Re: Love of Knowledge...

Hi Starlight, my perspective of TT is he inhabits conceptuality.  This, to me, sets him apart from so much so-called spiritual teaching, talk, formulating, dogma, etc., which for its part says, for instance, and ad nauseum, “no mind” while being hyper-conceptual (ie, mind).  This latter feels very split to me (“my mind-saying is no-mind”).  TT's inhabitation feels integrated.

Re: Love of Knowledge...

yeah, i see what you mean…what an insightful way of putting it…he inhabits the conceptual as to distinguish it non-distinguishable from itself…lol…if that makes any sense…

maybe a clearer way of articulating what i meant was just how you said it…everytime i think he might be pointing to the absolute or any of the well known dogmas, he ends up clarifying how they are themselves positions…haha…i love it!

thnx for responding tom…*

Re: Love of Knowledge...

Hi Starlight, yes, shoes, exactly.  I also do not go in for the illusion shtick.  To be thoroughgoing about illusion, wouldn't the idea of illusion—it is an idea, after all—also have to be illusion?  I mean, the only other option is to say some non-illusionary viewer arrived from planet Xeon (presumably as from within some other universe) to say, “oh, look at all the illusion here.” 

Illusion ideology also tends, sometimes not very subtly, to be anti-feminine, anti-earth, anti-birth, which maya, heaven, rebirth, nirvana all seem to me to be or connote.  I don't buy any of those ideas either, at least not in their typical or historical formulations.  That's not to say I don't understand that they may have served historical functions.

TSK, on the other hand, feels to me very at home with what is.  I love that about it.

Re: Love of Knowledge...

hey tom…well, i understand the 'idea' of the illusory self…but i like how TT distinguishes it as a focalized point, within space itself…once we can apply the openness of space within awareness to that focalized point…that point opens up and is not so closed in…but i also like how that it is understood that the focalized point is also space…lol

the 'idea' of illusion became a place for me to get stuck…my focalized point became an 'idea' encompassing illusion, and my experience became one of isolation…and although that isolation was mostly bliss-filled, it seemed there was no purpose beyond the illusion of
that 'idea' itself, and so it became a hinderance to any real knowing beyond my own little world…

although i began breaking away from that perspective several months ago, through inquiry and just realistic interpretation and science (of course just another pointing tool…lol) i had gone i think as far as i could without some encourgement…tsk verified my understanding of my understanding, and offered that encouragement to continue with my inquiry…and actually gave definitive ways, and realistic ways of how that can be done…

i too feel so at home with the tsk vision…it helps me at every level of my being…it offers a way to open up without getting lost in that opening…b/c it gives direction, yet every step of the way it discourages drawing direct conclusions, making further belief structures…if that makes any sense…but b/c that very opening is my reality…space and time…it remains realistic…lol

i suppose if i was to assign any advantage to illusion, it would be that it enabled me to practice remaining in that state of being without many outside distractions…but it became obvious to me as well, that carrying that state of being into actual living experience is
more congruent to actually living life and reaping the benefit of potential that it has available…so needless to say, tsk has been right on time for me…lol…

i also love how it enables you to look into that fear or confusion, and open that up also into avenues of knowing…using that as the energy of time itself, more opening occurs…they feed off each other and can be applied in any situation…it is very powerful.

anyways, thnx for the converstion…it is nice…always, star

Re: Love of Knowledge...

I just posted a passage on another thread that I think relates to some of these questions, particularly conceptuality, knowledge, allowing for the openness of the unknown in the heart of the known (conclusions), etc.

~*~

“Ordinarily we assign all significance to what is known; to what exists and to the distinctions among existents. ‘Zero' in this context reduces a separation that might otherwise be ‘meaningful' to ‘nothing', and so is interpreted as a loss of knowledge. But this view, which looks past the ‘zero point' to the content of what manifests, also loses sight of knowledge. When we focus on the content of what is known, knowledge as active knowing is presented as ‘disembodied', separate from the known-'nothing at all'.

Perhaps if we are willing to look through the content of manifestations to the ‘zero point within', we can understand manifestation differently, as the very ‘body' of knowledge. Through a mechanism of transformation that itself remains unknown, accepting the unknown of the ‘zero point' as inseparable from knowing might let us see with new eyes. Our logic, our consciousness, our way of being might change, as though appearance appeared in a new light.

