Those who know they don't know...

[Aaron]

This came up in another topic and I'm not going to name names, but I think it's an excellent question. You see a year or two back I did not have the same opinion of Buddhism that I have today. In fact I didn't have the same opinion of most religions. To me they were moralistic institutions meant to keep the "sheep" in line. I viewed morality as being silly and pointless, mostly because I had yet to meet a truly moral man. I saw the dark side of people, never seeing that other side, the potential for good. Now I know many people feel the same way, and you know maybe it's true, in fact it probably is true, there is no such thing as a moral man, but that isn't the point really, because I learned something that I never realized, and the only reason I learned it was because I was willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, I didn't know.

 

Okay, so I started a thread about morality and how to live life without morals and along comes this guy, who normally never agrees with me, in fact very few people did, because I was opinionated and tended not to listen, but he did listen to what I was saying and he agreed, but only with a twist, that perhaps what was wrong, wasn't morality itself, but the judgement that accompanies morality. In other words, we need some ideas in regards to our behavior and how we treat each other, but what we don't need to do is judge others for their behavior, rather we need worry about our own.

 

I could agree with that, because in truth, it doesn't deny that morality is a construct, but rather it defines it for what it is, suggestions on how people should treat each other. So in that light I could accept that morality wasn't necessary, but it wasn't necessarily evil either, it had a purpose, just as religion had a purpose.

 

This brief insight was what began to soften my heart in regards to religions and in particular Buddhism. I began to see these institutions as not necessarily needed, but there for a reason, in other words they didn't exist without a purpose. When I could see that, then all this dogma I spouted about doing away with morality and religion fell along the wayside and instead I understood that religions are a beautiful thing, they add perspective, color to the grey.

 

Of course I never would've figured that out without first admitting that maybe I don't know. So my point is this, if I can be open to ideas because I admit I don't know, how much more open should I be because I admit I do know? If I actually do know, then my heart should not be closed off to new ideas in the least, but rather, as a child I should be curious and interested in these different perspectives, if for no other reason than I understand how much color they add to our understanding.

 

The moment I say, I know, I don't know. The moment I say, you can't be right, then I am wrong. The honest man understands that every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, the only thing that separates the two is perspective.

 

Aaron

[Marblehead]

Of course I never would've figured that out without first admitting that maybe I don't know. So my point is this, if I can be open to ideas because I admit I don't know, how much more open should I be because I admit I do know? If I actually do know, then my heart should not be closed off to new ideas in the least, but rather, as a child I should be curious and interested in these different perspectives, if for no other reason than I understand how much color they add to our understanding.

 

Aaron

 

I like that so I repeated it. Nice. Thanks for sharing.

[doc benway]

 

The moment I say, I know, I don't know. The moment I say, you can't be right, then I am wrong. The honest man understands that every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, the only thing that separates the two is perspective.

 

Aaron

And I, this...

 

Although I might suggest you replace "honest" with "insightful" or "wise" because it takes more than honesty to see this.

 

Very nice post Aaron.

I've been questioning many of my own perspectives of late.

 

PS It's nice to see you

[Mal]

As my Sifu likes to say - The moment you say, "I know", you have stopped learning.

[mYTHmAKER]

He who knows, knows not.

He who knows not, knows.

[Stigweard]

This came up in another topic and I'm not going to name names, but I think it's an excellent question. You see a year or two back I did not have the same opinion of Buddhism that I have today. In fact I didn't have the same opinion of most religions. To me they were moralistic institutions meant to keep the "sheep" in line. I viewed morality as being silly and pointless, mostly because I had yet to meet a truly moral man. I saw the dark side of people, never seeing that other side, the potential for good. Now I know many people feel the same way, and you know maybe it's true, in fact it probably is true, there is no such thing as a moral man, but that isn't the point really, because I learned something that I never realized, and the only reason I learned it was because I was willing to accept that maybe, just maybe, I didn't know.

 

Okay, so I started a thread about morality and how to live life without morals and along comes this guy, who normally never agrees with me, in fact very few people did, because I was opinionated and tended not to listen, but he did listen to what I was saying and he agreed, but only with a twist, that perhaps what was wrong, wasn't morality itself, but the judgement that accompanies morality. In other words, we need some ideas in regards to our behavior and how we treat each other, but what we don't need to do is judge others for their behavior, rather we need worry about our own.

 

I could agree with that, because in truth, it doesn't deny that morality is a construct, but rather it defines it for what it is, suggestions on how people should treat each other. So in that light I could accept that morality wasn't necessary, but it wasn't necessarily evil either, it had a purpose, just as religion had a purpose.

