too be as humble and open minded as you, mastriani…
Mas,
Well, I might if you could tell me the difference. Seems pretty much the same to me, maybe a little fuzzier after two or three, but the muddled stumbler doesn’t change much. 
[size=150]ESCHEW OBFUSCATION![/size]
Is there any way to make sense out of this? What role does the mind play in it? First an excerpt from one of Jacob Needleman’s interviews with Krishnamurti entitled “The Awakening of Intelligence.” What is intelligence without knowing? Perhaps, the following offers some suggestions:
Aha! a clue, Humility is intelligence. It brings a person to the ability to appreciate what it means to experience “I don’t know.”
Typical Simone .Offering the dagger for someone to stab their own ego. OK so it isn’t easy. Grrrrr.
But does this mean that thought is bad or that we shouldn’t think?. No it just means that its value lies in interpreting the known as in science. When it helps to degrade the known into imagination, then it becomes a hindrance. From this perspective there is no contradiction between religion and science since both seek the experience of reality.
From Jacob Needleman’s “Sense of the Cosmos.”
So how do we become open to the external world as suggested by the sage. How can we be present to the ordinary. It requires a balanced harmonious reception of their differing impressions. But if we live by literal thought and both our emotions and sense perception have been dulled and even worse, this thought is believed to be consciousness. So the consciousness that would require balancing and opening and expanding all three means of contact with the external world: Thinking, feeling, and sensory, that would, through the balanced perspective, allow a person to find their place in the universal scheme is denied through warped imagination.
So, as Simone suggests, a teaching should primarily be concerned with what it is to know rather than knowing. But to profit from such a teaching requires taking ourselves seriously. Most do not and only take their pride and vanity seriously. It is through imagination based primarily on aspects of pride and vanity that we define ourselves and what to take seriously. We’ve lost the “respect” for ourselves from the lack of awareness of it so do not know what to take seriously. We don’t have the genius to admit “I don’t know.” Yet is through taking our selves seriously that I believe the message underneath what all three are saying becomes clear and “knowing” actually begins to mean something important.
Nick,
As long as the “I really don’t know” realization is in place, then we may construct any ‘knowing’ we wish. But it always remains a construct within the “I really don’t know”. Any connection between our constructs and reality are serendipitous. It is a difficult thing to accept, and most refuse to let ego go.
I’ve said I have no where to go, nothing to do, nothing to seek out. That statement was met with a chorus of howls, either because it was misunderstood, or worse yet, because it was understood. We never escape the cave until we see it as a cave, and then we can make the shadows whatever we wish. A simple, almost elegant realization. But it is a difficult almost impossible thing for an ego accustomed to control to release. This is why I adhere to the watercourse way and why Tao Te Ching in all its terseness is my guide. It constantly brings me back to “I really don’t know”. As many poor practicioners, I stray from the path - and often.
Tent
But is this the way it must be for a person seeking more? Socrates reached the point to admitting he new nothing concerning the higher truths or wisdom he sought. Is this the end. Should he just give up? His "friends"solved that problem for him.
If coming to believe that we are only capable of illusory constructs is the end, then I can see the good sense of being without an aim.
But suppose, as I believe, that a person has a purpose he is oblivious of through sleep. This means that it if a person is attracted to this potential, he may be able to awaken to it. Then a person’s aim must be to develop his being to allow for awakening, something impossible for us as we are. The “knowing” associated with knowledge of being is great knowledge in comparison to societal knowledge and a person’s obligation to pursue. Knowledge of being is the dharma:
The fact that the corrupt ego is attracted to it and interprets it for its own purposes does not deny a persons possible eventual sacrifice of this corruption willingly for the sake of developing their being to receive experiential meaning and higher understanding.
I can see that if you believe meaning to be limited to illusory constructs that it would be better just to float down stream. Christianity suggests something profound: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” It attracts me. These two levels have become disconnected and need to be reconnected How can I come to serve in this need both in my being and in the external world? I must consciously change to be able to receive and give rather than be content to float down stream.
I may be wrong but admire many of the people who have felt the same. All things considered, it makes it worth the effort but again, I only speak for myself and without judgment.
.
Which light are you talking about ? How does light=life ?
.
.
Now they,re arguing …
.
Nick,
It isn’t being without aim or purpose. It is that the aim and/or purpose is internal, not driven by external anything. It is a subtle difference, but perhaps the only important difference. It is seeing, understanding, and acting on the difference of sleep state and being awake and aware.
Lets try this: -The life cycle of a human-
You don’t don’t know anything.
You know everything.
It dawns on you you don’t know anything and never will.
Now you can know, construct, and act.
We never leave the cave, but we can choose and create our shadows. In a sense, the cave disappears because we no longer need it. Once seen, the cave loses its power.
Tent
We were all babies
We were all teenagers and some never progressed beyond that stage and became “experts.”
Why “never will?” It makes the whole teaching of the dharma useless and the striving towards consciousness. It makes Meister Eckhart’s description of free will meaningless?
This IMO is real “knowing.”
That was the Devil’s argument to Jesus:
Yes, create your own reality. Is it better to serve in heaven or rule in hell? It is a personal question for those that feel the attraction of both directions.
Nick,
I understand your Christian allegories and the compartmentalization of heaven and hell, but it is strictly a concretization of terms.
Meister Eckharts words ring true for me, but not filtered through christian dogma. “God does not constrain the will…” Of course not. There are no ‘out there’ constraints. “…man may not will other than what God wills,…” We are what we are, and whatever choices we make are that within creation.
It comes down to faith in what is before me, within me. To make conscious, deliberate beneficial choices and take responsibility for them. This isn’t ‘secular’, but an expression of spiritual understanding. It is having faith beyond knowing.
Nothing I have said is creating my own reality, but in seeing that reality is within, not without. I understand that it is necessary to ‘create’ a construct to make ‘sense of’, but that is a task that befalls all of us - including the most devout christian. Do you understand how much faith it takes to say I don’t know, and continue on?
Let go of all the constructs. Cease to know. When that truly happens, one may then construct and know.
of course, knowledge is a valuable thing, even to those who are afraid to say so.
For at least one that certainly understands:
“If I really believed that the mass of fools would listen to me, I would myself be a complete fool. Therefore, I leave them alone, without attempting to enlighten them. The truth is none of them are interested anyways.”
Quanzi
“Being a good listener spares one the burden of giving advice.”
Laozi
mastriani, read uccisore’s GK chesterton thread. His words sum up nicely, your actions and words.
You know you have knowledge, but in a refutation to not be smug about knowing, you act smug in not sharing that knowledge. The masses wouldn’t care about what words of wisdom you spilleth from your mouth.
The problem is, and was with the quotes you posted above, is that knowing something is only half the battle. Mis-application or no application of what one learns makes any knowledge gained futile. Quanzi, and Laozi are no sooner going to listen to a christian mystic or not and change their position and vice versa. If Eckart heard the teachings of Quanzi, do you think he would suddenly just change his mind about christ being god? If Quanzi heard the wisdom of Eckart, and how it flowed from christ, do you think Quanzi would change where he stands?
Teaching others isn’t futile because people are fools and won’t listen, it’s futile because it runs aground with our current knowledge.
Tent
But this is Secularism or our regular societal life. We have faith in what we do and either benefit or suffer the consequences. The very fact that one may have faith in something beyond knowing can be anything between true intuition and escapism. This is how wars are produced. Each side has faith in that they have made conscious, deliberate, and beneficial choices and societies declare war. These are secular decisions even though some may want to blame their respective Gods but that is just an excuse. Wars are about societal prestige.
Since I believe that we are the wretched man, it is foolish to have faith in conscious choice where consciousness is normally absent.
Perhaps I misunderstood but I took this to mean as creating your own reality since one variation or another isour normal reality.
How do you get to know this reality within and separate it from imagination? How do you get to “Know Thyself?”
I agree it takes faith but, not a faith IN something but the inner alignment of our contacts with the external world: namely our thoughts, feeling, and sensations that can remain aligned.through faith.
