GENIUS FORUMS

Borommakot wrote:I'm sorry cory, but kow never said that the unknown IS the field, only that the field is unkown.
I agree with kow. I'm not saying that you can't read, only that you are looking for implications where there is only plain text.

"Can't read", in this case, means 'rudimentary level of reading comprehension'.


.

Borommakot: I'm sorry cory, but kow never said that the unknown IS the field, only that the field is unknown.

lol - please, tell me, what's the difference?

If the field is unknown, then how do you know that its a field, or further, how does kow know that it is a field that does not radiate from the body, and again further, why is this all good news?

Obviously the awareness field is known to a degree. Otherwise, how else could kow assert the things he asserts about it? (i.g: the good news, the fact that its a field that does not radiate from a body)

And then this brings us back again to why Kow said I'm funny (an under handed way of telling me I'm a fool) for wanting to discuss the function and nature of the field.

Considering Kow's assertions about awareness, why is my desire to speak with Kow about his ideas about awareness, funny?

Is it because Kow doesnt like (and even fears) questions, but only likes to preach and condescend from his imaginary little podium?

Isnt that like the child who likes to stuff his belly with candy, but doesnt like to feel sick?

Cory,

You're a very queer fellow. Your return to this thread has been a series of baseless assumptions, groundless accusations and an alarming display of inattentiveness. You can't pay attention to what's happening on a monitor right in front of your face, but you want to talk about awareness.


.

kow,

Maybe if you put all of your thoughts about what awareness is into one coherent paragraph, it would be helpful. From the point where you claimed that illusion is real and did not back that up with how illusion is real, you have done nothing but throw crumbs and try to pass them off as jewels.

Yes, saying the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness - but there is also a point in wondering how much is known to even call it "a field of awareness."

The fact is that illusions do exist as illusions, and in that way illusions are real (as in, it really is an illusion) - same with falseness is part of Truth because some things really are false, and some things really are a dream rather than conventional reality.

It seems to me that you are trying to convey an illusion of wisdom, and that would be falseness if all you have are riddles and real illusions.

Are you capable of conveying all of your thoughts about awareness in one post, or are you only capable of throwing out brief blurbs mixed with insults?

Elizabeth Isabelle,

After disregarding your fallacious arguments, there's not alot to respond to.

You wonder "how much is known to even call it "a field of awareness."
When the field is manifest, you are not there. Does this tell you anything?

Your other point was about illusion. You feel as if you exist, don't you? It's an illusion. You understand the words, but there is no amount of explanation that will bring about this realization. Only mind watching does that.

.

Eliz: saying the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness

how is it? please explain.

kow: When the field is manifest, you are not there. Does this tell you anything?

How do you know this Kow? If what you were saying were true, you wouldnt know.

It would be like being konked out, and then later waking up bewildered as to what happened.

You wouldnt be able to derive the sense of self importance that you have managed to derive via parroting K's metaphysical ideas and imitating his personality.

Or are you saying: 'realization' without the 'realizer' ?

You are probably suggesting a state of cosmic consciousness, but you probably don't realize you are doing that.

Your so caught up in semantics and trivial niceites that you cant see your vanity and pettiness.

kow: Your other point was about illusion. You feel as if you exist, don't you? It's an illusion.

This is a basic thing Kow. The self is not inherently there. It doesnt inherently exist. Its nothing that this forum has discussed a gazillion times.

kow: You understand the words, but there is no amount of explanation that will bring about this realization.
Only mind watching does that.

Yes, passively watching like a kow. You are brainwashed by Krishnamurti who, despite he had some insight, was quite disillusioned, vain and in some respects a spoiled snob. Read 'lives in the shadow' by Radha Sloss and then try to tell me that K 'had no ego'.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

kow: When the field is manifest, you are not there. Does this tell you anything?

How do you know this Kow? If what you were saying were true, you wouldnt know.

Quite simply, you don't know what you are talking about. When thought again arises, you are there. It's called 'rebirth'.

Cory Duchesne wrote:
Or are you saying: 'realization' without the 'realizer' ?

Obviously.

The rest of your post is fallacious.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Eliz: saying the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness

how is it? please explain.

unknown = that which is not known

The unknown = a universal set of all of that which is not known

the field of awareness kow was referring to = a particular subset of the unknown

(I wish I could draw a diagram on here so I could illustrate this better, but please bear with my attempt to illustrate it with the tools I have)

The unknown
{ (the field of awareness kow was referring to) (the contents of a particular shark's stomache) (the next winning lotto number) (all other things that are not known)}

As you see, the field of awareness kow was referring to is part of that which is not known, but there are other things that are also not known. Saying "the field of awareness is unknown" means that the field of awareness is a subset of that which is not known.

