XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "Tang Huyen"  wrote in message   
   news:20e91067-c6f2-b126-d827-48f6a6c058de@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   
      
   considering how little we know as humans, and can know,   
   to finagle our intellect into areas of supposed intelligence   
   to where we think we actually know things, or of things, may   
   be only a self deception evidenced by the idea that our base   
   of knowledge changes as time passes. what was thought of   
   as fact in the past gets readjusted into new facts that may   
   change again and again with either new information or a   
   reformulation of old information. it's why the yogis term   
   our perceptions of this "reality" as *ignorance* and thus   
   it may behoove us to possibly take up a position of not   
   knowing mind, or don't know mind in order to free up what   
   may just be a continual misinterpretation of what we think   
   we know. it's what oxtail was always speaking about with   
   his don't know mind, but most just thought he was being   
   argumentative or deceptive.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)