The paradox of knowledge

The search will end when the seeker stops.
The seeker is the unhappy one.
What is sought is nowhere (now+here).
It is not about meaning it is all about the feeling and feeling happens here.
Life is sensation appearing as form.

Originally posted by Erowynn
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy

 

Hmm, where have I heard this before?...

I love French language not for the romantic side but for the logical side:
Le plagiat consiste à s'inspirer d'un modèle que l'on omet délibérément ou par négligence de désigner. Le plagiaire est celui qui s'approprie frauduleusement le style, les idées, ou les faits.

Fantastic language...don't you think?

The OP is very interesting to me, and I admit that Im responding to it alone, so apologies for redundancy.

When I say the word “love”, the phonic tones of my voice travel from my mouth to your ears and you begin to search through your memories in order to give this sensation meaning.

So in this sentence weve established that such a thing as sound waves exist in reality, and travel through 3d space, from your mouth to my ears.

So here we have a clear delineation between objective reality (the waves themselves, and the medium through which they travel) and subjective experience. (our personal interpretations of said waves.) So far, no paradoxes or contradictions.

Depending on your previous experiences associated with this word, maybe happy memories arise or maybe sad memories arise. Either way, you associate what I have said with what it is your memories have reminded you of.

Right, just as when I look at the color 'red' my neurons fire in a pattern and alignment specific to myself, and this experience is largely determined by my previous emotional instances that involve 'redness'. Perhaps there is a biological preset that influences my personal, subjective experience of 'redness', but fundamentally my own reaction to red is unknowable to others and is mine alone to feel.

But this does not change the fact that I am viewing the color 'red', as a spectrograph will prove. (or whatever device it is that translates light wavelengths into a graph.) Thus objectively the color 'red' exists, independent of our emotional experience upon viewing it, which is indeed subjective.

So then have you actually listened to me or have you merely evoked memories associated with this structure of sound? Please think about this deeply, it is truly important to clarify these things.

It is indeed important to clarify everything! And I submit the answer is 'both'. I have objectively received your soundwaves, which exist in the interm between you uttering them and me hearing them, in an objective and verifiable way. (recording devices, other people hearing them, ect prove this.) Once I have received your transmission, though, my subjective emotional apparatus goes about its task of interpreting your communication in a way that makes sense to me. At this point your communication to me is subject to all of my previous inputs that were similar to it. This process is largely subjective and relies heavily on my brains previous experiences with similar inputs.

All of our use of language seems to work in this way. In fact, it seems all of our five senses work in this way. When we see something; for instance our spouse or child or friend, do we actually see them or do we merely evoke memories associated with these sights? What about with the sensation of smelling? Do we actually smell the flower or do we merely evoke memories associated with this smell?

Again, I would stress the answer is 'both'. When we see a person, that person certainly exists objectively and independent of our emotional experience of them. (if we saw them, and they did not exist, that would be the very definition of insanity) When we smell a flower, our sense of smell detects the molecules expended by the flower, which exist objectively and independent of our senses, but our brain takes that sense data and applies its own translation of that stimulus in a way that makes emotional sense to us, which is our subjective experience of that which is ultimately objective.

I ask these questions because I wonder if our desire to give meaning to all that we experience inhibits us from actually seeing, smelling, hearing, or feeling the nature of reality as it truly is.

Since we as beings fundamentally experience objective reality through our own personalized and individualized filter, we simply cannot, (and perhaps should not) experience a 'god like' 360 degree all knowing perspective of the world, as to do so would be to perfectly detach our personalities and preferences from our experiences. No such perfect perspective exists, and thus to reject our own emotional reactions to the reality around us would be to reject our very selves.

This is not to say we should submit our perceptions of reality to blind emotionality. Ideally, I think, our emotional experience of objective reality should be in tune as possible with what actually exists. But thats another thread...

I wonder if this desire to attach meaning to all of our experiences is locking us into a rigid and limited systematic pattern of how we perceive these phenomena

Our desire, or more strongly our biological *need* to attach meaning to our experiences need not be oppressive; instead our positive feelings towards nutritious food and good, virtuous people can indeed be totally liberating.

Without these attachments, we might wander through reality with no sense of goodness or direction. I see my rational attachments to the goodness in reality to be a total necessity that I could not live without.

