what are you?

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Qigong and Meditation
21

How does that differ from Descartes meditations Scott? Not to bring anothers philosophy directly into this, but Descartes through massive reasoning of what he was not, came to a inclusion that he was because he thought. But I feel as if you are pointing at something different.

When you refer to the true identity, are you referring to that in which you are when you transgress the ego?

Or perhaps you speak of your identity in relation to the Tao?

I am still a bit confused by your last message, if you could clarify that would be splendid.

Thanks,

  • Nexus
22

Nexus,

It is difficult to explain. The realization I had only came the other day when I wrote my comments. I will explain to you how I came to my realization and hope that makes my point more clear. Remember we are discussing an unexplainable topic, so at best all I can do is point towards my realization. You will have to realized or understand what I mean through your own efforts. When I make this statement I am not referring to merely logical understanding, but a clear comprehension, which is dependant upon, but not the same as reason. I can know that 2+2=4, but not understanding why. We must not just know the facts, but understand the matter more deeply.

I know you are familiar with my writings on these threads. On occasion, you may recall, I have referred to emptiness and chaos as being undifferentiated potential. That is a state where everything exists in potential, but no “one thing” has been separated out. In essence all things exist in this state. I have compared this concept to what the Yin-Yang is meant to symbolize. I have also compared the formation of the identity (and creation for that matter) to a movie theater. The movie screen is the media upon which the film and projector create a reality. The projector is the mind; the film is our worldview. This is a metaphor for the creation of reality and identity. The mind projects its “worldview” onto some unidentifiable media, which forms the reality we experience.

Some of the above I have written in the last week. Therefore I have been pondering it. I often hold inner dialogues with myself to iron out wrinkles in my reasoning and to discover new concepts. No matter how many times I have pondered something I occasionally revisit the topic to see if there is anything new to glean and to reinforce how I came to my conclusions in the first place. While doing so the other day I realized that the above concept of reality is identical to what the true self is.

It is making me laugh now!! Every time I think about it makes me laugh. It is a cosmic joke. Out true self is “ABSOLUTELY NOTHING”. It is undifferentiated potential. It is what we decide it to be. It is everything and nothing. That is why I said that that once you know what your own true identity is you know everyone else’s too.

It ultimate does not matter what identity you have as long as you recognize it is a game and the identity you are displaying to the world is a choice. We are to learn to be in command of what we display as our identity so that we are not a slave to it. Most of us are slaves to identities that we have not chosen for ourselves. This is the meaning of Dharma plays that the ancient Zen Masters engaged in. They were demonstrating the flexibility and transience of their world system identities.

Does this help at all. Tell me what you think.

Sincerely,

Scott

23

I took for granted what you said as realization, and in fact that has been on my mind much lately too. I was absolutely fascinated by it the other night when I was sitting on a coach, not completely sober. I was thinking to myself, oh my, here I sit intoxicated and the identity I play with the people around me is that of someone who drinks. Yet when I am with my friends who are very health oriented, many of them talk against drinking in excess, and honestly I don’t often do that, and usually feel the consequence the next day.

But now so often I am seeing identities, different ones, played in each different scene of life. In fact, you play a certain identity on the message board, and another one when you study martial arts with an instructor. Sometimes on a board you are more experienced and you act as a guru, and with your instructor you are humbled and act as the unknowing and willing student.

Even more fascinating is the role of parenting. For example, my taiji instructor has always seemed very collected, and often I wondered to myself if he acted the same to all people as he did to myself. Then I realized after giving identity quite some thought, that when he is with myself, I am his student, but when he is with his mother for instance, he is her son.

And that is when I came to the realization of my own. That the identity is indeed as you say it, but more important than the identity conveyed is the attitude and state of mind that accompanies it.

I am still learning much from this specific talk and our more recent ones, but I have begun to see what the identity is resembling. True, the Zen masters with their students were teachers, gurus, and seen as such, but with eachother, the identity was different but the attitude and state of mind of enlightenment was the same.

That is the significance of these martial arts we study, beyond the sole factors of being able to defend oneself. Taiji is a construct for a path towards enlightenment, forming a 3-centered foundation which is a cultivation of an attitude of the mind(3rd eye), the heart(compassion), and the lower dan tien(our center, or the universe!).

Taiji is the intention setting the wheels in motion. We often are overcomplicating what I believe the Zen masters and Taoist sages were trying to make simple for people to see.

As for having conversations in my mind with myself, I used to do that a lot, but no longer do. I can’t exactly put into words what I do now, but I stopped doing that because I thought I was going crazy (some time ago), it happened after I had a realization of interconnectedness and I was set back by the way I was acting in this world. I became aware of the ego, and became extremely critical of my actions from that point forwards, always arguing with myself and trying to get to the heart of the matter.

Now I feel as if I do that, I am playing games with words, and I have left the word games out. Now I try to visualize you might say, visualize all problems, and search deep for insight.

Anyways, perhaps this has been what you meant?

  • Nexus

Written after the initial post: Of course Scott! Non-Dualities!

24

Nexus,

If I understand what you are trying to say correctly, I call the type of thinking you engage in, conceptual thinking. Instead of thinking in linear terms from cause to effect one thinks in a manner similar to how one views a painting. One takes in a painting all at once, not one section at a time. Using the same approach, one explores concepts in a holistic, all at once, manner. In my mind I visualize this type of thought as an amorphous cloud. One obtains a different type of knowing exercising this type of thinking process. It becomes difficult to express this type of knowing because it must be expressed in a linear manner and first it must linearized (a word I just made up) in our own mind. The concept must coalesce into a communicable form and in the process we lose some of the experience before we can even express it to others.

The type of conversation you mentioned at the end of your post is closer to introspection and not what I meant about inner dialogues. If you have ever read Plato’s Dialogues, it is similar to the discussions that Socrates engaged in. I think in this manner because I come from a family of philosophers and logicians. I was not permitted to speak any opinion in our household, when I was growing up, without having to defend my premise. It did not matter if my initial statement was innocuous or profound, all opinions were challenged. This taught me how to think clearly and to be able to reason through any problem or dilemma. So when I consider a dilemma or concept I split myself in two, take opposing positions, and debate myself. I look for flaws in my reasoning and turn the thoughts and concepts upside down and sideways in my mind in an attempt to understand them from various angles.

I went through a self critical period myself. It will pass. Learning and growth comes in ebbs and flows, once again, symbolized by the Yin-Yang. The process is as such: Equilibrium, A Destabilizing Event or Realization, The Search for Tools and New Perspectives, in an attempt to regain equilibrium, The Application of New Knowledge and Tools, Return to Equilibrium, Rest Phase, and Start All Over Again. The time periods vary from cycle to cycle, but the process is continuous.

So far I do not think your examples fit what I am attempting to explain. It appears you are applying your examples too close to the world system. Of course we must use the world system to convey the transcendent. It appears to me you are looking in the correct direction though. I could be wrong, I do not know what is in your mind. Since this is a new realization for me all I could say is, if you get the cosmic joke and it makes you laugh, you probably have got it. It is beyond intellectual understanding though, I did not gain any new information I did not already know or understand; I just get it now. I perceive the same information I always have, just differently.

A final note, I consider this an “Aha” experience and not ultimate realization or enlightenment. Just another rung on the ladder.

Sincerely,

Scott

25

Yes, I was going to make clear to you that upon hearing what you said I did not experience such realization, or such an Aha experience. I simply took what you said and tried to make some understanding of it.

Have you ever read the ‘Dao of taijiquan?’

  • Nexus
26

Scott, in regards to knowing the self, what do you make of this “” from the Tao Te Ching.

"The sage does not contrive to find his self,
for he knows that all which may be found of it,
is that which it manifests to sense and thought,
which side by side with self itself, is nought.

It is by sheathing intellect’s bright light
that the sage remains at one with his own self,
ceasing to be aware of it, by placing it behind.

Detached, he is unified with his external world,
by being selfless he is fulfilled;
thus his selfhood is assured."

  • Nexus
27

Nexus,

Can you give me the section number?

Sincerely,

Scott

P.S. I am working until 8pm tonight so longer replies will not appear until 10pm-12am tonight.

28

Sure.

  • Nexus
29

From the Chang Tzu:
Discussion On Making All Things Equal

"But to wear out your brain trying to make things into one without realizing that they are all the same-this is called “three in the morning.” What do I mean by “three in the morning”? When the monkey trainer was handing out acorns, he said, “You get three in the morning and four at night,” This made all the monkeys furious. “Well, then,” he said, “you get four in the morning and three at night.” The monkeys were all delighted.

There was no change in the reality behind the words, and yet the monkeys responded with joy and anger. Let them, if they want to. So the sage harmonizes with both right and wrong and rests in Heaven the Equalizer. This is called walking two roads."

The true sage knows that the above applies mostly to desert.

  • Nexus
30

"what are you?

I have been thinking about this…what do you cosider yourselves?Do you consider yourselves martial artists?Do you think of yourself as a Taoist?A shaolin man?A taiji man?Or should one not consider himself anything?Should one think of himself as anything? "

-ist or -person, it means one who does-. These only talk about that of which one is apart yet not what one Is. One Is One. Whether it me one person–an amalgamation og aspects, or one being–identified as being.

You are all ways the same~… Your parents gave a name to a baby or a zygote or a thought. You did not get named in your teenage years then named in your twenties…if you were different from conception to now you would have gotten a name for each change. This did not happen. No one was neglagent. You are the same. You are designed to change. Change is one of the few if not the only constant. Change occures, even when there seems no difference. In Existance (even not existing~) each moment is unique. Therefore, all one needs to change is to exist~(one at least gets older as it exists).

I am what I was; and all that was there at that Now (Then).
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

31

I may add more , but I promised you something by midnight.

Nexus,

In reference to your verse from the Tao Te Ching, I have found it beneficial when considering an Asian concept to read more than one translation. Especially Chinese, because the ideograms have so many different possible translations. Here is another version of the section translated by Lin Yutang:

The universe is everlasting,
The reason the universe is everlasting
Is that it does not live for Self (Gives life to others through its transformations).
Therefore it can long endure.

Therefore the sage puts himself last,
And finds himself in the foremost place;
Regards his body as accidental,
And his body is thereby preserved,
Is it not because he does not live for Self
That his Self is realized?

These two versions address a similar concept, which is the true identity. In your verse the discussion is about the world system self (identity). “…that which it manifests to sense and thought” is the world system identity. This is what I was addressing above when I mentioned that I do not think you understand what I am attempting to communicate. You seem to remain attached to the world system identity. You recognize it as transient, but all your descriptions remain version of interpreting this identity.

We can have an intellectual understanding of concepts, but there is something beyond this that one must attain. This something else appears to me to have some basis in intellect, but is beyond it at the same time. The “preoccupation” with the world system self will not gain us the ultimate knowledge or realization. Like many other topics we discuss, it can be the finger that points the way, but it is not the final goal.

You may remember me stating that for years I pursued wisdom and knowledge to eventually understand that what I was attempting to grasp was beyond wisdom and knowledge. However, the wisdom and knowledge I gained is what allowed me to discover this. It has also given me the ability to discern truth from falsehood. The time I spent was not a waste of time because it was the foundation for where I am and where I will be in the future, but it is not the final goal. This is what is addressed in this verse:

“It is by sheathing intellect’s bright light
that the sage remains at one with his own self,
ceasing to be aware of it, by placing it behind.”

“…sheathing intellects bright light” is not getting caught up in over intellectualizing. Intellect is useful, it is a tool, but it is not the final goal. We must remediate the intellect with insight.

“that the sage remains at one with his own self”

We are all divided against ourselves by associating who we are with our world system identity. By realizing our true self we eliminate the artificial division created by our worldly identity. This is an attitude of living not some special power or ability.

“ceasing to be aware of it, by placing it behind” Or leaving it behind. By not being attached to our world system identity we leave it behind and do not recognize it as who we “ARE”, but merely a role we “PLAY”.

Detached, he is unified with his external world,
by being selfless he is fulfilled;
thus his selfhood is assured."

