What does it mean to learn?

[anon78228991]

@Inquiry

The need to solve a problem. There are countless practical problems I must find satisfactory solutions for, but desire creates problems that are practical only for the self-centred mind. Desire is the incentive to solve problems that exist only in one’s mind, not outwardly obvious. But this doesn’t mean that desire is evil or perverse, and it doesn’t mean desire must end. It means that every desire must be examined closely enough to determine what drives it. Not every desire comes from the same “wellspring”. For instance, if one feels the desire to do or say something, the effect of which is unpredictable, should one refrain for fear of offending, or act to follow through and find out?

It depends on the problem. If it is self-centred, any action will maintain the problem.

[rickScott]

@anon78228991

So can the fact destroy the knower, the believer, the learner?

Can reality set us free? Not knowledge of, or belief in, or even understanding of reality, but reality itself?

I doubt it, or 99.99999999% of humanity wouldn’t be un-free. We don’t speak Reality, we need good translators and interpreters. And fortunately we have them: Buddha, Krishnamurti, Shankara, usw.

[anon78228991]

@nobody

Can reality set us free? Not knowledge of, or belief in, or even understanding of reality, but reality itself? I doubt it…

That’s because you are still putting the question in terms of the one who is not free or the one who will become free. Start with freedom and work from there. When the learner is not, that is reality. When you don’t know the answer to any of these most fundamental questions, that is immediately a reality without the presence of any learner. But the learner who is waiting to be set free is never going to taste freedom because he is always imagining his own version of reality. Then perhaps he turns to other people to help him, which only keeps him trapped in a lot of words. No-one can interpret or translate any of this for another human being. The fact is we don’t know any of the answers. This requires nothing more to be explained.

[macdougdoug]

@nobody

I doubt it, or 99.99999999% of humanity wouldn’t be un-free.

either you mean that reality itself does not set us free - Or you mean that nearly all of us have seen through our beliefs/conditioning without this clarity having any effect.

@nobody

And fortunately we have them: Buddha, Krishnamurti, Shankara, usw.

Surely somebody describing something does not mean we actually see what is being described (especially if it something we have no experience of - like describing the color blue to a blind man)

[Inquiry]

@anon78228991

It depends on the problem. If it is self-centred, any action will maintain the problem.

Though one might have no illusions about who one is and has been, one always has a physical sense of self. This self-awareness is what determines who we are functionally, how we coexist with others, what role we play in society, how we satisfy our visceral need for meaningful action. Each one of us is unique and capable of doing something to address our most pressing concerns. Quite often, this means personal ambition, self-aggrandizement, but not always. Is writing and talking about K’s teaching, doing scientific research, working to reduce carbon emissions, working at education, journalism, etc., “self-centered” activity?

[rickScott]

@macdougdoug

@nobody

I doubt it, or 99.99999999% of humanity wouldn’t be un-free.

either you mean that reality itself does not set us free

That’s it. Reality is, by definition, always there, but I don’t see many free souls around!

@macdougdoug

@nobody

And fortunately we have them: Buddha, Krishnamurti, Shankara, usw.

Surely somebody describing something does not mean we actually see what is being described (especially if it something we have no experience of - like describing the color blue to a blind man)

True.

[rickScott]

@anon78228991

The fact is we don’t know any of the answers.

Not in the way we know the square root of 5. But we might know the answers with our heart, beyond any shadow of doubt. It’s a different kind of knowing.

[macdougdoug]

Is knowing something with my heart a guarantee of being correct - are there people that know with their hearts who are actually wrong? eg. Anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers know with their hearts but both can’t be right (though they may both be wrong)

Unless you mean that I know what I am feeling? Or that we really believe strongly what we believe?

[rickScott]

@macdougdoug

Is knowing something with my heart a guarantee of being correct - are there people that know with their hearts who are actually wrong? eg. Anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers know with their hearts but both can’t be right (though they may both be wrong)

I have spoken with people who say they know things that seem to me unknowable: they know they have had previous lives and will have more, they know the true nature of reality, they know the true nature of themselves. My knee-jerk response is to dismiss these claims, there’s no proof, often no way to test for correctness or incorrectness, the mind is a trickster eminently capable of fooling its host organism. But for those same reasons, I might be wrong, people who claim to know these things could be right, objectively, subjectively, perhaps both.

Just thinking aloud, take with a big grain of salt.

[Inquiry]

@nobody

But we might know the answers with our heart, beyond any shadow of doubt. It’s a different kind of knowing.

The only way we can “know the answers with our heart” is tor future events to demonstrate the accuracy of our heartfelt answers. And what do we mean by “heart”, anyway?

[rickScott]

@Inquiry

And what do we mean by “heart”, anyway?

It has something of intuition in it, something of belief, something of factual knowing, but is not reducible to any of those. It’s a subjective, un-scientific way of knowing. Maybe something like the mystic’s knowledge of God?

[anon78228991]

@Inquiry

Is writing and talking about K’s teaching, doing scientific research, working to reduce carbon emissions, working at education, journalism, etc., “self-centered” activity?

First of all, whatever we are doing, is there fear behind it?

[anon78228991]

@nobody

Not in the way we know the square root of 5. But we might know the answers with our heart, beyond any shadow of doubt. It’s a different kind of knowing.

You are still thinking in terms of answers. Why should there be any answers at all? Then everything changes, including the heart and its approach to other hearts, because we are both of us in a totally different landscape. It is fear that seeks the security of answers; and in seeking answers that don’t exist we ask all sorts of ridiculous questions. Can we not see this simple fact about our own behaviour?

[macdougdoug]

@nobody

It’s a subjective, un-scientific way of knowing

If nothing indicates that something is so, why should one believe it?
If I say that I have knowledge of God, because of some experience (or more correctly the memory of some experience) - can we conclude that I have knowledge of God?

the answer is No - we can only conclude that I am claiming something incomprehensible with no good reason (the only reason given is that I had some subjective experience that I have interpreted according to my biases)
eg. Guru “I have received ultimate jurhglblarfff”
Me “Waoh! Sounds fantastic! what happened?”
Guru “I had a really weird experience last night”
Me “How do you know it was a case of jhsgjdcbfjgv?”
Guru “When I was little I was told many stuff - now I’m number one what I believe must be correct”
Me “wish I had me some skcberkghe”

Dear Nobody, it may be, that you still hold to the existence of some special knowledge that will confer some necessary understanding.

All knowledge is subjective - which means it is relative, contextual, self-centered, biased, at the very best incomplete, not absolute, mostly wrong, often harmful.

Scientific just means : indicating (showing reasons) why something is definitely not true. (or giving an indication of why something might be true)

[rickScott]

@anon78228991

It is fear that seeks the security of answers

Curiosity also seeks answers. And answers to the questions that arise from those answers. And answers to the next generation of questions. And so on.

Through one lens this is being caught in a hamster wheel, round and round we go! Through another lens, an endless and joyous process of discovery.

[rickScott]

@macdougdoug

If nothing indicates that something is so, why should one believe it?

Because something IS indicating that it is so, the strongest something in our existence: subjective knowing.

Dear Nobody, it may be, that you still hold to the existence of some special knowledge that will confer some necessary understanding.

The conceptual knowledge I’ve acquired has led to a better conceptual understanding of what makes reality tick, though I still have a long way to go. But there’s another kind of knowledge I’ve only recently really started to nurture, something close to the ‘learning’ that is being explored in this thread.

[macdougdoug]

@nobody

Because something IS indicating that it is so, the strongest something in our existence: subjective knowing.

By indicating that something is so, I mean indicate that it is true/correct. My opinions (aka subjective knowing?) obviously do not necessarily correlate to the facts.

The strength of belief is inversely proportional to our desire for truth. If I don’t care if my beliefs are true, then they can be strong.

[rickScott]

@macdougdoug

By indicating that something is so, I mean indicate that it is true/correct. My opinions (aka subjective knowing?) obviously do not necessarily correlate to the facts.

I understand. I’m not so keen on ‘facts,’ often they seem like subjective views to me.

[macdougdoug]

@nobody

I’m not so keen on ‘facts,’ often they seem like subjective views to me.

Would you like to expand on this dislike of the word “facts”? Is it a form of anti-scientism or something else?

In my headspace : “Knowing” is a delusion, “facts” describe the world.
ie. My thoughts and my understanding/naming of the world are merely conditioned concepts - but statistics really does compare numbers.
If I think I understand even part of what is (like a virus or a person, or coughing), I am deluded; however 5000 people named Fred did cough yesterday.

[Inquiry]

@anon78228991

First of all, whatever we are doing, is there fear behind it?

If this is what you mean by “self-centered activity”, it applies only to those who choose what to do with their lives, and does not apply to those who don’t resist or deny their unique and peculiar nature. These individuals who spend most of their time and energy doing the kind of work they love, do no harm, and benefit others, are not self-centered - they’re just living choicelessly, being their actual selves.