XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   On Sun, 20 Nov 2016 11:17:00 -0500, "dagnabit"   
    wrote:   
      
   >"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.   
      
   https://www.ted.com/talks/roger_antonsen_math_is_the_hidden_secr   
   t_to_understanding_the_world   
      
   - aye cud knots have said it know more better   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)