Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 On Jul 27, 2006, at 3:27 PM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > One can experience the unknown as the unknown. > > > > > > > > toombaru > > D: Yes -- and one's experience now is unknown - and one is this > unknown, > knowing. P: The unknown that sees itself as the unknown knowing, is not the real unknown. > > We generally think of knowing as a memory-based process. > > But memory is only an aspect of knowing, and memory doesn't have any > privileged position (i.e., memory doesn't encapsulate actual events > and things that exist outside of memory). > > There is just this undivided knowing, which is therefore unsegmented > in terms of time (past, present, future) and position (knower and > known, experiencer and experience) P: It was memory who wrote all that above, you are memory fooling itself with the notion of being the unknown. No one speaks from beyond the door, as Gene said: You might have gone beyond the door, but when you speak, you speak from the antechamber. In other words, only memory speaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 28, 2006 Report Share Posted July 28, 2006 P: The unknown that sees itself as the unknown knowing, is not the real unknown. >>> You are saying the unknown cannot be known? How do you know that? What is the " real unknown " that you speak of? [*] Is it intrinsically hard to talk about the " unknown " or the " real unknown " because no one knows what it means? Bill [*] please answer at least this question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 On Jul 28, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > P: The unknown that sees itself as the unknown knowing, is not > the real unknown. > >>> > B: You are saying the unknown cannot be known? P: Obviously, the moment any unknown is known it becomes the known. > > B: How do you know that? P: We can know that we don't know. As when you heard a sound outside your door, but don't know what kind of noise it was. Yet, you know it as an unknown sound. Knowing means to understand as to meaning, nature, substance, qualities, uses, etc. > > B: What is the " real unknown " that you speak of? [*] P: I didn't speak of it. > > Is it intrinsically hard to talk about the " unknown " > or the " real unknown " because no one knows what it means? > > Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 29, 2006 Report Share Posted July 29, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > On Jul 28, 2006, at 10:48 AM, Nisargadatta wrote: > > > P: The unknown that sees itself as the unknown knowing, is not > > the real unknown. > > >>> > > B: You are saying the unknown cannot be known? > > P: Obviously, the moment any unknown is known it becomes > the known. > > > > B: How do you know that? > > P: We can know that we don't know. As when you heard > a sound outside your door, but don't know what kind of noise > it was. Yet, you know it as an unknown sound. Knowing means > to understand as to meaning, nature, substance, qualities, uses, > etc. > > > > B: What is the " real unknown " that you speak of? [*] > > P: I didn't speak of it. But you wrote: > > P: The unknown that sees itself as the unknown knowing, is not > > the real unknown. Therefore you spoke of it. Bill 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.