. If so, then the very thing that most of us associate as empowering and liberating, being conceptual knowledge, is in fact a form of bondage.

This indeed is the case when we form concepts that are not founded in objective reality. Irrational concepts, by their very nature, are designed to enslave us to the irrational demands of would be masters. To have a positive subjective experience towards a concept that does no exist in reality (the state, god) is certainly a form of ruthless subjugation. This is not the case when we form positive emotional and logical responses to that which actually exists. it is not a negative to feel happy in the presence of virtuous people. There is no bondage in the fear of starvation, as this is very real. Bondage lies in the belief in absolutes which do no exist. (to fear the wrath of a god who does not exist in reality.)

Is this then not a tremendously disturbing paradox? It is like a man trying to dig himself out of a grave by digging downwards, all while continuously tossing the dirt back onto his head; he is then in fact only burying himself deeper in the grave.

Our subjective, individual experience is based upon objective, physical reality, and thus I see no paradox. I hope my badly worded rant has lent some clarity to your really admirable quest to resolve your seeming contradiction.

Of course I may not know what the heck Im talking about, so feel free to correct me~

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Thanks for the reply, it is very in depth and insightful.

But what I am asking is, "does our tendency to associate our previous experiences with similar sound patterns cloud our ability to actually hear the reality of THIS sound as it is?" In other words, "when we train our brains to attach meaning to certain sensations (i.e. words, conceptual knowledge, colors, smells...) do we overlook the totality of THIS sensation by training our brains to immediately associate it to another sensation that is similar, but not actually the same?"

And further, I am asking, "is it possible to experience a sensation that we might normally associate with another sensation, which is similar to but not objectively the same as THIS sensation; without attaching the same meaning to it?" Or even further, "is it possible to experience a sensation without attaching any meaning to it at all?"

If it is possible, which I claim it is, then I am saying that this is the very essence of liberation, of experiencing reality as it truly is, for, we are not attaching any judgment to our sensations (good or bad, right or wrong, 'red' or 'blue', suffering or not suffering) so there is no possibility for suffering to exist within the mind because all that is left is only pure awareness.

Obviously this ability of the human mind to be able to perceive and then attach meaning to experiences is essential for our survival, so I am not saying it is altogether a 'bad' thing. But what I am saying, is that even though it may seem like this is what will grant us liberation, at the same time this tendency is what confines our perception of reality to a very narrow perspective and thus it is the very thing that leads our minds into bondage and thus suffering. And so, my point is that if we are unable to access this 'door' of pure awareness at any giving moment, if we are unable to not attach meaning to sensations or associate one sensation with another which we have given meaning to, then we are unable to experience reality in its totality, as it truly is, we are unable to move beyond our mental tendency to give things meaning, and thus we are unable to transcend suffering and experience true liberation.

Let me know if this made sense to you, if not, I will try to clarify it more.

Peace.

I will definitely have to chew on that and get back to you later.

...buuut my initial thoughts are that you wish to separate the deliciousness of a nutritious meal from the actual eating itself. Im not sure that this is possible, or even desirable.

Will ponder and hopefully come up with something more substantial.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


If you look at your meal and say 'oh, i don't like caggage' before eating it, this is preconcieved memory making the judgement. If this judgement, prior to eating the cabbage was not made, maybe the cabbage would be eaten.
No taste or enjoyment would be lost. In fact with no thoughts the meal tastes better.
It is thinking that taints everything.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

If you look at your meal and say 'oh, i don't like caggage' before eating it, this is preconcieved memory making the judgement. If this judgement, prior to eating the cabbage was not made, maybe the cabbage would be eaten.
No taste or enjoyment would be lost. In fact with no thoughts the meal tastes better.
It is thinking that taints everything.

What if I am biologically predisposed to finding a juicy stake to be delicious? What if my experiences of eating steak simply reinforce my genetic imperative that demands i consume high protein and fatty foods, as a product of my evolution from a tribal animal?

What if my love for a beautiful woman is ingrained in my genetic makeup, which developed over millions of years? Is it wrong for my experiences to reinforce that innate desire to mate with a physically attractive (and thus fertile)woman?

