|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 9:06:29 GMT -5
I might be wrong, but I thought Max understood that the dude was not me, but maybe what I said as a response lent to the idea that I am a church licker hehe. Yes it was all fun, in fact I bow to your good sense of humor! It was a hilarious bit of news and the guy in the photo looked a bit like that photo you posted a while back of yourself, so the universe conspired to make a little joke. Thanks for playing. And welcome back! Why not change your name to andrewperm? Hehehe nice 'do! To be clear, if I had been aware that that there would be some confusion over the issue I wouldn't have said what I said, but it didn't seem worth ending my forum hiatus just to clear up the issue. To be fair, I have done stuff in the last few years that most 'regular' folk would probably think is odd!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 9:20:15 GMT -5
please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? To be certain is to be done, as in knowing on an "experiential level" (for wont of a better phrase, but to distinguish the knowing with merely mental) that consensual reality and all the attached thingies we refer to as daily life, objectivity, rational, etc are inherently false and only Truth Is. If an onion could speak, it would likely scream and and moan expletives during the process of working with and through the mental formulation the mind has conjured up in order to explain that it "understands and does not need it". The pain/disillusion of being forever wrong/false in the face of all that IS/TRUTH is quite a spectacle. Any practice, at best, can only take the edge off those "negative but necessary feelings/experiences" of being on some path. But that there is what it is. When you realize who you think you are doesn't know (can't know) on a deep visceral level, something gives. At that point, one might say "YOU KNOW". It's not an experience per se, but a Realization, and try as it might (and it will) the mind cannot undo it. CERTAINTY. That help? Certainty is a theme that's been percolating. On the one hand it seems to be a by-product of plain-as-day realization (like SN explains above). When speaking from that perspective, communication comes across as certain. Regular folks can experience this by answering the question "do you exist?" (Note: any answer other than 'yes' indicates TMT. (but maybe I suffer from MAS?)) On the other hand there is feigned certainty. This is the type of certainty that is flagged as the primary symptom of Male Answer Syndrome (MAS), for example. While not necessarily a gender specific condition, it does seem to be frequently exemplified by those conditioned as males. Typically the subject in question can be totally wrong but sound authoritatively right. There can be certainty in style and certainty of content. One can argue for uncertain contents, but deliver this argument with great certainty. It seems to me that the certainty of style is what attracts the most attention. What is it about certainty that attracts adulation and attack?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 9:23:18 GMT -5
The realization that ideas are absent of solid foundation is a useful one, unfortunately you have turned it into TMT by affirming and concluding the existence of an ultimate, and then out of that, you claim that 'knowledge is true in its context'. If the 'ultimate' is just alleged, i.e. is just another idea, then there are no objective contexts for knowledge to be true in. It means that 'context' is just another free floating idea. Its just alleged. Do you understand this? The moment you affirm an ultimate, you affirm context. The moment you affirm context is the moment you justify knowledge being true and mind is fully established in the driver's seat. FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses. Yep I can see how telling ourselves that could trigger a relaxing of the focus a little, an opening up, smelling the roses. In that sense, its a nice 'sentiment', a mental strategy to deal with the pain of mind. It does presuppose and affirm an alleged 'ultimate' though which means that it has nothing to do with not-knowing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 9:32:09 GMT -5
FWIW, andrewperm, the way I understand 'no idea is ultimately true' isn't a reference to an ultimate or absolute case. It's just another way of saying that one shouldn't get too invested in their thoughts. It's a reminder to relax the focus a little, open up, smell the roses. Yep I can see how telling ourselves that could trigger a relaxing of the focus a little, an opening up, smelling the roses. In that sense, its a nice 'sentiment', a mental strategy to deal with the pain of mind. It does presuppose and affirm an alleged 'ultimate' though which means that it has nothing to do with not-knowing. I don't agree that your last sentence there necessarily follows. It's actually pointing out that there are limits of knowing and that it's probably best to accept not-knowing. That's how I read it anyhoo.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 9:38:00 GMT -5
please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? My interpretation is that ''not knowing'' is the arising of knowledge/understanding in any given moment without the need to attach to, or hold onto, the truth (or falsity) of any knowledge/understanding/idea. In not-knowing we don't 'start' from a place of needing to hold an idea to be true, and as such our behaviour is not informed by the need to hold the idea to be true. This attachment is usually held subconsciously i.e we are not aware that an attachment is informing our behaviour. Not-knowing does not mean that truth and falsity is no longer engaged with. Yes, this is very honest. The paragraph explains, "I don't really know what 'not-knowing' means" and then goes on to speculate what it hopes "not knowing" means from the personal perspective. What hopes all this to be true, and why? Detach from it for a sec, put it out front and see it for what it is. The last sentence gives a clear indication that Andrew doesn't know, and has no idea what is actually meant by Truth Realization. Yet, rather than be curious, Andrew stands on his laurels and tries to speak from a position of authority. Again, I ask, what hopes that to be true, and why? What can confuse people on this board, if they haven't been HERE, is the ability to distinguish between Truth and falsity. That confusion reigns supreme in our little dreamscape and all the "evidence" of its dualistic reality, and then people go on and on trying to organize it with their confused mind, the one that houses the separate ego. The "evidence" is based on a single false premise. The mind's confused dreamscape reality gets a monkey wrench thrown in and it resorts to all sorts of antics and contortions to make it good and comfy again, even if it means judging, melting down, and seeking absolution in some way. Does the little you want a re-arranged prison cell and then the attached hope/fear that life won't come by a wreck it again? The ego's answer is re-sounding 'yes'. But, for some here, there is something inside, beneath the layers of thoughts, memories, conditioning, and other boolshiat. There's somenothing that appears to want to Realize that IT is (already) free.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 9:53:07 GMT -5
Yep I can see how telling ourselves that could trigger a relaxing of the focus a little, an opening up, smelling the roses. In that sense, its a nice 'sentiment', a mental strategy to deal with the pain of mind. It does presuppose and affirm an alleged 'ultimate' though which means that it has nothing to do with not-knowing. I don't agree that your last sentence there necessarily follows. It's actually pointing out that there are limits of knowing and that it's probably best to accept not-knowing. That's how I read it anyhoo. By my understanding of not-knowing (above) it does not point to not-knowing. Built into the structure of the mental reminder that 'nothing is ultimately true' is the presupposition/knowing that there is an 'ultimate'. Mind remains in the driver's seat. 'Nothing is ultimately true' is a panacea for pain. It is very....convenient. Its easy to collapse ideas down, all it requires is creating the idea of an 'ultimate'. Not knowing is the real challenge.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 9:57:58 GMT -5
My interpretation is that ''not knowing'' is the arising of knowledge/understanding in any given moment without the need to attach to, or hold onto, the truth (or falsity) of any knowledge/understanding/idea. In not-knowing we don't 'start' from a place of needing to hold an idea to be true, and as such our behaviour is not informed by the need to hold the idea to be true. This attachment is usually held subconsciously i.e we are not aware that an attachment is informing our behaviour. Not-knowing does not mean that truth and falsity is no longer engaged with. Yes, this is very honest. The paragraph explains, "I don't really know what 'not-knowing' means" and then goes on to speculate what it hopes "not knowing" means from the personal perspective. What hopes all this to be true, and why? Detach from it for a sec, put it out front and see it for what it is. The last sentence gives a clear indication that Andrew doesn't know, and has no idea what is actually meant by Truth Realization. Yet, rather than be curious, Andrew stands on his laurels and tries to speak from a position of authority. Again, I ask, what hopes that to be true, and why? What can confuse people on this board, if they haven't been HERE, is the ability to distinguish between Truth and falsity. That confusion reigns supreme in our little dreamscape and all the "evidence" of its dualistic reality, and then people go on and on trying to organize it with their confused mind, the one that houses the separate ego. The "evidence" is based on a single false premise. The mind's confused dreamscape reality gets a monkey wrench thrown in and it resorts to all sorts of antics and contortions to make it good and comfy again, even if it means judging, melting down, and seeking absolution in some way. Does the little you want a re-arranged prison cell and then the attached hope/fear that life won't come by a wreck it again? The ego's answer is re-sounding 'yes'. But, for some here, there is something inside, beneath the layers of thoughts, memories, conditioning, and other boolshiat. There's somenothing that appears to want to Realize that IT is (already) free. What? There's so much assumption, confusion, reification and plain wrongness in what you just said that I don't have it in me to pull it apart. You really should drop everything you think you know and start again sN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 9:59:13 GMT -5
And by forgave, I mean in the Aramiac meaning of the word shbag, which Jesus used a lot. Shbag has been translated into English as "forgive", but in aramaic (the languagetgatjesusspoke) it's more accurate translation is: to let go of, to undo, to untie. Dear Dude/Dudette, That would be the opposite of what 'religion' means. Kinda funny how that turned out. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize Yeah.....seems like most of the "great" world "teachers" failed miserably on that one ;-) But maybe there is a bigger picture that shows different. Who knows, I certainly don't lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 10:00:57 GMT -5
