Is Knowing Fundamental Like Perception?

[integral]

If we look at a flower for example part of the direct experience is a knowing of what it is and a understanding even of how it works. This knowing is automatic, there are no thoughts about it, its a automatic knowing. Its impossble to look at it and not know it.

Its impossible to see or hear or experience sense with out also having some conditioned knowing. Its impossible to look at the hand and not know its a hand, that does not mean it cant change.

Knowing can change, its constantly changing, look at something long enough and knowing changes to something else. Another person at a different stage of development or a cat or insect will have a knowing that is competly different aka interpretation. 

What im asking is, is knowing fundamentaly unavoidable and part of direct experience and even the knowing of "not knowing" is a knowing, because you know you dont know what your looking at. 

Knowing just seems to always be there. Is it fundamental? 

Is there absolute knowing?

---

What im directly experiencing is anyting that is experienced is Truth. If its a thought, its truth, if its a wtv its truth. It doesnt need to be reduced or changed it just IS it always. 

The reason im asking this quesiton is in response to non-dual neo advaita stuff that is trying to define enlightenment as a specific state.

Edited August 23, 2023 by integral

[Osaid]

No, it's just a way of conceptualizing perception. A medium for describing things.

"I know" > How do you know something that is infinite in quality?

You can't know taste, touch, physicality, color, etc.

[integral]

6 minutes ago, Osaid said:

"I know" > How do you know something that is infinite in quality?

Well im not talking about a knower, just knowing. WIth out some conditioned knowing its impossible to function in a practical way. 

When you look at your hand you know what it is right? Are you saying you dont?  

Do you know what your reading right now? 

Edited August 23, 2023 by integral

[integral]

@Osaid I dont mean knowing as a description, i mean knowing as a understanding. There is no description or conceptualizing it is just a knowing. 

If you look at it and know it as infinite in quality then that is the knowing. 

[Osaid]

22 minutes ago, integral said:

I dont mean knowing as a description, i mean knowing as a understanding. There is no description or conceptualizing it is just a knowing. 

If you look at it and know it as infinite in quality then that is the knowing. 

If there is no conceptualizing or abstraction, then yeah it is just experience happening by itself. And this is equal to understanding/knowing which is not conceptual. The experience sees itself, so to speak.

But there is never a thing or subject or object that can "know" experience. In this case, that will always just be conception. 
 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Osaid

[ZzzleepingBear]

The moment you pay attention to any knowing, regardless how that knowing arise. That is the moment you shift from observing to thinking about what you see.

We may value knowledge to such a degree that it can become a form of addiction to "know" something. 

Observing is boundless. Knowledge is putting limits to the boundless.

[gettoefl]

truth = relative + absolute

knowing = dual knowing + direct knowing

direct is without mind

dual is subject object

at any time one can do either

direct happens first, without prompting

then dual is superimposing on the direct which is absolute

[Ajax]

3 hours ago, integral said:

Knowing just seems to always be there. Is it fundamental? 

Is there absolute knowing?

If you knew all the answers to your questions. Your questions would not exist.

If you knew the answers to all your problems(including "how to actually make it happen?), you would no longer have problems.

If you could solve any math problem, that problem would not exist.

Even now you wonder how can you be God and be a human? You may have a knowing, but you don't know the answer. If you knew that, you would not be wondering.

Do you know for sure what the definition of a spirit is?

You know that you are unphysical, but do you know why you are physical and made of matter?

How can you use your full potential? Do you know what your full potential is?

When you know... the knowing ceases to exist.

Is it fundamental to know? Is knowing fundamental? What do you think?

3 hours ago, integral said:

What im directly experiencing is anyting that is experienced is Truth. If its a thought, its truth, if its a wtv its truth. It doesnt need to be reduced or changed it just IS it always. 

Every person has a reality. If it's true for you, its true. It is based on what you consider or decide to be true. It can change or not by choice.(you can have fake realities too)

You correct on this❤️

Wonderful post❤️❤️❤️❤️

LOVE

P.S. as for nondualism an their views on enlightenment... I have not a fart in the wind.. I only watched Leo's video on the subject.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Ajax

[LastThursday]

There is a direct knowing without mind like @gettoefl says. When you look at or touch a flower, there is an effortless knowing that it is a flower. There's a conceptual knowing which is a set of relationships and causes and effects: which requires thought and effort. The fundamental difference between the two types of knowing, is that one is direct and the other indirect.

For example you can look at a car engine and know direclty it's a car engine, or you can have a conceptual knowing of how it's constructed and what makes it work, and what makes it an engine. Maybe a car mechanic after several years, would have a more direct knowing of a car engine and its parts.

Despite having effortless knowing, there still has to be learning. We still have to learn what a flower is at some point. Something has to happen in order for us to know something, even if its direct. I would say that "direct knowing" is a primary function of consciousness, even if it can be fluid. Have you ever held something with eyes closed and not "known" what it was until you opened your eyes?

