Knowledge

[strawdog65]

How about intuition and a feeling of "knowing" something?

Would this count as the type of knowledge you are referring to?

 

Intuition is an interesting type of knowledge.

[Meow]

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.

Stopped thoughts on their own is a useless situation, though. It has to be solely about stopping to evaluate. I'm not sure that it's what I'm looking for, but it might be.

 

And I have to wonder why so many people try and we don't see them succeeding? Just a paranoid part of me asking.

 

One of people I know closely spent over 30 years trying to find something this way, learnt to stop his thoughts and lots of other things. Now he believes it's all a scam, there's nothing beyond the physical brain.

 

There is a rigid learning curve with this one. Too much causes nihilistic thinking. Don't want that!

I'd politely disagree. It's possible to be sceptic and act against your believes, if you have hope.

 

The skeptics I was talking about weren't the skeptics in the usual sense, however, their skepticism was about practicing the suspension of judgement and gaining tranquility, a la your own idea:

http://171.67.193.20/entries/skepticism-ancient/#PyrSke

 

How about intuition and a feeling of "knowing" something?

Would this count as the type of knowledge you are referring to?

Yes it would, if it works.

 

You can test intuition with Zener cards:

http://www.psychicscience.org/esp3.aspx

 

Mine doesn't work for sure But it's revealing to see which emotions rise up when you're forced to choose a hidden card and to imagine that you "know" which one it is. The emotion can be so convincing and real.

[XieJia]

-Double Posted-

Edited September 17, 2011 by XieJia

[XieJia]

@Meow

Take a six faces dice.

Numbered 1 - 6.

 

Roll it.

 

Could you tell me the outcomes?

what you are looking for is your answer.

 

 

[Marblehead]

And I have to wonder why so many people try and we don't see them succeeding? Just a paranoid part of me asking.

 

I would suggest that it is ego and desires that prevent this. That's why I don't even try. I got ego. Not many desires any more though.

 

I'd politely disagree. It's possible to be sceptic and act against your believes, if you have hope.

 

Hehehe. You are not the first here to disagree with me. And some of them didn't do it very politely either. Hehehe.

[Protector]

If you say something is at a distance then it will stay at the distance

you already have the knowledge, just need to find it

[XieJia]

need to find

 

 

then it is hidden.

 

If only people understands Marblehead ...

Now is his deem to be misunderstood?

Edited September 18, 2011 by XieJia

[Ambrose_Bierce]

And what's wrong with all those random things that happen instead, which I don't really want to happen.

 

I am not sure how much or how far anyone here has come to understand what I will say next. When you are ready you will understand that you have to become a mirror for what you want to know.

 

It may seem like I dont know what I am talking about because I dont breakdown what I say into simple parts. All I can tell you is you instantly feel, know, see or smell it.

 

Sometimes what we get is puzzling and takes a while to be understood because it is outside the field of what we are familiar with.

 

The reason why it doesnt work is related to becoming a mirror. If we have background thoughts and worries our reception sometimes turns up nil.

 

If I am trying to find a missing person. One that has lead a life of misery I have to sync to that vibration. Sometimes that involves immersing myself in someones pain (not specific)

 

It is hard to think that life should be something that it is not. Life is not all happy and joy like people think. You have to be able to accept the ugly stuff too. Then some think that being unreceptive and ignoring the senses are a virtue. No, we were meant to see things exactly they way they are.

By nature mankind doesnt like to see counter perspectives. I hope people who want to glean information from what I have said do, and that it doesnt cause grief for people who did not want to know about the intuitive side of things.

[Marblehead]

I am not sure how much or how far anyone here has come to understand what I will say next.

 

I'm still with you Ambrose.

[strawdog65]

I am not sure how much or how far anyone here has come to understand what I will say next. When you are ready you will understand that you have to become a mirror for what you want to know.

 

It may seem like I dont know what I am talking about because I dont breakdown what I say into simple parts. All I can tell you is you instantly feel, know, see or smell it.

 

Sometimes what we get is puzzling and takes a while to be understood because it is outside the field of what we are familiar with.

 

The reason why it doesnt work is related to becoming a mirror. If we have background thoughts and worries our reception sometimes turns up nil.

 

If I am trying to find a missing person. One that has lead a life of misery I have to sync to that vibration. Sometimes that involves immersing myself in someones pain (not specific)

 

It is hard to think that life should be something that it is not. Life is not all happy and joy like people think. You have to be able to accept the ugly stuff too. Then some think that being unreceptive and ignoring the senses are a virtue. No, we were meant to see things exactly they way they are.

By nature mankind doesnt like to see counter perspectives. I hope people who want to glean information from what I have said do, and that it doesnt cause grief for people who did not want to know about the intuitive side of things.

 

 

Very well intuited.

I like the line of thought you are on here...continue please.

[Protector]

This thread will get a lot more fun as soon as talk about chakras starts

[Meow]

That's nice, let's talk about chakras. Chakras are the type of "knowledge" I'm looking for. But not only about them. Tell me, why is it that there are chakras for some people, and no chakras for others? Why is it that some people believe in immortal fetus and some conceive of no such a thing? Are the whole traditions wrong and delusional, despite all of them having claims to the sublime type of such knowledge?

 

Knowledge should be universal if it's true. It cannot change from person to person, from one tradition to another.

[Ambrose_Bierce]

Knowledge should be universal if it's true. It cannot change from person to person, from one tradition to another.

 

You are talking about what could be called higher truth.

Common truths like the ones you stated previously are half truths based upon higher truth.

They are mainly tools or vehicles to touch higher truth.

 

To expound upon this reasoning an understanding of the fallacious nature of mankinds truth must be explained

 

I believe I read that before somewhere here in posts lurking before.

 

Sometimes we are not handed exactly what we want. You seek higher truth, but all that is- is in fact half truth.

 

To go beyond what others have done, we must understand the half truths first. Then when the time comes we dont need to use chakras or tools. We can simply touch what we want or ask ourselves a question and feel the response in one way or another that comes most easily to us.

 

This is also why people choose a spiritual distinction, for most have this when seeking what we will. Eventually if we climb or become spiritually evolved enough, we become apostate to them, or work out what we have learned and embrace nondual awareness.

 

There are a few teachers that expound upon this climb but in the words of the recently deceased Erle Montaigue, his words never ring more true "I only stand upon the backs of greatness". A great business man he was I read, but if it were not that I did not accept the light that all men shine I would not have quoted him.

 

Standing upon the backs of greatness is all I do, and the climb is something constant for me. I am no teacher, but hear teachers talk about this "climb"

 

For a shortcut to understanding what I have written in this post, You can click here and read this thread along with the first post which has a link to "God's Debris"

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ambrose_Bierce

[Protector]

Let's simplify everything even more, the truth is true and so it's always the same

And many of the same thing creates patterns and how these patterns work and where they are can be written

Taiji, Chakras, 5 Elements, blah blah blaaaaaaaaah

It's a very organized chaos, even the unknown has a part in it

Simple rules that are themselves can be broken

Explaining them all is a pain when you can just look them up on internet lol

[Marblehead]

Knowledge should be universal if it's true.

 

I know of no universal truth.

 

But I do have "my" truths.

[Ambrose_Bierce]

thought I would throw in some humor

 

[Marblehead]

thought I would throw in some humor

 

 

Well, yeah, I agree with the search of truth being an adventure.

 

However, I think that dude in the picture needs to get up and continue his journey. Even though he is laying on the sand I don't think it is of a beach somewhere in Southern Florida.

[Birch]

That's nice, let's talk about chakras. Chakras are the type of "knowledge" I'm looking for. But not only about them. Tell me, why is it that there are chakras for some people, and no chakras for others? Why is it that some people believe in immortal fetus and some conceive of no such a thing? Are the whole traditions wrong and delusional, despite all of them having claims to the sublime type of such knowledge?

 

Knowledge should be universal if it's true. It cannot change from person to person, from one tradition to another.

I think it's just different ways of looking at things. IMO the more transcendant and universal something is, the less you can do stuff with it. Try picking up a football if you're looking at it from the grass' perspective. I used to get annoyed at specialisation because i figured they weren't talking with each other. Now it would seem they are and so things are getting much more interesting.

I just finished a chapter by Ken Wilber about chakras. It reminded me of the other thread about chemical correlations. I think a trick to not being bound by such definitions is to find out about as many of them as possible. So that would maybe be "amassing knowledge" but knowing what it is and what you're doing with it and what it's doing with you.

[Meow]

From your posts I gathered that there are universal truths, and there are partial ones.

 

But there is a jarring element in this: does it mean that the partial ones are illusions?

 

That's not bad per se, if they're useful illusions and methods, but then again: What exactly are you doing if do energy work in a certain tradition, which is different from another? Are these channels and whatever the tradition describes fake? If fake, and it's all trickery, how can an unreal thing like that work?

 

Another example: yogi believe in atman and reach for its essence, buddhists have a doctrine of no-self and reach for the non-dual awareness. Are the two the same, or is one of them fundamentally wrong, if we talk about universal truths?

[Protector]

Child asks a parent, "Why is the sky blue?"

Parent answers, "Ask again in 6 hours."

Night falls.

[Meow]

Child asks a parent, "Why is the sky blue?"

Parent answers, "Ask again in 6 hours."

Night falls.

Atman and anatman (from the yoga vs. buddhism example) are quite different things. If you think that all traditions in the world are truthful and lead to the same result, why?

[Protector]

Like in life, the end is the same, but there are many paths to the top of the mountain

 

Scenery might look different on the way but mountain is the same

[Birch]

From your posts I gathered that there are universal truths, and there are partial ones.

 

But there is a jarring element in this: does it mean that the partial ones are illusions?

 

That's not bad per se, if they're useful illusions and methods, but then again: What exactly are you doing if do energy work in a certain tradition, which is different from another? Are these channels and whatever the tradition describes fake? If fake, and it's all trickery, how can an unreal thing like that work?

 

Another example: yogi believe in atman and reach for its essence, buddhists have a doctrine of no-self and reach for the non-dual awareness. Are the two the same, or is one of them fundamentally wrong, if we talk about universal truths?

