Can you admit this: "The only thing I know is nothing"

[Surya Deva]

I was watching the Hindu religious channel Aastha on Sky TV(telecast free with lots of English language programming, so if you have Sky, check it outsometime)

The Guru giving the discourse said something really eye-opening for me.

He asked that what is that we religious/spiritual people want? The answer is we want heaven, we want enlightenment, we want god. We want to know what it is like.

He then says that we are seekers and goes onto define a seeker. What is a seeker? A seeker is one who has an attitude to seek. A seeker being the one that is seeking by definition doesn't know anything. Yet, many who claim to be seekers, seek with preknowledge on what they seek. Then they are not really seekers.

A seeker is one who can accept whole heartedly that he doesn't known a damn about god, heaven and reality

No matter how much philosophy you read, how many Vedas, Qurans and Bibles you read. The truth is in the end you don't know anything.

Can you admit this about your religion? Can you actually admit you don't know anything about the other world? Are you a seeker?

 

[Willamena]

But if I admit that "the only thing I know is nothing" then I admit to knowing something.

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

I can honestly say that I`m a seeker. I don`t have the slightest idea about what the world is... and I find this mystery astoundingly, most profoundly beautiful.

 

[Surya Deva]

Yes, I am aware of that criticism. I use it myself

Although note that the declaration is that I am claiming to know nothing. This is not knowing something, it is more of an admission that I don't know anything.

Also I kind of meant it in context of religion. Can we admit that we know nothing about the other world, even after all the religious teachings we have had?

 

[Willamena]

Can we admit that we know nothing about the other world, even after all the religious teachings we have had?

If that is the case, then we cannot even admit to an "other world".

 

[Women_Of_Reason]

Logical fallacy here.... 0 = 0 so 0 = 1

 

[Surya Deva]

Yeah I believe that is a fallacy Willamena

The act of the seeker seeking itself presupposes that something is being seeked, not that it knows what that something is.

If I am asked a question and I answer I don't know the answer, that doesn't mean that I know the answer is that I don't know the answer.

 

[Willamena]

By what means do we know "the other world" such that it is a thing that could be sought? Knowing entails that the thing known have some sort of characteristic(s) (hint: "other" and "world").

 

[Surya Deva]

We know that we don't know from the question e.g., what created the universe. If you asked me about the history of 15th century Italy, I will know that I don't know, but because the question presupposes an answer, I know that there is an answer, but I can seek the answer.

The existence of the other world can be known by the fact that the act of observation itself presupposes that there is an unobservable before the observation.
As we cannot observe the observer, we know that there is something that we don't know that we can seek to know.

Likewise, one can know that there is an unobservable after we die. Because nobody knows death until they are dead. Nobody knows what happens after, so there is another unobservable that can be seeked.

 

[Quagmire]

Some part of me must know something or it wouldn't be so amused.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm not a seeker, I'm a "have found"er...

edit:
Let me clarify, I know that a being exists that is my God and loves me.

 

[Surya Deva]

How do you know that it loves you?

 

[Surya Deva]

An even better question what is love?

Edit: And how do you know god exists with certainty? What is this 'god' ?

 

[Mister Emu]

How do you know that it loves you?

Because every experience I have had with God has been permeated with it(love)

 

[Willamena]

We know that we don't know from the question e.g., what created the universe. If you asked me about the history of 15th century Italy, I will know that I don't know, but because the question presupposes an answer, I know that there is an answer, but I can seek the answer.

If I ask you, though, about "the history 15th Century Italy" itself you automatically have some bit of deduced knowledge (your own "presupposed"): you probably know what and where "Italy" is; you know that there was a period of time called "the 15th Century", and may even know a few general things about Europe then; and you know what a "history" is and, perhaps, that Europeans kept some sort of written history of the period. Based on prior researches you probably even know where to look to find the information you seek. Put together, even knowing none of the details, we have already painted a picture, however vague, of "the history of 15th Century Italy". In a real sense, we've been carrying that picture around since we first became exposed to the ideas of "history", "Italy", etc. --the bits of the picture just needed to be assembled (like a jigsaw puzzle). Researching details simply adds more bits to that picture.

So, apart from quibbaling about what constitutes "knowledge" of the topic, we have some knowledge of something of which we are seeking. We have a picture. We cannot claim properly to "know nothing about the history of 15th Century Italy".

The existence of the other world can be known by the fact that the act of observation itself presupposes that there is an unobservable before the observation.
As we cannot observe the observer, we know that there is something that we don't know that we can seek to know.

Let me repaint this picture a wee bit (pun intended). The act of observing presupposes an unobservable state before the observation, but that is entirely dependent upon an act of observing. We cannot by this logic claim an unobservable state presupposing something that is not observed ...unless it is something imagined. If we then go on to claim "I", the conscious observer, to be unobservable and observed, and yet demonstratively known, we relegate it to the area of imagination. And not improperly so. With this fact of the presupposed unobservable in place we can realize the "act of observing" to be bits of sensory information assembled into pictures by the mind that are interpretations of that sensory data. Images. "I" is one of those images, as "the world" of our senses (which Buddhism calls samsara) and the projected "other world" of the unobserved.

"I" is an image of the observer (the root of the word "imagination"). "A history of 15th Century Italy" is an image of a part of our world. An "other world" is similarly an image of (deep voice) what lies beyond --and numerous other poetic depictions. In holding an image of an "other world", the picture painted, however vague it might be and however our minds may compose it, represents a something that (some feel) could be sought. That picture (like all our pictures) is painted in bits of information (knowledge).

