[WAG] Re: Master Ni.
isaac.freeman at gmail.com
Fri Jul 6 04:10:30 PDT 2007
Passage continued again. (I'm hitting a hot key that is sending these emails
out before I get finished editing them)
This is the divergence between ancient and modern knowledge. If you agree
that knowedge is the harvest and mind is the tool, then you must also agree
that the harvest is limited by its tools. Without the guidance of the
integral mind, how can one fuse all other known elements of the mind?
On 7/6/07, Isaac Freeman <isaac.freeman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Passage Continued:
> It undeniably took capable midns to connect with this good source of
> knowledge. From the sixx breathoughs mentioned earlier, one can understand
> that an ordinary mind can be cul.tivated and developed to a level that can
> respond to the subtle truth of the universe. This ancient capability which
> can abstract a very complicated, detailed phenomenon and use a single word
> or picture of diagram to express it is not usually available to teh ordinary
> human mind of today and is thus not easily understood, but we must
> recognize that the human mind is capable of such a high acheivement.
> Many words and books are needed to explain the natural sciences of the
> modern world, and only after specializing can one understand even part of
> the truth. Thorugh the integral Way, one needs only to look at one simple
> picture to achieve real learning. From this illustration one can udnerstand
> that the function of these metnal capabilities are different.
> I am not saying that one way of knowledge is greater than the other. I
> think that each has different functions and that the values of each should
> be equally recognized. Intellectual knowedge can, of course, help explain
> integral knowledge of the natural truth. Words, language and descriptive
> methods can all serve and carry the message of truth; however, they are not
> the truth itself. The integral mind participates directly with the truth;
> the intellect is only its messenger. only one who knows the truth can
> accurately explain it. Such knowledge comes from the inside out, as opposed
> to intellectual knowledge which comes from teh ouside in.
> On 7/6/07, Isaac Freeman <isaac.freeman at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I woke up this morning at 1:30am. The vibrations I reconized, I had been
> > woken up by my own energetics choosing this moment to come alive.
> > I suspect it has to do with various things physically on an energetic
> > level, normally I get up and meditate when this happens, but due to my
> > practise being at a point where I cannot meditate today, I was gonig to have
> > to shut them down, Normally I can shutdown the energetics and sleep these
> > days. I tried this but mentally I stayed awake as If I had woken up from a
> > long sleep.
> > Some part of my subconsious mind tried to expell the mental energy
> > through some kind of jing shift and I was left with an urge to masterbate.
> > I refocused my mind somewhere else so that I could avoid that, I had no
> > desire to bring this moment closed that way, I know from experiance it
> > definately functions to put you to sleep but energy is better spent
> > elsewhere.
> > So if it wasn't to be QI, and wasn't to be Jing then where should the
> > energy go, I thought about going for a walk, and doing some walking
> > meditation as this would be less likely to bring about the difficulties I
> > face in my practise, and would lend towards contimplation of the dao. I
> > moved to get up, but I found myself reaching for the I-Ching book in my
> > closet. I caught myself, but decided that I should throw the yarrow sticks
> > in that case. I realized that I had thrown out my yarrow sticks for some
> > reason, of which I could not remember at this time, so I looked around for
> > pennies, which usually operate as a close second, none. I found myself
> > flipping open to a random page. Now normally one sees one of the hexigrams
> > and tries to makes sense of the translation. This morning I didn't flip to a
> > hexagram page, and since I wasn't using yarrow sticks I just decided to read
> > the passage.
> > The passage was so moving for me that I wanted to share it with you
> > guys.
> > It isn't a hexagram as I have said but rather a question answered by an
> > old master the author is interviewing.
> > My teacher Don in Victoria has been telling me that my obstruction in my
> > practise is related to knowledge, and gentleness, that I do not fully
> > understand the meaning of gentlness and so cannot practise it on myself. He
> > also said before I can understand gentleness I have to understand that my
> > intelligence is the biggest barrier I have in not understanding gentleness.
> > I have been contimplating this connection for months, anyway here is the
> > passage.
> > Question:
> > How did the ancient sages know so much about the universe? Does their
> > knowedge meet scientific requirements and i stheir way congruent with the
> > scientific way?
> > Master NI"
> > As I udnerstand it, the development of the mind has two main directions
> > which exemplify yin and yang. There is the analytical , geeralizing mind on
> > which modern science is baseed, and thee is the high intuitive, or integral,
> > mind which enables the truth to be presetned in the right way. The The
> > integral mind, which differs from the modern intellectual midn, is the basis
> > for the knowledge of the ancient sages. It sees the whole picture at a deep
> > level, thus the discovery of the entire truth of the universe was possible.\
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the WAG