|
Post by zendancer on Jul 5, 2013 12:44:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. What is represented again and again by the words on laughter's page is the attachment to his disapproval of Tzu's understandings.. Detach.... Be well.. understanding? ha! ... it is only the mind that understands. So much for "still mind clarity" ... FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). One kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "episteme," and the other kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "gnossis." Most people understand (episteme) the world via images, ideas, and symbols, but what we generally point to on this forum is direct understanding (gnosis) which occurs without the mediation of images, ideas, and symbols.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 5, 2013 12:49:37 GMT -5
understanding? ha! ... it is only the mind that understands. So much for "still mind clarity" ... FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). One kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "episteme," and the other kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "gnossis." Most people understand (episteme) the world via images, ideas, and symbols, but what we generally point to on this forum is direct understanding (gnosis) which occurs without the mediation of images, ideas, and symbols. Thanks for the clarification ZD. Seems to me that disapproval of gnosis is like spitting into the wind. Said another way, I don't see how such a disapproval could ever be aimed at anything other than an episteme of a gnosis.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jul 5, 2013 15:18:39 GMT -5
understanding? ha! ... it is only the mind that understands. So much for "still mind clarity" ... FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). "I" like to set ALL types of understanding aside. There does not seem to be any benefit to any of them....even "function" in this dream does not seem to require understanding of any kind. and even if "function" does require some kind of understanding, whether it be body understanding, or mentation, the "result" is what it is, so this concept of "flow" that happens from body understanding is irrelevant. Shoe Tying will either happen or it will not, but there does not appear to be any benefit either way. No need for the Mind to "know", no need for the body to "know"....knowing is just a temporary thing, that falls quickly away when it's released either action happens, or it does not
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 5, 2013 16:14:50 GMT -5
Greetings.. FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). One kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "episteme," and the other kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "gnossis." Most people understand (episteme) the world via images, ideas, and symbols, but what we generally point to on this forum is direct understanding (gnosis) which occurs without the mediation of images, ideas, and symbols. Thanks for the clarification ZD. Seems to me that disapproval of gnosis is like spitting into the wind. Said another way, I don't see how such a disapproval could ever be aimed at anything other than an episteme of a gnosis. Who do you suspect of disapproving of "Gnosis"? I approve of Gnosis, within the general meaning of the word, though it might not fit your belief model.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 5, 2013 18:25:47 GMT -5
Greetings.. Thanks for the clarification ZD. Seems to me that disapproval of gnosis is like spitting into the wind. Said another way, I don't see how such a disapproval could ever be aimed at anything other than an episteme of a gnosis. Who do you suspect of disapproving of "Gnosis"? I approve of Gnosis, within the general meaning of the word, though it might not fit your belief model.. Be well.. look for how often you engage 'Tzu', in discussions where you weren't included until you saw what you perceive as an opening to make a case against 'Tzu" and for your beliefs. have you no self-control?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jul 5, 2013 18:59:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greetings.. Who do you suspect of disapproving of "Gnosis"? I approve of Gnosis, within the general meaning of the word, though it might not fit your belief model.. Be well.. look for how often you engage 'Tzu', in discussions where you weren't included until you saw what you perceive as an opening to make a case against 'Tzu" and for your beliefs. have you no self-control? LOL.. 'self'? you forget which model you are displaying.. stay focused.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2013 22:15:26 GMT -5
Working out the concepts on an intellectual level can't work. Hi enigma, If it is believed that there in no value in reflecting on a concept in exchange with another to reach a sense of understanding then yes. amit I would say there is only value in that process to the extent that the listener is willing to look instead of think. This is the function of pointers. They are conceptual by necessity, but they are not to be intellectually analyzed. surely you've studied nondual teachings enough to have come across that warning?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2013 22:21:17 GMT -5
Greetings.. "I" answered the question with a certain degree of humor even though the answer may be disliked, misunderstood, rejected, etc. It's a kind of playfulness as illustrated in this exhange: Questioner: Who are you? Sage: What was the question? Questioner: I asked, "Who are you?" Sage: Thank you. In this example the sage used the questioner to answer his own question. Bodhidharma was asked the same question by Emperor Wu, and he responded, in essence, "It is not knowable." His answer was okay, but a little too serious for my taste. Someone asked Rinzai the same question, and he responded by jumping up, grabbing the questioner by his collar, and yelling, "Speak, speak!" This answer is a lot funnier and far more likely to stop the questioner's mind in its tracks. A more direct answer to the question is: *stands up, turns around three times, and sits back down* When Reality/"what is" sees/learns/knows that it is not what it thought it was--a person--what remains? Fingers typing on a keyboard, TV yakking in the background, universal sound ringing in the ears, rain falling outside the window, refrigerator motor humming in an adjacent room, words and thoughts appearing in emptiness, etc. All is seen and heard without imagining that there is a see-er or hear-er separate from the seen and heard. In the absence of thoughts or in the midst of thoughts, with a still mind or a busy mind, "what is" remains clear and undisguised. Be well. I am familiar with Bodhidharma and Rinzai, and the process of Zen.. but, you hold understanding in a private mindscape unique to 'you', that is my interest.. not the stale words of others.. Who is it that sees "clear and undisguised" on one hand, and who is it that promotes abuse and oppression on the other hand? Be well.. He's saying the question is misconceived. Whether it's true or not, why would you keep asking the question?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2013 22:34:55 GMT -5
