The basic question of all philosophy is ?

[Dontaskme]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I don't think it's just a matter of perceiving.

I don't think there is an "absolute truth of reality".

Is a perception.

Such a concept sounds like a human idea of something ultimately static... and for what purpose?

Also a perception.

Your phrase (that I've underlined) seems to be saying that there IS such a thing?

That's what I was responding to. Did you mean your phrasing in the sense of: if there WERE such a thing?

I'm referring to the phenomena of being in the know. Especially when questions arise, can it be known to whom or what these questions arise, and for what purpose?

Can the how or why or original origins of what is apparently known ever be known and by who or what?

To me it seems there is nothing that knows what seemingly knows. Can the actual knower be known without turning the knower into an object known?





.

[Dontaskme]

Awareness may exist but I have never experienced it and so I cannot be certain that it is true

Are you aware right now?

You cannot experience awareness because you already are the experience, you cannot experience the experience of ''awareness experiencing'' because that would be like being able to see the seer. You are the seeing that cannot be seen by what is being looked upon.

But I know that I exist and not merely as a concept so that is the foundation of my knowledge

Yes, you are the knowing by BEING AWARENESS, the ONLY knowing there is.

And when I can no longer think then I will no longer be and as I already accept this it is not a problem

When thoughts are not present in YOU awareness. You/awareness are STILL present. Although the mechanism used to identify with those thoughts processed as knowledge, aka concepts has collapsed and dissolved back into the infinite ocean from which ''thought'' temporally arose out of.

As I am only passing through it does not matter to me what I am since my existence is only temporary

Only as a known thing, aka a ''thought'' passing through aka duality or twoness aka the labeled ONE. The actual I AM is awareness which never arises because it's the whole ocean of oneness. The I AM is what you are, but the I AM a human is a ''temporal thought'' in what you already are.

''Thought'' is the movement within the stillness of what you are aka awareness. ''Thought'' is the temporal dream within the eternal infinite dreamer inseparable from the eternal infinite.

This is what non-duality informs as and through knowledge which is the illusory dream of separation.



.

[Lacewing]

I'm referring to the phenomena of being in the know. Especially when questions arise, can it be known to whom or what these questions arise, and for what purpose?

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

[SteveKlinko]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

.

I'm betting that it can know. But we may not like what we ultimately discover. Take a particularly disturbing possibility. You talk about the Oneness of the Universe. But maybe that is just another way of referring to some sort of Consciousness eating God that is cultivating our Conscious Selves for food. We all become One when we are joined with God through some kind of Consciousness based digestive processes. Not only is this a possible reason for our existence, it also follows from the very nature of life on this planet where we eat each other. Had a good steak lately?

[henry quirk]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

.

I'm betting that it can know. But we may not like what we ultimately discover. Take a particularly disturbing possibility. You talk about the Oneness of the Universe. But maybe that is just another way of referring to some sort of Consciousness eating God that is cultivating our Conscious Selves for food. We all become One when we are joined with God through some kind of Consciousness based digestive processes. Not only is this a possible reason for our existence, it also follows from the very nature of life on this planet where we eat each other. Had a good steak lately?

Steve,

That there is one damned good reason to stay alive.

Bumperstickers...

I live so God can go hungry.

Don't feed the Divine Maw: live.

God wants to eat your soul, don't let him: live.

Is God actually Cthulhu? Don't find out: live.

[SteveKlinko]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

.

I'm betting that it can know. But we may not like what we ultimately discover. Take a particularly disturbing possibility. You talk about the Oneness of the Universe. But maybe that is just another way of referring to some sort of Consciousness eating God that is cultivating our Conscious Selves for food. We all become One when we are joined with God through some kind of Consciousness based digestive processes. Not only is this a possible reason for our existence, it also follows from the very nature of life on this planet where we eat each other. Had a good steak lately?

Steve,

That there is one damned good reason to stay alive.

Bumperstickers...

I live so God can go hungry.

Don't feed the Divine Maw: live.

