Knowledge

[Meow]

As I don't know anybody here, and it would take a lot of time to read through the whole personal experiences forum, I decided to ask: who at this forum has had an experience of getting some kind of knowledge not from the mind, but from another source? For example, that would include chi awareness for taoists, or any other sensations, revelations, and memories for people in other traditions. But with one caveat: it shouldn't be mind knowledge for sure, i.e. in the very least it's a knowledge that can be checked by most secure methods, like chi awareness giving an ability to see people's diseases (correctly) or manipulate energy in order to cure them, or revelations about the future being later turned true.

 

Of course, there can be a lot of information that comes form such an alternative source that cannot be checked and seen to be true so easily, but this is why I do not mention it: I tend to think that any information or experience without evidence or proof should be observed but not taken seriously or talked about, to avoid mistakes and delusions, and to avoid accidentally making others believe things.

 

I can tell about my own experience with such knowledge, but they aren't of much interest, because they belong to the category of the unproven and unevaluated, they merely happened and that's it. I'm more interested in those of others, those that didn't merely happen but can be talked about meaningfully. And I'm interested in what constitutes such a fundamental difference between one and another, and what I or some people I know could possibly be missing when it comes to that.

[Cat Pillar]

I unfortunately have no such experiences to share, but do want to say that I really like your approach to subjective experiences:

 

I tend to think that any information or experience without evidence or proof should be observed but not taken seriously or talked about, to avoid mistakes and delusions, and to avoid accidentally making others believe things.

 

Although depending on the context and who you're having the conversation with, talking may not be so bad...but I think this is a very practical and balanced approach.

[XieJia]

Hi Meow,

Welcome to the Tao Bums

 

Interesting thread you have here, 'Knowledge'.

 

Would you mind telling me first;

 

Whether the feeling of the body outside or inside of mind?

Whether the feeling of different sensations is inside or outside of mind?

 

what and where is your mind?

 

the meaning can be very ambiguous so would be nice to know first.

[de_paradise]

I think you are talking about what we can classify as siddhis or superpowers of some sort, but all these need direction from or interpretation of the mind, so they cannot be classed as seperate knowlege, just different from what is normal. Generally people hold these cards to themselves if they have, because the sceptic will say prove it, then if it is proved, they move along, but the next person says prove it, and so on, and it becomes a lamentable waste of time for someone who wants to focus higher levels, and not the doubters who are often pretty hostile.

[Meow]

XieJia, thanx for the welcome!

 

If I start answering your questions about the nature of mind, we'll go into the mires of philosophy, I'm afraid. I'd prefer this topic to be more practical

 

So let's simplify everything to the extreme:

 

"The mind" is everything you've ever known and experienced, that's the field of knowledge that it possesses. So things like knowledge of the workings of energy are not a part of what the mind can encompass and cannot come from it.

 

 

I think you are talking about what we can classify as siddhis or superpowers of some sort, but all these need direction from or interpretation of the mind, so they cannot be classed as seperate knowlege, just different from what is normal.

No no, I named the topic "knowledge" because it's about knowledge, not about superpowers! It's about knowledge which cannot be known by any normal means, and which at times can be used.

 

Because this knowledge is outside of our field of experience and understanding, I proposed that there is a bridge from it to our experience: if you're a taoist, think about chi awareness leading to knowledge of diseases, other revelations from the unknown source leading to knowledge of how to create an immortal fetus. Such things couldn't be learnt from the mind or created, they came from somewhere, not from holy scriptures. This "somewhere" is what I'm talking about.

[Marblehead]

It's about knowledge which cannot be known by any normal means, and which at times can be used.

 

Seems to me you are speaking to intuitional awareness and also sometimes considered wisdom.

 

Yes, in my understanding there is a difference between this and the knowledge gained through experience and other forms of learning.

[XieJia]

XieJia, thanx for the welcome!

 

If I start answering your questions about the nature of mind, we'll go into the mires of philosophy, I'm afraid. I'd prefer this topic to be more practical

 

So let's simplify everything to the extreme:

 

"The mind" is everything you've ever known and experienced, that's the field of knowledge that it possesses. So things like knowledge of the workings of energy are not a part of what the mind can encompass and cannot come from it.

 

 

Meow, I would have use other word; using mind can be misleading but yeah lets stick with that for now.