Would you be adverse to using the word “impartiality” for I don’t know?" Impartiality is only possible when one doesn’t place a value on knowing that needs an emotional investment to defend. This is really the basis of Karma Yoga taught in the Gita. I like the way Dr. Nicoll describes the value of impartiality:
Dr. Nicoll is describing the karmic value of being impartial to life. We may say “I don’t know” but if we really look inside it is obvious how much we open and close ourselves to is based upon “knowing.” These beliefs become habitual preconceptions. When Karma Yoga is the science of action .With non-identifying, we are conscious to life’s impressions without blocking and judging what to be open to. This conscious experience clears karma since the illusion loses its hold. However if we take the second approach, “the science of action without identifying,” we close off to whatever disturbs us and this closing destroys impartiality furthering escapism or turning off to life’s impressions and just going through the motions.
When someone says “I don’t know” as an expression of sincere willingness to be impartial, then it is of great value since it doesn’t deny seeking understanding but only the identification with superficial opinions. But, if someone says “I don’t know” as justifying escaping from the human calling towards higher understanding or wisdom, then IMO it is extremely harmful for the inner man.
“I don’t know” I’ve read as the science of idiotism. A person comes to the point that they see they don’t know and are an idiot. They they try and explain this to friends who think them an idiot for thinking such a thing. So the person sees he is an idiot and his friends know he is an idiot for thinking it which makes him a complete idiot and the perfect place to be psychologically to acquire real objective understanding based on impartially becoming open to the experience of life…
Nick,
If you like impartiality better than I don’t know, that’s fine by me. Too many see “I don’t know” as some form of simplistic escapism, but that is their problem, not mine. I know many things, but always within “I don’t know”. It may be unfortunate, but I am human. I see that which is boundless, but not being pure spirit, I must accept the limits and boundaries of humaness. There is the te of heaven, and the te of humanity, but the father and mother are not Way, but of Way. To see the oneness is the awakening. Any construct, including this one, may or may not be useful. There are many illusions within illusions, and it is in constant awareness of “I don’t know”, or in “impartiality” that one holds fast to the middle.
I have talked about being as opposed to being as. It would perhaps be better to say the difference between seeing and seeing as. I still have no way to accept the notions of higher or lower states of consciousness. As difficult as the realization is to find, it is simply seeing from a different perspective, neither higher nor lower. The problem of higher or lower, here and there, is that they become abstract categories that obscure the interconnectedness of all. It becomes a reification that simply returns one to the cave.
Here is an all ecompassing statement. Since this is a philosphy board it should be appreciated.
One cannot learn and know if they are busy wondering about what they cannot know.
Any thoughts?
You will NEVER know what you cannot know! That works just like a double edged sword! So how about we stop telling people that they cannot know. Because you MUST know in order to KNOW that the other person does not know!
And if you know it not, how can you know if another person cannot know?
Methinks there are far to many know-it-alls around telling people what they cannot know. And that is a knowing statement.
Again Astral, you miss the point - by a wide margin. You construct a straw man and hack and slash away at yourself. I do wish to apologize for my comments directed at your words. I should have simply ignored them. Have a nice day.
To me, it is pretty simple, and it goes back a few posts on this thread sharing the view with Krishnamurti,
To “know” is to experience the present (hopefully without thought, and without wondering and weighing whether we are experiencing or not)
To speculate too much about “know” may be because we are scared to really “live” and let go and just experience.
I think many of us understand what makes each one of us happy and feel content, but we are scared to act it out because of expectations others or ourselves has put on ourselves, or because we have started to feel the prison we are in is actually cozy, and the outside unpredicatable,wonderful world and universe has become frightening.
I accept the idea of no-one can know all things and write a map for others. And maps are usually not 3-D, you have to add that third dimention (perspective and attitude) Sounds cheesy maybe, but that is what I feel is right.
It is summer, go swimming (hike or whatever) and post less, that is the way.
think less, and don’t fear it
Actually your missing the point. Your post reflects you, not me. I cant help that you think logical thought is bad.