Seeking Truth and Seeking Certainty

[bobhikes]

How much of a convergence or of a divergence there is between the two goals?

How consistently so?

Why and under which circunstances?

What is it wise to do as a response to their relationship, if any?

Truth can be achieved personally or if there is agreement. It is relative to the perception of certainty. Because of how we perceive the world we can never achieve 100% certainty without falsehood. I would prefer a life where people sought personal truth recognizing it is not a certainty so allowing others there own personal truths. When people believe truth is certainty is when all the problems start.

 

[godnotgod]

Certainty is something that it is only natural for human beings to crave. Yet it is always susceptible to abuse and potentially tragic.

a few quotes....

There is a saying in the Ch'an Buddhist tradition...

“Great Doubt, Great Enlightenment;
small doubt, small enlightenment;
no doubt, no enlightenment.”

*****

"Do not seek the truth;
only cease to cherish opinion"

3rd Zen Patriarch
*****

"That which you are seeking is causing you to seek"
Cheri Huber, Zen author
*****

...and lastly:

A Cup of Tea

"A university professor went to visit a famous Zen master. While the master quietly served tea, the professor talked about Zen. The master poured the visitor's cup to the brim, and then kept pouring. The professor watched the overflowing cup until he could no longer restrain himself. "It's overfull! No more will go in!" the professor blurted. "You are like this cup," the master replied, "How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup."

 

[godnotgod]

Instead of seeking 'Truth', I think it would be far more fruitful to ask the question: 'Who, or what, is it that is seeking?'

 

[Corthos]

What we know as truth changes over time as we grow in knowledge, and as we grow on an individual basis; certainty hinders that growth.

 

[godnotgod]

What we know as truth changes over time as we grow in knowledge, and as we grow on an individual basis; certainty hinders that growth.

There is 'Truth', and then there is Reality; there is belief about what is certain, and then there is certainty itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Certainty, as I use the word, is something that humans can attain - even if perhaps without due justification. It is a state of mind, relating to specific goals and values.

It has its uses, and also its troubles and dangers.

Truth is according to some (not me) perhaps not even real. It is certainly not particularly connected of human beings.

Everything that happens is the truth... truth is the real...by real I mean factual and not an interpretation. The real is forever on the other side of conceptual interpretation. For example...if someone tells a lie...that is the reality....the truth.. And for another example....if an ignorant person claims to know truth....the truth is still the fact of an ignorant person claiming to know the truth... If I interpret a situation wrongly but believe I have interpreted it correctly....that is the truth....an error of judgement even if I do not know I am in error.

 

[Corthos]

There is 'Truth', and then there is Reality; there is belief in certainty, and then there is certainty itself.

Hmmm... The problem is that we are limited beings, and the best we can hope for is accuracy in our own perceptions and understandings of reality. We will only ever experience reality through the lens of sight, touch, sound, taste, smell, or knowledge, and all of these things are fallible and differ from person to person...

That's not to say that we can never understand aspects of reality as they truly exist, but one must remember that we will always be skewed in our conclusions. Certainty cements us in that skewed perspective; sometimes this is a good thing (such as certainty via scientific laws), but often times it also results in close mindedness (such as bigotry). Open mindedness and honesty is key, IMO.

Edit: Oh! It seems @bobhikes already pretty much said the same thing. Nevermind! XD

 

[Revoltingest]

Certainty is the mind killer.
Truth is an illusion.

 

[godnotgod]

Hmmm... The problem is that we are limited beings, and the best we can hope for is accuracy in our own perceptions and understandings of reality. We will only ever experience reality through the lens of sight, touch, sound, taste, smell, or knowledge, and all of these things are fallible and differ from person to person...

That's not to say that we can never understand aspects of reality as they truly exist, but one must remember that we will always be skewed in our conclusions. Certainty cements us in that skewed perspective; sometimes this is a good thing (such as certainty via scientific laws), but often times it also results in close mindedness (such as bigotry). Open mindedness and honesty is key, IMO.

What you are referring to here is perceptual reality; a personal view. What the personal view sees as 'reality' is indeed limited and biased. This kind of view is conditioned. However, there is another kind of view, one that is unconditioned, unborn, ungrown, that some refer to as that of Ultimate Reality. It is beyond all personal views.

"Nothing we see or hear is perfect, and yet there, in the midst of all of the imperfection, lies Perfect Reality"
Shunryu Suzuki, Zen Master

Even science gets things wrong, as Quantum Physics has been showing us most recently, overturning the applecart of Newtonian Physics.

What is real on one level of consciousness is not real on the next higher level. For example, you are a dragon slayer in your dream-sleep, but when you awaken, the illusion vanishes. The same is true going from the waking state to the next higher level of transcendent awareness: the lives that many lead in the waking state (ie: 'Identification') as 'real' is fictional from the POV of the transcendent level, the beginning of true awakening.

 

[godnotgod]

Certainty is the mind killer.
Truth is an illusion.

Nail hit squarely on head.

The great yogi, Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, stated: "Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind".

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nail hit squarely on head.

The great yogi, Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, stated: "Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind".

Are you certain about that?

 

[godnotgod]

Certainty is the mind killer.
Truth is an illusion.

Nail hit squarely on head.

The great yogi, Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, stated: "Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind".

Are you certain about that?

There is no 'I' that is certain; there is only certainty itself

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nail hit squarely on head.

The great yogi, Patanjali, in the Yoga Sutras, stated: "Yoga (divine union) is the cessation of all of the activities of the mind".


There is no 'I' that is certain; there is only certainty itself

Then why does certainty itself kill the mind?

 

[godnotgod]

Then why does certainty itself kill the mind?

Because the mind is an illusion; a self-created, dualistically-driven illusion. When the activities of the mind cease, what is there?

edit: 'mind' creates 'I', the do-er; the thinker of thoughts; the agent of action, all of which is an illusion; there is no such 'agent' of the action; no 'agent' of certainty: there is only the action itself.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Because the mind is an illusion; a self-created, dualistically-driven illusion. When the activities of the mind cease, what is there?

The pure mind.....the non-dual mind...the eternal mind....the divine mind ...the infinite mind...the one mind...cosmic mind... The reality represented by the concept of mind can mean different things to different people according to context...I am now referring to the divine mind....which of course is not illusionary...but the mortal dualistic mind is prone to illusion...

 

[godnotgod]

The pure mind.....the non-dual mind...the eternal mind....the divine mind ...the infinite mind...the one mind...cosmic mind... The reality represented by the concept of mind can mean different things to different people according to context...I am now referring to the divine mind....which of course is not illusionary...but the mortal dualistic mind is prone to illusion...

I should clarify a bit: I am using the word 'mind' to represent the agent of thought, and the word 'consciousness' to represent that which is before the creation of 'mind'. Consciousness is always present; 'mind' comes and goes, and exists only when it thinks about itself. There is no 'I' in consciousness; 'I' exists only in the mind.

Mind thinks;
Consciousness sees, without thought.

The concept of mind is an attempt to encapsulate consciousness; to contain it via description; but consciousness cannot be so encapsulated. You have called it 'the infinite mind', but the Infinite cannot be contained by a limited concept of mind.

YOGA IS THE CESSATION OF MIND.

"Yoga is the state of no-mind. The word “mind” covers all — your egos, your desires, your hopes, your philosophies, your religions, your scriptures. “Mind” covers all. Whatsoever you can think is mind. All that is known, all that can be known, all that is knowable, is within mind. Cessation of the mind means cessation of the known, cessation of the knowable. It is a jump into the unknown. When there is no mind, you are in the unknown. Yoga is a jump into the unknown. It will not be right to say “unknown”; rather, “unknowable”.

What is the mind? What is the mind is doing there? What is it? Ordinarily we think that mind is something substantial there inside the head. Patanjali doesn’t agree — and no one who has ever known the insides of the mind will agree. Modern science also doesn’t agree. Mind is not something substantial inside the head. Mind is just a function, just an activity.
You walk and I say you are walking. What is walking? If you stop, where is walking? If you sit down, where has the walking gone? Walking is nothing substantial; it is an activity. So while you are sitting, no one can ask, “Where have you put your walking? Just now you were walking, so where has the walking gone?” You will laugh. You will say, “Walking is not something substantial, it is just an activity. I can walk. I can again walk and I can stop.* It is activity.”

Mind is also activity, but because of the word “mind”, it appears as if something substantial is there. It is better to call it “minding” — just like “walking”. Mind means “minding”, mind means thinking. It is an activity.”

Osho

http://www.captizen.com/osho-patanjali-yoga-sutra-yoga-cessation-mind/

* and yet, there is no agent of walking called 'I'; there is only walking itself, just as there is no agent of whirling water called a 'whirlpool', 'whirlpool' being just an idea, a concept. It doesn't exist as a thing, because it is purely an activity. What we call 'I' is simply a collection of activities frozen into a conceptual framework.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I should clarify a bit: I am using the word 'mind' to represent the agent of thought, and the word 'consciousness' to represent that which is before the creation of 'mind'. Consciousness is always present; 'mind' comes and goes, and exists only when it thinks about itself. There is no 'I' in consciousness; 'I' exists only in the mind.

Mind thinks;
Consciousness sees, without thought.

YOGA IS THE CESSATION OF MIND.

"Yoga is the state of no-mind. The word “mind” covers all — your egos, your desires, your hopes, your philosophies, your religions, your scriptures. “Mind” covers all. Whatsoever you can think is mind. All that is known, all that can be known, all that is knowable, is within mind. Cessation of the mind means cessation of the known, cessation of the knowable. It is a jump into the unknown. When there is no mind, you are in the unknown. Yoga is a jump into the unknown. It will not be right to say “unknown”; rather, “unknowable”.

What is the mind? What is the mind is doing there? What is it? Ordinarily we think that mind is something substantial there inside the head. Patanjali doesn’t agree — and no one who has ever known the insides of the mind will agree. Modern science also doesn’t agree. Mind is not something substantial inside the head. Mind is just a function, just an activity.
You walk and I say you are walking. What is walking? If you stop, where is walking? If you sit down, where has the walking gone? Walking is nothing substantial; it is an activity. So while you are sitting, no one can ask, “Where have you put your walking? Just now you were walking, so where has the walking gone?” You will laugh. You will say, “Walking is not something substantial, it is just an activity. I can walk. I can again walk and I can stop.* It is activity.”

Mind is also activity, but because of the word “mind”, it appears as if something substantial is there. It is better to call it “minding” — just like “walking”. Mind means “minding”, mind means thinking. It is an activity.”

Osho

http://www.captizen.com/osho-patanjali-yoga-sutra-yoga-cessation-mind/

* and yet, there is no agent of walking called 'I'; there is only walking itself.

Yes...'mind' can be used in the way you are using it....but substituting the concept of 'consciousness' to what I refer to as the one mind is not the way to go due to the fact that it implies duality....the prefix 'con' means with. The etymology of consciousness is derived from the Latin con (with, together) and scire (to know). When Romans shared particular knowledge, they had con-sciousness. Sharing knowledge with oneself is the etymological source of conscience.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7587/Consciousness-Overview.html

 

[godnotgod]

Yes...'mind' can be used in the way you are using it....but substituting the concept of 'consciousness' to what I refer to as the one mind is not the way to go due to the fact that it implies duality....the prefix 'con' means with. The etymology of consciousness is derived from the Latin con (with, together) and scire (to know). When Romans shared particular knowledge, they had con-sciousness. Sharing knowledge with oneself is the etymological source of conscience.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/7587/Consciousness-Overview.html

I understand the basis of your protest, but let us look at this a bit more closely: There is no such duality between mind and consciousness, and the reason is because firstly, mind is illusory; therefore, there is nothing there relative to consciousness. IOW, in reality, there is only consciousness*. Secondly, the prefix con that means with, does not mean two separate things, but rather a union as One. It is this union that is the essence of knowing. That is why the Hindus tell us: 'tat tvam asi', an experience 'like dye dissolved in water'. Someone fully awake in pure consciousness is that very consciousness itself. There is no 'experiencer of the experience'; only the experience itself, which is why Chopra makes the statement: "The spiritual experience is the merging of the observed, the observer, and the entire process of observation into a single reality".

*(Remember 'There is only Brahman?' There is nothing nor no one that becomes Brahman; there is only Brahman itself. There always was only Brahman. There never was a snake; there only ever was the rope.)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand the basis of your protest, but let us look at this a bit more closely: There is no such duality between mind and consciousness, and the reason is because firstly, mind is illusory; therefore, there is nothing there relative to consciousness. IOW, in reality, there is only consciousness*. Secondly, the prefix con that means with, does not mean two separate things, but rather a union as One. It is this union that is the essence of knowing. That is why the Hindus tell us: 'tat tvam asi', an experience 'like dye dissolved in water'. Someone fully awake in pure consciousness is that very consciousness itself. There is no 'experiencer of the experience'; only the experience itself, which is why Chopra makes the statement: "The spiritual experience is the merging of the observed, the observer, and the entire process of observation into a single reality".

*(Remember 'There is only Brahman?' There is nothing nor no one that becomes Brahman; there is only Brahman itself. There always was only Brahman. There never was a snake; there only ever was the rope.)

I agree that there is only Brahman..Brahman can not be described or known by a second...so any further exchange is not going to change the reality.....I hope to become one with the character "Dumb Inaction" from the Taoist allegory "Rambling in the North" by Chuang Tzu...instead of the character "Knowledge"...

Knowledge had rambled northwards to the region of the Dark Water, where he ascended the height of Imperceptible Slope, when it happened that he met with Dumb Inaction. Knowledge addressed him, saying, 'I wish to ask you some questions:-- By what process of thought and anxious consideration do we get to know the Tâo? Where should we dwell and what should we do to find our rest in the Tâo? From what point should we start and what path should we pursue to make the Tâo our own?' He asked these three questions, but Dumb Inaction gave him no reply. Not only did he not answer, but he did not know how to answer.

Knowledge, disappointed by the fruitlessness of his questioning, returned to the south of the Bright Water, and ascended the height of the End of Doubt, where he saw Heedless Blurter, to whom he put the same questions, and who replied, 'Ah! I know, and will tell you.' But while he was about to speak, he forgot what he wanted to say.

Knowledge, again receiving no answer to his questions, returned to the palace of the the Yellow emperor, where he saw Hwang-Tî (Yellow emperor), and put the questions to him. Hwang-Tî said, 'To exercise no thought and no anxious consideration is the first step towards knowing the Tâo; to dwell nowhere and do nothing is the first step towards resting in the Tâo; to start from nowhere and pursue no path is the first step towards being one with the Tâo.'

Knowledge then proudly addressed Hwang-Tî, saying, 'I and you know this, but those two did not know it; which of us is right?' Hwang-Tî replied, 'Dumb Inaction is truly right, Heedless Blurter has an appearance of being so, but you and I are nowhere near to being so". As it is said, "Those who know do not speak of it, those who speak of it do not know it", and "Hence the sage conveys his instructions without the use of speech."

 

[`mud]

MIND or not.........
I think you're all out of your's !
~
'mud