understanding? ha! ... it is only the mind that understands. So much for "still mind clarity" ... FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). One kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "episteme," and the other kind of understanding/knowing is represented by the Greek word "gnossis." Most people understand (episteme) the world via images, ideas, and symbols, but what we generally point to on this forum is direct understanding (gnosis) which occurs without the mediation of images, ideas, and symbols. Yes, realization, which I'm coming to see some folks misunderstand to be ideas, concepts, beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 5, 2013 22:47:14 GMT -5
FWIW, I like to differentiate between intellectual understanding and body understanding (direct understanding). "I" like to set ALL types of understanding aside. There does not seem to be any benefit to any of them....even "function" in this dream does not seem to require understanding of any kind. and even if "function" does require some kind of understanding, whether it be body understanding, or mentation, the "result" is what it is, so this concept of "flow" that happens from body understanding is irrelevant. Shoe Tying will either happen or it will not, but there does not appear to be any benefit either way. No need for the Mind to "know", no need for the body to "know"....knowing is just a temporary thing, that falls quickly away when it's released either action happens, or it does not The function of understanding in the form of Gnosis is to counter problematic conceptual understanding. The problem with attempting to dismiss understanding with the understanding that some of it is problematic is that there is no clarity, realization, Gnosis to reveal the boundaries of that understanding. The desire to drop knowing is yet another idea that can bring relief from an overactive mind, but the idea cannot displace the creator of ideas. That creator (mind) has an agenda for relief but not for disillusion.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Jul 5, 2013 23:19:39 GMT -5
"I" like to set ALL types of understanding aside. There does not seem to be any benefit to any of them....even "function" in this dream does not seem to require understanding of any kind. and even if "function" does require some kind of understanding, whether it be body understanding, or mentation, the "result" is what it is, so this concept of "flow" that happens from body understanding is irrelevant. Shoe Tying will either happen or it will not, but there does not appear to be any benefit either way. No need for the Mind to "know", no need for the body to "know"....knowing is just a temporary thing, that falls quickly away when it's released either action happens, or it does not The function of understanding in the form of Gnosis is to counter problematic conceptual understanding. The problem with attempting to dismiss understanding with the understanding that some of it is problematic is that there is no clarity, realization, Gnosis to reveal the boundaries of that understanding. The desire to drop knowing is yet another idea that can bring relief from an overactive mind, but the idea cannot displace the creator of ideas. That creator (mind) has an agenda for relief but not for disillusion. Agreed that the "desire" to drop knowing, and the "idea" of it does not "displace" the Mind.....but the direct "experience" of not knowing does....IOW, letting knowing evaporate into not knowing opens a cessation of Mind/Identity....without Knowing, (all the various forms of Knowing), no "I" exists, and no action of knowledge exists. Knowledge is referenced by the knower, and the knower is the movement and sustaining of knowledge....let knowledge drop away, and "I" drops away.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 6, 2013 1:48:18 GMT -5
Hi enigma, If it is believed that there in no value in reflecting on a concept in exchange with another to reach a sense of understanding then yes. amit I would say there is only value in that process to the extent that the listener is willing to look instead of think. This is the function of pointers. They are conceptual by necessity, but they are not to be intellectually analyzed. surely you've studied nondual teachings enough to have come across that warning? Hi enigma, If one believes that those preconditions and limitations on discussion are necessary then yes. amit
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 9:47:36 GMT -5
The function of understanding in the form of Gnosis is to counter problematic conceptual understanding. The problem with attempting to dismiss understanding with the understanding that some of it is problematic is that there is no clarity, realization, Gnosis to reveal the boundaries of that understanding. The desire to drop knowing is yet another idea that can bring relief from an overactive mind, but the idea cannot displace the creator of ideas. That creator (mind) has an agenda for relief but not for disillusion. Agreed that the "desire" to drop knowing, and the "idea" of it does not "displace" the Mind.....but the direct "experience" of not knowing does....IOW, letting knowing evaporate into not knowing opens a cessation of Mind/Identity....without Knowing, (all the various forms of Knowing), no "I" exists, and no action of knowledge exists. Knowledge is referenced by the knower, and the knower is the movement and sustaining of knowledge....let knowledge drop away, and "I" drops away. I agree that if knowledge drops away, all identification will drop away, but that first step is a doozey. Unknowing doesn't mean choosing to not know, but rather realizing the illusory nature of that knowledge. That's what allows it to 'drop away'.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 6, 2013 9:50:35 GMT -5
I would say there is only value in that process to the extent that the listener is willing to look instead of think. This is the function of pointers. They are conceptual by necessity, but they are not to be intellectually analyzed. surely you've studied nondual teachings enough to have come across that warning? Hi enigma, If one believes that those preconditions and limitations on discussion are necessary then yes. amit IOW, if one thinks one can think oneself to enlightenment, then one can?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 6, 2013 13:47:25 GMT -5
Hi enigma, If one believes that those preconditions and limitations on discussion are necessary then yes. amit IOW, if one thinks one can think oneself to enlightenment, then one can? Hi enigma, Considering what has been resonated with may consolidate the resonance but is not the resonance. Without the resonance, considering the implications in terms of how they may challenge ones character and beliefs would be purely academic I imagine. One would have to ask people about their experience to get a better idea of what may have happened or be happening for them. Perhaps you could say something about the process by which you came to believe in what you call the truth. amit
|
|