Yes, this is very honest. The paragraph explains, "I don't really know what 'not-knowing' means" and then goes on to speculate what it hopes "not knowing" means from the personal perspective. What hopes all this to be true, and why? Detach from it for a sec, put it out front and see it for what it is. The last sentence gives a clear indication that Andrew doesn't know, and has no idea what is actually meant by Truth Realization. Yet, rather than be curious, Andrew stands on his laurels and tries to speak from a position of authority. Again, I ask, what hopes that to be true, and why? What can confuse people on this board, if they haven't been HERE, is the ability to distinguish between Truth and falsity. That confusion reigns supreme in our little dreamscape and all the "evidence" of its dualistic reality, and then people go on and on trying to organize it with their confused mind, the one that houses the separate ego. The "evidence" is based on a single false premise. The mind's confused dreamscape reality gets a monkey wrench thrown in and it resorts to all sorts of antics and contortions to make it good and comfy again, even if it means judging, melting down, and seeking absolution in some way. Does the little you want a re-arranged prison cell and then the attached hope/fear that life won't come by a wreck it again? The ego's answer is re-sounding 'yes'. But, for some here, there is something inside, beneath the layers of thoughts, memories, conditioning, and other boolshiat. There's somenothing that appears to want to Realize that IT is (already) free. What? There's so much assumption, confusion, reification and plain wrongness in what you just said that I don't have it in me to pull it apart. You really should drop everything you think you know and start again sN. Why start again?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 10:01:55 GMT -5
please elaborate on that bolded sentence what is your interpretation of 'not-knowing'? To be certain is to be done, as in knowing on an "experiential level" (for wont of a better phrase, but to distinguish the knowing with merely mental) that consensual reality and all the attached thingies we refer to as daily life, objectivity, rational, etc are inherently false and only Truth Is. If an onion could speak, it would likely scream and and moan expletives during the process of working with and through the mental formulation the mind has conjured up in order to explain that it "understands and does not need it". The pain/disillusion of being forever wrong/false in the face of all that IS/TRUTH is quite a spectacle. Any practice, at best, can only take the edge off those "negative but necessary feelings/experiences" of being on some path. But that there is what it is. When you realize who you think you are doesn't know (can't know) on a deep visceral level, something gives. At that point, one might say "YOU KNOW". It's not an experience per se, but a Realization, and try as it might (and it will) the mind cannot undo it. CERTAINTY. That help? I don't know, but I do appreciate you taking the time to write them your words (and Andrew's) did get the wheel's a spinning ... but I'm not sure if I went anywhere or not ;-)
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 10:04:11 GMT -5
Yes, this is very honest. The paragraph explains, "I don't really know what 'not-knowing' means" and then goes on to speculate what it hopes "not knowing" means from the personal perspective. What hopes all this to be true, and why? Detach from it for a sec, put it out front and see it for what it is. The last sentence gives a clear indication that Andrew doesn't know, and has no idea what is actually meant by Truth Realization. Yet, rather than be curious, Andrew stands on his laurels and tries to speak from a position of authority. Again, I ask, what hopes that to be true, and why? What can confuse people on this board, if they haven't been HERE, is the ability to distinguish between Truth and falsity. That confusion reigns supreme in our little dreamscape and all the "evidence" of its dualistic reality, and then people go on and on trying to organize it with their confused mind, the one that houses the separate ego. The "evidence" is based on a single false premise. The mind's confused dreamscape reality gets a monkey wrench thrown in and it resorts to all sorts of antics and contortions to make it good and comfy again, even if it means judging, melting down, and seeking absolution in some way. Does the little you want a re-arranged prison cell and then the attached hope/fear that life won't come by a wreck it again? The ego's answer is re-sounding 'yes'. But, for some here, there is something inside, beneath the layers of thoughts, memories, conditioning, and other boolshiat. There's somenothing that appears to want to Realize that IT is (already) free. What? There's so much assumption, confusion, reification and plain wrongness in what you just said that I don't have it in me to pull it apart. You really should drop everything you think you know and start again sN. Case in point. But for the sake of the message board, please carry on; point it all out from Andrew's perspective.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 10:07:35 GMT -5
To be certain is to be done, as in knowing on an "experiential level" (for wont of a better phrase, but to distinguish the knowing with merely mental) that consensual reality and all the attached thingies we refer to as daily life, objectivity, rational, etc are inherently false and only Truth Is. If an onion could speak, it would likely scream and and moan expletives during the process of working with and through the mental formulation the mind has conjured up in order to explain that it "understands and does not need it". The pain/disillusion of being forever wrong/false in the face of all that IS/TRUTH is quite a spectacle. Any practice, at best, can only take the edge off those "negative but necessary feelings/experiences" of being on some path. But that there is what it is. When you realize who you think you are doesn't know (can't know) on a deep visceral level, something gives. At that point, one might say "YOU KNOW". It's not an experience per se, but a Realization, and try as it might (and it will) the mind cannot undo it. CERTAINTY. That help? I don't know, but I do appreciate you taking the time to write them your words (and Andrew's) did get the wheel's a spinning ... but I'm not sure if I went anywhere or not ;-) You might stick with "I don't know", and let clarity arise. It's difficult because there is a momentum of sorts, but why continue throwing rocks in the pond?