Being detached is the same as not associating who we “ARE” with the role we “PLAY. Being “selfless” is not associating who we are with any specific world system identity, because our true identity transcends the world system. The true self is eternal and is therefore assured. The world system identity is transient and cannot be assured because it is in constant flux. It is not eternal. Who you are now is not who you were when you were 5 years old or who you were when you were 10 years old or who you will be when you are 80 years old. It is therefore not assured; however, the true self is above the world system and is the source of all the world system identities. It is undifferentiated potential; the world identity is a portion of this potential made manifest. Since the world system is limited only small portions of the true identity can be made manifest. Therefore it cannot represent who we are only a portion that we have chosen to manifest.

Sincerely,
Scott

32

Nexus,

The story of the monkeys in “Three in the morning” is a perfect illustration of how perspective determines the quality of our experience.

No_Know,

Your question is difficult to answer. This is because if I say to you, “Yes, do not consider yourself anything” what it means to you is not what I mean when I give this answer. No matter how hard I attempt to explain it you have to understand it on your own in your own time.

What is important to remember is that the identity that you regard as you is a role that you are playing in the game of life. Most of us are slaves to the identities we use because we are unaware they are unreal. It is similar to a situation when an actor confuses who he is with a role he plays in a movie. Shakespeare said, “Life is a stage and we are but mere players.” We confuse our role with who we truly are.

Further, the identities we associate ourselves with are usually determined by the significant adults in our life during our younger days and by environmental influences. In this instance environmental influences refers to the social environment in which we engage ourselves. Our friends, work, family etc influence who we believe ourselves to be. This is because social groups regulate the behavior of their members through social sanctions. We tend to conform to the group rules in order to remain a valued member, In doing so we give up a part of our individuality and allow the group to label us. We then conform ourselves to the group’s expectations. This is why all great Masters are independent thinkers and live outside the social norms. Individuals cannot realize their true self if they are forced to conform to world system standards. Jesus said. “If you want to follow me you must leave your Father and Mother.” It is difficult to be born anew to your new, “true” identity if your social environment will not allow you to do so.

Sincerely,
Scott

33

So rather than intellectualizing, one should seek insights into understanding this true identity?

So you may be a Zen master but only in the world system is that the role you play?

Are you saying that all of our identities are generated from the same source and to know the source is to know the true identity of all people?

  • Nexus
34

Nexus,

You know I do not consider myself a Zen Master. I have studied many years and have gained much knowledge and wisdom that I am learning to put into practice. Superior knowledge and inferior knowledge are relative terms based upon what one is comparing. Let’s say I have 3 tubs of water, one at 40* F, one at 80* F and one at 120* F. The 80* F tub is warm or cold depending upon which other tub it is compared with.

At the risk of sounding conceited, I have to say that I have never come to know anyone whose knowledge and wisdom I have found to be greater than mine. However, knowledge and wisdom is not the same thing as realization or enlightenment, but, knowledge and wisdom will help one get there and be able to communicate and understand what they are experiencing. I do recognize that others with greater knowledge and wisdom do exist and many times I have wished for some with more knowledge and wisdom I could talk to, however that has not been my destiny and I have come to accept that. At any rate it is not in my nature to acknowledge anyone as my superior, but neither to I consider anyone my inferior. When I teach MA, in sparring, I expect my students to adopt an attitude of equality with me. They are to act as if they have at least equivalent skill, regardless of whether they do in fact possess equivalent skill. We are all of the same inherent value, superior and inferior skills and abilities are characteristics of the world system and not the true reality. Hui-Neng says that there is no difference between a Buddha and the ignorant, only that one recognizes his true face and the other does not.

This BB is the first time I have ever shared much of my knowledge with others outside of occasional teachable moments with people I meet in passing. At these times I speak to them according to their world system view and their ability to understand. I have friends and family that have little or no knowledge that I concern myself with the topics we discuss here and none of them would understand anyway.

My opinion is that there is no end to learning and growth. Experience has demonstrated this to me, however I am presently questioning whether this is a world system characteristic or an eternal truth. The jury is still out in my mind on this matter.

All our identities are generated from the same source. Many people believe this means there is no real individuality. Indeed many people believe that this is what Nirvana means because Nirvana is often defined as literally meaning “the snuffing out of a candle” the candle being your ego/identity. This is not what occurs. Individuality does not cease. Remember that it is not that oneness is the true reality; it is that oneness and plurality are both at once the true reality. The enlightened simply do not overly identify with their world system identity. It is similar to thinking that my hand is more a part of me than my ear or my face. Each of these is equally a part of me and just as necessary to my harmonious existence.

The seeking of insights rather than intellectualizing would be a beneficial practice. Personally I would never discourage anyone from intellectualizing because there is value in it, we should just avoid becoming preoccupied with it or confusing knowledge with realization. Remember my example on another thread concerning finding the proper frequency on a radio when describing finding the proper perspective to view life. Realization is a manner of viewing life, an attitude or perspective and not a world system skill or ability. It is not magic or special in any way. It is a perspective.

Sincerely,
Scott

35

It is the same for myself that much if not most of what I share here is not something that I often talk about with friends/family/co-workers as most of them do not understand it and or dismiss it. That has been difficult for me to come to means with, but I realize that what is special for one person in the world system may not be special for another.

What you said about speaking with someone according to what their world system view is I find quite interesting. When I was first beginning my study of taijiquan, my teacher was speaking to me and said ‘You must be like the clouds in the sky and the river that flows’. I found this funny at the time, thinking, ‘Is this guy serious?’, at which point he stood up, and told me he could no longer have the conversation we were having. I asked him why, and he explained to me that I was not serious about the discussion we were having.

Scott, I have actually gained a lot from our discussions, and I continue to learn from my experiences and the concepts/words we share here.

Often I found myself thinking it would be nice to meet up with you and talk in person sometime, but that really isn’t necessary is it?

  • Nexus
36

“Often I found myself thinking it would be nice to meet up with you and talk in person sometime, but that really isn’t necessary is it?”

Not necessary, but it would make a nice vacation. Remember that imagination is always more interesting than reality. If we were to meet be prepared to be disappointed. I could never live up to what you imagine me to be.

“Scott, I have actually gained a lot from our discussions, and I continue to learn from my experiences and the concepts/words we share here.“

As have I. It is rare to find someone with such similar and sincere interest in these topics.

Sincerely,
Scott

37

"No_Know,

Your question is difficult to answer. This is because if I say to you, “Yes, do not consider yourself anything” what it means to you is not what I mean when I give this answer. "

As you presume to think/reason that I could not understand your meaning of what you said, you theoretically could not validly Know that I didn’t get what you mean. While the same thing can be perceived by different aspects they could also (not a consideration in your statement,“what it means to you is not what I mean when I give this answer.”) be perceived by the Same aspects.

The question was in quotes. It was from the first post of this thread.

Hopefully, Scott R. Brown, I wouldn’t ask you for the time of day (I have a pocketwatch), much less the answer or your opinion on something philosophical (so (needle-and-thread), if I asked you for the time of day, my pocketwatch might be broken).

“No matter how hard I attempt to explain it you have to understand it on your own in your own time.”

This seems universally true of understanding. Before a few years ago, this is my last incarnation~. I think that you probablly have good words to spout relavantly on several issues. I need more time in my day to review or go over your words to see more than the type-os, and think about which lines contain erroneous thinking, misunderstanding of that to which you supposedly are responding or mere wrongness for that situation~

Basically, do not lose sleep over my not getting your wisdom or words (When all i said, all that is said is just, Wisdom and Words:~>). I don’t find Any value in what you think as per it’s content. But a wealth in how you think. Your goals when speaking~ Your methods of manipulating someones understanding and how you try to say what you have to say.

I hope to read many of your posts. It would be perhaps enlightening as to an aspect in how people think.

buddhistfist asked the question; no’ No_Know.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

38

No_Know,

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“As you presume to think/reason that I could not understand your meaning of what you said, you theoretically could not validly Know that I didn’t get what you mean. While the same thing can be perceived by different aspects they could also (not a consideration in your statement,“what it means to you is not what I mean when I give this answer.”) be perceived by the Same aspects.” [/quote]

Since I cannot know what “you” can or cannot understand, by your own statement, then you cannot know what “I” know and understand. Therefore, you cannot know whether I know that you understand or not.

