What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Actually, by definition, an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE.

I had never heard that before so I did some research on the concept. I couldn't find another source for the idea, "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE" (Do you have another source for that concept?) but I did find this:

Enlightenment is said to be full knowledge of one's mind as it really is...

Source: The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya's Commentary (Page 56)
books.google.com...

Obviously, the above is a book on Buddhism. Interesting thought but I think it directly contradicts your assertion that "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE." Any thoughts on any of that?

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Actually, by definition, an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE.

I had never heard that before so I did some research on the concept. I couldn't find another source for the idea, "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE" (Do you have another source for that concept?) but I did find this:

Enlightenment is said to be full knowledge of one's mind as it really is...

Source: The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya's Commentary (Page 56)
books.google.com...

Obviously, the above is a book on Buddhism. Interesting thought but I think it directly contradicts your assertion that "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE." Any thoughts on any of that?

Well - that's all the knowledge that is necessary to be able to see everything else 'as it is'.

Not sure what the optimum balance is, but I suppose the natural balance is the ego. Ignorance is the way to go, but it would only work well if ignorance was in the minority

originally posted by: onthedownlow
Ignorance is the way to go

You may enjoy this thread:

Do you believe knowledge is power?

Can you make a coherent argument for why "Ignorance is the way to go"? I mean, please don't just state it as a fact, can you support your assertion with a good argument?

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Actually, by definition, an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE.

I had never heard that before so I did some research on the concept. I couldn't find another source for the idea, "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE" (Do you have another source for that concept?) but I did find this:

Enlightenment is said to be full knowledge of one's mind as it really is...

Source: The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra: With Buddhaguhya's Commentary (Page 56)
books.google.com...

Obviously, the above is a book on Buddhism. Interesting thought but I think it directly contradicts your assertion that "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE." Any thoughts on any of that?

Well - that's all the knowledge that is necessary to be able to see everything else 'as it is'.

Just to make sure I've got this straight, you're claiming that both of the following statements are true simultaneously?

1. "an enlightened being has FULL KNOWLEDGE"

2. "Enlightenment is said to be full knowledge of one's mind as it really is"

Are you saying that there is no knowledge outside of one's mind?

If you're claiming that, we're not even discussing the same things at all in this conversation. How was I supposed to be able to discuss this topic with you when your definition of "full knowledge" is obviously completely different from my definition of "full knowledge"?

Don't you think it would have been fair for you to explain what you consider "full knowledge" to be? I believe I did that in the original post. If we're discussing two different issues in a confused way such as this, isn't it a waste of time?

originally posted by: Profusion

originally posted by: RavenSpeaks

What's the optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance?

Yes, you are getting it.
Now repeat after me: What is optimum balance between knowledge and ignorance !!!

Shout it from the rooftops: " "What IS the optimum balance!!!"

Ah, the Great "What"!! Summoner of all things past present and future and
Governor of All.

The Universe is on "God- O-Pilot" . Just accept that it's dynamic balance rather than a static balance.

A way will always be found to achieve an equilbrium of sorts, whether we "help" or not.

"What".........is.........the.........answer!!!

At least one poster seems to understand how important this question is. It reminds me of a saying:

"There are a lot of dead rabbits at the bottom of the rabbit hole."

As a matter of fact, I started a thread related to that topic:

Do you consider 'the rabbit hole' to be dangerous?

I'm a veteran researcher of the "rabbit hole" and I'll tell you that on more than one occasion I got to a point where I realized that going any deeper in certain directions was not in my best interest.

There have been people who were rumored to have committed suicide based on what they found in the "rabbit hole." Personally, I can see how that can happen easily based on what I know.

But, don't expect the ideologues and religionists on this site to take that idea seriously. It doesn't really matter for them anyway because they aren't really interested in going much (or any) further in terms of personal growth or learning in my experience.

I have to wonder, is what you saw down there so profound? I mean, I typically feel like I am playing catchup... It must be liberating to be out ahead of everyone. Is it bliss?

a reply to: Profusion
Well, knowledge comes with responsibility. Don't we yearn for the days of are youth, when we had far less responsibility? I am familiar with the other thread, but I should refresh my memory, thanks

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Profusion
Well, knowledge comes with responsibility. Don't we yearn for the days of are youth, when we had far less responsibility? I am familiar with the other thread, but I should refresh my memory, thanks

I believe there are some problems with the argument above.

1. IMHO, there is no such thing as choosing ignorance. Based on my experience, when you're consciously aware of something it becomes a permanent part of your consciousness. I believe that science has proven that as well. My point concerning that would be, "choosing ignorance" is an impossibility. The negative thing you're trying to forget will always haunt you whether you try to choose ignorance or not. In other words, I would say there's no way out in such a case.

2. Choosing to be ignorant doesn't abdicate one from responsibility. For instance, if a person dies one day of a curable disease where a doctor could have easily saved their life (and the person knew that they were seriously ill), ignorance of what exact disease they were suffering from does not factor into how responsible the person was for their death IMHO.

However, I agree that in some cases the ignorant are not responsible. If a person doesn't have the mental ability to comprehend that they should see a doctor under any circumstances, I think that's the kind of ignorance that absolves responsibility. However, that kind of ignorance can't be chosen.

