XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "brian mitchell"  wrote in message   
   news:jni33ct6rj8vmji7i0b4h15b1u9l7slfiu@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > Tang Huyen wrote:   
   >   
   > >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.   
   >   
   > Well, IMO, FWIW, it is not the mere absence of content.   
   >   
   > You and I are walking along a street, reasonably amicably, when I   
   > suddenly ask in a loud and urgent voice: "What's that on the wall?"   
   >   
   > When you hear the question you are immediately alerted to the fact   
   > that there is something, but something unknown, without form, so your   
   > attention is collected but has no object. Naturally, you turn to look   
   > for the object, to bring the unknown into the known, but while you are   
   > turning to look, with collected but empty attention, there is   
   > Don't-Know mind.   
   >   
   > If, under the right conditions, instead of asking about an exterior   
   > object, someone were to ask you with sufficient force: "What is the   
   > mind?" and you turned collected but empty attention back onto itself   
   > to look...   
   >   
   > That would be interesting.   
      
   in advaita vedanta steps are taken to relinquish identification   
   with the human aspect of one's existence. a position of witness   
   or watching is established to go one step back from the thinking,   
   speaking and acting that the human aspect is engaging in, and then,   
   as that witness to turn around and witness the witness and so on.   
   in doing so there can be a clarity of focus in that there is no "one"   
   who witnesses and it also takes place spontaneously the same as   
   the ins and outs of the human expression.   
      
   what you describe as an interim adjustment when getting ready to   
   formulate perception onto an unknown object can be seen as a type   
   of raw perception when exclusively inclusive to the unknown object,   
   but actual don't know mind is the final stage of relinquishment of all   
   perceptual data even when the mind turns to see itself, or awareness   
   sees awareness, and a no-state state, so to speak ensues. in that no-state   
   state all perceptions, ideas, thoughts, feelings and so on are absent.   
   kind of like the little death state of dreamless sleep but even that   
   state has greater density than the absolute.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)