Question about reading-The Book of Not Knowing

[jd3o3]

I'm reading The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. It's on the book list here on actualized.org. I'm confused by something said in the book. On page 48 it's said that "not-knowing"/consciousness may appear to some as emptiness, ignorance or as a sense of disconnectedness from the source and absolute nature of life and being. This confuses me because I understand not-knowing aka consciousness without form as the source of all life. So why would it appear as a sense of disconnectedness from the source of being? In the paragraph previous to this one it states that not-knowing is the source of knowing. This seems to contradict the statement I'm questioning. Is anyone familiar with this book and can you help to bring clarity to my confusion? Thank you.

[danniviemaria]

That is what he wants to use that term ‘disconnectedness’ since he have written  this for the common sense but that common sense need to work to figure it out.

To me, you have been spoiled a lot and it has confused you. You need to contemplate more and awaken to the truth.

Everything is disconnected. You think something is categorized or ‘disconnected from the source of being’ because of the limited knowledge or the truth that you have had but it’s identifying and limiting that disconnectedness in your limited experience of life. And without the limitedness of the limited experience of a human could have that is the Connectedness.

And everything is Connected since everything has experienced in the Same Experience. Disconnectedness is your imagination and see the disconnectedness that you confused that is even connected to the Experience/Truth. 

Hey, you need to read carefully and slowly to get to the point of his abstract of consciousness.

[Nak Khid]

6 hours ago, jd3o3 said:

I'm reading The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. It's on the book list here on actualized.org. I'm confused by something said in the book. On page 48 it's said that "not-knowing"/consciousness may appear to some as emptiness, ignorance or as a sense of disconnectedness from the source and absolute nature of life and being. This confuses me because I understand not-knowing aka consciousness without form as the source of all life. So why would it appear as a sense of disconnectedness from the source of being? In the paragraph previous to this one it states that not-knowing is the source of knowing. This seems to contradict the statement I'm questioning. Is anyone familiar with this book and can you help to bring clarity to my confusion? Thank you.

He is saying people wrongly view not knowing as  ignorance or as a sense of disconnectedness

 

 

[danniviemaria]

I love to hear more about your POV. @Nak Khid

What is the point of your statement?

Is that something to the common sense and people could quickly judge by their limited experience?

To me, Peter Ralston said that as a key to explore and open to the new experience because you don’t know what else is in there waiting for you. How do you think of that?

And I wonder that how could it (not-knowing) be a bad effect to this work? Hehe, I love to hear about your experience.

 

 

[loub]

14 hours ago, jd3o3 said:

This confuses me because I understand not-knowing aka consciousness without form as the source of all life.

You need to not-know a little harder.

What do you understand about consciousness without form apart from hearsay? What do you know not-knowing to be? Why do you assume that those are the same?

Not knowing is a state. Consciousness is not. Not-knowing is as close to your true nature as you can get short of directly experiencing it.

In profound not-knowing the grip that concepts have over your basic experience is lightened and you experience common things anew and in a fresh way. That can make you feel like you are cut off from source, or being. And that is because you are. You  are cut off from being and your true nature and once in a state of not-knowing you become aware of how that is always the case, even though you don't directly experience your true nature.

Now, of course you are not really cut off, distant from or in any way different than your true nature or being. You are it, yet right now you are cut off from it. That does't make sense to the mind, but hey: who ever said the mind could grasp this?

[jd3o3]

Thanks @loub. Your explanation resonates with me. You’re right. I need to not-know harder. I will work on that. 

[VeganAwake]

On 7/16/2020 at 3:15 PM, jd3o3 said:

I'm reading The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston. It's on the book list here on actualized.org. I'm confused by something said in the book. On page 48 it's said that "not-knowing"/consciousness may appear to some as emptiness, ignorance or as a sense of disconnectedness from the source and absolute nature of life and being. This confuses me because I understand not-knowing aka consciousness without form as the source of all life. So why would it appear as a sense of disconnectedness from the source of being? In the paragraph previous to this one it states that not-knowing is the source of knowing. This seems to contradict the statement I'm questioning. Is anyone familiar with this book and can you help to bring clarity to my confusion? Thank you.

He is essentially talking about letting go or dropping all the concepts and beliefs we hold about things. See when we believe we already know what something is it can block the truth of what it truly is from being recognized.

It's kind of like hitting a reset button on what we believe to be true, and recognizing how often our minds project, label, misinterpret and try to put everything in a box and check it off is understood, when actually in truth we really don't know.

Our minds try to take a short cut in processing information by assuming it knows what things are by labeling or giving it a name so it can quickly move on to the next piece of data to process.