Concerning the "rabbit hole", different topic for a different time.

a reply to: Profusion

Yes, I quite agree, you can't unlearn knowledge, but there is limited personal culpability when one is ignorant to the outcome. I don't think we can choose ignorance, our own coping mechanisms will force us to examine the outcomes of certain actions. We will justify our behavior by finding a way to mesh the conclusion with our reasoning, in essence, choosing ignorance over knowledge, but the knowledge is inevitable. So, I believe, we can choose to embrace ignorance with a skewed version of knowledge. But what is knowledge anyways, with out perception and context?

a reply to: Profusion

Bingo - how else can you perceive the world. Everything 'outside' of you is 'your' interpretation of fallible sense perceptions. I can never know just how you see the color 'red' only the way I see it. Two (or more of us) over time have agree that a certain perception of reflected light is 'red' which forms the basis for communication between us but we can never know how each other, in their mind, perceives that color.

That's the basis of "Change your Mind (or rather more the way you use your mind) - Change your World'.

If you keep telling yourself - it's hot, it's miserably hot, it's humid and icky - that is what you experience; however if you talk to yourself about the comforting warm of the day, the cooling breeze, the benefit to your skin of a nice balmy day - you will experience a pleasantly warm day.

We tell ourselves these stories and then put value judgements on the stories we tell ourselves and do not have a clear knowledge of reality. Only when we work with and train our minds, and emotions and greet each moment without 'self-centered delusion and prejudice can we have full knowledge of anything.

Going back to an old question - how can you prove to me that you are real and not just a figment of my imagination? You can't nor can I prove my 'realness' to you.

Even physics tells us that everything is just space......

a reply to: Profusion

I can only answer for myself, but the thing I most hate about myself is my own ignorance. I have 4, and nearly 5 college degrees and have been told by many that I am extremely smart yet I still possess an actual understanding of less than 1% of the world. The more I've learned in life the less I realize I know, it is literally an unending ever enlarging void.

If a God or a Demon for that matter offered me Omniscience I would take it in an instant.

Lets use your examples. If I know a woman is being beaten, that means I also know all of the possible ways in which I could help, as well as the way that would work best.

Being aware of all of the suffering in the world would be depressing, but you would also be aware of all the joy which cancels that out. And you would be aware of all the most impactful ways to improve the world. You would even be aware of how a simple good deed like holding the door open for a person propagates through the world. I would find that type of knowledge to be very uplifting.

As for the worm, I think you could only accept that once you accept that you too will die at some point. It's just a natural part of life. Everything the world has it's own place in the system, and it's own time to leave the system, as is the worms fate it is also yours. I think the more haunting part would be having the knowledge of precisely when you would die.

originally posted by: Profusion
Of course, full knowledge would not be possible for a person. I'm sure Buddhists don't think of that as a possibility because it isn't a possibility. I'm just using it as the basis of a thought experiment.

They think of it more as being aware of what role in the system everything is playing. Being able to step away from your perspective and look at everything at once, how it's interconnected. It's not actually knowing the details of everything in the universe... there is some knowledge humans aren't meant to know.

a reply to: Profusion

The question is not answerable. In the same way that ignorance can be used to describe an absence of knowledge, death can be described as a lack of life. Knowledge is, just as life is, there are measures of knowledge or life but not measures of death or ignorance. There is no balance possible just as there is no balance possible between the full part of a hole and the empty part of a hole -- a hole is a hole, they are all just different sizes. Knowledge is knowledge, there are just different amounts of it available to people.

a reply to: Profusion

The optimum balance is in effect right now! The world has already answered this question. Often we are not happy with this answer, so we seek to deny ignorance, but this is on a personal level where we seek to grow and change. Personally i don't find the burden of knowledge to be so bad really

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Profusion
Of course, full knowledge would not be possible for a person. I'm sure Buddhists don't think of that as a possibility because it isn't a possibility. I'm just using it as the basis of a thought experiment.

They think of it more as being aware of what role in the system everything is playing. Being able to step away from your perspective and look at everything at once, how it's interconnected. It's not actually knowing the details of everything in the universe... there is some knowledge humans aren't meant to know.

meant to know is subjective when such a position comes from the objective... as theres many subjects moot to absolute obectivity one doesnt need to be entangled in as theres no benefit to knowing as thhe only way to apply this knowledge is with ones lips.

The devil is in the details and knowing all the details of a subject, specfic to all knowing? Is literally sitting in hell with the devil, because its more knowledge one doesnt really need to know... than meant too, as the meant implies some inate design with an intelligence behind it.

life does have intelligence behind it, but where we are now isnt from one creative intelligence. Its from every energy based life form ever to grace this planet working towards some end of their own function or business whether it just a simple functioning as single celled life or one of a coordinated effort from larger orgainisms like ourselves.

There is a bias to whoms effort means more of course, and this is simply called human progress instead of evolution or adaptation to adversity. The not meant to know is a concept that removes the possibility of knowledge that can be cause for adaption to the adversity this knowledge can cause... in our current form, certain knowledge may not be useful, but it might very well be a much needed imprint to ease things when elvoving to another form, either in this life subtly or the next grossfully.

Knowledge can kill you and if it doesnt then youll come out stronger once the experience turns into wisdom... but experience is a flower with more than one petal so it takes time to bloom. Theres quite a bit id rather not have intimate knowledge of... but it is what it is and by leaving it at that? its mind over matter, not in mind? doesnt matter... doesnt matter? never mind.