Im not sure I would want to separate my experience of attraction from the act of sex itself. That wouldnt be quite human to me.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


But that's my whole point. If you have never experienced life beyond your egoic desire to grasp for ever-changing sensations that you seek to give permanent definitions and meaning to, such as "deliciousness", which results in a form of limitation of perception and thus bondage; if you have never experienced the totality of experience that emptiness offers, which is void of limitation and thus bondage, then you have never experienced the endless beauty that life has to offer.

In other words, you are a conscious being who is aware of his/her surrounding environment, if you seek to categorize and give meaning to what this awareness experiences (by categorizing it as a like or dislike, red or blue, delicious or gross), you are effectively limiting your awareness of this experience, through categorical division, into a very superficial and shallow level of perception. But if you can reside in this state of awareness without polluting it with any limitations of grasping onto categorical definitions or conventional knowledge, then you can effectively perceive the totality of an experience as it truly is, and do so with limitless depth. This, however, undoubtedly can be done only with a mind that has been emptied of all thoughts and cravings.

Peace.

Very interesting post. But one must also differentiate between speaking language in everyday terms and thinking about what language means. The context of what is spoken, or in broader terms sensed, is just as important as the meanings one attaches to various sensory stimuli. If I were just to say "Bob and Nancy are in love" I think 99% of people will know exactly what I'm implying. However if you were to ask "What does love mean to you?" you'll probably get different answers from 99% of the respondants.

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

But what I am asking is, "does our tendency to associate our previous experiences with similar sound patterns cloud our ability to actually hear the reality of THIS sound as it is?" In other words, "when we train our brains to attach meaning to certain sensations (i.e. words, conceptual knowledge, colors, smells...) do we overlook the totality of THIS sensation by training our brains to immediately associate it to another sensation that is similar, but not actually the same?"

Do you mean mean our own personal concept of what the word love means, or merely the experience of hearing the sound of someone saying the word love?

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

And further, I am asking, "is it possible to experience a sensation that we might normally associate with another sensation, which is similar to but not objectively the same as THIS sensation; without attaching the same meaning to it?" Or even further, "is it possible to experience a sensation without attaching any meaning to it at all?"

If I were to smell a dozen red roses, 11 of them having the same rich rosey smell, but someone slipped in a scentless red rose into the bunch, or a rose which smelt like a magnolia, I have every confidance I would easily be able to pick out the odd one. Nor do I think I would attach the same meaning to it.

For better or worse I would attach some sort of meaning to it though. Many would probably feel ripped off that they got a dud flower, or surprise at the different scented flower. Those operating at a higher level may appreciate the flower simply for what it is, but this itself will give that flower meaning.

But no I do not think it is possible to not attach some sort of meaning to everything we experience (at least not in normal waking consciousness) as meaning is necessary for the brain to process this stimuli and place it within its own compartment in the memory.

Now does this attached meaning to symbols and stimuli inhibit us from seeing reality as it truly is? I guess it depends on what your definition of reality. Our senses themselves are merely tools which enable us to function in the material world. And like all tools, they have limitations. Therefore attaching meaning to stimuli as filtered through our limited senses does not, I believe, hold us back anymore than the limitations of the senses themselves. Both are not a true reflection of how reality truly is. It is more our tendancy to believe only what these senses tell us about the world which I feel holds us back more than anything.

On a different tangent, this thread with its talk of love, knowledge and sensations with talk of children has reminded me of one of my favourite Bible versus which I thought may be appropriate to share (specifically versus 8-12), even though it has little relevance to what is actually being discussed. Disclaimer: I am not a Christian.


1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

reply to post by Neo_Serf


Hey, here is an exercise that you can try which might help you understand what it is I am saying, or at least trying to say. Again, if you are unable to clear your mind of thoughts then this may be a little difficult, but try it anyways.

Go outside, look at a tree, and focus intensely upon it only. Any tree will do.

Notice the different colors of the tree. Are there greens, browns, yellows, etc.?

Notice the shape of the tree. Is it round, oval, triangular, square, etc.?

Notice the size of the tree. Is it fat, skinny, short, tall, etc.?

Contemplate on these categorical definitions for a moment while continuing to focus on the tree.

Now soften your gaze, keep your eyes aimed at the tree but without any intention of focusing in on it.

Try not to allow your peripheral vision to grasp onto anything in the surrounding environment.