I would equate direct knowing as being one and the same as creating distinctions out of the unity of consciousness/experience (see the other thread on distinctions). In a sense we carve out and hence "know" objects from the flow of perception. Because knowing is fluid, we can know a thing in more than one way. When we look at a family member, we instantly and directly know them in many different ways.

[ivankiss]

You only know because you once thought.

[Javfly33]

what is knowing?

[LastThursday]

8 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

what is knowing?

Can you actually have "not knowing", what would that be?

Take radio waves as an example. I have no direct knowing of them, all my knowing of radio waves are indirect, mostly through a radio, or theoretical knowledge.

[Breakingthewall]

conceptual knowledge is something very useful and it is what makes us live so well in houses, move in cars, cure diseases and all that, instead of being hungry and escaping from lions, but we have to learn to turn it completely off at will. if not, it becomes too prominent, traps you, completely contaminates the experience, filters it and makes it dead, ugly, sad, anxious. 

If we can to turn off that facet of the mind, the experience turns deep, coloured, magical, full of life. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Breakingthewall

[integral]

8 hours ago, Osaid said:

If there is no conceptualizing or abstraction, then yeah it is just experience happening by itself. And this is equal to understanding/knowing which is not conceptual. The experience sees itself, so to speak.

But there is never a thing or subject or object that can "know" experience. In this case, that will always just be conception. 
 

Conceptualizing and abstraction is still happening on the screen. Anything on the screen is absolute truth. Stuck in a thought loop is absolute truth because its on the screen. There is no difference between a senses and a thought they are both on the screen therefore it IS. There is no part of the screen that is not True. 

if your directly experiencing it, it means its is fundamental, it is both absolute and relative at the same time. 

If subject and object is happening on screen that is TOTALITY. Oneness and Separation are the same thing.

Direct experience is wtv is directly experienced, wtv is on screen. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by integral

[HMD]

9 hours ago, integral said:

Its impossible to see or hear or experience sense with out also having some conditioned knowing. Its impossible to look at the hand and not know its a hand,

I mean you can just shutdown your mind and then you would be left with the direct experience of what is. I think the need to have opinions about something, or the urge to know something or have any meta-physical view about it is a function of the ego mind. Because the ego wants to know what it is. 

Understanding is something deeper than knowing. When you switch off the mind, then you start developing understanding.

9 hours ago, integral said:

What im asking is, is knowing fundamentaly unavoidable and part of direct experience and even the knowing of "not knowing" is a knowing, because you know you dont know what your looking at. 

As long as the ego is up and running, you will have an urge to know, which will cause you to develop an interpretation of whatever you see, hear, or feel. But If you turn off the mind completely with meditation or psychedelics, you no longer have that subconscious urge. So it looks to me like knowing is not fundamental.

[HMD]

11 minutes ago, integral said:

There is no difference between a senses and a thought

@integral So, there is no difference between an object in my direct experience and the thought of it ?

 

[Osaid]

8 minutes ago, integral said:

Conceptualizing and abstraction is still happening on the screen. Anything on the screen is absolute truth. Stuck in a thought loop is absolute truth because its on the screen. There is no difference between a senses and a thought they are both on the screen therefore it IS. There is no part of the screen that is not True. 

if your directly experiencing it, it means its is fundamental, it is both absolute and relative at the same time. 

If subject and object is happening on screen that is TOTALITY. Oneness and Separation are the same thing. 

Yes.

Just to reiterate, my point is not something as naive as "thoughts are untrue" or "nothingness is the truest state." 

I'm saying there is a clarity of perception you can achieve (truth/enlightenment/self-realization), which prevents you from being metaphysically "tricked" by thoughts or any other experience ever again in terms of perception. It's not a specific state. It's a realization of what reality is and how it fundamentally works, that goes into all other states and exists in all other states, because it is absolutely true.

I think the point that might be confusing you is the idea that experience cannot be thought of, which I still agree with.

These posts might expand on that point more clearly:
 

 

 

[Leo Gura]

It's important to distingush between knowledge vs understanding/comprehension.

Knowledge is conceptual and thought-based. Understanding is something deeper and more fundamental. Consciousness has the capacity to comprehend situations, which is a pre-linguistic thing. Comprehension tends to come naturally after a certain amount of experience. However, you can still strip the comprehension away and just have direct experience without any comprehension.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leo Gura

[gettoefl]

self referential thoughts morph the absolute into the relative

[gettoefl]

for those who trust chat gpt:

Quote

Self-referential thoughts revolve around the idea of a separate and inherently existing self or "I." These thoughts reinforce a dualistic perception of reality, creating a division between self and other, subject and object. This division is part of the "relative" perspective, which is the conventional way of perceiving the world based on conceptual distinctions.

When self-referential thoughts are present, they introduce a layer of subjectivity and fixation on the self, which veils the direct experience of the absolute nature of reality. These thoughts morph or transform the pristine awareness of the absolute into the dualistic perceptions of the relative. In other words, self-referential thoughts cloud the direct perception of the ultimate truth and lead to a distorted view of reality.