Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 3:20:21 GMT -5
There is no singular or ultimate Truth about anything unless one clings to a singular or ultimate perspective.
Truth is infinately variable limited only by one's capacity to imagine a perpective into being.
And what perspectives are not imagined into being?
If you don't hold a perspective truth and knowledge don't come into being either.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 9:47:46 GMT -5
Silver is right. You view 'not knowing' as a practice even though you know better. You talked about turning attention away from thoughts, which is what she means by "ignore it". Typically, one cannot ignore what they think they know, which is obvious even on this forum, because there is belief and attachment. That's why it's usually necessary to see through those beliefs. Pulling attention away from thoughts may be effective, and may also be endless. In either case, nobody chooses to 'not know' unless they're playing games with themselves. Nah....Knowing something, anything, is an action, a kind of doing, all one has to "do" to "not know" is nothing...meaning, don't participate in the action of knowing....just don't do the activity.One might say that this is an automatic activity that just arises, but this is where the realization and acceptence of knowledge and truth really being nothing more than a persoective comes into play. For example....you walk down the street and look at a lamp post and "know" that it is a lamp post, but then you shift perspectives and "know" that it is a particle/wave in superposition, another shift in perspective and you "know" its an illusion of sensory phenomena interpreted and collated in the mindbody....on and on, perspective shifts redefine knowledge and truth, eventually all knowledge about anything is just a subjectivity, eventually you can even get to a perspective of "knowing" that the lamp post is unknowable ISness...but thats still a "knowing" from a specific perspective also....you might say that one sees through the belief of "knowability" and a realization occurs of "not knowing": OF ANYTHING....and once that realization opens into an empty space, knowing things is no longer an atuomated action that one participates in....you are no longer on "autopilot" where knowing activities arise automatically.Knowledge is an activity, not a thing, when one realizes unknowability, the activity of knowing seems to not spontaneously arise anymore...[/u].so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. [/quote] Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 11:58:01 GMT -5
Nah....Knowing something, anything, is an action, a kind of doing, all one has to "do" to "not know" is nothing...meaning, don't participate in the action of knowing....just don't do the activity.One might say that this is an automatic activity that just arises, but this is where the realization and acceptence of knowledge and truth really being nothing more than a persoective comes into play. For example....you walk down the street and look at a lamp post and "know" that it is a lamp post, but then you shift perspectives and "know" that it is a particle/wave in superposition, another shift in perspective and you "know" its an illusion of sensory phenomena interpreted and collated in the mindbody....on and on, perspective shifts redefine knowledge and truth, eventually all knowledge about anything is just a subjectivity, eventually you can even get to a perspective of "knowing" that the lamp post is unknowable ISness...but thats still a "knowing" from a specific perspective also....you might say that one sees through the belief of "knowability" and a realization occurs of "not knowing": OF ANYTHING....and once that realization opens into an empty space, knowing things is no longer an atuomated action that one participates in....you are no longer on "autopilot" where knowing activities arise automatically.Knowledge is an activity, not a thing, when one realizes unknowability, the activity of knowing seems to not spontaneously arise anymore... [/u].so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. [/quote] Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know. [/quote] You're kinda a tarbaby thats not worth responding to sometimes ;-) You do a lot of assuming lol
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 12:08:59 GMT -5
You're kinda a tarbaby thats not worth responding to sometimes ;-) You do a lot of assuming lol Me, a tar baby?!? You don't say. I'm just confused about how someone can go on and on and on and on about not knowing.... Knowm'sayin?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 12:14:57 GMT -5
You're kinda a tarbaby thats not worth responding to sometimes ;-) You do a lot of assuming lol Me, a tar baby?!? You don't say. I'm just confused about how someone can go on and on and on and on about not knowing.... Knowm'sayin? Well, the short answer is that Enigma pulled up a post from a long time ago and asked a question and posed a supposition, that was then responded to. Do you find that confusing? lol
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 12:57:59 GMT -5
Silver is right. You view 'not knowing' as a practice even though you know better. You talked about turning attention away from thoughts, which is what she means by "ignore it". Typically, one cannot ignore what they think they know, which is obvious even on this forum, because there is belief and attachment. That's why it's usually necessary to see through those beliefs. Pulling attention away from thoughts may be effective, and may also be endless. In either case, nobody chooses to 'not know' unless they're playing games with themselves. Nah....Knowing something, anything, is an action, a kind of doing, all one has to "do" to "not know" is nothing...meaning, don't participate in the action of knowing....just don't do the activity. One might say that this is an automatic activity that just arises, but this is where the realization and acceptence of knowledge and truth really being nothing more than a persoective comes into play. For example....you walk down the street and look at a lamp post and "know" that it is a lamp post, but then you shift perspectives and "know" that it is a particle/wave in superposition, another shift in perspective and you "know" its an illusion of sensory phenomena interpreted and collated in the mindbody....on and on, perspective shifts redefine knowledge and truth, eventually all