Conversely, saying that the unknown (that which is not known) is a field of awareness identifies all of the unknown as a particular field of awareness. In the example above, the contents of a particular shark's stomache is not part of the field of awareness. The contents of the shark's stomache are merely similarly unknown.

kow: When thought again arises, you are there. It's called 'rebirth'.

How is it that thought is changed after the realization?

How does the realization change thought?

There must be some sort of signicant change in the thought proccess. If not, what's the point in mentioning it?

you stated ealier that thought had no relationship to awareness. This is really the crux of what divides us, Kow.

In the case of someone like Gallelio -

Perception flooded, seeped and trickled into the places that thought was compelled to observe, and hence, new thoughts were recorded.

In the Gallelio example, awareness, the unconditioned, is concomitant with the conditioned. They are interdependant.

Elizabeth wrote,

Unknown = that which is not known

The unknown = a universal set of all of that which is not known

the field of awareness kow was referring to = a particular subset of the unknown

(I wish I could draw a diagram on here so I could illustrate this better, but please bear with my attempt to illustrate it with the tools I have)

The unknown
{ (the field of awareness kow was referring to) (the contents of a particular shark's stomache) (the next winning lotto number) (all other things that are not known)}

As you see, the field of awareness kow was referring to is part of that which is not known, but there are other things that are also not known. Saying "the field of awareness is unknown" means that the field of awareness is a subset of that which is not known.

Conversely, saying that the unknown (that which is not known) is a field of awareness identifies all of the unknown as a particular field of awareness. In the example above, the contents of a particular shark's stomache is not part of the field of awareness. The contents of the shark's stomache are merely similarly unknown.

What makes you so sure you understand what Kow is talking about? Is it really wise to try educating me on what Kow means, when you yourself dont even know what he means?

Or do you?

First of all, consider this:

Cory: I would like to have a dialogue with you about this field - about the nature of awareness, the function of it.

Kow: So, you'd like to discuss the unknown? You're funny

Kow has explicitely refered to the field of awareness as the unknown.

And for some reason EI, you appear to think that you understand what Kow's talking about.

For instance,

Eliza: the field of awareness Kow was referring to = a particular subset of the unknown

What? So are you saying you agree with him or something?

Do you know what he is talking about or not?

If you don't, then isnt it absurd to corroborate with him, with dinky phases like:

"the field of awareness is a particular subset of the unknown."

Such drivel! That means absolutely nothing.

Establish the context and implications, otherwise you are just playing in the mud of silly semantic games.

Elizabeth: The unknown (the field of awareness Kow was referring to) (the contents of a particular shark's stomache) (the next winning lotto number) (all other things that are not known)

Do you realize that you are equating awareness with that which by neccesity must have a direct relationship to knowledge/thought? According to Kow, Knowing the contents of a shark’s stomach, or the next winning lotto numbers have nothing to do with awareness.

You have assumed that you are in a position to clarify Kow's thoughts, before even being sure that you understand him.

According to Kow, thought = unawareness.

Awareness has nothing to do with thought Elizabeth. (that’s not what I say, that’s Kow’s shit)

Eliz: As you see, the field of awareness Kow was referring to is part of that which is not known

In other words, its the unknown. When you are diving into a deep dark ocean, you are diving into the unknown. Yes, it is not the totality of the unknown, but why do you assume that someone was implying that? Why not just ask first?

And how do you know that Kow isnt refering to some superconsciousness that contains the totality of that which is unknown?

And second, how does he know it’s a field? How can he talk about it if it is not known?

Dont you find it strange how he said that awareness has no relationshp to thought, yet he uses thought to tell us about the field of awareness?

I say, to be aware is to know, and there is no knowing without thought.

You see, this fact is what Kow is hiding from.

Have you been following the proceedings EI?

Eliz: but there are other things that are also not known.

Why arent you wondering why Kow equates awareness with a state of not knowing? A state where there is no thought?

Eliz: Saying "the field of awareness is unknown" means that the field of awareness is a subset of that which is not known.

You don't even know what the field of awareness is, do you?

do you even know it exists?

But here you are, telling me all about it.

Do you know what Kow is talking about, or do you not?

Is he telling the truth, or is he ignorant?

If you don't know if what he is talking about is real, and if you are suspicious of him, then don't you think its absurd to even bother educating me on Kow's thinking?

Your energy would be better spent coming up with decent questions.

Eliz: Conversely, saying that the unknown (that which is not known) is a field of awareness identifies all of the unknown as a particular field of awareness. In the example above, the contents of a particular shark's stomache is not part of the field of awareness. The contents of the shark's stomache are merely similarly unknown.