 

For easyness of understand; I will separate 'Knowledge' into two categories.

 

One namely -> 'knowledge through the discriminations of the mind or the thinking and memories'; I would call it the discriminating mind -> this one people knows about and wont be discussed here.

 

Two -> 'knowledge through feeling, realising, experiencing, seeing things directly from it nature without discriminating' -> Some people called it wisdom, panna, prajna and many other names:

which is the roots of spiritual practices <- from my understanding it is this you want to talk and hear about.

If it is this one then there are a lot of people here that could talk about it and share their experiences.

In different cultures, there are also many names for the cultivation of it. Will join in a bit later .

[Meow]

Two -> 'knowledge through feeling, realising, experiencing, seeing things directly from it nature without discriminating' -> Some people called it wisdom, panna, prajna and many other names:

which is the roots of spiritual practices <- from my understanding it is this you want to talk and hear about.

Maybe this is it, I don't know. What I can imagine is limited by my experience, which is not alike to what you describe. I got things pouring rapidly into my mind, unknown facts and explanations, snippets from lives of people I never knew. Visions of places that did not exist, of things that I never saw.

 

But I never got to experience anything truly meaningful. All of that was unimportant.

 

If it is this one then there are a lot of people here that could talk about it and share their experiences.

Let's wait for them.

[zanshin]

Maybe timing. I've known (so still knowledge) when to leave or come early and been right even though there was no objective reason to know that. When my grandmother passed away after a fairly long illness, I knew when I had to be there. Objectively, it could have been days or weeks, practically at least a few hours later would have been more convenient. I found a different babysitter and then I drove like Mario Andretti, still don't know why I went into gotta go right now mode, but I did and I was right.

 

Okay maybe I have one, how about dowsing? You walk around til they cross and dig a well- water. I don't think it's been rigorously scientifically tested and proven, but back on the farm it worked real well.

 

And welcome to the forum!

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[C T]

Yesterday evening, i watched the puppy chase a Daddy Long-legs in the garden. It refused to be caught, eventually making it safely to hide under a shelf. It knows life is precious. That is compassion, the power of wanting life over annihilation.

 

Conventional knowledge, as far as i can deduce, is excess baggage.

 

Sure, we need some degree of information, otherwise we might not even know how to get home from the corner candy store.

 

However, the process of knowing, which can only occur in the present moment, is altogether a different quality. It is the force which supports life ~ it regenerates meaningful existences, lends aliveness to every encounter, and instinctively provide assurances of grace in departures for those who are open enough to listen.

[Marblehead]

But I never got to experience anything truly meaningful. All of that was unimportant.

 

Are you sure about that? Were there perhaps lessons you failed to recognize?

[XieJia]

 

To further what Marblehead stated,

although the two types of knowledge differs.

From my experience,

They sometime come hand in hand.

[Marblehead]

They sometime come hand in hand.

 

Indeed. I hope I never gave the impression that they are always separate.

[Meow]

Are you sure about that? Were there perhaps lessons you failed to recognize?

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. If I failed to recognize something, that means that there was no source of knowledge\recognition present at the moment. That's exactly what I wish to find: a faculty to access, recognize and then assess correctly something that cannot be assessed by the mind.

 

When I asked one taoist teacher a similar question, he said that this type of knowledge is natural like tasting an orange. So I presume that it meant: you should know something precisely, as precisely as you know how the orange tastes. And that it comes naturally, without interpretation, all at once. If you say that maybe I failed to recognize something, there was nothing natural about it. Even if there was an orange, there was no instant knowledge of its taste.

 

But it's not like I understand how to achieve that. And what's wrong with all those random things that happen instead, which I don't really want to happen.

[gendao]

Ok well just for kicks then, here's a few random thoughts that crossed my mind after reading your post last night:

 

I saw a lobster by your heart.

(This could perhaps symbolize your heart being soft, but hard-shelled - with "claws" that could be snappily-defensive, attacking or "clingy?")

 

I saw some large, colored geometric shapes, like an outdoor children's playset.

 

I saw a zipper opening and closing in waves..

 

I heard you frustratingly repeating, "You may not hear me!" over and over as you kept pushing phone buttons in desperation.

 

Finally, I saw a deep tray full of snails being carried by someone. Again, the crustacean theme, lol.