knowledge about anything is just a subjectivity, eventually you can even get to a perspective of "knowing" that the lamp post is unknowable ISness...but thats still a "knowing" from a specific perspective also....you might say that one sees through the belief of "knowability" and a realization occurs of "not knowing": OF ANYTHING....and once that realization opens into an empty space, knowing things is no longer an atuomated action that one participates in....you are no longer on "autopilot" where knowing activities arise automatically. Knowledge is an activity, not a thing, when one realizes unknowability, the activity of knowing seems to not spontaneously arise anymore....so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way.It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. I've talked about it repeatedly. The mundane analogy I often use is a mirage. Once it's realized it's a mirage, the thought to fill the canteen ceases to arise, but my point is that this realization (or the realization of the nature of ideas, whatever) must occur, and this realization must inform mind such that mind KNOWS the oasis is just a mirage. It's only then that the thoughts cease to arise. What I hear you talking about is bypassing the part where realization informs mind, and so you say there need be no understanding that the oasis is a mirage, but if there isn't, you'll still find yourself hopping on your camel and riding out to the mirage to fill your canteen. Lots of folks who have had some sort of realization are still camel riding because mind found a way to dismiss it instead of surrendering to it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 13:11:52 GMT -5
Once the belief in "knowability" is released, the action of knowing in an automated way is no longer the habitual state, the mental stillness of "not knowing" is the habitual or natural state. The activity that arose from the belief in knowability goes away once the belief in knowability is "seen through" or released into realization. That's a better way of talking about it rather than saying no understanding is needed and you can just not know anything. The understanding that nothing is knowable is also an understanding, though a somewhat incorrect one. Can you know that you wrote this post? Of course you can. It's not a matter of perspective. You can't shift perspective and realize, 'Oh, wait, president Obama really wrote that post'. You can, however, realize that life is fundamentally conceptual, imagination and a "play of ideas"; that there is no solid foundation for anything and it's basically just a dream of consciousness. Thoughts arise out of nothing and return to nothing and mean nothing but what we say they do. Knowledge is contextual, and you can still know where you live or how to log onto an internet forum, but ultimately nothing is true and there is nothing to know. That has to be understood. That's knowledge you need to know.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 13:32:15 GMT -5
There is no singular or ultimate Truth about anything unless one clings to a singular or ultimate perspective. Truth is infinately variable limited only by one's capacity to imagine a perpective into being. And what perspectives are not imagined into being? If you don't hold a perspective truth and knowledge don't come into being either. They do, you just know (or should know) that this knowledge only applies in a given context. You still know your birthday. That knowledge does arise when needed. It's not a matter of refusing to hold a perspective on that. What is commonly referred to as Truth (capital 'T') is not conceptual knowledge, and so that's not what is infinitely variable. Truth is being. You ARE Truth.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 14, 2013 13:37:48 GMT -5
Nah....Knowing something, anything, is an action, a kind of doing, all one has to "do" to "not know" is nothing...meaning, don't participate in the action of knowing....just don't do the activity.One might say that this is an automatic activity that just arises, but this is where the realization and acceptence of knowledge and truth really being nothing more than a persoective comes into play. For example....you walk down the street and look at a lamp post and "know" that it is a lamp post, but then you shift perspectives and "know" that it is a particle/wave in superposition, another shift in perspective and you "know" its an illusion of sensory phenomena interpreted and collated in the mindbody....on and on, perspective shifts redefine knowledge and truth, eventually all knowledge about anything is just a subjectivity, eventually you can even get to a perspective of "knowing" that the lamp post is unknowable ISness...but thats still a "knowing" from a specific perspective also....you might say that one sees through the belief of "knowability" and a realization occurs of "not knowing": OF ANYTHING....and once that realization opens into an empty space, knowing things is no longer an atuomated action that one participates in....you are no longer on "autopilot" where knowing activities arise automatically.Knowledge is an activity, not a thing, when one realizes unknowability, the activity of knowing seems to not spontaneously arise anymore....so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know. Zacly. It's what I mean by losing interest and walking off the battlefield. Even the thought to surrender doesn't arise.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 14:09:43 GMT -5
Me, a tar baby?!? You don't say. I'm just confused about how someone can go on and on and on and on about not knowing.... Knowm'sayin? Well, the short answer is that Enigma pulled up a post from a long time ago and asked a question and posed a supposition, that was then responded to. Do you find that confusing? lol Did I respond to a post that was written a long time ago. I believe I was responding and highlighting in a post that was written less than a day ago: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/145102/threadSo I was addressing what you're contributing right now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 18:39:55 GMT -5