For all you know, Kow's field of awareness is the totality of all that which is unknown.

For all you know, Kow's field of awareness is not 'a thing' but a state of being, one that has no 'subset' or 'sets'.

[edit: for all you know, Kow's field of awareness is complete bullshit]

Personally, Instead of fool myself into thinking I know (and become a fool) - I simply admit my ignorance and do my best to come up with good questions.

Cory,

Wow, that was a lot of typing in response to a mere clarification of sentence structure. I did nothing to clarify kow's theories.

kow indicated repeatedly that you were misreading what he was saying, and Borommakot and I both agreed that in this particular case, what he typed and what you were reading did not match.

Borommakot wrote: I'm sorry cory, but kow never said that the unknown IS the field, only that the field is unkown.
I agree with kow. I'm not saying that you can't read, only that you are looking for implications where there is only plain text.

And it was in my address to him that I agreed that the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness. If I had not interpreted that as he meant it, I'm quite sure he would not have hesitated to tell me I was wrong.

I agree with you Cory about:

Cory wrote:Your energy would be better spent coming up with decent questions.

I leave the questioning of kow's theories to you, as I already found his string of thoughts to be more than a bit unstrung. That was the point of my addressing him - and I'll repeat it here for you to see that I was trying to get him to clarify himself coherently:

kow,

Maybe if you put all of your thoughts about what awareness is into one coherent paragraph, it would be helpful. From the point where you claimed that illusion is real and did not back that up with how illusion is real, you have done nothing but throw crumbs and try to pass them off as jewels.

Yes, saying the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness - but there is also a point in wondering how much is known to even call it "a field of awareness."

The fact is that illusions do exist as illusions, and in that way illusions are real (as in, it really is an illusion) - same with falseness is part of Truth because some things really are false, and some things really are a dream rather than conventional reality.

It seems to me that you are trying to convey an illusion of wisdom, and that would be falseness if all you have are riddles and real illusions.

Are you capable of conveying all of your thoughts about awareness in one post, or are you only capable of throwing out brief blurbs mixed with insults?

As you see, much of what I typed to him, you just retyped to me.

The part that kow, by default, confirmed that I understood correctly, "the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness" I clarified for you because kow was not able to clarify himself on that matter to you, and it was time to move on to the real confusions regarding kow's unknown awareness field.

There's plenty that actually doesn't make sense about kow's theories, and you are doing a fine job of pestering him about getting to the bottom of that. There was no need to waste further time on the grammatical structure that he actually did have, and that Borommakot and I could both see.

All I addressed was the grammatical structure.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Cory,

There's plenty that actually doesn't make sense about kow's theories, and you are doing a fine job of pestering him about getting to the bottom of that.

That would be all well and good if it were actually true. His assumptions are baseless. If you recall, he said: (to kow) "You already admitted that ‘thought’, radiates from the brain."

Not only was it not said but it was never even implied.

This is just one of many examples, which now includes his latest: (to kow) "you stated ealier that thought had no relationship to awareness".

It's an odd comment, considering that it has been stated several times that Self awareness is consciousness and consciousness is thought.

This was a very decent thread when Richard was here debating.

It's unfortunate that you were subjected to one of Corys' tantrums, when you were only trying to help.

The following stands as true.

Cory,

You're a very queer fellow. Your return to this thread has been a series of baseless assumptions, groundless accusations and an alarming display of inattentiveness. You can't pay attention to what's happening on a monitor right in front of your face, but you want to talk about awareness.

That would be all well and good if it were actually true. His assumptions are baseless. If you recall, he said: (to kow) "You already admitted that ‘thought’, radiates from the brain."

I already admitted that I misinterpreted you. Unlike you, I dont have a problem making mistakes and admitting them. Its no big deal. You learn and move on.

Kow wrote:

Kow: This is just one of many examples, which now includes his latest: (to kow) "you stated ealier that thought had no relationship to awareness".

It's an odd comment, considering that it has been stated several times that Self awareness is consciousness and consciousness is thought.

So what is your explanation for this:

(you may recal)

Cory: What is the relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and this field of awareness?

Kow: There is no relationship.

Is it any wonder that you become misinterpreted?

Elizabeth,

To clarify sentence structure when you don't understand the theory, is like drawing a map toward a destination, without having a clue about where the destination is in relation to where you are at.

Eliz: I did nothing to clarify kow's theories.

Kow's theory is the destination, and the gramatical structure is the map. And so, yes, you did nothing to clarify the destination. I don’t see how you can regard ‘grammatical structure’ as anything but a map. So by clarifying the map, you ought to know what the destination is, otherwise, it makes no sense to clarify the map.

