|
Post by lolly on Oct 6, 2013 1:11:41 GMT -5
yup ... the only thing I'd add to what you said is what seems to me the next logical turn in the road: just because alot of people have relied on or celebrated someones words isn't a reason, in and of itself, to bother to tear them down or subject them to special scrutiny. It's a third-person version of "don't hate me just because I'm beautiful". Haters are just fans in denial. I am a fan of the three guys I mentioned, but there are other cats I'm not a fan of, which is basically a preference matter, though I like to think the preferences is based on inherent quality. Nice try with the cute little quip trick, but I see through all the hoo ha and carry on.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 11:26:47 GMT -5
I dunno JS, seems like a different catch phrase might work better than something about non-conceptual knowledge. ;-) May be but I come from rebel stock. You see actual knowledge is never gained it's discovered in the remembrance of Self Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 6, 2013 11:32:18 GMT -5
May be but I come from rebel stock. You see actual knowledge is never gained it's discovered in the remembrance of Self Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. maybe but you see that knowledge has always been there..the better question is who do you think is gaining something. The reason for me is simple. As long as you feel something needs to be gain ie even the absent of knowledge then you think there is a lacking someplace and in truth this is what causes a problem as you yourself never lacked anything and is perfectly complete as IS.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 13:01:04 GMT -5
yup ... the only thing I'd add to what you said is what seems to me the next logical turn in the road: just because alot of people have relied on or celebrated someones words isn't a reason, in and of itself, to bother to tear them down or subject them to special scrutiny. It's a third-person version of "don't hate me just because I'm beautiful". I am a fan of those guys, it's not a hatred thing. I question the validity of relying on the words of 'spiritual teachers', and suggest that isn't a good idea. It's actually quite an interesting philosophy, and I think I understand those points of view, but making Truth of it doesn't sit well, and even worse when self ordained pointers use them as arsenal. The view I take is, the truth is in the listening... sometimes people are wrong, and I'm wrong sometimes too (but very rarely and it was a very long time ago hehehe), so I find taking celebrity words as gospel fairly inane. Sometimes I find one's words apply to my ife in some way, but other-times not so much, and not just old dead spiritual legends, anyone. I mean you say what's relevant to you and I say what's relevant to me and so do these trumped up dead guys lol... We don't teach anything really, and it's the pointers who experience delusions in that regard, we just say what we think is relevant to ourselves in response to any one else's communications. Maybe these spiritual celebrities merely said what they found to be relevant, just like I would. The reference to the "beautiful" line was an exaggerated joke -- I didn't mean to actually imply that you were hating on anyone. The "yup" there was in the same agreement that I'll share now: yes, the dead guys are just dead guys that said stuff that got popular. My point is that to echo that popularity by quoting them doesn't imply disagreement with you on that idea about them being no more than dead guys. Simply quoting them isn't "taking them as gospel". I'll disagree with you on this idea of "the pointers who experience delusions". This isn't to say noone who points or thinks they're pointing might not be delusional ... but I take pointing as simply reaching the limits of language and ideas to express what it is that we're trying to express.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 13:03:15 GMT -5
Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. maybe but you see that knowledge has always been there..the better question is who do you think is gaining something. The reason for me is simple. As long as you feel something needs to be gain ie even the absent of knowledge then you think there is a lacking someplace and in truth this is what causes a problem as you yourself never lacked anything and is perfectly complete as IS. Can you give me one example of gaining an absence?
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 6, 2013 14:22:23 GMT -5
maybe but you see that knowledge has always been there..the better question is who do you think is gaining something. The reason for me is simple. As long as you feel something needs to be gain ie even the absent of knowledge then you think there is a lacking someplace and in truth this is what causes a problem as you yourself never lacked anything and is perfectly complete as IS. Can you give me one example of gaining an absence? Not really I was using E language with that one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 17:21:44 GMT -5
Can you give me one example of gaining an absence? Not really I was using E language with that one. Right, so an absence of knowledge isn't a gain of anything.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 6, 2013 17:29:07 GMT -5
Not really I was using E language with that one. Right, so an absence of knowledge isn't a gain of anything. Not sure really you would have to ask E to what context he was speaking when he said paraphrasing the the knowledge to end all knowledge is really the absence of knowledge..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 6, 2013 18:05:11 GMT -5
Right, so an absence of knowledge isn't a gain of anything. Not sure really you would have to ask E to what context he was speaking when he said paraphrasing the the knowledge to end all knowledge is really the absence of knowledge.. (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 20:15:28 GMT -5
Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. maybe but you see that knowledge has always been there..the better question is who do you think is gaining something. The reason for me is simple. As long as you feel something needs to be gain ie even the absent of knowledge then you think there is a lacking someplace and in truth this is what causes a problem as you yourself never lacked anything and is perfectly complete as IS. I don't see that knowledge has "always been there". Knowledge is fundamentally imagination.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 20:18:30 GMT -5
maybe but you see that knowledge has always been there..the better question is who do you think is gaining something. The reason for me is simple. As long as you feel something needs to be gain ie even the absent of knowledge then you think there is a lacking someplace and in truth this is what causes a problem as you yourself never lacked anything and is perfectly complete as IS. Can you give me one example of gaining an absence? ('Mutley snicker')
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 6, 2013 20:22:54 GMT -5
Right, so an absence of knowledge isn't a gain of anything. Not sure really you would have to ask E to what context he was speaking when he said paraphrasing the the knowledge to end all knowledge is really the absence of knowledge.. Obviously, the absence of something isn't a gain. It's a loss only, which is the point. What's being pointed to with all the pointy thingys is an absence. Essentially, it's the end of a contraction that makes folks miserable. That's it with no carrot flavoring added at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2013 20:23:05 GMT -5
May be but I come from rebel stock. You see actual knowledge is never gained it's discovered in the remembrance of Self Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. Actually it's the mind that is coming up with the 'absence of knowledge' concept, so it's still knowledge gained... That it's "difficult for mind" is just another mind game.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Oct 6, 2013 21:05:57 GMT -5
Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. Actually it's the mind that is coming up with the 'absence of knowledge' concept, so it's still knowledge gained... That it's "difficult for mind" is just another mind game. exactly but something wonderful is about to happen
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 7, 2013 0:39:17 GMT -5
Knowledge discovered is still knowledge gained. What is being pointed to is fundamentally an absence of knowledge. Naturally, mind has great difficulty with this idea. Actually it's the mind that is coming up with the 'absence of knowledge' concept, so it's still knowledge gained... That it's "difficult for mind" is just another mind game. Another thing that's difficult for mind is knowing when to stop thinking. A clue is when the thoughts become recursive, like 'That's just a story, but then it's a story that it's just a story, but then it's a story that it's a story that it's just a story.' Andrew was famous for that....unless he wasn't....and not even that! It's called TMT. Mind can be used as a translator for insight. When mind starts running the show, it's not about insight anymore.
|
|