God wants to eat your soul, don't let him: live.

Is God actually Cthulhu? Don't find out: live.

Excellent. Hilarious. Good work.

[RCSaunders]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

So, it is not true that, "a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing?" If it is true, than you know at least one absolute truth. If it is not true you have no premise for believing you cannot know absolute truth.

[Immanuel Can]

Why?

[RCSaunders]

Why?

Perhaps the most common mistake in philosophy.

The fundamental question of philosophy cannot be why, because it smuggles in an assumption which it is the job of philosophy to determine. It assumes there must be some reason or explanation without identifying what it is that needs to be explained. Why is meaningless. What is it about which the question why is being asked? It should be obvious, if someone asks, "why," if it is to mean anything, one must ask, "why what?"

Something must first be identified before it can be questioned. The fundamental question of philosophy is what? What exists and what is its nature. If that is established, then the question can be asked, "does such an existence require a reason or explanation?"

I submit the fact of existence requires no explanation beyond the explanation of its nature. "Why," is a wrong question prompted entirely by a desire to justify a view of existence for which there is no evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

Why?

Perhaps the most common mistake in philosophy.

The fundamental question of philosophy cannot be why, because it smuggles in an assumption which it is the job of philosophy to determine.

I see it differently.

It does not "smuggle in" anything at all: rather, it leaves it unspecified. And that's appropriate to the OP, because it suggests we only get one shot to suggest a question that fits many situations, one "handle that fits all pots."

"Why?" does that.

But there's a second reason why "Why?" is the best answer: and that is, the philosophy is profoundly concerned with questions like rationality, justification, warrant, and legitimacy. It searches out the premises that are supposed to produce particular conclusions. Thus, the philosopher must endlessly asking -- in response to any question -- "Why?"

So there's no buried agenda there. Just a handle that fits all the pots, and a question that probes the rational basis for all conclusions. So I'm still saying it's best.

[Dontaskme]

Why?

Silence is the clue and the key to the answer.

A question implies a questioner.

While questions seemingly appear in their multiplicity....the questioner is always of the same ONE source, namely silence.

In non-duality, there is only ONE QUESTION...to ALL our answers.

.

[Dontaskme]

I'm betting that it can know. But we may not like what we ultimately discover. Take a particularly disturbing possibility. You talk about the Oneness of the Universe. But maybe that is just another way of referring to some sort of Consciousness eating God that is cultivating our Conscious Selves for food. We all become One when we are joined with God through some kind of Consciousness based digestive processes. Not only is this a possible reason for our existence, it also follows from the very nature of life on this planet where we eat each other. Had a good steak lately?

I totally agree with this Steve, and I like how you've put it.

I actually find it quite disturbing to discover that the DNA molecules strive to satisfy an insatiable HUNGER for self-replication via the process of eating itself alive. IT's actually quite a gross process and not something I personally would have wanted or desired to dream up myself, but then I guess there is no self to be responsible for this carnage anyway. That's the bit where we just have to swallow it down regardless of what preferences we prefer as we don't really have any choice in the matter.

.

[Dontaskme]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

So, it is not true that, "a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing?" If it is true, than you know at least one absolute truth. If it is not true you have no premise for believing you cannot know absolute truth.

I agree.

[Dontaskme]

Can the perceiving mind really know the absolute truth of reality?

I personally say NO because a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing, therefore cannot be an absolute truth.

So, it is not true that, "a perceived thing is by nature dynamic and forever changing?" If it is true, than you know at least one absolute truth. If it is not true you have no premise for believing you cannot know absolute truth.

A perceived thing has no power of perception, so even the claim that there is a perceiver aka a thing that can perceive is a false notion in that there is no thing perceiving all things, so all apparent perceived things are fictitious in reality.

.

[Arising_uk]

Where Do We Come From?

Our parents.

What Are We?

A thinking primate or a body with senses, memory and language in an external world if you like.

Where Are We Going?

Wherever the world allows us.