were partially responsible for bringing on the holocaust. Whoa! There were about forty or fifty students in the room including five or ten Jews. The instantaneous anger that arose in at least half of the audience from his comments was papable. One fellow jumped up and said, "Are you saying that the Jews are responsible for what happened to them during the holocaust and that it wasn't the Nazi's fault?" ZMSS got this funny look on his face and then said, in effect, "Calm down and don't pay any attention to what I said. Karma is a crazy subject. Hard to understand. Don;t get attached to words." Then, he went on to some other subject.
Nine days, huh? That crazy Indian. I wish that I had been there so that I could have set him straight. Ha ha. I wonder where nine days fits into oneness? Best laugh of the day for sure.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 18, 2011 14:31:49 GMT -5
When Nis says 9 days before you are born if you are awaken or not this is what you get in your present life... Nis always gave very specific advice it was not what isn't so it was What is. Boy am I glad I logged in today. Wouldn't have wanted to miss this advice, what a gem! Enlightenment here I come!
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 18, 2011 14:33:59 GMT -5
"One day ZMSS was giving a dharma talk and he suddenly started spouting all kinds of weird stuff about karma and reincarnation. One of his senior students raised his hand and said something that loosely meant, "What in the world are you talking about?" This sort of snapped ZMSS back to the reality of the American students listening to him, and he said something like, "Yah. Total emptiness. Buddha Nature. Forget nonsense. That just my conditioning. I Korean monk. Understand?""
Haha that's hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2011 14:43:14 GMT -5
Question: No, the child's body retains body-knowing, but it sort of goes on autopilot as the mind takes over. The child is always present. The adult may or may not be present, psychologically. As mind-knowing takes over, self-reflection grows, and the knowledge of good and evil mutually arise. Somewhere between the age of one and ten the child eats the apple, and is banished from the Garden of Eden.
Finding one's way back to the Garden is the challenge. We could say that purposeful not-knowing is the path, but what prompts the impulse to purposefully not-know? That is the mystery. Is the adult who lives without knowing exactly the same as a child who lives without knowing? Not at all. The adult has the full functionality of the intellect at his/her disposal, but the context within which everything is happening is seen and understood.
ZMSS used to play with his students. One time he pointed to a chair in the middle of some heavy dharma combat with one of his students and asked with incredible ferociousness, "What is that?" The student replied with equal ferociousness, "It's a f**king chair!" This was not the "correct" Zen answer, but ZMSS became instantly kind and meek, put a look on his face as if he had just learned something new and wonderful, and said, "Oh, thank you. Until you told me what it was, I didn't know." The entire audience howled with laughter.
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 average adult thinks he knows what's going on. He thinks he understands the world. He has expectations. He lives in an imaginary world of things and events that he, himself, has imagined. He thinks that he is a separate entity interacting with other entities, things, and conditions.
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.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 18, 2011 15:41:47 GMT -5
Nis always gave very specific advice it was not what isn't so it was What is. Michael, I stumbled upon this snippet a bit ago in I Am That, To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not -- body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that -- nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise that you are the limitless being.Your beloved Karl Renz says that his one spiritual teaching is, Recognize everything as a lie, specially the one who recognizes everything as a lie.Jed McKenna says, Spiritual Enlightenment is the state in which the self is free of all delusion, including self itself. Truth-Realization is another useful term to describe this state. Untruth-Unrealization is more accurateThis advice you speak of seems to conflict with the advice here. Is it possible that recognizing what isn't might actually be a process of un-knowing? Then again, I could be wrong. I have no idea what I'm talking about, much less who or what is talking. Hella dumb. Perhaps Nis, Karl, Jed, ZD, and Enigma are also wrong and have no idea what they are talking about. I've always been suspect, how can you trust anyone who claims they know nothing! Screw what isn't... Let's find out what is!
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 16:07:06 GMT -5
Seriously I do not have a problem with any of that. Bu if you or Enigma or ZD says that thought is Action or equal to action then they are wrong it's that simple. Everything is a lie but realizations are not. I don't think I am right, I know I am correct. There is a light year difference between thinking you are correct and knowing you are correct.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Feb 18, 2011 16:40:58 GMT -5
A whole light year? Why not 10?
As for Question, I would suggest taking ZD's advice and stick with the actual. I wasn't drawn to it either, but if you just swallow the pill and get it over with, it stats happening much easier and can make things fairly clear. Not always in the way you hope it to, but in some form or other.
And between you and me, you can have some fun with it too--I often focus on breathing whilee I drive and use peripheral vision to pretend I'm in a mech suit! LOL. The fun part has little relevance, but if you don't get attached to the fun and let it happen or not happen on its own I'm not sure it matters. Try not to get TOO dorky though, people look at you funny, haha.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 16:50:08 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
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Feb 18, 2011 17:10:00 GMT -5
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. Quote by Walt Whitman comes to mind: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. Another one by UG: I am always negating what I am saying. I make a statement, but that statement is not expressing all that is being said, so I negate it. You say I am contradicting myself. I am not contradictory at all. I negate the first statement, the second statement, and all the other statements—that is why sometimes it sounds very contradictory. I am negating it all the time, not with the idea of arriving at any point; just negating. There is no purpose in my talking. The last part makes me laugh, "There is no purpose in my talking"
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Feb 18, 2011 17:19:50 GMT -5
The sage doesn't need to know anything...
The Sense of "I am" (Consciousness)
When I met my Guru, he told me: "You are not what you take yourself to be. Find out what you are. Watch the sense 'I am', find your real Self." I obeyed him, because I trusted him. I did as he told me. All my spare time I would spend looking at myself in silence. And what a difference it made, and how soon!
My teacher told me to hold on to the sense 'I am' tenaciously and not to swerve from it even for a moment. I did my best to follow his advice and in a comparatively short time I realized within myself the truth of his teaching. All I did was to remember his teaching, his face, his words constantly. This brought an end to the mind; in the stillness of the mind I saw myself as I am -- unbound.
I simply followed (my teacher's) instruction which was to focus the mind on pure being 'I am', and stay in it. I used to sit for hours together, with nothing but the 'I am' in my mind and soon peace and joy and a deep all-embracing love became my normal state. In it all disappeared -- myself, my Guru, the life I lived, the world around me. Only peace remained and unfathomable silence.
Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 17:37:36 GMT -5
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. Quote by Walt Whitman comes to mind: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. Another one by UG: I am always negating what I am saying. I make a statement, but that statement is not expressing all that is being said, so I negate it. You say I am contradicting myself. I am not contradictory at all. I negate the first statement, the second statement, and all the other statements—that is why sometimes it sounds very contradictory. I am negating it all the time, not with the idea of arriving at any point; just negating. There is no purpose in my talking. The last part makes me laugh, "There is no purpose in my talking" Interesting but I would never have a teacher that acted that way. It's only in this neo-advaita crap that people can do crazy and stupid things and get praise for it. You try that in a real Advaita school they would kick you out in no time. Michael
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2011 18:23:28 GMT -5
Whew! Thank goodness we're not in a "REAL Advaita school!" I shudder at the very thought of it. LOL.
Wow! What a day. Who could possibly dream this sort of stuff up? Jay Leno better watch out; if people find out about this website, he'll be out of business in no time.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Feb 18, 2011 18:58:24 GMT -5
---------------------- ;D----------------------
|
|
enda
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by enda on Feb 18, 2011 19:13:06 GMT -5
I dont know, some of this stuff just gets funnier and funnier. I told you ZD, you should start selling tickets
|
|