|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2019 19:03:26 GMT
It's important to see that the 'unknowing' being spoken about in spiritual convos does not leave one in a state of confusion as to how to operate in the world, nor does it leave one wondering, questioning what 'might' be the case.
Relative knowledge in general survives and thus remains, but it's abidingly clear that that knowledge IS 'relative only' and that relative facts/knowledge are lacking the substance of absolute knowing.
What can be known for absolute certain? Not much. There IS Being. There is no 'not NOW.' Nothing that IS known for absolute certain, beyond 'the present.' There IS experience/expression...appearing stuff..an appearing world that arises transiently. There is no separation. Being abides. Experience/expression does not. As experience/expressions arise/fall, Being is always and unwaveringly foundational to that.
Peace lies in Being...it is not found in the expression, which is where most look for it.
When Absolute Truth is apprehended/realized, it trumps (transcends) all relative knowledge. (To transcend means to go beyond and include)..thus, there is nothing for mind to 'reconcile'....no split mind involved. One can both engage the relative, engaging relative knowledge and assumption AND be free of absolute knowing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2019 21:55:30 GMT
All that you think you incontrovertibly know about the world, blinds you from what actually is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 15, 2019 21:59:06 GMT
An absence of knowledge about others does not equal the presence of certain knowing that they do not experience, nor does it equal wondering about whether they experience. It really is just an absence and as such, it can best be noticed by what is not happening in mind vs. something that is happening in mind.
Unknowing = an absence of clinging, identifying, attachment.
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969 
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 16, 2019 3:07:06 GMT
It's important to see that the 'unknowing' being spoken about in spiritual convos does not leave one in a state of confusion as to how to operate in the world, nor does it leave one wondering, questioning what 'might' be the case. Relative knowledge in general survives and thus remains, but it's abidingly clear that that knowledge IS 'relative only' and that relative facts/knowledge are lacking the substance of absolute knowing. What can be known for absolute certain? Not much. There IS Being. There is no 'not NOW.' Nothing that IS known for absolute certain, beyond 'the present.' There IS experience/expression...appearing stuff..an appearing world that arises transiently. There is no separation. Being abides. Experience/expression does not. As experience/expressions arise/fall, Being is always and unwaveringly foundational to that. Peace lies in Being...it is not found in the expression, which is where most look for it. When Absolute Truth is apprehended/realized, it trumps (transcends) all relative knowledge. (To transcend means to go beyond and include)..thus, there is nothing for mind to 'reconcile'....no split mind involved. One can both engage the relative, engaging relative knowledge and assumption AND be free of absolute knowing. Correct!  The thing that I find most interesting is the resistance encountered when talking about these things given that, in the final analysis, it's not different from what our revered teachers say. We often play dueling sage quotes where words get parsed and interpretations get slanted, but none of it is fundamentally new. And yet a great deal of energy is expended to makes us look wrong and silly. Why? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 16, 2019 15:21:19 GMT
It's important to see that the 'unknowing' being spoken about in spiritual convos does not leave one in a state of confusion as to how to operate in the world, nor does it leave one wondering, questioning what 'might' be the case. Relative knowledge in general survives and thus remains, but it's abidingly clear that that knowledge IS 'relative only' and that relative facts/knowledge are lacking the substance of absolute knowing. What can be known for absolute certain? Not much. There IS Being. There is no 'not NOW.' Nothing that IS known for absolute certain, beyond 'the present.' There IS experience/expression...appearing stuff..an appearing world that arises transiently. There is no separation. Being abides. Experience/expression does not. As experience/expressions arise/fall, Being is always and unwaveringly foundational to that. Peace lies in Being...it is not found in the expression, which is where most look for it. When Absolute Truth is apprehended/realized, it trumps (transcends) all relative knowledge. (To transcend means to go beyond and include)..thus, there is nothing for mind to 'reconcile'....no split mind involved. One can both engage the relative, engaging relative knowledge and assumption AND be free of absolute knowing. Correct! The thing that I find most interesting is the resistance encountered when talking about these things given that, in the final analysis, it's not different from what our revered teachers say. We often play dueling sage quotes where words get parsed and interpretations get slanted, but none of it is fundamentally new. And yet a great deal of energy is expended to makes us look wrong and silly. Why? It's just a wild stab in the dark but could it be because you're wrong and silly? 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2019 18:28:57 GMT
