On Mar 24, 12:57 pm, Mark Ty-Wharton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 March 2011 16:06, YouWho? <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Nice try Sandeep. >
> The frame of reference is from the point of view try to understand and > > explain the vast mysteries of dreamdoms. > > Why do we need to explain them cannot contentment even bliss be found in not > knowing what is being imagined or why? - That was a typo on my part, which changed the meaning of the statement considerably. It should have said you are coming from the point of view of 'trying' to understand and explain... You're right, we don't NEED to try to explain. But isn't that what you are trying to do in writing a book? There are two types of 'not-knowing.' One is the 'not-knowing' of ignorance, also sometimes called 'wrong knowledge,' or bondage (knot- knowing). It can be said that there is contentment in this type of not- knowing, but basically is of the flavor of 'ignorance is bliss' or being oblivious, which is not real contentment. It's simply just ignorance. The other type of not-knowing is quite different and is born from knowledge or understanding. Your comments about not-knowing so not show the signs of this type of 'not-knowing.' This type of not-knowing is when Knowledge itself is left off. It may sound like picking nits, but they are very different types of not-knowing. One is ignorance, and one is non-conceptual wordless non-knowingness. You wrote about not knowing and not believing in anything and then wrote: > Okay, got that, I was saying something else. > I have no idea what is true and would suggest my not knowing might be access > to knowing something what you got :) and > I don't believe anything to be true though "it is obvious what is not true > but I am not calling it the truth" and > There is no dream only what is happening and > And what is there to understand about consciousness? and > Does a tree understand (itself falling perhaps). Or an ocean? Or a wave? and > Only human beings seem intent on caring what is what and the book is not > about that - though I am sure you will find a meaning in it anyway :) - Don't you see the irony in these statements? You are clearly stating your beliefs and what you think you know, even the humorous assertion that you know you know nothing. The main point of all of this is to really investigate thoroughly into who(what) is it that knows and doesn't know, and not be concerned about either what is known or not known. The word dream is used because the waking state is made up of the same fluff of Consciousness as the dreamworld. Yes, ultimately, there really is no dream. Still, it appears nonetheless. Saying that there is no dream from the conceptual assertion within the dream is literally a world apart from saying it from the homogeneity of Oneness. It's a nice discussion. :O)