If we truly knew nothing about it, we'd have no picture and hence nothing to seek.

Likewise, one can know that there is an unobservable after we die. Because nobody knows death until they are dead. Nobody knows what happens after, so there is another unobservable that can be seeked.

Another (often poetically rendered) image.

As a side note, being an image doesn't make something false, untrue, incorrect, improper, non-existent, or wrong. It just makes it an image. "Enlightenment", in my opinion, is knowing a thing for what it is. Some call the world samsara, some call it illusion, some call it reality. I call it the world and know it for the image I hold of the world.

 

[Frederica]

To say that I did not know anything would be a lie. The individual who wants another individual to confess such a thing, is saying in a round a bout way, admit that you are a loser, and that you are stupid. This is an abusive and belittling doctrine.

 

[3.14]

i know everything i'm just not able to access the information

 

[Frederica]

3.14:
What is blocking your way from accessing this information. You see we are in deep trouble and we truly need help.

 

[Surya Deva]

If I ask you, though, about "the history 15th Century Italy" itself you automatically have some bit of deduced knowledge (your own "presupposed"): you probably know what and where "Italy" is; you know that there was a period of time called "the 15th Century", and may even know a few general things about Europe then; and you know what a "history" is and, perhaps, that Europeans kept some sort of written history of the period. Based on prior researches you probably even know where to look to find the information you seek. Put together, even knowing none of the details, we have already painted a picture, however vague, of "the history of 15th Century Italy". In a real sense, we've been carrying that picture around since we first became exposed to the ideas of "history", "Italy", etc. --the bits of the picture just needed to be assembled (like a jigsaw puzzle). Researching details simply adds more bits to that picture.

It is true that I have knowledge of a country called Italy. It is true I have knowledge of the time period known as the 15th century. It is also true I know what history is. However, it is not true that I know about the history of 15th century Italy.

You ask me that question and my mind returns a blank. If you ask me about Italy, it returns "Country, Europe, Leaning Towers of Pisa, Leonardo Da Vinci, Rome, Vaitcan, Pizza" If you ask me about history it returns, "time, periods, enlightenment, modernism, ancient, events, past" If you ask me about the 15 century it returns, "a period in history" (this just reveals my knowledge or lack thereof of 15th century history )

As soon as that question is worded as "The history of 15th century Italy" not a thing pops up in my head. I know the elements that make up that question, but when those elements are organized like this to form this new complex, I don't know it. Thus it is honest of me to say I don't know anything about 15th century Italy.

Let me repaint this picture a wee bit (pun intended). The act of observing presupposes an unobservable state before the observation, but that is entirely dependent upon an act of observing. We cannot by this logic claim an unobservable state presupposing something that is not observed ...unless it is something imagined. If we then go on to claim "I", the conscious observer, to be unobservable and observed, and yet demonstratively known, we relegate it to the area of imagination. And not improperly so. With this fact of the presupposed unobservable in place we can realize the "act of observing" to be bits of sensory information assembled into pictures by the mind that are interpretations of that sensory data. Images. "I" is one of those images, as "the world" of our senses (which Buddhism calls samsara) and the projected "other world" of the unobserved.

I am a bit confused with your wording above. I have to admit it flew over my head. I am a mere mortal, please speak to me in my language

The act of observation is a perception. It is not inferred. What is inferred is that the act of observation between yourself and the thing observed means an interaction took place between the thing and yourself to observe it. As your perception itself is an effect of another cause, as long as you are the observer observing the world, you cannot know what that cause is. When you direct that observation inwards you still cannot know who the observer is, because whatever you observe to be yourself, requires another observer to observe that and you enter into an infinite regress. Whatever you know to be yourself is thus nothing more than a bundle of images. The observer can thus never observe themselves.
But the fact that the self exits can be inferred from the observation.

Hence you have knowledge that a self exists, but you don't know anything about it, other than it exists.

If we truly knew nothing about it, we'd have no picture and hence nothing to seek.

All that we know is that we know nothing about it, except that it exists. In the same way I know nothing about 15th century Italy, but I know that an answer exists because it is presupposes in the question.

Another (often poetically rendered) image.

As a side note, being an image doesn't make something false, untrue, incorrect, improper, non-existent, or wrong. It just makes it an image. "Enlightenment", in my opinion, is knowing a thing for what it is. Some call the world samsara, some call it illusion, some call it reality. I call it the world and know it for the image I hold of the world.

Enlightenment is knowing the self. The self cannot be known in the world. No matter how much you try to piece together the images in the world, you will never form a coherent whole, because the world is not coherent.

 

[Willamena]

...the act of observation between yourself and the thing observed means an interaction took place between the thing and yourself to observe it.

"Interaction" is two things that act upon each other. I can see a context for "observation" being an action of the observer upon an object, but what action does the object enact upon its observer?

All that we know is that we know nothing about it, except that it exists.

But "that it exists" is something, not nothing; and further, it is a conclusion based on other somethings.

Enlightenment is knowing the self. The self cannot be known in the world. No matter how much you try to piece together the images in the world, you will never form a coherent whole, because the world is not coherent.

The only coherent whole you will ever have, then --that you could ever have --is the one you have here and now, regardless that it's "this world", an "other world", or any other place you can imaging "self" being. No matter where you go, there you are.

We've different-painted pictures, you and I.