Edited September 16, 2011 by vortex

[XieJia]

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. If I failed to recognize something, that means that there was no source of knowledge\recognition present at the moment. That's exactly what I wish to find: a faculty to access, recognize and then assess correctly something that cannot be assessed by the mind.

 

When I asked one taoist teacher a similar question, he said that this type of knowledge is natural like tasting an orange. So I presume that it meant: you should know something precisely, as precisely as you know how the orange tastes. And that it comes naturally, without interpretation, all at once. If you say that maybe I failed to recognize something, there was nothing natural about it. Even if there was an orange, there was no instant knowledge of its taste.

 

But it's not like I understand how to achieve that. And what's wrong with all those random things that happen instead, which I don't really want to happen.

 

Lol , you are a lively one.

 

As for the teacher's analogy;

The looks, smells, tastes, textures is present at the moment.

The Orange in the mind is the reflection of these things at the moment.

 

Marble is merely stating...

You might be recognising the interpretation or the reflection but not the source you are looking for

It's easy to recognise the unnatural, not always so of the natural.

Do fish think about how to swim? Bird about how to fly?

The centipedes does not move its legs individually.

It is their nature.

[Marblehead]

We seem to have a misunderstanding here. If I failed to recognize something, that means that there was no source of knowledge\recognition present at the moment. That's exactly what I wish to find: a faculty to access, recognize and then assess correctly something that cannot be assessed by the mind.

 

But it's not like I understand how to achieve that. And what's wrong with all those random things that happen instead, which I don't really want to happen.

 

No, there was no misunderstanding. I was priming you for more inner thought.

 

If you fail to recognize something perhaps your mind is occupied with other affairs?

 

Be careful about trying to exclude the mind from the process. I think it is dangerous to think that we can do that. What we can do though is clean the mirror, clear the mind of prejudices so that we can experience life as it truely is (which is not always nice or the way we want it to be) and have these intuitional experiences.

 

How to achieve this. You will get many different suggestions with this. Lao Tzu told us we should unlearn. When we find ourself experiencing a prejudice we should ask ourself why we are doing it. Whenever we discriminate between opposites we should ask ourself why we are doing this. And then trash all those that do not hold water. We don't have to trash them all. Many will stand the test and will be very useful in our life.

 

Much can be said about the taste of an orange. Better to just eat it and remain silent.

[Marblehead]

Marble is merely stating...

You might be recognising the interpretation or the reflection but not the source you are looking for

It's easy to recognise the unnatural, not always so of the natural.

Do fish think about how to swim? Bird about how to fly?

The centipedes does not move its legs individually.

It is their nature.

 

Hehehe. You hit a nerve on me with your word "unnatural". What a tricky word when used while discussing a subject such as this.

 

There is nothing in this universe that is unnatural. However, nearly everything can 'appear' to be unnatural when it is compared against something else.

 

But yes, you spoke of the source of things. This is important in many different ways.

 

Actually, I think that what Meow is speaking to here really shouldn't be called knowledge. I prefer calling it intuitional inspirations. Perception without thought. Like eating the orange without considering any of its various attributes. Admiring the flight of the bird without considering any of its attributes that allow it the power of flight.

[XieJia]

Hehehe. You hit a nerve on me with your word "unnatural". What a tricky word when used while discussing a subject such as this.

 

There is nothing in this universe that is unnatural. However, nearly everything can 'appear' to be unnatural when it is compared against something else.

 

But yes, you spoke of the source of things. This is important in many different ways.

 

Actually, I think that what Meow is speaking to here really shouldn't be called knowledge. I prefer calling it intuitional inspirations. Perception without thought. Like eating the orange without considering any of its various attributes. Admiring the flight of the bird without considering any of its attributes that allow it the power of flight.

 

I think I understand you fully my friend. This is why I would also disagrees on the phrase, apart of the mind aswell. But in talking to Meow, I think it's essential to use the same names or that of similar.

 

Me poking on your nerve would be natural too right? hahaha

[Marblehead]

Me poking on your nerve would be natural too right? hahaha

 

Yes, that seems to be natural for a few folks. Hehehe. But I do understand why you used the word when you did.

[Meow]

It's easy to recognise the unnatural, not always so of the natural.