 

Oh my! I wonder how you got all that from my posts Edit, ok, you weren't referring to me but AB :-)

 

I think I recall the definition of a 'universal truth' as being one that has to be the same for anyone and however you look at it. I just got an idea that universal truths might be better defined by what they are not...but I digress:-)

 

Are the 'partial truths' 'illusions'? I think those are quite different things. A 'partial' truth looks like it might mean that it's part of a truth but not all of it (maybe that's what some people mean by 'universal' truth too, we'd have to get Apech in here;-))

 

An 'illusion' I think means something that is perceived but that is either not actually in reality or is different from reality in some way. Otherwise we'd just call it, er, 'reality'. Then there's 'being wrong' which is a whole n'other problem

 

- "What exactly are you doing if do energy work in a certain tradition, which is different from another? Are these channels and whatever the tradition describes fake? If fake, and it's all trickery, how can an unreal thing like that work?"

 

I don't think any of it is 'fake'. If I remember correctly, 'fake' is when you make something out to be something else it isn't.

When you're doing 'energy work' IME/IMO you're working with patterns of awareness (or consciousness even, but I'm not sure I can tell those two apart very well) . Neither awareness nor consciousness are 'fake' IME/IMO.

Trickery is another (different) thing, I think.

 

The atman/anatman distinction is probably best left to the buddhists to explain. I think there are a few 'levels' to it.

Edited September 20, 2011 by -K-

[de_paradise]

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Ok. Have it your way. Probably reading through some books on the subject would give a better lexicon and understanding of what you term "knowlege" and allow you to conceptualize in a way that is more standard for cultivators.

[Ambrose_Bierce]

Greetings Meow,

 

From your posts I gathered that there are universal truths, and there are partial ones.

 

But there is a jarring element in this: does it mean that the partial ones are illusions?

 

That's not bad per se, if they're useful illusions and methods, but then again: What exactly are you doing if do energy work in a certain tradition, which is different from another? Are these channels and whatever the tradition describes fake? If fake, and it's all trickery, how can an unreal thing like that work?

 

Another example: yogi believe in atman and reach for its essence, buddhists have a doctrine of no-self and reach for the non-dual awareness. Are the two the same, or is one of them fundamentally wrong, if we talk about universal truths?

 

Personally my history is complicated.

To paint a picture, when growing up I was part of a destructive cult.

It took time and energy, I worked my way up through the cult regurgitating their so-called truths. Once I was in a position to free myself from it, I did. It took fifteen years to free myself and my parents and find enough evidence to convince them that it was nothing but a destructive cult. Today, none of my previous beliefs I once held form a base in my new perception of reality.

 

Needless to say if given the chance, I could be called apostate by many religions.

 

Moral of the albeit brief story? Only that to seek Knowledge that you will, an awareness beyond texts you will need. For religious texts may hint to higher knowledge. Just the same, some close awareness off to seeing things as they are by default. I know I am throwing you a curve ball here.

 

Each religion has a different perception and distinction of reality. It is all covered in: This post here.

 

Experience is the only thing between you and understanding what is fake.

Though methods may seem like trickery. The only way to follow the complicated "no path" quest is to PM me.*edit*I was sure I had written: For more information on following "no path" please PM me. This slightly unnerved me because I swear I did not write the striked out text. I will provide you with a link, though it is based upon understanding intuitive abilities, it is the only way to seek what you wish be being able to discern from religious texts (most of what is, seems to be inheirently tainted as such). Along with a brief monologue of what is not covered by the link.

Kudos for trying this huge and difficult undertaking.

 

Atman and anatman (from the yoga vs. buddhism example) are quite different things. If you think that all traditions in the world are truthful and lead to the same result, why?

 

No, all religions are not completely truthful. Neither do they lead to the same result. The only thing that leads to the same result is the need to dominate.

 

The atman/anatman distinction is probably best left to the buddhists to explain. I think there are a few 'levels' to it.

 

The distinctions of atman/anatman are information written down by someone who studied texts and had no clear knowledge of what it means to have reached these realities. I am not making this "wrong" by my words. I am simply saying that much is missed because the persons who wrote about it did not experience it. This disqualifies them from providing real information for people who wish to find an answer to it.

It does provide fundamental information on tenets and vehicles with which to try to accomplish said realities. However, to be totally apostate on the matter from an energetic perspective it is... sorry to say... perfectly worthless.

 

I say this because the written materials on these subject do provide the qualities that the writers could imbue with the subject. Vedantic writings and Buddhist writings the same are great by their own merit and provide meaning according to the precepts and vehicles inheirent to their own distinctions. Vedantic being percieving through non-dual means and Buddhism through knowledge, compassion and awareness. By their own merits they are not wrong and in these respects that they seek truth they are not wrong by these measures. Writings are only wrong when you seek other truth other than what the original writer could possibly imbue them with.

Yet to understand that, you have to understand the different perspectives, hence why you should read my *edit*post I linked to above.

 

I should have provided complete explanation an tenure as to why I was not making a religion "wrong" so to speak. If someone chooses to find fault with my words, thinking that that was an attack on the religion itself, they did not read and fully understand my words.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Ambrose_Bierce