|
Post by japhy on Feb 20, 2015 4:57:58 GMT -5
The mind is a useful tool, it's just that it has limits with respect to self-inquiry. The mind has its limits in general. You wouldn't run a marathon with your mind would you? It really gets funny, when people believe they can understand THIS with mind. It's like trying to put the big Matryoshka into the small one. Not that I never try... :-D Nothing wrong about mind, but one has to keep the proportions in mind :-D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 5:02:00 GMT -5
My intention is not inflict the fact that Iron can't be broken, my intention is, why can't I believe something which I am directly seeing? Why can't believe sun will raise tomorrow? Why can't I believe gravity works for the next movement when I jump? Why can't believe someone must have written a book when book is there in front of me? No belief required, it actually happens.. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 5:13:32 GMT -5
I'm not saying I don't expect it, just saying you can't really know. One day, the sun will not rise. How do you know it won't be tomorrow? More or less all your conclusion leads to the conclusion of "we can't know anything" I would say that all experiencing is 'knowing', but this knowing is groundless i.e. there is an unknown within every knowing. We don't know for certain if the sun is actually there, or whether it will arise tomorrow. I cannot find one knowing that comes without the unknown within it..... the known and unknown go hand in hand. I would say it is the primary apparent duality. As Byron Katie said (paraphrased) 'at most, we are only ever guessing'.
|
|
|
Post by japhy on Feb 20, 2015 5:18:05 GMT -5
ps: in my opinion japhy might be getting a little frustrated trying to get his point across but from my experience of dialoging with you each, you both have a great knack for ultimately not taking stuff personally. I hope, we will still get along :-). Usually I had the position: people don't listen, they will find out for themselves or they won't. But it seems a bit egoistic now, so I started to try to bring my point across :-D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 5:51:29 GMT -5
More or less all your conclusion leads to the conclusion of "we can't know anything" I would say that all experiencing is 'knowing', but this knowing is groundless i.e. there is an unknown within every knowing. We don't know for certain if the sun is actually there, or whether it will arise tomorrow. I cannot find one knowing that comes without the unknown within it..... the known and unknown go hand in hand. I would say it is the primary apparent duality. As Byron Katie said (paraphrased) 'at most, we are only ever guessing'. No, not everything, There are certain thing we can know for sure, For an instance, free will is illusion,happy/unhappy is the roller coaster all the time. But there are certain things you can't know, for an example, whether outer world exist in itself or not, whether other individuals are real or not.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 5:58:48 GMT -5
I would say that all experiencing is 'knowing', but this knowing is groundless i.e. there is an unknown within every knowing. We don't know for certain if the sun is actually there, or whether it will arise tomorrow. I cannot find one knowing that comes without the unknown within it..... the known and unknown go hand in hand. I would say it is the primary apparent duality. As Byron Katie said (paraphrased) 'at most, we are only ever guessing'. No, not everything, There are certain thing we can know for sure, For an instance, free will is illusion,happy/unhappy is the roller coaster all the time. But there are certain things you can't know, for an example, whether outer world exist in itself or not, whether other individuals are real or not. I would say that we can certainly experience knowing something for sure, we can even experience conviction and absolute sureness about things, and that's fine and has it's place in our experience. Yet within every knowing remains the unknown factor. Every knowing has a bottomless emptiness beneath it, a void. It's partly why sometimes a zen dude might say that 'the truth' lies beyond free will being true or not true.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 20, 2015 6:52:15 GMT -5
I'd say it's the knowing we know without knowing anything.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 20, 2015 7:27:09 GMT -5
I'd say it's the knowing we know without knowing anything. What is?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:29:37 GMT -5
No belief required, it actually happens.. Exactly. The belief hitches a ride on the word "actually". ... and "happening" doesn't have to, but can mask an assumption about time.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 12:31:17 GMT -5
The mind is a useful tool, it's just that it has limits with respect to self-inquiry. The mind has its limits in general. You wouldn't run a marathon with your mind would you? It really gets funny, when people believe they can understand THIS with mind. It's like trying to put the big Matryoshka into the small one. Not that I never try... :-D Nothing wrong about mind, but one has to keep the proportions in mind :-D It's funny to watch peeps react negatively to the bald fact that no matter how one defines mind it embodies a limitation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2015 20:18:14 GMT -5
Actuality isn't contradictory. Actuality contradicts illusion. You need to explain me more, I don't understand. What's actually happening and what appears to be happening often contradict.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 20, 2015 20:38:50 GMT -5
ps: in my opinion japhy might be getting a little frustrated trying to get his point across but from my experience of dialoging with you each, you both have a great knack for ultimately not taking stuff personally. I hope, we will still get along :-). Usually I had the position: people don't listen, they will find out for themselves or they won't. But it seems a bit egoistic now, so I started to try to bring my point across :-D. In a sense, we're all some version of Cassandra, to one extent or another.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2015 22:11:31 GMT -5
Okay. So outer world is stable or not also can't be known,right? So there might be a chance that outer world is stable,So book must have been written by someone? Because Since you state that that can't be known, it give the possibility of outer world focus stability. Isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 20, 2015 22:26:36 GMT -5
The mind has its limits in general. You wouldn't run a marathon with your mind would you? It really gets funny, when people believe they can understand THIS with mind. It's like trying to put the big Matryoshka into the small one. Not that I never try... :-D Nothing wrong about mind, but one has to keep the proportions in mind :-D It's funny to watch peeps react negatively to the bald fact that no matter how one defines mind it embodies a limitation. Maybe it's fair to define mind as a process of forming limits, drawing boundaries around nothing to make something, imagining something where there was nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2015 23:25:42 GMT -5
So outer world is stable or not also can't be known,right? So there might be a chance that outer world is stable,So book must have been written by someone? Because Since you state that that can't be known, it give the possibility of outer world focus stability. Isn't it? What are you saying? Yes or no? The person nodding his head says 'yes yes yes', Is that what you are saying?
|
|