XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   dagnabit wrote:   
   > brian wrote:   
   >> Tang Huyen 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
      
   One time Zz was pondering a wordless state   
   and wished he could find someone who was in that state   
   so he could have a word with   that   one who was.   
      
   When someone shows one's mind without words,   
   at times it's all in the action.   
      
   Then the director yells out, cut! Print it. That's a wrap.   
      
   And all the actors break for a spell.   
      
   When the break in the spell is over, everyone resumes.   
      
   They get all involved in the shootings, and all   
   the special effects involved in the shootings and all   
   of the pictures within a picture frames of the droste effect.   
      
   - in the house of mirrors   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)