Women, Freedom, Entrapment, Strategy

[Alex T. Jacob]

Beloved Master and Great Swami! :::Humble Obeisances:::

My domain is the domain of ignorance and false-knowledge. Also the whole world of 'possibilities' that arise from the use of the mind and through reasoning. We both clearly understand that this is a false world, that it is the human ego that falsely believes there is any substance there, and I am so wrapped up in this world that, from the look of it, I will never get out of its clutches!

You on the other hand, and Guru Moist-Eyes, and some others, have *seen* into truths I can never really know! You are on the road to Enlightenment even while you live in the limited body. Your Mission is to help other people to see such truths and should therefor stop at nothing as you hammer away at our 'false certainties'.

Day by day your meditations will become more and more profound as you come into close union with the Tao, the Absolute, and day by day you will see through the dream-likeness of All Things! You have no need at all for that lowly world of 'knowledge' such as fill our libraries and our brains. Out with it damned knowledge!

Go to the window, open it, and shout:

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!

Have you thought of putting your message to music?

[guest_of_logic]

Lol, but you know how silly the point you just made was, it is getting rid of false knowledge and delusion, pretending to know things you don't, not obvious truths such as there is a laptop.

John, our reliance on knowledge in the making of decisions goes far beyond laptops, and this is so utterly obvious that I have no idea how you manage to convince yourself otherwise. A small example: you are planning on moving to another country. How is it possible to move to another country without relying on a whole host of knowledge: the geography of the Earth, the reliability of currency in the making of purchases, the reliability and operation of scheduled means of public transport, the workings of visa and immigration procedures, etc etc. But why should I point out the obvious to you? I might be gentler with you than Alex is, but he's right that you're being incoherent. This is why engaging with you on your pet topic is pointless, because you haven't thought it through properly, and you refuse to do so when people challenge you to; you are over-confident.

"The Master leads
by emptying people's minds
and filling their cores,
by weakening their ambition
and toughening their resolve.
He helps people lose everything
they know, everything they desire,
and creates confusion
in those who think that they know."

The object of Zen training (to place this quote in a context of use) is to cause a disassociation within a person's mental structure, the structure of their self.

One of the reasons I'm not fond of the Tao Te Ching is that when I was reading it, certain passages, like this one, sounded suspect, like misuse of power, like brainwashing even ("The Master", "emptying people's minds"... what??). Like I said, it's been a while since I've read it, and I don't remember any more how many of those type of passages there are, but you might be onto something here (aside from the fact that this is Taoism, not Zen).

What I desire to establish is that there are really no 'ethics' in Nature and everything that you detest and resent about 'impositions' are a constant in Nature.

But for that to be established would not change my views in the slightest. If John Doe shoots a man dead because it pleases him, this does not justify an ethic of pointless murder; just as if some brutal act occurs in nature, this does not make it ethical for us to do it; nor do these things become any more ethical if they are widespread amongst others or in nature. Ethics don't derive from events in the world, natural or man-made, they derive from reasoning. It's curious that you laud the ability of man to construct materially, to impose himself physically on the world, yet you're reluctant to embrace his ability to construct ethically, to "impose himself" (as you would have it) morally on the world. You seem to think that to have advanced beyond grass huts materially is a worthy achievement, yet that we ought to be living in grass huts ethically.

Let us suppose you are a country real estate investor. At the courthouse, they tell you and your competitor that there is an auction going on that is about to close and if either of you get there quickly and put in an offer, you will be able to buy the property for very little money. You both start off. But you know a shortcut and you take it, arrive 10 minutes before the other fellow, put in the bid, and the auction closes. You smile (devilishly) as your competitor straggles in late. And going further, the house you bought for $20,000.00 is worth $100,000.00 and you sell it, giving part of it to an 'underprivileged child's education fund' and the rest for your own child's university education. Craft, skill, knowledge and also a form of deception enabled this. You get ahead in life, you use your advantages for productive purposes, and so it goes.

That doesn't conflict with any of my ethics at least. I can't see that anybody's getting hurt; the competitor is clearly not impoverished and in need of the money if he can already afford to invest in a house.

I think we can do better than a world of competition though. You might think I should get real, but really, I'm being at least as consistent with your own vision (the potential of the masculine project of moulding the world) as you are, and certainly bolder: I believe enough in our potential to mould the world that we can evolve it beyond one where it is sometimes necessary to "get one over", where (sometimes petty, sometimes tragic) power struggles occur. Sure, as you point out, I'm not particularly active in the world personally, and I won't make excuses for that, but plenty of advances have been made in the right direction by others (admittedly, there are worrying trends in the wrong direction too).

But the minute that you forewent that privilege, you'd find yourself squarely in 'another world'. And your ideas might change. [...] You also don't live in a real world and it is important to say this. Do you agree?

I don't think it's very important because I have lived in that world already, and my ideas didn't change. I used to work (on and off, as and when I needed the money) before personal problems overtook me, both in business technology and labouring, and I have done a fair bit of (self-funded) travel around my own country. I still do occasional technology work, as you know. And you're right about complicity, but that doesn't mean I don't want to try to minimise it.

Incidentally, while I have nowhere near your level of assets, I do own my own (admittedly very modest) home, so the possibility of losing all that I have is not utterly irrelevant to me.

[Merlin]

Good morning GF.

;)

[Dennis Mahar]

They are nice, I'm nice to them, irrelevant, I was talking of my own disinterest, is there a way to get around it besides just being, I guess I'm hoping the enthusiasm comes back in some new way, doubt it, I'm clearly not spending enough time in meditation, not a good thing in combination with spending so much time being wakeful and contemplating.

Take the Sacred Tour of the movie set. The theatre of dreams.

Spend the morning with a tree.
access the uncomplaining nature of tree.
ineffable silence.
poise.

Go down the slaughterhouse and wait with the lambs.
ineffable silence.
poise.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I told you I didn't have any reason for complaint Dennis, I was just speaking.

And Laird, I won't be doing a single thing if I go on a trip or move haha, I will sit there like I always do until someone directs me and then I will do, if no one directed me (If my action didn't clearly arise on it's own) I wouldn't do anything.

Again you've taken it out of context, you can use knowledge to navigate all you like, "not-knowing" is in relation to thinking you know about ultimate reality or how it's specifics work.

It isn't saying, "The master has rid himself of obvious knowledge or knowledge he is sure of", It's saying the master has rid himself of that which he doesn't know but pretends to know about.

A lot of scientists or philosophers for example might be caught up in so much past dogma and other peoples findings that they are so far from "not-knowing" and hence so far from the truth.

One of the reasons I'm not fond of the Tao Te Ching is that when I was reading it, certain passages, like this one, sounded suspect, like misuse of power, like brainwashing even ("The Master", "emptying people's minds"... what??). Like I said, it's been a while since I've read it,

Man *Closes eyes, looks down, puts hand on forehead, shakes head from side to side*

Have you considered maybe you haven't yet understood why the master "empties people's minds" ?

The reason is because until you are able to empty your mind of all your preconceived notions about the way things are, you will NEVER actually "see" the way things really are.

^ If you can't understand how detrimental preconceived ideas can be to understanding something, then you haven't thought about it enough.

You can understand, you do understand, it is telling you something you already know of... all your past associations and ideas cloud your understanding, so much, to the point that people will take on hundreds of fantasies as truth.

"Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health."

Do you geddit? Like when the kid at school is so sure he knows what he's talking about, even if he is 100% wrong about everything he's saying, the kid won't listen will he?

Because he thinks he knows. Dogma and disease. We are trying to point out that adults are just like this kid, except a lot worse off, they have adopted much more dogma, much more pretending to know, and are much further off from "not-knowing" or clear "sight".

This is serious, it's not a joke, it's a threatening "disease", you know that in life you make mistakes until you learn, this is one of those times.


If you give me one more pointless example about how we need knowledge to travel, or turn on the tv, I'll kill you,
not really.

[Dennis Mahar]

I told you I didn't have any reason for complaint Dennis, I was just speaking.

You asked me a how-to question about living in this recontextualised understanding.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Live like the tree, it's a good analogy, very peaceful. Accept it, I am, I'm almost completely done.

[Dennis Mahar]

You have to 'feel' the ineffable silence in every fibre of your being.
dwelling in the infinite.

shit happens.
ineffable silence.
poise.

please don't give up exuberance.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Ineffable silence and shorter, clearer, more effective communication of ineffeable silence. Tao/Dennis writing.

These guys don't get it at all,
they can't "see" it,
they are supposed to be the most self aware...
completely and fully unaware of their ignorance,
blind,
how to explain?

How to get a kid who thinks he knows and will argue to the death, to "empty mind" ?

[SeekerOfWisdom]

20

"Stop thinking, and end your problems.
What difference between yes and no?
What difference between success and failure?
Must you value what others value,
avoid what others avoid?
How ridiculous!

Other people are excited,
as though they were at a parade.
I alone don't care,
I alone am expressionless,
like an infant before it can smile.

Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.

I am different from ordinary people.
I drink from the Great Mother's breasts."


Laird reads this and thinks the highest level is the lowest level, makes me want to cry :(

They're supposed to be the most self-aware, the most!

[Bobo]

Seems there's a game of "explain that grammar" going on, and, well, surely it would be rude not to join in.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, in the question, "What does that makes you?", "does" is the auxiliary verb, and "makes" is the main verb. The reason that "makes" should properly be "make" is due to the rule that, in English questions, when there is an auxiliary verb, the main verb is in the infinitive form.

I think this is the best answer so far. Apparently the subjunctive does not apply to all verbs. And my own theory of a relative clause (not a free relative clause) is unlikely.

[guest_of_logic]

Hi John,

I'll try to be more patient than I was in my last response, but I'm not going to hold back either. I do hope you'll think about what I'm saying.

And Laird, I won't be doing a single thing if I go on a trip or move haha, I will sit there like I always do until someone directs me and then I will do, if no one directed me (If my action didn't clearly arise on it's own) I wouldn't do anything.

Do you really think this is relevant? In what way does it negate the point I made: that you will need to rely on your knowledge of a host of things to undertake the trip in the first place? What bearing does how you sit or direct yourself during or after the trip have on that fact, do you think?

Again you've taken it out of context, you can use knowledge to navigate all you like, "not-knowing" is in relation to thinking you know about ultimate reality or how it's specifics work.

What you have done here is known as "moving the goalposts". Compare 'they aren't over exaggerating, even when using extreme words like "all"', with '"not-knowing" is in relation to thinking you know about ultimate reality or how it's [sic] specifics work'. First it's "all" knowledge, to the most extreme extent, but then, when I challenge you on that, you shift the goalposts to "knowledge about ultimate reality" only.

It isn't saying, "The master has rid himself of obvious knowledge or knowledge he is sure of", It's saying the master has rid himself of that which he doesn't know but pretends to know about.

The problem is that this is a false dichotomy. Between "obvious knowledge" and "pretended knowledge" there is "uncertain, provisional or tentative knowledge", and that constitutes the vast majority of our knowledge. To fail to account for that in your statement is at best ignorant, at worst disingenuous.

A lot of scientists or philosophers for example might be caught up in so much past dogma and other peoples findings that they are so far from "not-knowing" and hence so far from the truth.

Case in point: the realm of knowledge in which most science and philosophy operates is the uncertain, provisional or tentative. How do you think the plane on which you will be travelling would have been built if the engineers who built it had operated according to your dichotomy of "obvious knowledge" versus "pretended knowledge"? They would have had to have reasoned, "This is not obvious, and we can't pretend that we know, so it's simply impossible".

See, you are relying on knowledge of this type constantly in your life - if not directly, then indirectly through the products and services that you consume, which were constructed by other people who did rely on it directly. So, here's my suggestion: offer your services to Boeing, design yourself a glitzy Powerpoint presentation with the very best of quotes from the Eastern masters and convince their engineers to "empty their minds".

And then cancel your move.

[Alex T. Jacob]

When you first came on, John, everyone was laughing at you.

But they aren't laughing now.

But I knew. I KNEW! The World Oracle is manifesting himself. It is a sight to behold!

Our Two Enlightenment Teachers---the Power-House and the Weepy Guru---have shown me at least that the GF thought-system really does work!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Didn't I say I would kill you if you did that?

You are wasting so much time you almost deserve a beating.

Laird " oh but I know I'm on a computer", "I need knowledge to know how to travel or to build a plane".

CLEARLY. Thank you for wasting time.

"PRESUMING to know is a disease."

If you do know something, like how I know that I'm using a laptop to communicate to you, then by all means have fun with your knowledge, that is knowledge, that is something you do KNOW, instead of PRESUMING to know. Pretending to know, saying you know when you don't really know is the problem.

Seeing the difference?

I'll make it clearer

Thinking you know about what you don't know about is a DISEASE.

Get rid of ALL presuming/pretending to know.

Keep all of what you do know, like that your typing, *cyber punches you in the face*.

"True knowledge is to know the extent of one's own ignorance" is EXACTLY what "Not-knowing is true knowledge" means, ok?

(Not about simple shit like that there is a cup in front of me)

I will kill you.