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 10, 2013 10:08:04 GMT -5
What? There's so much assumption, confusion, reification and plain wrongness in what you just said that I don't have it in me to pull it apart. You really should drop everything you think you know and start again sN. Why start again? Coz sometimes dropping everything we think we know just ain't enough on its own to halt a practiced and habitual flow of assumption and reification. But I get your point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2013 10:13:38 GMT -5
there are three people posting here regularly that seem to have absolute certainty, and that's a knot/puzzle that's fun to pick at. Blue Enigma TzuMy interaction with Max recently helped me get rid of a foundational idea, and hopefully by picking at these guys ideas it will jujitsu one again....but if not, maybe my picking at idea knots will undo one of their ideas.... Tzu I don't know that well But as for BlueEnigma, In many many years of posting, and what must be tens of thousands of posts, I don't recall ever seeing Enigma not having the answer, never once saw him say anything approximating "I don't know" Gosh, that's a whole lot of certainty that's there to pick at lol Dear Dude/Dudette, You hafta add at least ZD and Silence, too, maybe even sN. They also speak with absolute certainty. But you probably can't see that because your focus is on style and not on content. When it comes to non-duality pointers, ZD, Silence and 'BlueEnigma' may differ in style, but not in content. Tzu's content, however, has nothing in common with any of the guys I just mentioned. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize I stand corrected Cept, ZD doesn't ALWAYS seem to be speaking from a kind of belief defined certitude, though occasionally he does seem to too, but as you say, that may be the result of style interpretation, I dunno. TZU seems to have at least something in common with the others mentioned, it's possible that his style is clouding the view of that for some too I guess. Perspectives vary.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jun 10, 2013 10:14:38 GMT -5
To be certain is to be done, as in knowing on an "experiential level" (for wont of a better phrase, but to distinguish the knowing with merely mental) that consensual reality and all the attached thingies we refer to as daily life, objectivity, rational, etc are inherently false and only Truth Is. If an onion could speak, it would likely scream and and moan expletives during the process of working with and through the mental formulation the mind has conjured up in order to explain that it "understands and does not need it". The pain/disillusion of being forever wrong/false in the face of all that IS/TRUTH is quite a spectacle. Any practice, at best, can only take the edge off those "negative but necessary feelings/experiences" of being on some path. But that there is what it is. When you realize who you think you are doesn't know (can't know) on a deep visceral level, something gives. At that point, one might say "YOU KNOW". It's not an experience per se, but a Realization, and try as it might (and it will) the mind cannot undo it. CERTAINTY. That help? Certainty is a theme that's been percolating. On the one hand it seems to be a by-product of plain-as-day realization (like SN explains above). When speaking from that perspective, communication comes across as certain. Regular folks can experience this by answering the question "do you exist?" (Note: any answer other than 'yes' indicates TMT. (but maybe I suffer from MAS?)) On the other hand there is feigned certainty. This is the type of certainty that is flagged as the primary symptom of Male Answer Syndrome (MAS), for example. While not necessarily a gender specific condition, it does seem to be frequently exemplified by those conditioned as males. Typically the subject in question can be totally wrong but sound authoritatively right. There can be certainty in style and certainty of content. One can argue for uncertain contents, but deliver this argument with great certainty. It seems to me that the certainty of style is what attracts the most attention. What is it about certainty that attracts adulation and attack? You're right, you can't manufacture it and thinking will never get you Here. But the sincerity of your effort to think it out can potentially wear down the size of ones molehill, by seeing just how much of a closed and confused system of thought it actually is. Maybe realization will happen, maybe it won't. Onward through the fog!
|
|