Just because you disagree with my statement does not make it wrong. When someone asks a question I assume they sincerely want to know the answer unless experience of that person indicates to me otherwise. My answers are based upon my study and experience and are either true statements or false statements. However, no answer I write is intentionally invalid or misleading. I do not pretend to know everything. I respond to topics I find interesting to me. I have frequently made a “caveat emptor” for no one to automatically believe or trust what I say as true. Individuals should seek to know the truth for themselves. I have no agenda to put forth or defend. “Knowing” is an individual accomplishment, the words of others are merely their version of what they believe they know. My words are meant to show the way for others to learn on their own and hopefully communicate common erroneous views encountered along the path. The words I write are can be found in all the great spiritual writings. They are not “MY” ideas. They are universal in their foundation and are not unique to me. The only thing that is unique about what I say is the way I say it. Since you are on your last incarnation you should recognize this and not be put off by my attempts, however poorly, to communicate these universal ideas with others.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“Hopefully, Scott R. Brown, I wouldn’t ask you for the time of day (I have a pocketwatch), much less the answer or your opinion on something philosophical (so (needle-and-thread), if I asked you for the time of day, my pocketwatch might be broken).”[/quote]

Time is a function of the world system, simply measured, and therefore a question of time is easily answered. The truth that words cannot easily express knowledge and truth are not mine, but repeated over and over again in religious and spiritually oriented texts. “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” This was written well over 2000 years ago and not by me. (Maybe you wrote it in one of your past lives.) My investigations into these matters has concurred the validity of the matter in my own mind. It is a fact of life, whether it offends us or not is unimportant, it is the truth regardless. Since, I assume that if someone asks a question they would like to know the answer and are not playing games I attempt to answer. If I have misinterpreted the question or have missed the point of your comments do not take it so personally.

At any rate your response to the quote is incorrect and demonstrates shallow understanding. (I normally would not be so blunt, however since you feel free to be blunt with me; I will honor you by treating you with the same honesty.)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“Your parents gave a name to a baby or a zygote or a thought. You did not get named in your teenage years then named in your twenties…if you were different from conception to now you would have gotten a name for each change. This did not happen. No one was neglagent.”[/quote]

Your true self does not change; your world system identity is constantly in flux. You are not the same identity that you were when you were five years old. You will have a different identity when you are 70 years old. These identities will be related, because one is the foundation of the other; however they are not the same identity. You are the same being, but not the same identity. Your identity is what you use to represent your being in the world system. It is irrelevant what your parents, or anyone else, call you or have named you. You are not the appellation others choose to call you by. Your name is not your identity. Names are mere conventions used to indicate a person or thing, so that whether I say Know_No or No_Know you and others will understand specifically whom I am speaking to or about.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“You are the same. You are designed to change. Change is one of the few if not the only constant. Change occures, even when there seems no difference. In Existance (even not existing~) each moment is unique.”[/quote]

Change is a function of the world system. Change is apparent from our worldly perspective. Time, i.e. moments, are a function of the world system as well. Eternity does not recognize time from the same perspective as those of us who live in the world system. These are not my ideas, but the ideas of physicists and mystics.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“Therefore, all one needs to change is to exist~(one at least gets older as it exists).” [/quote]

It is not a question of whether one changes or not, it a question of whether they allow change to occur “to” them or whether they take control of their lives and determine in which manner they will change, for the better or for the worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“I think that you probablly have good words to spout relavantly on several issues. I need more time in my day to review or go over your words to see more than the type-os, and think about which lines contain erroneous thinking, misunderstanding of that to which you supposedly are responding or mere wrongness for that situation”[/quote]

I am not seeking your approval or confirmation of anything I write, much of what I write is universal to all major religions. These are not my words, they are words written by others that I believe I have come to understand. I am merely sharing my perspective on what they mean. I am always open to deeper insight provided by others. Please feel free to point out my erroneous reasoning and thinking. It can only benefit me and the others who frequent these threads. If you choose to criticize it will benefit all of us if you simply choose something and critique that one thing. Making blanket empty statements that criticize nothing in particular benefit no one and appear to be specious because they provide no foundation.