‘Zero' implies an unknown, in the same way that not-knowing implies an unknown-an interpretation made by the knower with regard to the limits of the known. If ‘x' is the unknown, the knower assigns ‘x' a value, positioning it through words or conduct, giving it provisional identity as ‘what is unknown'.

‘Zero' is such an unknown, for by definition it has no existence, and so does not exist to be known. Yet ‘zero' seems to be a limiting case for the unknown, since as soon as we assign it a provisional identity as ‘unknown', we contradict its nature as nonexistent.

‘Zero' as a conventional number occupies its specific point on the number line, precisely positioned between negative and positive. But the ‘number-line zero' is conceptual, an artificial construct that has been ‘measured out' and brought into the realm of the known.

If we let ‘zero' remain as nonpositioned, its specific value of ‘no value at all' sets it in contrast to what is. This function suggests an unusual formulation: By standing in contrast to what is, ‘zero' grants existence permission to be.

Although this formulation may seem to go against ordinary understanding, we can observe something similar at work in arithmetic operations. Playing its paradoxical role as ‘nonexistent unknown', ‘zero' opens a place for what is known to be ‘measured out' and reckoned with; by serving as ‘placeholder' it makes possible
‘meaningful' results. Looking at numbers more abstractly, we might also say that when ‘zero' is assigned its ‘no value' identity, this identity establishes ‘one'. The distinction between ‘zero' and ‘one' in turn gives ‘two'.  From there the world of multiplicity can unfold in a linear progression.

It may be that ‘zero' plays a similar role in terms of existence-allowing existence to take its own measure, ‘measuring out' a world. Unknown without being on unknown, permitting without defining, ‘zero' unifies all manifestations by defining them as manifestations, each with its assigned place. The ‘starting point' for what is, it is ‘present' within all points. Adding nothing to what appears, simply permitting, it refers all appearance back to itself. As the ‘unknown unknown', ‘zero' is the agent of knowledge, allowing knowledge to embody as all manifestations.

For a ‘zero-point' knowing, the usual claim of ownership over knowledge would have a very different quality. Instead of being given as either true or false, the claim itself would become an exhibition of knowledge as it unfolded from the ‘zero point' into a specific structure. ‘Ownership' would not have to be renounced, because it would never arise as ‘real' in the first place. As basic ‘qualities' of each position, the structures of ‘knower' and'known' would sustain neither the claim of ownership nor the distance from knowledge through which not-knowing maintains its priority. Instead of determining the range of knowledge available, they would themselves become co-determined aspects of an active knowing.

If we look honestly, we may sense in ourselves an uneasiness in the face of ‘zero', a reluctance to let it come to the fore-perhaps a fear of ‘negating' what exists. But the availability of the ‘zero point' can be understood very differently. It reveals space as open with an allowing that does not depend on the void, and discloses time as alive with an energy not trapped by the determinism and ever-threatening chaos of linear momentum. It is as though we had discovered a black hole at the center of every atom of existence-a source of power and transformation, active with an unimaginable intensity, open to unknown dimensions of being” (Tarthang Tulku, Knowledge of Time and Space).

Re: Love of Knowledge...

that works for me!  lol…thnx bruce…i enjoyed reading that again…i am almost through LOK…but plan to reread it…there is so much good stuff in there…i love how TT describes how the mind works based on structures, and how everything we take in is thus interpretated through those conceptual strutures…trapping us in the circle of our present always being defined by an interpretated past, which then defines and limits our future…but what an easy escape just opening up to space can be…and not an escape from reality, but an opening up to what is usually missed by us taking a position…

i find though such freedom in the fact that a position is not really the problem…we have to take positions, but it is more to the attachment to that position; trying to define it as absolute truth, or grasping it as something to be true…where it might just be the knowledge of the moment…in the endless time of now…and so then, a position becomes a knowing that is not grounded in anything but the groundlessness of being…or more to the point…that space minus the x…lol

much love b…*

Re: Love of Knowledge...

Hi, Star, had I posted that before (besides a few moments previously at the Integral Archipelago pod)?  I don't think I had – I'd hate to be repeating myself!  But the passage does sound a bit similar to some of TT's other discussions of knowing and not-knowing.  This passage was from Knowledge of Time and Space, which is one of my favorites of the TSK books.