Try not to grasp onto any particular thoughts that may arise.

Continue to do this for a few moments.

Now why have I asked you to try this? Well, in some ways it explains what I described in the above post. You looking at the tree is your awareness experiencing a sensation. You focusing intensely upon the tree and noticing the color, shape and size of the tree is your tendency to categorical define this sensation. Now, what has happened? Your awareness of this sensation has been reduced and limited to the narrow confines of only one small portion of this tree at a time. Looking straight ahead, our eyes have the ability to see a horizontal range of nearly 180 degrees, and nearly 100 degrees vertically, yet you are only aware of a very small portion of this tree at any given moment, which at most, depending on its size and how close it is to you, has a range of a few degrees. This describes what I meant by “limiting your awareness to a superficial and shallow level of perception”.

Then you softened your gaze upon the tree, trying not to grasp onto any thoughts or particular images in your peripheral vision. If you succeeded in doing so, you should have had a glimpse into what it is like to have pure visual awareness without any “pollution” of grasping onto categorical definitions. Your mind should have become nearly still in silence and you should have been able to become aware of the totality of the experience (the tree), at once; in a single movement without any division.

If you still do not understand what I am saying, or trying to say, don’t feel bad because it is fairly difficult to explain and can take some time and practice to get used to even when you conceptually understand it. Just as learning how to divide your awareness into categorical definitions takes time and practice, so does learning how not to limit your awareness into categorical divisions.

Peace.

reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


But by limiting your awareness of the rest of the tree, are you not increasing your awareness of the particular part of the tree that you are focusing on? Yes you are far more focused on one particular aspect of that tree to the exclusion of the whole on a sensory level, but your appreciation for the tree as a whole will not necessarily be diminished just because it is out of focus.

I've got a feeling I may be missing a key point of your analogy so please forgive me as it is late and I'm getting hungry

I haven't read this entire thread but want to respond to the first post.

I don't think the disease is as bad as merely imagining that you are smelling a flower (??)... but i do get what you are saying.

people will often choose what they want to think. I work with some people who are exactly like that. all you have to do is meet them and next thing you know, they have everything figured out about you and couldn't be more #ing wrong.

the mind just wants to draw final conclusions about everything so bad.
You have to somehow learn to not kid yourself into thinking you know crap you don't.
the fact is... you may never know. just like this post, i know it makes damn sense but i could be completely and totally wrong and everything we do is just somebody elses imagination for all i know.... but i get it and i don't want to be one of these people who go around jumping to conclusions without using a more elevated sense of certainty. Right now i'm losing my mind in a mystery and my mind wants nothing more than to conclude it... but there is never an easy way out it seems. Not when it's that certainty you are after... and not just some false impression of what you think you know.

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Hey, maybe that wasn't the best job of giving an analogy. It is not so much your focal point on the tree as it is your tendency to focus in on ever-changing things that only exists as they are in this very moment, and label and give permanent conceptual meaning to them. So in essence, by doing this, you are not really seeing the tree as it is, but only an idea of conventional knowledge, which is always of the past, never the present. But let me try to approach this in another way.

Are you aware that you are conditioned? That is the first thing to ask yourself. Forget about how to be free from conditioning, you may or may not ever be free of it, we don't know yet. So are you aware that you are conditioned? Do you know that even when you simply look at a tree and say, "That is an oak tree. It is green and brown.", the labeling of the tree, which utilizes botanical knowledge and knowledge of colors, has so conditioned your mind to past associations that there is now a barrier of between you and your actual seeing of the tree as it is in the present moment? To bring the tree into visual awareness you only have to look at it and conceptual knowledge will not help you see it any more clearer. In fact, it will create a barrier between you and the present moment by forcing you to live in the past, where everything is dead and gone.

Now doesn't this realization bring about a sense that conditioning is a form of imprisonment, or bondage, to the past? Take only one form of conditioning, botanical knowledge, become completely aware of it and try to sustain this thought process. Now see if your mind enjoys it and remains dwelling in its satisfaction or if your mind rebels against it and brings about a sense of dissatisfaction causing a disturbance in your mind. If you become dissatisfied, disturbed, then you know you are conditioned. And since most of us are disturbed most of the time, whether superficially or deeply, that indicates just how much we are conditioned.

