“We can have some level of understanding of who we are, in part, while being who we are. As life’s journey entails growth of understanding and knowledge of whom we are. Our understanding can only be in part as our spirit, mind and body are forever moving forward. We can only truly understand the present, reflect on the past and the future can only be predicted. Therefore our understanding will only be in part as long as there is a future. Do you know what you will look like in twenty years? But you know what you look like today - to some extent. You cant understand your life until its been lived.”

Nathan Henderson April 19 2004

Response:

We agree that we (i.e. humanity) have in part some level of understanding and knowledge of who we are, while being who we are. Challenge Proposition 1 is an example of part knowledge of who we are at the level of incomplete (or limited) knowledge. (Viz., we know from our limited perspective that we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are.) However, if you claim that we have more reasonable complete part knowledge of who we are (i.e. “we can only truly understand in the present”), then based on our your entry, we want to know what the passage of one’s life and one’s conscious awareness of it have to do with complete part knowledge of one’s life?

Also, we would like to know how you, or anyone else, from your comparative perspective could know the present (i.e. the moment now), whether completely or incompletely and without relying on past knowledge?

Further, it is unclear to us how you more reasonably can have complete part knowledge of the present without also having complete knowledge of the past and future.

476. Entry:

“The entity to which the question arises must be understood prior to doing anything. Owing to one's notions as instilled since birth by parents, relatives, friends and teachers, etc. the processing mind always obscures one's vision distorting the truth by coloration arising out of such notions. If the human mind may be compared to a virtual gyroscope with its rigidity arising due to one's notions and the spin due to one's desires, then such a notional mind always tries to be in a state of spin and is terribly afraid to topple when still and while in constant motion precession or reaction to anything upsetting the desires occurs in a totally different direction. And, soon a kaleidoscope of the cosmos and events therein appear in one's mind screen giving rise to a feeling of reality and tangibility. This happens to be the state of affairs in wakeful state when one identifies oneself to be the body and keeps doing something or the other enveloped by the barrier imposed by mass, space, and time. The three fundamental dimensions, Mass, Space, and Time are purely notional arising out of one's feeling of own existence as if it is separate from the Source of it all. Body-consciousness gives rise to the feeling of space and any movement by the mind therein gives rise to the notion of time and movement away from reality leads to the feeling of heaviness of body or mind. On the other hand when one is in a state of slumber or dreaming state the body awareness being absent, only the mind may play its tricks arising out of hidden notions and desires when one may overcome space, time and ma ss and may even travel to distant galaxies! However, while deep asleep or in a state of coma, the body-mind apparatus goes to screensaver mode preserving or recovering itself, in a basic mode of existence with vital organs functioning and breathing and digestion and waste removal systems in tact. If one looks at it all very closely, we may observe a constant entity underlying all the three states as if witnessing everything always. No wonder we go to sleep as 'Person A' and do not get up as 'Person B'! If one were to grasp the true nature of such an entity firsthand, while living as the body-mind apparatus at the same time, he/she gets it all. All human endeavor being fragmental either body-oriented or mind-oriented may notionally grasp the idea of capturing the whole but unless one tastes it firsthand so to say as if a child must taste sugar in order to understand what sweetness of sugar means. The processing mind obscures or colors one's true perception and hence the notions and desires and processing of the mind must end for the truth to reveal itself. As long as the mind is kept heavy due to notions and kept spinning due to desires and colorful kaleidoscopic effects remain due to the processing, one's awareness is immersed in the events and movements appearing on a giant virtual screen extending from plus infinity to minus infinity in x-y-z-t dimensions, failing to grasp the underlying reality of the Source of light or vision or the screen. It is similar to one forgetting the movie screen or the light source once the movie starts! Therefore MIND and TRUTH are mutually exclusive. As everyone has a spark of intelligence existing at cellular level due to which organs even repair themselves, if only one can grasp the true nature of such self-illuminating spark of intelligence in the stillness of the mind when the processing and obscurity and coloration stops, as if one is watching a peepshow at the origin (0,0,0,0) at some aspect of a dynamic reality veiled by the giant virtual screen which had initially emerged from nowhere owing to the MIND. Once grasped this state it is not far off to see the universal character of this spark of intelligence being same in every form of life all around. Crossing the first hurdle imposed by BODY-MIND may be transcendental and arriving at the cosmic nature of it is universal. Another analogy that body-mind apparatus is like a biological computer robot forming inter, intranet networks called family, township, city, country, nationality, etc. processing always and unable to fathom what is happening on the other side of a firewall where a super computer is watching it all and always knowing everything happening here. When cosmic awareness is grasped firsthand "enlightenment" occurs naturally without any conscious effort as if shifting one's awareness to the other side of the firewall and be at the SOURCE. Summarizing we may look at it all like follows: - Away from the Source leads to the notion space and mass and movement therein gives rise to the notion of time. Engrossed by the colorful display of the happenings in the cosmos owing to above notions we keep adding layers of ignorance over the spark of intelligence remaining veiled deep inside each form of life. Meditations and prayers are procedures to minimize these layers of ignorance in an analog process. Sudden enlightenment if it occurs is akin to a digital transformation similar to switching on a source of light which would drive away darkness of all ignorance once for all. After such enlightenment then one knows firsthand that he is nothing but the very SOURCE; there is no question of going back to the state of ignorance as both are mutually exclusive. Subsequently though such sages and saints and prophets, only a few of them appearing here and there now and then, are constantly in a state of TRUE awareness and compassionate towards other forms of life apparently struggling in their varying states of ignorance and happenings therein. As a living sage by the name Stephen Jourdain in France observes in his book titled The Radical Awakening, such enlightened persons may appear normal but keep living life as if reading different stories choosing any page any character and playing the part, and always full of love and compassion blissfully overflowing - for the benefit of mankind as well as plant, animal and mineral kingdoms, always. All our notions of GOD, Religion, code of conduct, etc. are just tools of wisdom designed to melt away the layers of ignorance and preserving notions of networked groups to minimize the chaos all around. At the end of the journey of life one may very well throw such tools aside and deal with only what remains true and mercilessly keep rejecting the false as the false in the stillness of the notional mind.”

R. Rangan April 24 2004

Response:

We find your entry to be quite compelling on the surface due its flow of ideas. However, upon closer evaluation, there are some significant issues you need to address.

You say that the “constant entity”, “TRUTH”, “spark of intelligence”, “source” needs to be grasped “firsthand” (i.e. individually experienced), and yet you assert that the “TRUTH” and mind (thereby human knowledge as well) are “mutually exclusive”. Viz., it is unclear to us how anyone can experience something firsthand without knowing that they experienced something firsthand.

Also as mentioned, you say that the mind and TRUTH are mutually exclusive, but you then refer to TRUTH as a “spark of intelligence” which suggests that the mind and TRUTH are inclusive. (I.e. intelligence is a conscious phenomenon.)

Further, you assert that the notional mind must be stilled, and yet you rely on notions like “source”, “True awareness”, cosmic awareness”, “cosmic nature” etc. to describe what is suppose to be devoid of notions (and the mind).

The key issue in our view is how firsthand experience devoid of the mind more reasonably establishes so-called TRUTH? Viz., how can firsthand experience without the use of the mind, barring its stillness, more reasonably establish anything we know including so-called TRUTH? How can firsthand experience with the use of the mind more reasonably establish TRUTH, especially inconsideration of the apparent block/separation between experience and knowledge of experience (Response to Entry 310), and the apparent interactive nature of things? (Argument 1 in defense of Proposition 1)1

_________________________

1. Representational knowledge

Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable from our comparative perspective than something coming from something else ad infinitum (infinite causality), because we can only know by imputing (infinite) causality onto things.

The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of the Competition 1, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational.

477. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 476

“I wish to clarify the issues raised by you as follows: The human mind appears to be only notional as no one has been able to pinpoint its location in the body-mind apparatus so far. It seems to permeate every cell and molecule, having its own intelligence by the fact that broken limbs heal and cell counts of organs are constant, etc. Therefore such an intelligent principle ticking inside is like electricity energizing a computer which may process inputs and give outputs after processing. Instead of identifying one’s true identity by "I" to be the body or the mind it ought to be the energizing intelligent principle instead. If a computer is deplugged or switched off it is dead! Body may be likened to the display unit and mind to the virtual CPU giving rise to dogmas, beliefs, notions, desires, etc., and whatever can be known by the mind is only through what is already known. It can only interpret, assess or extrapolate and the mind can never capture what 'is' which lies in the domain of the unknown. But understanding firsthand that "I" is none of these but the intelligent principle seems to be the key to enlightenment. Thus, MIND and TRUTH (of what IS) are always mutually exclusive and projections by the obscurity of the mind must stop prior to any perception of what 'is'. The mentioning of SOURCE is only tentative like a pointer rather than being any description. Conservation of mass, energy, etc. which are taken for granted are never questioned as to why it is so. From that point of view obviously any event or appearance must have a screen or hologram but must INEVITABLY have a source of illumination. At birth the food substance given by parents as single cells gets energized somehow as if a spark of intelligence gets captured there to grow later and ignorantly think that it is only the body or mind, through notions arising out of genetic and environmental factors. If only the electron flowing in any apparatus identify itself to be same as the source of all such electrons qualitatively speaking then it will suddenly get transformed to a different state of awareness and all of a sudden as if digital transformation has occurred. So it is with awareness and ignorance. This has been well corroborated by saints and sages living and dead from various parts of the globe at different points of apparent time. Words like NEW YORK for example are easily taken for granted by even specialists like you. If one looks at it closely what is really implied by the term NEW YORK for example. If one shows on a map it is only a piece of paper and not New York. If one shows photos or audio or video clips or descriptions, etc. the inadequacy still remains. What is referred to as NY is a dynamic reality which is ever-changing with all the people, trees, clouds, dirt, filth, crime, etc. and no one can ever describe it all. Consequently if the majority of world population living in China & India may well reject the existence of NY for the simple reason that no one has ever shown them NY in its entirety. If the majority rejects will NY cease to exist? So is the case with the pointer term like GOD, SOURCE, etc. Instead of theoretically understanding such a concept as a form or notion or a figure to be static one must take into account the inherent limitations of words, descriptions, etc and go beyond NOT by the MIND but by perceiving what "is" in the stillness of the MIND. At the final moment when this awakening takes place the observer and the observed become one and notions of space, mass, time cease, and as is one is at the single point where minus infinity meets plus infinity!”

R.Rangan April 29 2004

Response:

In our view, the ground for your claim of more reasonable complete knowledge of who we are is the “stillness of the MIND”. What do you mean by the stillness of the MIND? How can an individual perceive in the stillness of the MIND, as you contend, and know that he or she has? Doesn’t perception and knowledge of it require motion of the MIND, at some level, rather than stillness of the MIND? Moreover, what is it about the stillness of the MIND that an individual can more reasonably perceive complete knowledge of who he or she is?

Related to these questions, how can an individual more reasonably perceive what “is”, defined by “a single point where minus infinity meets plus infinity”, when the notion of infinity itself (i.e. no beginning or end) is, in a complete sense, more reasonably outside of our comparative perspective?

478. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 473

“With due respect the Committee has misunderstood the relationship terms I referred to between ‘I am’ and, ‘we are’. That ‘I am’ is inevitably included in any discourse (because of our condition), it then automatically undermines any effort to realize ‘who we are’. ‘I am ‘ is the perennial attempted dichotomy, which can never understand the reality of who ‘we are’, and consequently that mythical state attempts to reduce the true reality of ‘who we are’ to a nothingness, a near nothingness we are virtually unable to contemplate, or understand. Indeed I contend that all other mythical dichotomies are the product of this circumstance. It does not mean that the purpose, and the hope of the question of who ‘we are’ are irrelevant. What it does mean is that if the collective ‘I am’ is used as a substitute for ‘we are’, then any speculation on ‘who we are’ is consistently tainted.

It is important to consider that any theory of ‘who we are’ governed by an instilled belief in dichotomies can only proceed along a continually divergent path away from the truth. Life at one time, as I understand, was governed by the belief that the earth was flat. Now we have dispensed with the dichotomy, and we have a more than reasonable assurance that the earth was, and is, approximately round!

Empirical knowledge must be based on reasonable identifiable facts that we mutually agree upon, the very basis of all human progression, otherwise we are attempting to deny innate knowledge. We innately know the factors that establish our being ness, and when we manifest that knowledge through interaction, and harmony with Reality, then, it is Truth.

All that we will ever be able to deal with directly is the Here and Now. We do not have anything else! There is nothing else! Speculation on any Supreme Being within that context is an exercise in futility. It is consistent with looking for a spurious concept of Truth that does not exist.

Construct the essence of ‘who we are’ by observing ‘what is’. It is our very nature to conform to a reality that offers us extension. The very process of correct observation establishes reality as it is, and we obtain knowledge that is consistent (e.g., Archimedes). Human activity necessarily translates into ‘mutual agreement’, and all that that means. Observe human action, and identify ‘mutual agreement’, this can convert to recognition of ‘what is’, and the possibility of the experience of ‘who we are’. There is then complementation of experience, and knowledge.

When we deal with Reality there are no ‘abstract’ theoretical components that we need to reach for in the belief, and futile hope, that they will offer us meaning.

I have previously posited the concept as an exercise in ‘more reasonableness’, of two entities endowed with, and sharing all complementary principles, and suggested extrapolation from that. When there are two of equal complementary principles there can be the experience of real, and positive mutual agreement of ‘who we are’ (a more than reasonable supposition).

I have also made the observation that a single entity, in and of itself is’nonsense’. How have you assumed that I have taken the position that ‘a being-in-itself can be a being known of itself’?

Ontology:

As I have proposed that all principles are Universal, and that we are endowed from birth with innate knowledge of their existence, given that proposition it would be reasonable to presume that we are not located in a mind, or in a box (that we must get out or escape from), but that being-ness is a Universal capacity, and our natural locale. When our human actions are consistent with the reality of the factors that we share, then indeed we can advance toward becoming human. Mutual agreement is the construction of meaning in our human existence. It is the point of identity that makes sense to us, and the central point from which we extend. Within its potential it can lead to the identity of ‘who we are’.

To understand, and experience ‘who we are’ it is imperative that we observe our human counterparts, and our achievements in action. Singular introspective activity is just that, singular, and introspective, without relationship to what is. There is no Truth, Knowledge, or Experience without relationship.

Facts replace myths. To believe what one is saying is not necessarily telling the truth, and in extreme, mythical delusion leads to deception. The misuse of dichotomies over time has been hammered into a mythical reality.

The establishing of factors that re-align reality is a necessary functional construct.

Conventional contemporary disciplines have by the very nature of time alone, restrictive limitations in definition that need to be overcome. The emergence of new, and better definitions further validates the existence of ‘what is’, and improves the potential toward greater understanding, experience, and knowledge.

Indeed when we actively observe, and are in the presence of ‘mutual agreement’ on the roads e.g., we are in fact observing human potential in action, it is not a theoretical projection. There are of course a multitude of ‘observable facts’ that will offer us reason to assess the proper human condition.

Epistemology:

All human activity, and processes, function on the basis of ‘mutual agreement’, and of ‘who we are’. There could be no Science, Philosophy, Religion, Art or Law otherwise. Consider if all societies attempted to function without the imperative of ‘mutual agreement’. All knowledge (not presumed knowledge) can only exist within the context of mutual sharing, and agreement, and an understanding of its direct value to us. There is no ‘if’ about us observing the manifestation of principles. Each, in our own measure, does it on a minute-by-minute basis. We do conform to the obligation, and process of ‘mutual agreement’, which is the innate part of our being, and knowledge.

The basis of all Truth is Knowledge. We could not function sanely otherwise. We know with some certainty that the chair we usually occupy will support us. We know with some certainty that all of the millions of motorists, who use the highways, most conform to the rules of the road. We can deduce with some certainty the very nature of our being through conformity to correct social constructs. Where there is a basic rightness to any human activity, we can evaluate, and make judgments concerning its activity, and validate its correctness.
Could we say with some certainty that there is ‘mutual agreement ‘ on the roads?
This then establishes Knowledge, and Truth. Truth is the consequential outcome of correct Knowledge.
We can, and do, regulate our activities to conform to the general good – we meet our obligations!
There are a multitude of other examples that we can use as valid constructs.

…………………………………

Being-ness can only be identified in relationship. The eventual outcome of solitary confinement of any individual is madness, because the person is removed from the vital reality of relationships that constitutes their very being.

The conceptual value of two is the only construct that matches all reasonable discourse, more especially so when that discourse is addressing the fundamental question of who we are. Understanding, and experiencing who ‘we are’ is a process of deliberate construction from the basis that we already know! We have the innate potential to validate our own being through relationships, and observing factors that are the foundation of our existence.

Everyone is expressing – it is identifying the true nature of that expression that is critical. Addressing that which we can establish as Truth can evoke the collective human experience. We can choose to observe Reality, or not.

……………………………..

With respect it appears to me that the Committee makes assessments of entries on an individual basis without reference to previous material. It is the only explanation I have for apparent misunderstandings on the similarity of issues I have already presented.
My common sense tells me that if there is an abundance of material then it may not be possible to review past entries, but it would lead to inconsistent overall construction.
For me to express acknowledgement, as you suggest, that my entries do not meet the criteria of ‘more reasonableness’, would be tantamount to me denying that ‘we are’, or that it is not possible for us to truly know our very nature, and frankly that to me would be a preposterous conclusion, not simply from a wide held pragmatic, and common-sense view, but more essentially from the basic realization that we are interdependent, and mutually connected. The term ‘interdependent connectedness’ alone, could be the catalyst for realization of ‘who we are’.”

Bridie May 5 2004

Response:

In this response we will point out some issues and questions stemming from your entry (and the totality of your entries) that need to be more reasonably addressed, otherwise your entry (and the totality of them) falls short of meeting the requirement of more reasonable explanation of complete knowledge (of who we are).

1. You claim at a fundamental level that we (i.e. humanity) have “innate knowledge”, and that through a process of “observing what is” and obtaining “knowledge that is [experimentally and experientially] consistent”, we attain “mutual agreement” (viz., “interaction and harmony with Reality”) which correlates to our innate knowledge and equates to “Truth”.

In this position, which you have claimed in previous entries (e.g. Entry 460), you establish the possibility of complete knowledge and our mutual agreement on interaction with the external world. However, you are merely asserting that we have “[pure, absolute] innate knowledge” without more reasonably demonstrating that we do. So based on both your negation of the thing-in-itself (i.e. “a single entity, in and of itself is ‘nonsense’”), and view of “Truth” as contingent on relationship (i.e. “There is no Truth, Knowledge, or Experience with experience”), what is the origin of our absolute innate knowledge? Where does the innate knowledge come from at the birth of a human being? If everything according to you is in a “relationship”, how can our proposed innate knowledge be considered complete or absolute? If you are to more reasonably establish completeness, it appears to us that our innate knowledge at some point would have to be devoid of relationship. (If you claim that there is a oneness of relationship, then that conception of oneness is in contradiction to your claim that there is no thing-in-itself, and faces the problem of a thing-in-itself being known of itself. (Entry 317))

2. We agree that there is “some certainty” regarding the chairs we occupy to support us, or the road knowledge of other drivers on the roads we share. Though how does that “some certainty” equate to complete certainty in order to more reasonably demonstrate complete knowledge? In other words, why do we more reasonably need complete knowledge in order to use chairs for support or use roads with other drivers? Why isn’t limited knowledge (or limited certainty) of the construction of chairs enough that we can use them with confidence or limited knowledge (or limited certainty) in the road knowledge of other drivers that we can use the roads without constant fear of collision?

3. You claim that our position is that “it is not possible for us [i.e. humanity] to truly know our nature”. No, our position is that it is possible to truly know our nature, but it is less reasonable based on what we know. (Supporting arguments)

4. How does the realization that we are “interdependent and mutually connected” more reasonably establish complete knowledge (of who we are)? What is it about the realization itself that it more reasonably establishes complete knowledge? If you refer to our absolute innate knowledge, then as in Point 1, we require a more reasonable explanation for the existence of absolute innate knowledge.