 

This brief insight was what began to soften my heart in regards to religions and in particular Buddhism. I began to see these institutions as not necessarily needed, but there for a reason, in other words they didn't exist without a purpose. When I could see that, then all this dogma I spouted about doing away with morality and religion fell along the wayside and instead I understood that religions are a beautiful thing, they add perspective, color to the grey.

 

Of course I never would've figured that out without first admitting that maybe I don't know. So my point is this, if I can be open to ideas because I admit I don't know, how much more open should I be because I admit I do know? If I actually do know, then my heart should not be closed off to new ideas in the least, but rather, as a child I should be curious and interested in these different perspectives, if for no other reason than I understand how much color they add to our understanding.

 

The moment I say, I know, I don't know. The moment I say, you can't be right, then I am wrong. The honest man understands that every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, the only thing that separates the two is perspective.

 

Aaron

Well written Aaron

[Taomeow]

[The Way Is Virtue]

Hi Aaron. An age old problem. Knowing that there are certain questions that we just simply cannot reason our way to answers with any real degree of certainty. Who or what am "I" really? Is there a purpose to the universe and life and all that goes along with it? What is mind really? Etc. It then comes down to how important is it for us to try to find answers to these sorts of questions. If it is important to us, we then might start investigating possible alternative ways of exploring these questions. We then might find that respected teachers in the past and present do say that there are indeed alternative ways of seeking answers to these types of questions, such as various meditation practices and other techniques.

 

If after all this searching and investigating we still find this whole matter important to us, we may start adopting some of these alternative approaches and practices and see where it leads us. Again, we don't really know whether these alternative approaches will really ever lead us to any ultimate understanding or true knowledge, so it then comes down to such things as having faith that it can lead somewhere, or maybe it just feels right to a person, or it may come down to at least having an open enough mind to give it a decent try and just see where it may lead. There are no guarantees, but if the questions are nagging enough then one may still be willing to put in the effort knowing that it may never bring us any closer to answers in the end. However, another reason for practicing meditation and related practices is they can also produce practical benefits for our daily life such as helpng to calm and balance us more and maybe help improve our health, and even to give us more energy and rejuvenate us. So, even if we don't ever reach our ultimate goals, at least we still can potentially derive some benefits through such practices.

Best wishes...

[Harmonious Emptiness]

Usually, the more I learn about something, I see more and more how little about it I actually know.

 

Also:

 

1) Views are often an impediment to understanding, such as the view that we know a lot about something

 

2) I'm better off not knowing that I know, than not knowing that I don't know, so assuming that I don't know is usually the safest route. Though, having strong instincts is also important, and a sign of a healthy Lungs/Metal/Po spirit according to TCM; but that's probably another conversation..

 

Also, having good instincts kind of relies on being able to "not know" something, since we don't "know" what we feel, we just feel it and have to be able to work with both not knowing and not denying. It takes a comfortability with not knowing to do this, I believe. I read something once that talked about one's "Mystery Tolerance Threshold" which is our ability to investigate something that we may never understand

[lienshan]

The moment I say, I know, I don't know. The moment I say, you can't be right, then I am wrong. The honest man understands that every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, the only thing that separates the two is perspective.

To know when enough is sufficient knowledge.

 

I simply can't see the above truth as a lie too. Does this mean, that I'm not an honest man?

 

Or is your perspective to the lie of truth perspective a lie?

[Otis]

Fantastic post, Aaron!

[Otis]

A short inquiry into certainty:

 

What is certainty? When I add certainty to an understanding, I am now insisting that it is right. Before, the understanding was perfectly free to be right (or not), and didn't need me to insist it. But now I insist. Why? What good does it serve me?

 

Understanding does not need certainty, nor does clear vision. People with certainty claim understanding and clear vision, so it's easy to associate them together. But certainty doesn't improve either one. No matter how much things are making sense to me, certainty doesn't get them to make any more sense. It only insists.

 

So certainty is just a grabbing hold, an attachment. It is saying: "I refuse to believe that this is not so". But what is won by such a refusal?

 

Do I need certainty to be a passionate advocate for human rights? Some people would say so. But do I really need to be right, that human rights are worth fighting for? Or is it enough, just to care about people, and from that, to be motivated to do what I can? I don't have to do the right thing, just the thing that makes the most sense to me. That's the best I have to offer, anyway.

 

Does certainty offer me anything more than a rationale, a justification, or a sense of being "right" or important?

 

And (as I see it happen in my life), doesn't certainty really blind me, limit my options, confuse my problem-solving abilities, and alienate me from people who think differently than me? That's the effect that I see certainty having in my life.