We are disturbed about life, politics, the economic situation, our jobs, our relationships, and from these disturbances we realize just how narrowly conditioned we are in nearly every aspect of our lives. And what shall we do? Accept these disturbances and learn to live with it as most of us do, or seek a way to escape from it? If we train ourselves to get used to these disturbances it means we are training our minds to become dull and unaware of our surroundings, just as one can get so used to abuse that they no longer even notice it. If we do not get used to it then we seek to escape from it with some sort of a drug, with alcohol, with entertainment, with religion, or any other form of distraction to take our minds of the disturbance. But why do we seek to escape from actual facts?

We are afraid of death - just using this as an example - and we invent all sorts of beliefs, theories, hopes, to disguise the fact of death, but the fact still remains. To understand a fact we must face it, not run away and try to escape it. And the only way to face a fact is in the present, not in the past. But we never allow it to be present because we are so busy trying to find out how to escape from it with our conceptual knowledge, which is a product of the past.

Now if you are at all sensitive, at all serious, you will not only be aware of your conditioning but also of the dangers it leads to, the frustration and anger and hatred that it leads to. Why, then, if you see the danger of your conditioning, don't you act? If you saw the danger of a government policy that threatens your own security, wouldn't you act? The answer is because you don't see. You are too busy running from one form of conditioning to the next. Through an intellectual process of analysis you may see that this government policy leads to self-destruction but there is no deeper connection in that because it is an idea of the past, it is not in the present. In seeing a danger as a mere idea there is conflict between the idea and the action, and that conflict takes away your energy to act. It is only when you see the conditioning and the danger of it immediately that you will act. Like if a snake were to jump at you, you do not take time to think or analyze the situation or the details, you just act. So seeing in its purest form is acting.

Most of us walk through life inattentively, reciting and associating ideas unthinkingly to our environment based on the way in which we were brought up, and such parroting creates only further bondage, further conditioning, but the moment you give your total attention to your awareness, without associatimg any concepts or ideas to it, you will see that you are free from the past completely, free from conditioning completely, and all your disturbances will fall away naturally.

Peace.

That's RIGHT...preconceived notions. Not only are people already conditioned, they are constantly further conditioning themselves. The ego wants to think it's got it all figured out. There is truth relative to our reality but still, it's all changeable. Those are just relative truths for comparing to something else within that reality.

people are always exalting their own potential, but where is the balance of that?
Where is the consideration that we are in fact, nothing, and nothing is what it seems?

"oh, but what a discouraging thing to think".... No, to find your connection to EVERYTHING you must also consider your connection to *nothing* which is equally as great.

reply to post by ChaosMagician


Beautifully said. Thanks.

Peace.

[reply to post by LifeIsEnergy


Thanks for the time you took to write this answer. I do understand what you are saying now...

I myself am all too aware that I am conditioned for better or worse, but I do not feel it is our use of language or symbols which imprison us. In fact I think compartmentalising objects via language and symbols is necessary to survive day to day in the material world, merely due to the sheer amount of 'things' which we all encounter everyday. Until one has reached a certain level in their spiritual evolution where the mind is awakened, one simply does not have neither the mental capacity nor the time to see everything as it truly is and be a functional human being. Those that do but are unevolved spiritually end up in mental asylums.

To quote my above post, our senses themselves are merely tools which enable us to function in the material world. And like all tools, they have limitations. Therefore attaching meaning to stimuli as filtered through our limited senses does not, I believe, hold us back anymore than the limitations of the senses themselves. Neither is a true reflection of how reality truly is.

It is the mindset of people which imprisons them. Language and symbols are not the mindset itself; they are only the instruments of the mindset. Yes they can be used to imprison us, but equally they can be used to free us. Take a lump of iron as a metaphor. It can be used to create chains of bondage, or it can create a key to unlock those chains.

Common stereotypes and their associated thoughts could be seen as a good example of what you speak of. What do you think the average middle class American white guy thinks when he hears the words 'blonde', 'black guy', 'nerd', 'metrosexual' ? (and yes I do realise the irony of the fact that with this example I am myself stereotyping white middle class American males). Stereotypes can be a dangerous end spectrum of what you are saying. They are a type of mental conditioning which have been formed in the mind (as is all mental conditioning) via some sort of sensory input; whether it be hearing the words of a denigrator, or through witnessing an event. But if we were to actually engage with subject of the stereotype, it is then that we will, at least to a certain degree, see them for the person they really are.

And this is what I feel truly holds us back. The unwillingness of the majority to engage with the world, to take the time to see things as they are, and to challenge our mental conditioning. Looking at an oak tree and stating that it is green and brown is merely an observation. It is an oak tree. It is green and brown. Merely labelling it as such does not create the barrier. It only places the barrier in a certain position within ones thoughts. A botanist may well make a lot more observations about the tree than I, but if he does not engage the tree any further then the barrier will be created. It may well be in a different position within his or her thoughts than it is in mine, but it nonetheless is still there. These observations however do not create the barrier in the first place. What creates the barrier is the mindset of the observer, and their unwillingness to engage with the tree any further.

Words are no different to anything else in the material world. It is no different from owning a nice home or dressing in fancy clothes. But these things are all just a means to an end, nothing more. We must not be consumed by them or by materialism itself. For nothing is permanent except for change.

Amor et lux

But that's my whole point. If you have never experienced life beyond your egoic desire to grasp for ever-changing sensations that you seek to give permanent definitions and meaning to,

The problem I have with the above thinking is that you proclaim to invalidate permanent definitions, but to do so is to proclaim a permanent definition. If that sounds flippant, and I know it might, let me rephrase. It seems to me that what youre saying is that I should permanently define my permanent definitions as invalid.

If no permanent and universal rules can exist, how can you suggest to me that I should permanently and universally reject definitions?

Is your categorization of my category bias categorically defined as invalid?

Can you see why I might be confused by your categorization and definition of what is true/false?

such as "deliciousness", which results in a form of limitation of perception and thus bondage; if you have never experienced the totality of experience that emptiness offers, which is void of limitation and thus bondage, then you have never experienced the endless beauty that life has to offer.

Im not sure on many of the terms and definitions you are using here, but the first question that bubbles up into my consciousness is 'are you in 'bondage' to your need for H2O? Are you subjugated by your bodies need to absorb water? How much endless beauty can life have to offer if you are dying of thirst in a desert?

Also, I wonder, how can you define 'life' as 'endless'? Life, by its very definition, must end. If it does not receive water for more than a couple days, your life might indeed have an 'end'.

In other words, you are a conscious being who is aware of his/her surrounding environment, if you seek to categorize and give meaning to what this awareness experiences (by categorizing it as a like or dislike, red or blue, delicious or gross),

I suppose in my limited perception, I am failing to see how the above is not a categorization itself. You have categorized us as conscious beings who seek to give meaning to categories. In this you have created a category to which you ascribe meaning.

Does that you have categorized us invalidate our category as conscious beings?

Sorry if Im just being dull, but it seems to me that communication is not even possible without common conceptual categories, if we are even to talk and exchange info on anything at all.

In other words, every idea you are attempting to communicate to me is using concepts, category's and judgement in order to do so. You implicitly accept the category of 'english' when you type to me using your schooled and proper grammar, and you implicitly accept that I also accept the category of 'english' when you use english as our mode of communication.

To discard the concept of 'english' and to only hear each oscillation of your vocal cords would be to break off communication between us, and then you would have no means through which you could communicate the higher truths of non-truth to me.

Thus you are relying on the defintion of words to disprove the validity of words, which is a little like mailing me a letter that proclaims the mail system never delivers letters.

If I have received your message, your message is false.

you are effectively limiting your awareness of this experience, through categorical division, into a very superficial and shallow level of perception.

Again, and I know you will find this to be very nitpicky, but it is actually very fundamental - you have just categorically divided and judged me into a superficial and shallow perception. By your logic, you have just limited your awareness of this experience in doing so.

But if you can reside in this state of awareness without polluting it with any limitations of grasping onto categorical definitions or conventional knowledge,

The two are very different. One is an objective identification (known as science) while the latter is a subjective conceptual assertion. (otherwise known as faith.) Most conventional knowledge in indeed based on faith and is thus corrupt.

then you can effectively perceive the totality of an experience as it truly is, and do so with limitless depth.

As an empiricist, youll have to understand that I will need evidence of this 'limitless depth' before I abandon all reason. Please provide some sort of insight you have gained through this experience of detachment, and please show me how this is valid, proven and repeatable, for not just yourself, but to anyone who ascribes to your method of determining truth from falsehood. Since the question of what is true/false is the oldest and most important question in philosophy, youll have to forgive me if i require a higher standard than that which you have provided so far.

But since Im sure your asking me to judge positively that which you propose, Im not sure how it is valid for you to ask me to give up all judgement. (if I did so I would have no means by which to judge your judgments...)

This, however, undoubtedly can be done only with a mind that has been emptied of all thoughts and cravings.

Would not the thoughtless mind crave thoughtlessness?

Peace.

Contemplate on these categorical definitions for a moment while continuing to focus on the tree. Now soften your gaze, keep your eyes aimed at the tree but without any intention of focusing in on it.

This may surprise you, youre talking with a former buddhist who spent a whole lot of time sitting and looking at trees. After a long while, I slowly awakened to the fact that my will or perception of the tree had zero effect on it whatsoever. A tree is a tree regardless of my wanting it to be some supernatural forest god. It exists as a discrete physical life form devoid of consciousness, will or ego, and it cares not if i sit under it and meditate or not.

When I freed myself of illusions and delusions, that is when I truly became a real person, and not a ghost living in between the world of fantasy and the world of reality.

Try not to allow your peripheral vision to grasp onto anything in the surrounding environment.

A little like those computer generated pictures from the 90s when you relaxed your eyes and a 3d image would jump out at you.

My peripheral vision captures all, and it all gets stored in my super computer sub conscious. There is nothing mystical about the power of the mind.

Try not to grasp onto any particular thoughts that may arise. Continue to do this for a few moments.

I know you believe youre talking to the uninitiated, but I have actually performed some serious meditation, and found it to be wonderfully beneficial. I do not doubt the power of the mind. I do condemn the abandoning of it.

Now why have I asked you to try this? Well, in some ways it explains what I described in the above post. You looking at the tree is your awareness experiencing a sensation. You focusing intensely upon the tree and noticing the color, shape and size of the tree is your tendency to categorical define this sensation. Now, what has happened? Your awareness of this sensation has been reduced and limited to the narrow confines of only one small portion of this tree at a time. Looking straight ahead, our eyes have the ability to see a horizontal range of nearly 180 degrees, and nearly 100 degrees vertically, yet you are only aware of a very small portion of this tree at any given moment, which at most, depending on its size and how close it is to you, has a range of a few degrees. This describes what I meant by “limiting your awareness to a superficial and shallow level of perception”.

I dont mean this as an attack, but I am a believer in expressing ones emotions freely so they can be more deeply explored. I feel a deep frustration in your dis - acknowledgment of the limitations of the human eye. The above limitations you describe are part of our physiological makeup, and that we cannot have perfect, 360 degree god-like knowledge is simply a fact of our existence as non godlike beings. You and I can *never* access perfect knowledge when experiencing physical instances. If I am wrong about this, please show me how, as im not sure how you can simultaneously see a rock from both its front and its back,barring some camera system. (which would still rely on our flawed, forward looking 3d eyes)

You standard is impossible.

Then you softened your gaze upon the tree, trying not to grasp onto any thoughts or particular images in your peripheral vision. If you succeeded in doing so, you should have had a glimpse into what it is like to have pure visual awareness without any “pollution” of grasping onto categorical definitions. Your mind should have become nearly still in silence and you should have been able to become aware of the totality of the experience (the tree), at once; in a single movement without any division.

a single moment *is* a division.

If you still do not understand what I am saying, or trying to say, don’t feel bad because it is fairly difficult to explain and can take some time and practice to get used to even when you conceptually understand it. Just as learning how to divide your awareness into categorical definitions takes time and practice, so does learning how not to limit your awareness into categorical divisions.

I understand that you are genuinely trying to help me expand my true self, and i definitely appreciate that. But I simply cannot leapfrog over the inherent and conspicuous contradictions in what you are saying to me, especially because what you are saying to me is the very same contradictions that I had to overcome in order to actually expand my true self.

No one can escape the consequences of reality.

Reality is only perspective.The mind,our only real prison.