ch 71
these guys were awesome! here is my take on this one.
Knowing vs lack of knowing It is better, lack of knowing Knowing is a disease. In the end only when the disease is sick Appropriate lack of the disease happens. Sages lack the disease It happened the disease was sick. In the appropriate way, lack of the disease happens. |
I do not think that ignorance is better than knowing. Our true nature is omniscient/all knowing.
|
Quote:
The not knowing talked about is not about worldly knowledge but spiritual 'knowledge', traditions and theories. The sage discards it all and is happy not to know anything. |
there are the four possible cases, progressively better:
to not know that you don't know - the worst to know that you don't know to not know that you know to know that you know - the best |
Quote:
As far as spiritual knowledge goes the stages, best to worst must be reversed. Only "not to know that you don't know" leaves one free to respond in an natural manner, free from mind interference. |
Quote:
So, you believe that ignorance is bliss ... Different people use same words with different meanings. For me "natural response" doesn't mean something desirable. Also, for me, "mind" is the inner counterpart of the brain, so, I find it desirable for "mind" to interfere. It's easy to misunderstand each other. "A mind is a psychic pattern through which you interpret and form reality." - Seth, Session 763, Page 41 |
Quote:
Spiritually this arise when there is a response to an uninterpreted and pattern free answer or reaction to something. |
To expand a little, R.D. Laing in 'The Divided Self' writes that we are 'crazed people', brought to this state by our upbringing. Many psychologists would in one way or another agree to this to some extent.
inavalan, are you saying that this is the state from where we make the best decisions? Spirituality aims to act from a point before interpretation, the state of pure perception, the true natural state, and not 'interpreted perception' which is already corrupted and distorted by our history and culture. |
i'm finding myself in agreement with particular notes from each of the several
contributors to this thread, and in disagreement with others. i'd like to see the discussion progress into a harmonic whole, and not devolve into chaos. providing a "definition of terms", as they come into use, may help... but i also have a sense that "Truth" is "unquantifiable" [impossible to express or measure in terms of quantity... immeasurable according to standards beyond itself], so that may be a trap to avoid falling into. perhaps just "speaking one's truth", which as much authenticity as is possible will suffice? [and respecting that another 'instrument' in the orchestra may strike different tones.] |
Let's start with the definition of truth. There is no such think as personal truth. There is perception, opinion, notions, feelings, urges which are all personal but none can and should be elevated to the level of truth in any sense. To use truth for one's personal experience is to devalue it. That my experience is true does not make it "a truth". The difference is in the longevity of what is described. It may be true that right now I am angry. The truth may be that 5 seconds ago I was angry, but that anger of a while back is not "a truth" because it does not and cannot stand on its own.
There is only the Truth, and it is that which never changes. If it changes it is not Truth. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:07 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums