The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?
I'm asking because it seems to me that:
- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.
- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.
I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.
Thanks,
rachMiel
I'm asking because it seems to me that:
- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.
- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.
I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.
Thanks,
rachMiel
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17136
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
This is my impression but take with a big helping of salt:rachmiel wrote:Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?
I'm asking because it seems to me that:
- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.
- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.
I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.
Thanks,
rachMiel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_ ... _questions
That's a start, i'm not sure there's a definitive Buddhist answer to that, but...realization is not the same as conceptual "knowing", conceptual/conditioned knowing of things by Buddhist understanding is by definition a kind of limitation..
I guess you could use the two truths to explain that Ultimate Reality cannot be "known" in the conditioned, conceptual sense..in that sense, there really isn't any such thing as knowing ultimate reality, only realization of it.
On the Law Of karma, IIRC there are many references in Sutta/Sutra that it is pretty much unknowable in the samsaric sense, and indeed teachers and friends have explained it to me as something like trying to do math with infinite variables..again, not really conceptually knowable in a satisfying way.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
This too: Acintita Sutta
Of course, not forgetting what can transpire on a forum... another unconjecturable
Of course, not forgetting what can transpire on a forum... another unconjecturable
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
anything what arises and ceases in your realm of experience is knowable, everything else not.
Life is great and death has to be just as great as life.
- Mike Tyson
People not only don't know what's happening to them, they don't even know that they don't know.
- Noam Chomsky
- Mike Tyson
People not only don't know what's happening to them, they don't even know that they don't know.
- Noam Chomsky
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
"No one really knows anything. (I think.)"rachmiel wrote:Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?
I'm asking because it seems to me that:
- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.
- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.
I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.
Thanks,
rachMiel
Hello Rachmiel,
It looks for me there is Wisdom in what you write as your signature. Since as long as there is "one", there is no "natural knowing". But at the mean time Buddhism tells us there is not such one, knowing things. Oh but then it is easy! Okay not.
Now I locked myself in own writing, cannot come out of words. I think to understand Buddhism or Wisdom we need impermanent knowledge as very important tool, as navigation system to see our natural knowing, our nature like we all are, all of us.
“We are each living in our own soap opera. We do not see things as they really are. We see only our interpretations. This is because our minds are always so busy...But when the mind calms down, it becomes clear. This mental clarity enables us to see things as they really are, instead of projecting our commentary on everything.” Jetsunma Tenzin Palmo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bg9jOYnEUA
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Thanks for the links to The Big 14 and the Acintita Sutta. I shall read these and do my best to fathom.
> anything what arises and ceases in your realm of experience is knowable, everything else not.
Advaita lists three types of knowing:
Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony
What you describe is the first, knowledge through direct sense perception. I was wondering if Buddhism considered the others to be "valid" types of knowing.
> anything what arises and ceases in your realm of experience is knowable, everything else not.
Advaita lists three types of knowing:
Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony
What you describe is the first, knowledge through direct sense perception. I was wondering if Buddhism considered the others to be "valid" types of knowing.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
The third Unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta:
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
This is very open ended; what is the range of that "etc.?"
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
This is very open ended; what is the range of that "etc.?"
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
I am referring to links where those more learned than myself can better express it...
Page 91-92 (top para)The third Unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta:
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
This is very open ended; what is the range of that "etc.?"
1 2: Vadavidhi: A Method for Argumentation (Pages 29-47) 3 4Advaita lists three types of knowing:
Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony
What you describe is the first, knowledge through direct sense perception. I was wondering if Buddhism considered the others to be "valid" types of knowing.
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
If the ultimate nature of reality was unknowable, unrealizable then there would be no enlightenment or wisdom. When one has no knowledge of the ultimate nature of reality, then one is in ignorance. When one realizes first hand the ultimate nature of reality then one is in wisdom.rachmiel wrote:Could someone explain -- or provide links to explanations on -- the Buddhist take on what is and what is not knowable (by a human being)?
I'm asking because it seems to me that:
- Seeking to know the knowable is a worthwhile pursuit. For example, for a newbie to seek to know/understand the law of karma.
- Seeking to know the unknowable is a waste of time. For example, for someone to seek to know/understand Ultimate Truth.
I'd like to avoid the second, trying to know the unknowable. But to do that, I need to have a clue what is and what isn't knowable.
Thanks,
rachMiel
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
The range of that "etc." is relative to the range of your ability to conjecture about the world. I think the point is that when we look at the world from our deluded perception we see the world as a concrete thing that is not dependently arising right here and right now. We view it as a solid external thing and then based on that we try to figure out its origin. We also do the same thing with our sense of self. It is unconjecturable because the basic assumption about how the world and the self exist (as independent self existing entities) is deluded from the start.rachmiel wrote:The third Unconjecturable from the Acintita Sutta:
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."
This is very open ended; what is the range of that "etc.?"
So, absolutely any conjecturing we do in regards to the world or self will simply be an outgrowth of that deluded view. That is why some people conclude that a God or something must have created everything.
It is just like the person who mistakes the rope for a snake. Based on that mistaken view anything else he may conceive about that "snake" would be more delusion. He could never find the origin of that "snake" no matter how long he conjectured about it, or how clever he got about it.
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
The Acintita Sutta is denouncing sophistry / intellectual speculation.
It is not concerned with knowledge, but with expression. They are 'not to be conjectured about'.
To know what is and isn't knowable (epistemology) read Dharmakirti.
For an excellent discussion on Omniscience read Sara McClintock's Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason
http://www.wisdompubs.org/pages/display ... n=&image=1
But generally trying to know everything is not a good idea. Its enough to know that its possible.
The Great Master from Oddiyana said:
Do not cut to the root of phenomena, cut to the root of your mind.
Cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing that one thing, liberates everything.
Not cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing everything, you missed that one thing.
and
Although hundreds or thousands of explanations are given,
There is only one thing to be understood—
Know the one thing that liberates everything—
Awareness itself, your true nature.
Dudjom Rinpoché
It is not concerned with knowledge, but with expression. They are 'not to be conjectured about'.
To know what is and isn't knowable (epistemology) read Dharmakirti.
For an excellent discussion on Omniscience read Sara McClintock's Omniscience and the Rhetoric of Reason
http://www.wisdompubs.org/pages/display ... n=&image=1
But generally trying to know everything is not a good idea. Its enough to know that its possible.
The Great Master from Oddiyana said:
Do not cut to the root of phenomena, cut to the root of your mind.
Cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing that one thing, liberates everything.
Not cutting to the root of your mind, then knowing everything, you missed that one thing.
and
Although hundreds or thousands of explanations are given,
There is only one thing to be understood—
Know the one thing that liberates everything—
Awareness itself, your true nature.
Dudjom Rinpoché
People will know nothing and everything
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron
Remember nothing and everything
Think nothing and everything
Do nothing and everything
- Machig Labdron
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
plwk wrote: Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony
In Buddhadharma, all three of these are regarded as pramāṇas, i.e., authorities. Realization of ultimate truth is considered yogic pratyakṣa.
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Hope these quotes are helpful
Anthony de Mello"This is what Wisdom means: To be changed without the slightest effort on your part, to be transformed, believe it or not, merely by waking to the reality that is not words, that lies beyond the reach of words."
"Thought can organize the world so well that you are no longer able to see it."
DogenTo carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening.
Hsin Hsin MingAll is void, clear, and self-illuminating, with no need to exert the mind.
Here thinking, feeling, knowledge, and imagination are of no value.
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Actually, there are six methods of valid knowledge in Advaita, according to Swami Satprakashananda:
perception (pratyaska)
inference (anumana)
verbal testimony (sabda or agama)
comparison (upamana)
postulation (arthapatti)
non-apprehension (anupakabdhi)
I have not seen a similar Buddhist classification. Not to say there isn't one, but I haven't come across it.
perception (pratyaska)
inference (anumana)
verbal testimony (sabda or agama)
comparison (upamana)
postulation (arthapatti)
non-apprehension (anupakabdhi)
I have not seen a similar Buddhist classification. Not to say there isn't one, but I haven't come across it.
rachmiel wrote:Thanks for the links to The Big 14 and the Acintita Sutta. I shall read these and do my best to fathom.
> anything what arises and ceases in your realm of experience is knowable, everything else not.
Advaita lists three types of knowing:
Pratyakşa — direct sense perception
Anumāna — logical inference
Śabda — verbal testimony
What you describe is the first, knowledge through direct sense perception. I was wondering if Buddhism considered the others to be "valid" types of knowing.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Re: The Buddhist Take on What Is and Isn't Knowable
Matt J wrote: I have not seen a similar Buddhist classification. Not to say there isn't one, but I haven't come across it.
There isn't. Buddhadharma accepts only three authorities, the ones I've listed above.