Eliz: kow indicated repeatedly that you were misreading what he was saying, and Borommakot and I both agreed that in this particular case, what he typed and what you were reading did not match.

“did not match”? Do you understand what he is saying, or do you not?

If you don’t - then focusing on the grammatical structure means nothing!

‘text’ a.k.a grammatical structure is inherently meaningless. There is no sense arguing about or even asserting ‘plain text’ until the two parties agree on some basic truths.

Borommakot: I'm sorry cory, but kow never said that the unknown IS the field, only that the field is unkown.
I agree with kow. I'm not saying that you can't read, only that you are looking for implications where there is only plain text.

First of all, who in their right mind settles for 'plain text?' what is 'plain text?'.

If a statement is void of implications, then it shouldn’t be expressed to begin with – for it would be meaningless to do so.

Eliz: And it was in my address to him that I agreed that the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness.

Again, you don't even know what Kow is talking about, or if he is talking about something true, so to have an opinion about what he is talking about is absurd.

Eliz: If I had not interpreted that as he meant it, I'm quite sure he would not have hesitated to tell me I was wrong.

Wishful thinking. He could be looking for support. Therefore, to correct someone who is supporting him during a time of weakness, might not be so likely.

The bottom line is:

What you said, and what he says 'do not fit'. That's what made your comments so absurd. You tried to clarify that which was inherently un-clarifiable.

For instance, do you really think that kow's awareness field is some physical thing, some object that has boundaries? You described it that way. You described it as something that could be known through thought.

I really don't think that that is what he is talking about.

And your 'gramatical structure' is completely based on that assumption.

Eliz: The part that kow, by default, confirmed that I understood correctly, "the field of awareness is unknown is different from saying that the unknown is a field of awareness"

I clarified for you because kow was not able to clarify himself on that matter to you, and it was time to move on to the real confusions regarding kow's unknown awareness field.

Elizabeth, you have assumed that Kow's awareness field is some physical thing like an ocean, or a shark.

Have you considered that Kow is implying that 'thought' is ignorance, or 'all knowing' is ignorance - and therefore, according to his logic - - Sharks, lottery tickets, every object you can think of doesn’t exist, is meaningless, unknowable and that there is only THE unknown? This is a possibility.

I personally don’t know what he thinks – it’s very hard to say.

Eliz: There was no need to waste further time on the grammatical structure that he actually did have, and that Borommakot and I could both see.

That’s just like saying, there no sense asking for directions when we haven’t a clue where we are at (while wanting to know where we are at).

Grammatical structure has a function, to point towards implication, and implications take you to the destination.

If you don't know the destination, then that is because you don’t know the implications and vice versa.

Remember, your whole grammatical interpretation rests upon an assumption that, if wrong, radically changes the grammatical structure.

Therefore, examine your assumptions before you become complacent about your grammatical structure.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Is it any wonder that you become misinterpreted?

The intelligent thing to do, don't you think, would be to consider both propositions.


1/ Self awareness is consciousness and consciousness is thought.

2/ There is no relationship between the brain, with its thoughts, and the field of awareness.


There's a perfectly logical question you could ask, but you have to figure it out, yourself. Use your brain. :)



P. S. Regarding what you said to our sweet darling Elizabeth: What don't you understand about the following statement (in bold)?


(Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:53 am Post subject:
Richard,
You wrote alot. Let's cut to the quick though.)

There is only the physical. The mental and its invention, 'the spiritual', are illusions.

.

Cory Duchesne wrote: Elizabeth, you have assumed that Kow's awareness field is some physical thing like an ocean, or a shark.

No, I have not. I have noted that by the grammatical structure, kow's awareness field is not the only thing that is unknown. There are other things that are unknown in addition to kow's awareness field - such as the contents of a particular shark's stomache, or how Cory arrives at certain conclusions.

Cory Duchesne wrote: To clarify sentence structure when you don't understand the theory, is like drawing a map toward a destination, without having a clue about where the destination is in relation to where you are at...

So by clarifying the map, you ought to know what the destination is, otherwise, it makes no sense to clarify the map.

I can work with that analogy. Here's the map. These are roads, and these are streams - Cory, let's drive on the roads, not the streams. You can work out the destination, but if you want us to take the streams, let's use a boat.

Cory Duchesne wrote: First of all, who in their right mind settles for 'plain text?' what is 'plain text?'.

Dan Rowden wrote: (in another thread) Elizabeth has a bad habit of taking everything she reads literally.

The fact that I considered typing back "I don't see what's bad about that" really illustrated Dan's point to me.