I have noted that we all make “type-os”. Let’s critique something substantial.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=“-1”>quote:</font><HR>“Basically, do not lose sleep over my not getting your wisdom or words (When all i said, all that is said is just, Wisdom and Words:~>). I don’t find Any value in what you think as per it’s content. But a wealth in how you think. Your goals when speaking~ Your methods of manipulating someones understanding and how you try to say what you have to say.”[/quote]

I appreciate your compliment veiled in sarcasm, or is it sarcasm veiled as a compliment? I find your opinions interesting as well and I appreciate your concern for my sleeping habits. I assure I do not lose any sleep over this BB. I find it educational and fun and I hope I am able to help others from time to time.

Please feel free to indicate to us what you believe my goals and manipulations are. Since by your own assertion I cannot presume to know your mind I find it interesting that you want to presume to know mine.

I am always at your service should you choose to continue sparring, perhaps it should be moved to a separate thread.

Sincerely,
Scott

[This message was edited by Scott R. Brown on 10-25-01 at 01:52 AM.]

39

“what it means to you is not what I mean when I give this answer.”

This was used by you (even if these are not your words). It was my comprehension that in it is a requirement that you know~ that of all the ways that I could take what you say there is not even the possibility that I would understand your meaning.

“Since I cannot know what “you” can or cannot understand, by your own statement, then you cannot know what “I” know and understand. Therefore, you cannot know whether I know that you understand or not.”

My statement merely points out that You claimed I Could not understand your meaning.

You firstly indicated that I could not understand your meaning. I used a similar statement (however it contained a stipulation that that thinking you demonstrated was wrong/erroneous in that there was at least one possibility that it did not include or for which it did not account~), which logically might point out that you are wrong to presume that I absolutely Could not understand your meaning.~

“Therefore, you cannot know whether I know that you understand or not.”

This is the third time this thinking is used–you say, I say, you say. The second time was used to point out the wrongness of this thinking-ish. Theoretically to use it a third time would be used to misdirect from the message that Your stating it in the first place was erroneous (unless you were Not trying to be correct, and merely were claiming/pointing out that I wouldn’t have the faculty of comprehension to understand your meaning.

buddhistfist won’t mind as this is giving live examples of the thread’s initial questions~ and it could answer others…Theoretically buddhistfist doesn’t mind this all here.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[This message was edited by No_Know on 10-25-01 at 05:51 AM.]

40

quote:

“Hopefully, Scott R. Brown, I wouldn’t ask you for the time of day (I have a pocketwatch), much less the answer or your opinion on something philosophical (so (needle-and-thread), if I asked you for the time of day, my pocketwatch might be broken).”

Time is a function of the world system, simply measured, and therefore a question of time is easily answered. The truth that words cannot easily express knowledge and truth are not mine, but repeated over and over again in religious and spiritually oriented texts. “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” This was written well over 2000 years ago and not by me. (Maybe you wrote it in one of your past lives.) My investigations into these matters has concurred the validity of the matter in my own mind. It is a fact of life, whether it offends us or not is unimportant, it is the truth regardless. Since, I assume that if someone asks a question they would like to know the answer and are not playing games I attempt to answer. If I have misinterpreted the question or have missed the point of your comments do not take it so personally."

That was a lot of off topic to say to not take it personally. In it you surrounded yourself with others, associated yourself with standard words to give your off context statements a ring of authority. Towards the end you are sarcastic and set yourself-up to seem willing to admit that you could be wrong (though I doubt that you believe sincerely that you could be wrong (and only go through the motions to indicate that this could be the case). You were not asked for your opinion nor a definition of Time nor to give an understanding oif time. And were in fact only told I didn’t care to hear your opinion in some regard(s). So you offer it, in response.?. Way cool…untieable string. You use(d) pretext (not merely examples) to present your agendas, slights and other such, perhaps only you might know for sure.

Time Is a measure of moments. It does not exist (not literal). It is a means to comprehend things. And is as naturally existing as the foot (English measure)~.
Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.