Nah....Knowing something, anything, is an action, a kind of doing, all one has to "do" to "not know" is nothing...meaning, don't participate in the action of knowing....just don't do the activity.One might say that this is an automatic activity that just arises, but this is where the realization and acceptence of knowledge and truth really being nothing more than a persoective comes into play. For example....you walk down the street and look at a lamp post and "know" that it is a lamp post, but then you shift perspectives and "know" that it is a particle/wave in superposition, another shift in perspective and you "know" its an illusion of sensory phenomena interpreted and collated in the mindbody....on and on, perspective shifts redefine knowledge and truth, eventually all knowledge about anything is just a subjectivity, eventually you can even get to a perspective of "knowing" that the lamp post is unknowable ISness...but thats still a "knowing" from a specific perspective also....you might say that one sees through the belief of "knowability" and a realization occurs of "not knowing": OF ANYTHING....and once that realization opens into an empty space, knowing things is no longer an atuomated action that one participates in....you are no longer on "autopilot" where knowing activities arise automatically.Knowledge is an activity, not a thing, when one realizes unknowability, the activity of knowing seems to not spontaneously arise anymore... [/u].so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. [/quote] Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know. [/quote] There's a whole lot of Giraffes in there my friend...your imagining a whole lot of stuff to be going on over here that just ain't lol Which calls for:
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 18:47:13 GMT -5
[/u].so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. [/quote] Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know. [/quote] There's a whole lot of Giraffes in there my friend...your imagining a whole lot of stuff to be going on over here that just ain't lol Which calls for: [/quote] Those were clearly your giraffes, I was talking about gazelles.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2013 18:58:53 GMT -5
[/u].so now when I walk down the street there is no identifying of tree, lamp post, sidewalk etc... There is also no automatic movement to understand and know about things or to move into an idea or belief about stuff etc, unless its needed for communications like this post.. Fundamentally I am agreeing with you, in that seeing through a belief opens into an empty space of realization, and the activities that proceeded around the "seen through" belief naturally fall away. Perhaps where we diverge course is that you have not seen through the "belief in knowability", and therefore can't grasp that the realization that results kinda disapates the unconscious action of moving into "knowing". I dunno where you are at on that last bit, just a guess really....all I can say is that "knowing" is not so much being ignored, as it is not being moved into at all in an automatic unconcious way. It is still available as a tool, like reaching for a fork to eat with, but reaching for knowing isn't an automated reflex action once knowability is seen through. [/quote] Your "not knowing" is not complete until you drop the knowing of and the talking about the "not knowing". You're coming across as a bit Andrewesque in knowing that "not knowing" is "the way". If there is a thought "I am not doing x activity" it becomes a doing of not-x activity. If there is the thought of "I know not" then it becomes a knowing of "I know not". True "unknowing" is in the absence of interpretive thought, not in the doubt of a thought. In essence when you are engaged in unknowing, there is nothing about what you unknow to talk about because no thought on the matter is arising. I can say for one that I am eagerly awaiting for you to truly unknow whether you know, not know, or know that you not know. [/quote] There's a whole lot of Giraffes in there my friend...your imagining a whole lot of stuff to be going on over here that just ain't lol Which calls for: [/quote] Those were clearly your giraffes, I was talking about gazelles. [/quote] Looked more like Gnu's to me :-)
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 14, 2013 19:25:30 GMT -5
Those were clearly your giraffes, I was talking about gazelles. Looked more like Gnu's to me :-) You mean the one next to the penguin? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Gnu_linux.svgI'll save people the oversized picture and just provide the link. *couldn't resist the open source software reference*
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2013 20:53:16 GMT -5
Folks attach an idea, an identification, a familiarity, a knowledge to every thing and every experience. This is a kind of absorption, a taking of a perspective that creates the illusion of an expierence of seperation and differentiation from the undifferentiation of God Union, or, if you are offended by the word God: Limitless, boundlass, undifferentiated Self. One can develop an intelectual understanding of oneness, but this is not gnosis of limitless boundless self. Knowing, identifying, understanding, recognizing, categorizing, discriminating...these are all a part of fixating into a perspective that creates an experience that is an illusion of a seperate or individuated Self. "Not Knowing" is the beginning of a releasing of the perspective that creates the experience of an illusion that seems to be reality... Your reality is an illusion based on perspective, and "knowing" is a way of holding yourself in that perspective. "Not Knowing" is the beggining of releasing from the perspective that creates the illusion of individuation, seperation, and differentiation...."Knowing" is a bit like a set of the blinders that they put on race horses to narrow the view. Removing the blinders is not analogous to turning the shirt inside out ;-) If you are centered in "Knowing", you are centered in a perspective that creates an illusion. There is no "wrongness" in this, it is just simply a kind of limited "Awareness of Self." Silver is right. You view 'not knowing' as a practice even though you know better. You talked about turning attention away from thoughts, which is what she means by "ignore it". Typically, one cannot ignore what they think they know, which is obvious even on this forum, because there is belief and attachment. That's why it's usually necessary to see through those beliefs. Pulling attention away from thoughts may be effective, and may also be endless. In either case, nobody chooses to 'not know' unless they're playing games with themselves. Deliberate absence is not absent deliberation.
|
|