Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Nisargadatta , " Athanor " <athanor@c...> wrote: > > *********** i understood from what you have said that nothing has to be known. let's see, you were born, and you didn't know anything. I knew how to breathe. I knew how to move muscles, to take in sensations. > Little by little you started to see, understand, do a lots of things. you came to know how to speak, how to walk, how to play. Later, you went to school and you have learnt a lot there. Later you started to have big questions. I guess that after a certain age you started to not just believe what other people were saying, and start looking, searching the answers by yourself. Slowly you made your own universe, your own way of thinking and actioning. I would put it this way: I let go of what wasn't real. > Your own way of giving answers. All of those would not be possible without knowing. Well, from one angle you're right. And from another angle, it's all the unknown. > But, if your answer is now: there is nothing to be known, that means that you came to a certain understanding where you judge things upon this statement. Not exactly. If that were what was going on, then it would be knowing something. Applying a known statement that there is nothing to be known is to have a statement that means something and can be applied -- a known entity. But the nothing to know I'm discussing is to have no statement to apply, not to know oneself as one who would be applying a statement to get a result -- nor is it to consciously not apply a statement so as to get that kind of result. This unknown has never had any known entity there, to which knowledge could be applied, or by which knowledge could be taken in. > We started existing, i guess, when our parents made us and since that moment we are in a continuous search for knowing. What if the you that your parents made is just a dependent phenomenon that is so interconnected with other phenomena that it has no independence of its own whatsoever? In that case, there is just beginningless and endless phenomenality, with births and deaths just apparent changes in the flow of " this " ... What if there is no knowing entity that comes into being or goes out of being -- just a beginningless and endless flux in which knowing and being aren't separable? This is what I mean by " unknown with nothing to know " -- because there is no way to step outside of it, to get a handle on it, to know it in some kind of objective way which relates to a subjective knower ... > I have been the attempt to know something. > > Because I am trying to know, to feel, because > I claim something happened to me, I must exist. > > When I die to the attempt, the I that is claimed > by the attempt, also dies. > > *** yes, very true > > > With the release of the attempt, I dissolves, > there is nothing to know about anything, > nothing to know about enlightenment, > nothing to know about who is or isn't ... > > *** but as long as there is the question, the attempt, there is also wanting to know.. Yes. So in my opinion, if there is this wanting to know, this striving, the most direct knowing is of that very wanting and striving. So, if one looks into the nature of that wanting to know, one can learn something firsthand, from oneself, about what one is doing. If one is setting up an activity which is designed to get somewhere that it can't get, one can learn this first-hand, by observing one's own movement to attempt to know, to have knowledge, to get somewhere secure, to be by having, to control by knowing ... When the attempt to know something is understood to be futile, from inside-out, then the unknown turns out to be immediately present -- a present without a past, present, and future to it ... without a division into a knower and that knower's known and unknown aspects ... It is like a hand trying to have openness by grabbing at it and making a fist. As soon as the attempt to have it (know it) relaxes, there is no closed fist, just an open hand. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Hi Dan, What you wrote below is superb. What we need to clarify is exactly what we mean by knowing and unknowing in the ontological sense. Obviously, there is some wholesale awareness of what we call the unknown because we are referring to it. When we say it can't be known we are saying it can'dissected, analyzed, or possessed because it's indivisible and can't split itself into knower and known. It intuits itself as that unknown which knows its own shadow ( the relative) and it's in this interplay it gets a temporary sense of itself which depends on the mind. It's something similar as in a world without reflecting surfaces we'd know our own face only as that we can't see, but feel anyway. I hope this clarifies nothing, Pete --- " dan330033 <dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Athanor " > <athanor@c...> wrote: > > > Not exactly. > > If that were what was going on, then it would be > knowing something. > Applying a known statement that there is nothing to > be > known is to have a statement that means something > and can be applied -- a known entity. > > But the nothing to know I'm discussing > is to have no statement to apply, not > to know oneself as one who would be > applying a statement to get a result -- nor > is it to consciously not apply a statement > so as to get that kind of result. > > This unknown has never had any known entity there, > to > which knowledge could be applied, or by which > knowledge could be taken in. > >> What if the you that your parents made is just a > dependent > phenomenon that is so interconnected with other > phenomena > that it has no independence of its own whatsoever? > > In that case, there is just beginningless and > endless > phenomenality, with births and deaths just > apparent > changes in the flow of " this " ... > > What if there is no knowing entity that comes into > being or goes out of being -- just a beginningless > and endless flux in which knowing and being aren't > separable? > > This is what I mean by " unknown with nothing to > know " -- > because there is no > way to step outside of it, to get a handle on it, > to know it in some kind of objective way which > relates > to a subjective knower ... > > > > I have been the attempt to know something. > > > > Because I am trying to know, to feel, because > > I claim something happened to me, I must exist. > > > > When I die to the attempt, the I that is claimed > > by the attempt, also dies. > > > > *** yes, very true > > > > > > With the release of the attempt, I dissolves, > > there is nothing to know about anything, > > nothing to know about enlightenment, > > nothing to know about who is or isn't ... > > > > *** but as long as there is the question, the > attempt, there is > also wanting to know.. > > Yes. > > So in my opinion, if there is this wanting to know, > this striving, the most > direct knowing is of that very wanting and > striving. > > So, if one looks into the nature of that wanting to > know, > one can learn something firsthand, from oneself, > about > what one is doing. > > If one is setting up an activity which is designed > to > get somewhere that it can't get, one can learn > this > first-hand, by observing one's own movement to > attempt > to know, to have knowledge, to get somewhere > secure, > to be by having, to control by knowing ... > > When the attempt to know something is understood to > be futile, from inside-out, then the unknown > turns out to be immediately present -- a present > without a past, present, and future to it ... > without a division into a knower and that knower's > known > and unknown aspects ... > > It is like a hand trying to have openness by > grabbing > at it and making a fist. > > As soon as the attempt to have it (know it) relaxes, > there is > no closed fist, just an open hand. > > -- Dan > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > What you wrote below is superb. > What we need to clarify is exactly what we mean by > knowing and unknowing in the ontological sense. > Obviously, there is some wholesale awareness of what > we call the unknown because we are referring to it. > > When we say it can't be known we are saying it > can'dissected, analyzed, or possessed because it's > indivisible and can't split itself into knower > and known. > > It intuits itself as that unknown which knows its own > shadow ( the relative) and it's in this interplay it > gets a temporary sense of itself which depends on the > mind. > > It's something similar as in a world without > reflecting surfaces we'd know our own face only as > that we can't see, but feel anyway. > > I hope this clarifies nothing, > > Pete Thanks, Pete. Many are called, few are chosen, and fewer still clarify nothing! Yes, the myth of reflecting surfaces, which interface with tactile responses, dissolves. Dissolve the myth, and there's nothing coming at you, nor are you coming at anything ... Yes, all senses of oneself are temporary, as are all sensations. And that is all knowing is ... sensory movement ... The myth is that something real gets known, when in fact, there is only the sensory movement as is, fluid, in flux ... Sensing that is unsplit can be called intuition if you like ... And nothing is ever really split -- Only the attempt to exist as a self with continuity of experience and permanence of being makes it seem like a knower and known could ever have appeared ... Such a strong intent ... to appear as a self ... to gather sensations into a meaningful whole related to a particular being ... Yet that intent is itself just streaming sensations ... That intent also dissolves as impermanent ... Unknown peace, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Amen to that. Well, that's about it. The show really comes to life when the expectators leave. Deep it did, deepy did. That's all folks! Porky the unknown Nisargadatta , " dan330033 <dan330033> " <dan330033> wrote: > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > > > What you wrote below is superb. > > What we need to clarify is exactly what we mean by > > knowing and unknowing in the ontological sense. > > Obviously, there is some wholesale awareness of what > > we call the unknown because we are referring to it. > > > > When we say it can't be known we are saying it > > can'dissected, analyzed, or possessed because it's > > indivisible and can't split itself into knower > > and known. > > > > It intuits itself as that unknown which knows its own > > shadow ( the relative) and it's in this interplay it > > gets a temporary sense of itself which depends on the > > mind. > > > > It's something similar as in a world without > > reflecting surfaces we'd know our own face only as > > that we can't see, but feel anyway. > > > > I hope this clarifies nothing, > > > > Pete > > Thanks, Pete. > > Many are called, few are chosen, > and fewer still clarify nothing! > > Yes, the myth of reflecting surfaces, > which interface with tactile responses, > dissolves. > > Dissolve the myth, and there's nothing > coming at you, nor are you coming at anything ... > > Yes, all senses of oneself are temporary, as > are all sensations. > > And that is all knowing is ... sensory movement ... > > The myth is that something real gets known, > when in fact, there is only the sensory > movement as is, fluid, in flux ... > > Sensing that is unsplit can be called intuition > if you like ... > > And nothing is ever really split -- > > Only the attempt to exist as a self with > continuity of experience and permanence of > being makes it seem like a knower and > known could ever have appeared ... > > Such a strong intent ... to appear as a self ... > to gather sensations into a meaningful > whole related to a particular being ... > > Yet that intent is itself just streaming > sensations ... > > That intent also dissolves as impermanent ... > > Unknown peace, > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us <seesaw1us> " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Amen to that. Well, that's about it. The show really comes to life > when the expectators leave. Deep it did, deepy did. That's all folks! > > Porky the unknown Hmmmm.... Now, just what the hell is that thing? Hmmmm.... Deep amens, Inexpectator Clousseau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 27, 2003 Report Share Posted January 27, 2003 Nisargadatta , " seesaw1us <seesaw1us> " <seesaw1us> wrote: > Amen to that. Well, that's about it. The show really comes to life > when the expectators leave. Deep it did, deepy did. That's all folks! > > Porky the unknown Hear, hear, here. > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 <dan330033> " > <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , pete seesaw <seesaw1us> > > wrote: > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > What you wrote below is superb. > > > What we need to clarify is exactly what we mean by > > > knowing and unknowing in the ontological sense. > > > Obviously, there is some wholesale awareness of what > > > we call the unknown because we are referring to it. > > > > > > When we say it can't be known we are saying it > > > can'dissected, analyzed, or possessed because it's > > > indivisible and can't split itself into knower > > > and known. > > > > > > It intuits itself as that unknown which knows its own > > > shadow ( the relative) and it's in this interplay it > > > gets a temporary sense of itself which depends on the > > > mind. > > > > > > It's something similar as in a world without > > > reflecting surfaces we'd know our own face only as > > > that we can't see, but feel anyway. > > > > > > I hope this clarifies nothing, > > > > > > Pete > > > > Thanks, Pete. > > > > Many are called, few are chosen, > > and fewer still clarify nothing! > > > > Yes, the myth of reflecting surfaces, > > which interface with tactile responses, > > dissolves. > > > > Dissolve the myth, and there's nothing > > coming at you, nor are you coming at anything ... > > > > Yes, all senses of oneself are temporary, as > > are all sensations. > > > > And that is all knowing is ... sensory movement ... > > > > The myth is that something real gets known, > > when in fact, there is only the sensory > > movement as is, fluid, in flux ... > > > > Sensing that is unsplit can be called intuition > > if you like ... > > > > And nothing is ever really split -- > > > > Only the attempt to exist as a self with > > continuity of experience and permanence of > > being makes it seem like a knower and > > known could ever have appeared ... > > > > Such a strong intent ... to appear as a self ... > > to gather sensations into a meaningful > > whole related to a particular being ... > > > > Yet that intent is itself just streaming > > sensations ... > > > > That intent also dissolves as impermanent ... > > > > Unknown peace, > > Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.