Not pointing at you at all - all that I understand about anything is what I am pointing at - I am pointing at me
1 Like
Words obviously are not needed - but what is communication if not an exchange of an idea?
Whoops! ā¦ Iām sorry I misunderstood you, Iām not an english speaker and I really thought you were pointing at me. My fault 
ā¦ Anyway, needless to say that if at any time you want to share your observation on my words in a more extensive way, i will be happy to hear from you.
So - What I imagine to be true is only a tiny part of what is. And in so much as what I believe to be true is actually true, it is insignificant.
For example, as a scholar I might claim that Julius Caesar may have said āVini, vidi, viciā - in so much as this is true, it is insignificant. Specialists in physics, chemistry, psychology, history etc could add so much more detail to this concept (ie the process of someone speaking) but still not describe everything that is going on - and whatever is being described only being true ( ie approximately describing actual processes) in particular ways (eg. mathematically, symbolically etc) - So even though we may not understand or even consider most of what can be concieved about various processes - these conceptual ideas about various processes do not describe all that is going on at any particular space/time - nor are they accurate in any significant way.
nb. Science is not a proclamation of truth, merely, at best, a useful description of certain processes - useful as in able to provide accurate predictions.
A question we might ask could be : How do I know that what I know is true?
When things are self-evident, demonstrably true, or verified by credible evidence, you know how little you know, and how questionable and provisional that knowledge is.
There are times when the only truth is our breathing, our sensations, and our thoughts. The longer we can abide there, in the eternal present, the less likely we are to believe what we canāt perceive.
Iāll be around in case you want to talk seriously.
Not only straying away, but also in agreement regarding this minor issue - please review my question if you are interested - although I am only quibbling for the sake of tidiness (slight autistic tendancy on my part perhaps?) 
Nice reply as a whole - thank you. However I bring your attention to this bit above - it is full of intent, effort, identity, desire, time.
Saying something that points in the right direction is very difficult - although I am getting the idea, from what you say, that there is a longing for freedom from the known. However - longing for freedom is still the complete opposite of freedom.
I am in agreement though, that some kind of active experimentation with meditation, or letting go of self, is essential.
I was just wondering if āwhen things are self-evident, demonstrably true, or verified by credible evidenceā and āyou know how little you know, and how questionable and provisional that knowledge isā those things become absolute truths or they can still be questioned.
āProvisionalā means theyāre only true until they are not.
Why wouldnāt it be? Iām not writing from āthe other sideā.
Everything I do is āfull of intent, effort, identity, desire, timeā. If someone is living effortlessly and timelessly and selflessly, how would you know? If you aspire to living that way, youāre not interested in the way you are living.
Do you see your way of life as an obstacle and a barrier to the way you think you should be living? Or do you see what youāre doing for the sake of seeing?
1 Like
I probably have another problem with the language here (two in one day, not bad! 
), but when I read your words i interpret that āprovisionalā refers to āmy knowledgeā, not to the āself-evident, demonstrably true, or verified by credible evidenceā things. Thatās why I wondered if when things are āself-evident, etc.ā they become or must be adopted or accepted by such a mind as unquestionable absolute truths, or they are still questionable.
I donāt know, if you see that my question is due to a misinterpretation of your words, just forget it.
This is a very interesting (right) question and worthy of being deepened.
For many who have followed, follow, and will follow the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Krishnamurti, or anyone else, our way of life (past, present or future) is considered an obstacle to be overcome in order to achieve the goal. Not through seeing the obstacle (what is), but through a constant struggle against it, thinking that we can thus reach the āother shoreā (which is just another projection of our thinking).
I once read in a book that I have (a translation of some Chinese text) that humanity should have killed all its prophets and enlightened ones from the very moment they prepared to speak to their fellow citizens. That humanity would then be different. I donāt know, but that the āmessageā has been terribly misunderstood (and therefore misused) throughout the centuries is an unquestionable fact when we look seriously at our society (which is ourselves).
I wouldnāt know an āunquestionable absolute truthā if it bit me. What seems true now can be untrue in a minute, so, as Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, āwhat is truth?ā Whatever I may think is true now, is always questionable because thought is more often mistaken than not.
Yes. Understood, thank you Kimo!
Yes - Iām just saying that we musnāt mistake our delusions for solutions.
This is in reference to what? Did someone write something that indicated they were mistaking a delusion for a solution?
Shall we discuss seriously Juan?
Are you around now?
Regards
Viswa