 

And finally, I recognize that certainty has never brought me joy. It has only brought me comfort and self-satisfaction.

[Marblehead]

A short inquiry into certainty:

 

A short response. There are no absolutes.

[The Way Is Virtue]

There are no absolutes.

 

That seems to be quite the absolute statement. Are you absolutely sure about that? If so, how do you know that for absolute certain?

[Marblehead]

That seems to be quite the absolute statement. Are you absolutely sure about that? If so, how do you know that for absolute certain?

 

Hehehe. I have been zapped again.

 

Yes, it was a statement of absolute. See how I can be?

 

No, I am not absolutely sure about any suggested absolutes.

 

But except for the concept of change it seems to me that there are no absolutes. This is my understanding at this point in time.

 

I do reserve the right to change my mind at any time without prior notification though.

 

(I also reserve the right to disagree with myself any time I so desire. Hehehe.)

[The Way Is Virtue]

[Marblehead]

Perhaps.

 

 

My, My! What open-mindedness. :~)

 

(Do you like my nose? Hehehe.)

[RiverSnake]

Morality is a mental construct created by people and does not necessarily reflect reality.

 

As individuals gains greater and greater degrees of self understanding having a written code becomes less and less important.

 

Instead of intellectually knowing a code of conduct we feel in the core of our being what is correct and can tell the difference between the tugs of the ego and the voice of higher beings which wish to guide us. We learn to listen to our deepest truth.

 

Morality as written is a guide and any good guide endeavors to lead each individual to his own spiritual knowing rather than shaky intellectual certainty based on statutory precepts.

 

My 2 cents

 

-Peace

[Marblehead]

Morality is a mental construct created by people and does not necessarily reflect reality.

 

Total agreement with your post.

[ChiDragon]

But except for the concept of change it seems to me that there are no absolutes. This is my understanding at this point in time.

 

I do reserve the right to change my mind at any time without prior notification though.

 

(I also reserve the right to disagree with myself any time I so desire. Hehehe.)

You are absolutely a practical philosopher.....

[ChiDragon]

He who knows, knows not.

He who knows not, knows.

 

Perhaps...

One who says he knows, knows not.

One who says he knows not, knows.

[Aaron]

Morality is a mental construct created by people and does not necessarily reflect reality.

 

As individuals gains greater and greater degrees of self understanding having a written code becomes less and less important.

 

Instead of intellectually knowing a code of conduct we feel in the core of our being what is correct and can tell the difference between the tugs of the ego and the voice of higher beings which wish to guide us. We learn to listen to our deepest truth.

 

Morality as written is a guide and any good guide endeavors to lead each individual to his own spiritual knowing rather than shaky intellectual certainty based on statutory precepts.

 

My 2 cents

 

-Peace

 

 

Hello Old Green,

 

I agree that morality is a construct (which I think I stated), but I don't necessarily agree that any good guide endeavors to lead each individual to his own spiritual knowing. I think that many people don't understand that even classifying things as good and bad is assigning a moral value to that thing or action. So by saying that any "good" guide does such, you're really saying that any "morally upright" guide does such. There's nothing wrong with that, but at the same time it's important (IMO) to be aware when we do this, just so we understand our own role in how the world turns.

 

Now I agree, that when you are teaching a child or even an adult moral values, that we should emphasize consequences (which have to do with that subtle tug of conscious), rather than a notion of good and evil. In other words teaching a person that there are consequences to their actions will help them to be more aware of their actions and act accordingly.

 

An example is teaching a child not to lie. Do we tell a child to be honest at all times, what about if the soldiers come looking for him and ask, "are you a jew?" Should he tell them he's a jew or lie? If he lies and tells the soldier he's not has he done something immoral?

 

I know it's a dramatic example, but there are other less innocuous examples that one could use that would lead us to the same question.

 

Now keep in mind that the majority of people will never raise their children as such, but rather raise them to follow a specific moral code (or construct if you choose). So it's also important to make sure that when we do teach someone moral values based on consequences, rather than an intrinsic notion of good and evil, that we make sure they're aware that there are people who believe in good and evil, so that when they run into those people they can understand how they need to behave when they encounter such people (i.e. don't rock the boat, or you may get thrown overboard).

 

Anyways, I could go on, but I can see where I'm stepping into a topic that's off topic for this thread, so I'll leave it at that. If we want to really discuss this, I'd suggest starting a new topic, but overall I do agree with your opinions in regard to morality.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

To know when enough is sufficient knowledge.

 

I simply can't see the above truth as a lie too. Does this mean, that I'm not an honest man?

 

Or is your perspective to the lie of truth perspective a lie?

