home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.religion.buddhism      All aspects of Buddhism as religion and      111,200 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 110,743 of 111,200   
   {:-]))) to Tang   
   Re: Not knowing (was Re: By the Numbers)   
   20 Nov 16 09:37:30   
   
   XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   Tang wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   A myth in the DDJ may go so far as to say, infants   
   are not stung by WASPs, nor do they fear other stuff.   
      
   As they are not capable of such distinct ironic half-sphericals.   
      
   Getting all charged up about some bull   
   might be the gas in a Ting Tank.   
      
   When he lets fly, his vorpal blade goes snicker-snack.   
      
   Until he goes gallumping back.   
      
   - beaming over the motes   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca