Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Mar 14, 2018 8:58 am
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm
I thank you for this revision/correction. I also wonder how you would handle a knowledge statement that does not require sensation to understand the knowledge nor to evaluate the truthfulness of the knowledge, such as a statement that is wholly symbolic, e.g., "! + @ = #".
Thank you too.
All knowledge statements have some form of subtle undertone of sensation within them. Any of the bodies sensory receptors can be involved in knowing...But as for the sense of sight...Symbolic signals inform the brain into making an interpretation ..if recognised, there is instant knowing in the moment. As all recognition/remembering/ is already stored in memory...if there is no recognition .. this just means that a particular brand of knowledge has not entered into the reality that is your mind brain body mechanism yet.
The entire contents of the universe is inside you...and not the other way around, you are not in the universe.
And your experience that is your mind brain body mechanism is just a tiny pin-hole perspective, just one of an infinite experiences within the entire universe as a whole experiencing itself infinitely.
Awareness is infinity right now without beginning nor end..it's unborn, undying perfect brilliant stillness that has to be...for any movement to be possible...but any movement is always within this non-mover, not outside of it. The mind is the mover.
As seen in this zen quote>
Two men were arguing about a flag flapping in the wind. "It's the wind that is really moving," stated the first one. "No, it is the flag that is moving," contended the second. A Zen master, who happened to be walking by, overheard the debate and interrupted them. "Neither the flag nor the wind is moving," he said, "It is MIND that moves."
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pm "! + @ = #" seems to be a rule-based statement, meaning if the rules are followed the statement is true. In that case, reason would be required, and only reason, rather than experience via sensation, to know that one set of symbols is the same as another symbol.
Not sure what you mean, but all I can interpret of this is that you are saying something can be true when we collectively agree via reasoning that it is true. But then again, all reasoning is a subtle form of sensation where the stimulation triggers the capacity to know and be aware.
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmIt seems reasonable to revise the sentence, "When latent unawareness knows sensation ..consciousness is born ...the known....only the known is born...the knower is unborn." to suggest that even though sensation, consciousness and the known are born, the knower would require both the ability to experience and the ability to reason in order to know, and yet the knower does not exist anyway.
Knowledge informs existence as existing, existence doesn't know it exists.
Where is existence in deep dreamless sleep or in death,?.. and yet you are always present, you are because awareness is a constant presence, and that which is constantly present cannot be born, nor can it die.
Knowing is born of sensation known by the constant presence of awareness, without which no sensation would ever be known...this knowing gives birth to the idea one exists, when awareness becomes aware via sensation, eg: becomes conscious of itself....awareness and consciousness are the same one state, alternating between not-knowing/ knowing....the whole idea there are multiple consciousnesses is an illusion. As awareness is all there is, including the contents of awareness which are the same one appearing as the many.
So in essence, experience, knowledge and reasoning are what appear to be born here, while all this is known in awareness that is not born....awareness is not an experience, it is the experiencing.
Awareness is the constant that has to be prior to anything being known... becoming conscious of itself...(knows) come and go in this constant presence inseparable from it...awareness does not come and go, it's unborn.
There can be awareness without knowledge...but there CANNOT be knowledge without awareness. No thing has ever been born, only the mind of knowledge is born which is inseparable from the awareness of it.
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmI see a problem that maybe you could resolve, though. How is the known separated from the knower? After all, the known would not be known by a knower unless a knower exists, and the knower would not know anything unless an unknown exists, waiting to be known.
The known is never separated from the knower, because knower and known are one in the same instant. The mind divides oneness into two via knowledge known...but that which is known is not the knower, that which is known cannot know anything, for it is already known in awareness which is oneness...so there is no other knower to know apart from unborn constant awareness.
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:26 pmAgain, thanks for correcting my supposition, and I hope you can solve our problem, else the entire schema of what is born and what isn't comes into question.
Any problem is mis-identification with the wrong I ..Awareness is the original I aka the self....the self is not the mind that claims I am the self. The I AM is prior to any claiming by the mind...in other words only the mind aka the idea of you is born ..not consciousness...the idea is known by awareness.
Everything is known....and yet no ''things'' have ever been seen, they're just ideas, empty images of imageless awareness.
We only know things, but we have never seen them as literal things that have existence INDEPENDENTLY in and of them selves. Things have no existence of their own apart from the seer / knower...which cannot be seen and known...for it is the seeing and knowing...ALL ONE
.
.