Knowledge is an impediment to experiencing Posted: It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to so-called sacred books. The scholars, as the laymen, are gramophones; they go on repeating, however often the records may be changed. They are concerned with knowledge, and not with experiencing. Knowledge is an impediment to experiencing. But knowledge is a safe haven, the preserve of a few; and as the ignorant are impressed by knowledge, the knower is respected and honoured. Knowledge is an addiction, as drink; knowledge does not bring understanding. Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom; there must be freedom from knowledge for the coming of wisdom. Knowledge is not the coin for the purchase of wisdom; but the man who has entered the refuge of knowledge does not venture out, for the word feeds his thought and he is gratified with thinking. Thinking is an impediment to experiencing; and there is no wisdom without experiencing. Knowledge, idea, belief, stand in the way of wisdom. An occupied mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing; it is unapproachable, not vulnerable, and therein lies its security. Thought, by its very structure, is self-isolating; it cannot be made vulnerable. Thought cannot be spontaneous, it can never be free. Thought is the continuation of the past, and that which continues cannot be free. There is freedom only in ending. An occupied mind creates what it is working on. It can turn out the bullock cart or the jet plane. We can think we are stupid, and we are stupid. We can think we are God, and we are our own conception: "I am That." "But surely it is better to be occupied with the things of God than with the things of the world, is it not?" What we think, we are; but it is the understanding of the process of thought that is important. - Commentaries on Living Series I
On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 5:41 AM, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Apr 17, 3:06 pm, awori achoka <[email protected]> wrote: >> For the sake of debate----in the beginning there was time and then space and >> energy followed. The rest is history. > > And what is history? > > "one fucking thing after another" Allan Bennett > > >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Robert <[email protected]> wrote: >> > What is the Organizing Principle of the Universe? >> >> > Obviously, the universe is organized. From quarks, to subatomic >> > particles, to atoms and molecules, to dust and planets and stars and >> > galaxies, we can trace a hierarchy of structure. >> >> > We can also see that the universe is organized into four contextual >> > components: space, time, energy and mass. These four components are >> > so strongly inter-related as to be considered a single thing, space- >> > time and energy-mass, or space-time-energy-mass. >> >> > Time seems to consist of three components in continual flux--- past, >> > present and future. Although in some cosmological models, all three of >> > these are really the same thing, and our perception of the passage of >> > time is an illusion. >> >> > However little we understand the structure of the universe, it becomes >> > clear to us that there is, in fact, a structure, an organization of >> > the universe into discernible "parts," so to speak. >> >> > This brings us to the question: what principle organizes the universe >> > into the way we see it organized? >> >> > Remember that prior to the big bang, the universe was (theoretically) >> > a point particle, homogenized, with neither discrete components nor >> > passage of time. Nevertheless, in order for the universe to organize >> > itself afterward, there had to be inherent in that primordial point- >> > particle, the principle which eventually gave rise to what we see. >> >> > This is a crucial idea: that there should be some fundamental >> > governing principle which gives rise to observed phenomena. >> >> > Such an idea is itself axiomatic, defying definition. And as with all >> > axioms, the best proof of its truth is to examine what would be the >> > case if the axiom were not true. >> >> > Gravity is a subordinate of the central organizing principle. Gravity >> > explains our observation of falling objects (among other >> > observations). If there were no gravity, we would not see objects >> > falling. >> >> > In like manner, if there were no organizing principle of the universe, >> > we should expect there to be no organization observed. >> >> > Then the question proceeds to infinite sequences of principles. By >> > what principle is the principle brought into being? >> >> > As always in such cases, we must settle on the idea of an ultimate, >> > self-existent absolute. It simply is. Nothing brings it into being, >> > but rather, it is the final principle upon which all else is founded. >> >> > Some thinkers deny that there is any final principle, but only an >> > infinite progression of them. But even that begs the question, since >> > by what principle is there an infinite progression of principles? >> >> > It is axiomatic that there is a final, underlying reality upon which >> > all else is founded. Denial of the axiom brings us only to an endless >> > sequence of useless conclusions. >> >> > But when we admit of a final, ultimate absolute, we are confronted >> > with the question of an inherent life force, an inherent >> > consciousness, intelligence, and supreme being overarching all of >> > nature, all of reality. >> >> > We, finite and transient mortals, can never hope to know anything >> > whatsoever about this ultimate absolute except for two possibilities: >> > it reveals itself to us, and it endows us with the capacity to >> > understand what it reveals. >> >> > We could never reason our way to God. On the contrary, we are utterly >> > dependent upon Him to show Himself, and to give us eyes with which to >> > see Him. >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Epistemology" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]<epistemology%2bunsubscr...@google >> > groups.com> >> > . >> > For more options, visit this group at >> >http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. >> >> -- >> >> nubiaafrika.blogspot.com >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Epistemology" group. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- sekhar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