It's important to see that the 'unknowing' being spoken about in spiritual convos does not leave one in a state of confusion as to how to operate in the world, nor does it leave one wondering, questioning what 'might' be the case. Relative knowledge in general survives and thus remains, but it's abidingly clear that that knowledge IS 'relative only' and that relative facts/knowledge are lacking the substance of absolute knowing. What can be known for absolute certain? Not much. There IS Being. There is no 'not NOW.' Nothing that IS known for absolute certain, beyond 'the present.' There IS experience/expression...appearing stuff..an appearing world that arises transiently. There is no separation. Being abides. Experience/expression does not. As experience/expressions arise/fall, Being is always and unwaveringly foundational to that. Peace lies in Being...it is not found in the expression, which is where most look for it. When Absolute Truth is apprehended/realized, it trumps (transcends) all relative knowledge. (To transcend means to go beyond and include)..thus, there is nothing for mind to 'reconcile'....no split mind involved. One can both engage the relative, engaging relative knowledge and assumption AND be free of absolute knowing. Correct! The thing that I find most interesting is the resistance encountered when talking about these things given that, in the final analysis, it's not different from what our revered teachers say. We often play dueling sage quotes where words get parsed and interpretations get slanted, but none of it is fundamentally new. And yet a great deal of energy is expended to makes us look wrong and silly. Why? It really isn't. As I'm sure you recall, There was a time where some of those who are disagreeing with you now (Reefs for one) were completely on board with everything you were saying. It's as though all was fine and well with "no objective world.....appearances being empty of Truth" up until it was mentioned that people and their perceptive abilities were also empty appearances. It serves as a powerful example of how mind fights against the loss of knowledge that it's just not yet ready to give up. It's become very clear through all the insinuations that we're advocating a complete disengagement from the world in talk about it all being akin to a dream, that for some, interest in and engagement with the world is equated with knowing stuff for certain, and that without that certainty, they think interest would cease to arise. The conversation I'm most interested in having, and we've edged up on it a few times, addresses that fallacy; The one that says I cannot be interested in something/someone unless I know they have a substance beyond this present moment appearance. What's really being said there is 'my love/reverence for life is conditional upon knowing.' |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Aug 16, 2019 18:29:40 GMT
Correct! The thing that I find most interesting is the resistance encountered when talking about these things given that, in the final analysis, it's not different from what our revered teachers say. We often play dueling sage quotes where words get parsed and interpretations get slanted, but none of it is fundamentally new. And yet a great deal of energy is expended to makes us look wrong and silly. Why? It's just a wild stab in the dark but could it be because you're wrong and silly? 😀 What in my opening post do you see as 'wrong'? |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 8, 2019 21:58:48 GMT
I too recall that every once & awhile the priests in the Catholic churches I attended also talked a pretty good talk. It was always the 'walk' though that was in question.
Tough to take talk about absence of ego, absence of attachment to wordly things seriously, when the one talking is so obviously clinging to and utterly steeped in wordly things....worldly ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Dec 9, 2019 18:13:02 GMT
What continues to shine through your talk about the realization that absent perceivables, awareness abides, is your attachment to the 'experience' surrounding it.
Events and states are themselves of the realm of perceivables. Actual 'realizations' are not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2019 19:33:06 GMT
It's important to see that the 'unknowing' being spoken about in spiritual convos does not leave one in a state of confusion as to how to operate in the world, nor does it leave one wondering, questioning what 'might' be the case. Relative knowledge in general survives and thus remains, but it's abidingly clear that that knowledge IS 'relative only' and that relative facts/knowledge are lacking the substance of absolute knowing. What can be known for absolute certain? Not much. There IS Being. There is no 'not NOW.' Nothing that IS known for absolute certain, beyond 'the present.' There IS experience/expression...appearing stuff..an appearing world that arises transiently. There is no separation. Being abides. Experience/expression does not. As experience/expressions arise/fall, Being is always and unwaveringly foundational to that. Peace lies in Being...it is not found in the expression, which is where most look for it. When Absolute Truth is apprehended/realized, it trumps (transcends) all relative knowledge. (To transcend means to go beyond and include)..thus, there is nothing for mind to 'reconcile'....no split mind involved. One can both engage the relative, engaging relative knowledge and assumption AND be free of absolute knowing. Who is it that it's important too? Mind or the Self? If we shift to mind it is very important and if we shift to Self it is an unimportant limitation that simply drops away. The mind will eventually suffer from the importance thoughts are given, while the Self remains eternally free and unaffected. |
|