The talk is about the unnatural

 

Although I do understand why you bring it up. It must look strange that I'm not talking about the natural here, but that's because whenever I try something, that's what I get. In the case of that taoist teacher, I asked him how should one know the true nature of that unnatural, the difference between a normal experience and a neglectable one, between something that is a sign of progress and something that your own wish conjured up. That's what the orange answer was about. I take it that you just "know".

 

It can also be interpreted as "everything you experience is worthy\real\natural", but such an attitude is unhelpful, even if it's true. While you can easily imagine that 2+2=10, and this imagining will be a natural experience on par with all others, it's unhelpful if you're looking for the correct answer.

 

It's a little like science. There are things that people discover with its help, and they take care that their discoveries are correct and describe reality as closely as possible. And there are things that you can discover without it (at least many traditions state so), but for that you need an alternative ability to "know". An unscientific one, the one that that master was talking about.

 

If you fail to recognize something perhaps your mind is occupied with other affairs?

 

Be careful about trying to exclude the mind from the process. I think it is dangerous to think that we can do that. What we can do though is clean the mirror, clear the mind of prejudices so that we can experience life as it truely is (which is not always nice or the way we want it to be) and have these intuitional experiences.

The reduction of the mind, yes, that's the idea. I tried different ways, and all don't hold to scrutiny. High concentration does nothing but create visions and revelations, a thought stopping process does the same, energy work does the same, in fact, anything I tried does the same thing first and foremost.

 

The question is: is it an unavoidable trap you fall into and have to plunge through? If so, when will it stop, can you break through and how do you KNOW that you've had? I totally don't want to experience all these things, and if I have to, then I want to have a look into their nature.

 

How to achieve this. You will get many different suggestions with this. Lao Tzu told us we should unlearn. When we find ourself experiencing a prejudice we should ask ourself why we are doing it. Whenever we discriminate between opposites we should ask ourself why we are doing this.

This is what skeptics were doing in Ancient Greece, far from enlightened people, and they didn't have much success with finding any kind of knowledge. That alone is not enough.

[Friend]

Edited November 16, 2011 by Friend

[XieJia]

@Meow

 

There are traps that are unavoidable, there are traps that are avoidable.

However they are not useless. As Marblehead stated before.

 

When we people said Truth, we want to know its real nature.

By pursuing it, we pick something up and neglect the other.

 

By picking something up, neglecting the other thing is also there.

 

by we picking up only what we think is natural and throwing away what we think is not?

If so, we will always see only one side but not the other that we throw away.

 

This is what we called the discriminating knowledge, the discriminating mind. the worldly knowledges are like this.

 

lets ponder on this for just abit.

[Marblehead]

The reduction of the mind, yes, that's the idea. I tried different ways, and all don't hold to scrutiny. High concentration does nothing but create visions and revelations, a thought stopping process does the same, energy work does the same, in fact, anything I tried does the same thing first and foremost.

 

It is my understanding that we should not mentally concentrate on anything. Not should we try to stop the thought process. What some teach and what has worked for me is to just let the thoughts come when they will but do not hold on to any of them. They will come and then they will go. And they will keep coming and they will keep going. But they will get tired of not getting any attention and they will slow down their coming and going. This will be those rare moments where we have an empty mind. This will be the condition of wu wei. Totally aware but mindless. We see things as they truely are bacause we have not added or subtracted anything from the awareness.

 

The question is: is it an unavoidable trap you fall into and have to plunge through? If so, when will it stop, can you break through and how do you KNOW that you've had? I totally don't want to experience all these things, and if I have to, then I want to have a look into their nature.

 

No, I don't think it is a trap, as such. It is the way our brain has learned to function. This is what we need unlearn. When we get to the point of pure awareness we can look out the window and see the birds flying, playing and eating without thinking about the fact that some will poop on our car.

 

This is what skeptics were doing in Ancient Greece, far from enlightened people, and they didn't have much success with finding any kind of knowledge. That alone is not enough.

 

Hehehe. We've not talked much yet. As you come to know me better you will find that I am a skeptic to a certain degree. But don't put down skepticism until you have applied it to your own life. It really is useful in many aspects of our life but I admit openly, not well suited for all aspects of our life. There is a rigid learning curve with this one. Too much causes nihilistic thinking. Don't want that!