But I also really like LOK.  It's very clear and straightforward in its presentation, and yet, as you say, still can manage to surprise.  As you probably know, when TT wrote LOK, he tried to take a step or two back from the rather intense voice of the first book and spend more time on level one understanding, unpacking it and then opening the way through it towards new vision.  Which works really well, and is one reason why I think LOK is a good introduction to TSK (particularly if folks don't already have familiarity with Dzogchen or other nondual sorts of teachings).

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Love of Knowledge...

i don't know if you posted it before or not, or if i just remembered reading something similiar…lol

this is something i don't quiet understand though, i realize that it is stated that LOK is an easier read than TSK…i did not find that to be the case…i have had to really work at understanding TT's more literal meaning in LOK…and although i am really more intune with what he is expressing now, it has been more difficult for me trying to maybe re-aquaint myself with just regular thinking maybe?  i dunno bruce…i am not trying to claim that i am at some higher level…lol…and i am appreciative of all that he is explaining, but for me, tsk was home…LOK, is like going back and rediscovering the confinement of the desert of the real in someways…does that make sense?  i mean i am not bashing it, no way…i love it, but it has been just a more difficult read, but i gained a lot from it…a better understanding of what i never quiet understood in the first place maybe?  LOL…

help me out here, what do you think, honestly?

*

Re: Love of Knowledge...

another question…i am almost done with LOK, what two books do you recommend that i read next?  should i just continue in the natural order?  thnx for your help…*

Re: Love of Knowledge...

About what to read next, yeah, I do think it makes sense to go in order.  I would recommend Knowledge of Time and Space and Visions of Knowledge next.  Visions is a small book, but poetically and powerfully written in parts,  KTS is bigger and more involved, but I found it rewarding.

Re: Love of Knowledge...

Another thought came to me about reading choices:  Are you familiar with Tulku's book, Knowledge of Freedom?  It is not listed as an “official” part of the TSK series, mostly because it stays primarily on a level-one approach, but it still frames things in relation to time, space, and knowledge, and I think it's quite good – a simple, effective “foundational” book that explores many conventional perspectives and concerns (psychology, social issues, science, work, etc).  In my own efforts to unfold and explore an “Integral TSK” (a TSK approach that would resonate with folks interested in Integral), I think this book is a great place to start.

Re: Love of Knowledge...

Hi, Star, what you say here makes sense to me.  If you came to TSK after reading – and, really, attempting to integrate and live – The Supreme Source, then it makes sense that the first book would feel more like “home” than the second.  The second “begins” a few steps back, turning the vision developed in the first book back on many of our conventional constructs, models, and presuppositions. 

It may be that LOK is both challenging and rewarding for you because it is getting you, too, to turn back and look at certain things you've possibly taken for granted, helping you also to “open” them and come to a more integrated perspective.

Does that ring true to you?

Re: Love of Knowledge...

yeap, that rings really true…The Supreme Source was my fav…and i had no problem with it either…i suppose my problem has always been 'living human'  haha…and accepting my own humanness as a reality…and life on lifes terms…of course julian and adam helped with that…i am so grateful to have had the crash courses in reality…the shared knowledge on enactivism from you and matt and james and all that contributed too…

and integral theory also…i know i was stubborn concerning that…and still am a little…it still 'feels' to much like a belief system…but i am thankful that you hung in there with me in getting some of the important aspects across, especially pointing out Clare Graves and Beck…and julian has tons of good reading on it…i have done a lot of reading trying to educate myself on the important aspects…and i really appreciate all of the insightful posts on consciousness and scientific theory…etc…

plus, as you know, dzogchen actually made me realize how important it was to deal with the body, mind, and voice…and much of what i did i did in that way…dealing with conditioning the good old fashioned way…when it arose…i faced it…AA helped with that too…

but i am certain that i am still  recognizing  and integrating all the ways that conditioned beliefs have affected me at even deeper levels…and i do feel more integrated…i am really enjoying interacting with others in real life…the fear is not there anymore…and i am  understanding what TT was explaining concerning the way the mind works…the patterns of thinking, etc…

what an amazing journey huh?  i feel like…i have been leaping up the side of the mountain…if you get what i mean…lol…i was there and now i'm here…lol…it's all good…and way cool…

happy new year my friend…joy, always, star…