Do you think we want you to empty your mind of real knowledge? Clearly not, we want you to empty your mind of false knowledge, such as thinking you are intelligent and know a lot, when in reality you are deeply ignorant and most of your knowledge isn't real knowledge, you don't "know" it, you only think you do.

We aren't building planes are we? We are talking about ultimate reality, it's a genius forum, not a, "Oh but clearly Lao Tzu had knowledge, I mean, how else could he write on paper?" forum.


Socrates says "I am the wisest man alive for I know one thing and that is that I know nothing"

Laird replies: "Socrates, sir, but you do know something, you just said so, so how could you know nothing and something at the same time?"

See how that question is a waste of time? See how it's something Socrates might laugh at and cyber-punch you in the face for?


If you still do not understand, please refer to whichever of the 5 quotes made more sense to you, maybe the Confucius one on realizing "the extent of your own ignorance", one you have no problem grasping, then pick that quote, ignore the rest, and reply, ok?

Conversation is a learning process, don't analyze language and reply with wasteful answers, instead, LEARN, ok, converse like a human not a fuckin' robot or Alex.

[Dennis Mahar]

Case in point: the realm of knowledge in which most science and philosophy operates is the uncertain, provisional or tentative. How do you think the plane on which you will be travelling would have been built if the engineers who built it had operated according to your dichotomy of "obvious knowledge" versus "pretended knowledge"? They would have had to have reasoned, "This is not obvious, and we can't pretend that we know, so it's simply impossible".

See, you are relying on knowledge of this type constantly in your life - if not directly, then indirectly through the products and services that you consume, which were constructed by other people who did rely on it directly. So, here's my suggestion: offer your services to Boeing, design yourself a glitzy Powerpoint presentation with the very best of quotes from the Eastern masters and convince their engineers to "empty their minds".

And then cancel your move.

So,
everything depends for existence,
conditional.
OK?

dependent origination.

and,
everything gathering disperses,
impermanent.

and,
if a thing (plane) depends for existence,
it cannot exist in and of itself.
Self is refuted.

It appears 'real' but isn't.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Coming from a guy on an enlightenment forum who's not enlightened,

and who has completely ignored the obvious and REPEATED teachings of the two "enlightened people", Buddha and Lao Tzu.

"Not-knowing is true knowledge, Alex is an idiot" - Lao Tzu


Dennis

God damn, they reply with nothing but jokes or idiotically over analyze language and repeat something like " Oh but of course we need knowledge, I mean, how else would we type to each other?"

[Kunga]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

[SeekerOfWisdom]

20

"Stop thinking, and end your problems.
What difference between yes and no?
What difference between success and failure?
Must you value what others value,
avoid what others avoid?
How ridiculous!

Other people are excited,
as though they were at a parade.
I alone don't care,
I alone am expressionless,
like an infant before it can smile.

Other people have what they need;
I alone possess nothing.
I alone drift about,
like someone without a home.
I am like an idiot, my mind is so empty.

Other people are bright;
I alone am dark.
Other people are sharper;
I alone am dull.
Other people have a purpose;
I alone don't know.
I drift like a wave on the ocean,
I blow as aimless as the wind.

I am different from ordinary people.
I drink from the Great Mother's breasts."


Laird reads this, which is the highest level, and thinks it is the lowest level *

[Dennis Mahar]

John.

Your critic is your teacher.
as dear as any of your dearest.

gestalt that!

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Sorry Dennis I think critic is overly necessary here,

I should not have to suffer this:

Socrates says "I am the wisest man alive for I know one thing and that is that I know nothing"

Laird replies: "Socrates, sir, but you do know something, you just said so, so how could you know nothing and something at the same time?"

[SeekerOfWisdom]

I'll be nicer from now on, at least I love these guys and am hopelessly trying to help, if they knew what "Stop thinking and end your problems" meant, they would also understand that this was helping.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Although it definitely doesn't sound like it,
"The path to light seems dark,
the path forward seems to go back....
true wisdom seems foolish"

[guest_of_logic]

John, I've continued this exchange by PM. Please check your private messages.

[SeekerOfWisdom]

Good idea, what's the bet I can have you on the same page by the end?

[guest_of_logic]

It's hard for me to make that bet because from my perspective you've been constantly changing the page without even acknowledging that you're doing that, which is pretty much what I try to point out (in excruciatingly dry detail) in my private message. If we can reach a point where you have carefully and rigorously defined the page, then it'll be easier for me to answer that question. :-)