XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com   
      
   "{:-])))"  wrote in message   
   news:5j743c5tk2fdtj355s9d1hk9022uicavts@4ax.com...   
   >   
   > 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   
      
   I just wanna know where the script   
   girl disappeared to   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)