XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: tanghuyen@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/20/2016 7:19 AM, dagnabit wrote:   
      
   > "{:-])))"   
      
   >> noname:   
      
   >> >Some of us go beyond GIGO to AIGO.   
      
   >> I'm blanking on what the A stands for.   
   >>   
   >> - in the real world   
      
   > abracadabra in   
   > gestalt out   
      
   It is sometimes piquant to me that some Korean Son (Chan)   
   followers, including Oxycontin, promote "not knowing mind"   
   as the panacea. Not so much the idea itself, which I accept   
   on some conditions, but the definition of it, as in JayLo's   
   blanking out above. If your mind draws a blank, which merely   
   means that you don't know something, does that mean "not   
   knowing mind"? Does that qualify as "not knowing mind"?   
   IOW, is not knowing something specific the same as not   
   knowing in a general sense, a total absence of knowing,   
   which I take to be a total absence of judging?   
      
   As to my conditions, "not knowing mind" presupposes   
   success, and offers no guardrail against failure. This   
   becomes clearer when it is taken to be "not checking your   
   mind", which is a frequent equivalent motto of it, as often   
   used by Oxycontin. If you fail, you will never know it, for you   
   don't turn your mind back to check on itself. You give   
   yourself an automatic free pass. More specifically, if you   
   practice it with an innocent mind free of ulterior motives   
   (this is the presupposed success mentioned above), you're   
   good to go, but if you have ulterior motives, like hiding your   
   self-hatred, it won't work. IMO, of course.   
      
   Tang Huyen   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)