Cory, if I only read and write literally, and you only read and write figuratively, we have a major communication problem. Literal translation seems pretty straight-forward to me, so I'm going to have to pull back a bit for a paradigm shift.

You and kow work this out, and just ignore the fact that I was here.

kow wrote: our sweet darling Elizabeth

I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

It's either morning in Florida or you're just to used to "brain dead bimbo". :)

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

It's either morning in Florida or you're just to used to "brain dead bimbo". :)

kow,

Have you ever heard of something called "the middle way?" ;)

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

It's either morning in Florida or you're just to used to "brain dead bimbo". :)

kow,

Have you ever heard of something called "the middle way?" ;)

Is the Pope, German?

from the Buddhas first sermon (at Sarnath)

"Let me teach you, O bhikshus, the middle path, which keeps aloof from both extremes.
By suffering, the emaciated devotee produces confusing and sickly thoughts in his mind.
Mortification is not conducive even to worldly knowledge; how much less to a triumph over the senses!

He who fills his lamp with water will not dispel the darkness, and he who tries to light a fire with rotten wood will fail.

Mortifications are painful, vain and profitless. And how can anyone be free by leading a wretched life, if he does not succeed in quenching the fires of lust?

All mortification is vain so long as self remains, so long as self continues to lust after worldly or heavenly pleasures. But he in whom self becomes extinct, is free from lust; he will desire neither worldly nor heavenly pleasures, and the satisfaction of his natural wants will not defile him. Let him eat and drink according to the needs of the body.

Water surrounds the lotuses, but does not wet its petals. On the other hand, sensuality of all kinds is enervating. The sensual man is a slave of his passions, and pleasure-seeking is degrading and vulgar.

But to satisfy the necessities of life is not evil. To keep the body in good health is a duty, for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom and keep our mind strong and clear.

This is the 'Middle Path', O bhikshus, that keeps aloof from both extremes."

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

It's either morning in Florida or you're just to used to "brain dead bimbo". :)

Why is she pregnant?

Are you pregnant Elizabeth? Congrats if so!

beebuddy wrote:

kowtaaia wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
I think I'm getting nauseous...
.

It's either morning in Florida or you're just to used to "brain dead bimbo". :)

Why is she pregnant?

Are you pregnant Elizabeth? Congrats if so!

I seriously doubt it bee, I have not had sex in years. Kow was just being a wise-guy.

And how can anyone be free by leading a wretched life, if he does not succeed in quenching the fires of lust?

so long as self continues to lust after worldly or heavenly pleasures. But he in whom self becomes extinct, is free from lust; he will desire neither worldly nor heavenly pleasures

sensuality of all kinds is enervating. The sensual man is a slave of his passions, and pleasure-seeking is degrading and vulgar.

You see, all of the things stated above, although I agree with them and practice them are seen as very extreme in the eyes of our culture, especially in the eyes of woman. She cannot understand such thoughts.

Although, self-mortification, that is definitely an ultimate extreme and I don't think you'll find many westerners go into that extreme of denial. Usually they go they other way, with cocaine, prostitues, and the like.

To keep the body in good health is a duty, for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom and keep our mind strong and clear.

Again, very wise - - but this is often percieved as extreme in our culture.

Which basically implies that cultures is extreme, humans are generally extreme -- -and when some one decides to be balanced, he is often called an extremist.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

And how can anyone be free by leading a wretched life, if he does not succeed in quenching the fires of lust?

so long as self continues to lust after worldly or heavenly pleasures. But he in whom self becomes extinct, is free from lust; he will desire neither worldly nor heavenly pleasures

sensuality of all kinds is enervating. The sensual man is a slave of his passions, and pleasure-seeking is degrading and vulgar.

You see, all of the things stated above, although I agree with them and practice them are seen as very extreme in the eyes of our culture, especially in the eyes of woman. She cannot understand such thoughts.

Although, self-mortification, that is definitely an ultimate extreme and I don't think you'll find many westerners go into that extreme of denial. Usually they go they other way, with cocaine, prostitues, and the like.

He's saying that some pleasure, enough to quench the lusts but not become a slave to passions - that is the middle, and optimal, way. Cocaine and prostitutes are one extreme, but denial of all pleasures, to the point that one's lusts are not quenched, is the other extreme. Meeting one's needs may include meeting one's emotional needs as well.

To keep the body in good health is a duty, for otherwise we shall not be able to trim the lamp of wisdom and keep our mind strong and clear.

Again, very wise - - but this is often percieved as extreme in our culture.

Which basically implies that cultures is extreme, humans are generally extreme -- -and when some one decides to be balanced, he is often called an extremist.

No, he is saying that balance is not extreme.