 

 

Hell Lienshan,

 

The reason you can't see the above truth as a lie too, is because you perceive it to be the truth. The point I'm trying to make is that someone else may come along and see it as a lie and that if he does so, there's nothing wrong with that. When I say every truth is a lie and every lie is a truth, what I'm also saying is that we need to remember that our perspective may not always be right, even if we believe it to be. For instance, I don't believe that "to know when you've had enough is sufficient knowledge," I think there is more that's required, so for me, your statement may 'seem' to be a lie, but without examining it more deeply than just on the surface, without opening my mind to the potential for truth within that statement, then I can never really know.

 

When I think of a lie and the truth, I tend to think of a line, on one end there is the truth, on the other end there is the lie. When we bring an idea to this line, we have to decide where to place this idea, but the fact is, despite what we might believe, there is no right or wrong place on that line, it all has to do with our own perspective. So you may decide to put it at the end that says, "truth", but I may not be so certain so I place it halfway in between because I'm not sure it's a lie or a truth. Neither answer is right or wrong, or good or bad, it is only our own opinion in regards to that idea.

 

I hope that helps to explain my opinion in regards to that, but remember your own opinion is just as valid.

 

Aaron

[Aaron]

A short inquiry into certainty:

 

What is certainty? When I add certainty to an understanding, I am now insisting that it is right. Before, the understanding was perfectly free to be right (or not), and didn't need me to insist it. But now I insist. Why? What good does it serve me?

 

Understanding does not need certainty, nor does clear vision. People with certainty claim understanding and clear vision, so it's easy to associate them together. But certainty doesn't improve either one. No matter how much things are making sense to me, certainty doesn't get them to make any more sense. It only insists.

 

So certainty is just a grabbing hold, an attachment. It is saying: "I refuse to believe that this is not so". But what is won by such a refusal?

 

Do I need certainty to be a passionate advocate for human rights? Some people would say so. But do I really need to be right, that human rights are worth fighting for? Or is it enough, just to care about people, and from that, to be motivated to do what I can? I don't have to do the right thing, just the thing that makes the most sense to me. That's the best I have to offer, anyway.

 

Does certainty offer me anything more than a rationale, a justification, or a sense of being "right" or important?

 

And (as I see it happen in my life), doesn't certainty really blind me, limit my options, confuse my problem-solving abilities, and alienate me from people who think differently than me? That's the effect that I see certainty having in my life.

 

And finally, I recognize that certainty has never brought me joy. It has only brought me comfort and self-satisfaction.

 

Hello Otis,

 

I choose the middle road in regards to certainty. There's nothing wrong, per se, with being certain, if you're willing to give up that certainty in the face of adequate proof. For instance, I'm certain that gravity exists, but if someone comes along and gives me enough evidence to believe otherwise, then I'm willing to let that certainty go. I think that's what you're alluding to, just felt the need to clarify.

Aaron

[Otis]

Hello Otis,

 

I choose the middle road in regards to certainty. There's nothing wrong, per se, with being certain, if you're willing to give up that certainty in the face of adequate proof. For instance, I'm certain that gravity exists, but if someone comes along and gives me enough evidence to believe otherwise, then I'm willing to let that certainty go. I think that's what you're alluding to, just felt the need to clarify.

Aaron

I think gravity is a great example. If I am to say "gravity exists", what does that even mean?

 

Before Newton, people were utterly convinced of "down". That is, "down" is where things fell, when you dropped them. This is the utterly self-evident part of gravity, but everyone had it wrong.

 

The problem with "down" is that it denied the quite reasonable proposition that the world was round. If the world was round, then all the water would pour away, and off the planet, towards "down".

 

But Newton showed that "down" is a local illusion, of the phenomenon of gravity (which he saw as the attraction between masses).

 

And this view of gravity was fine, for awhile, but it missed some very important explanations. Einstein reworked gravity into the warping of spacetime, which is an almost inconceivable notion. We've all seen Carl Sagan put a pool ball on a trampoline, but other than that visual reference, how many people really get what "spacetime" means, not to mention the warping of it? And then when you get to black holes (which neither "down" nor Newton could ever arrive at), whew boy!

 

And Einstein's view of gravity has been shifted and augmented by quantum gravity, which posits gravitons, which is also very hard to understand, in terms of mundane experience of gravity. And superstring theory has its own way of explaining gravity, which is even more mind-blowing.

 

So, how can anyone be "certain of gravity", especially those of us who are not theoretical physicists? As far as I can tell, "I am certain of gravity" just means "when I drop things, they go down", which puts me squarely back into the early 17th century.

 

So, thank you for that example, of how certainty is just an illusion, a self-evidentiary belief loop.