Prince_James,
I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?
Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).
In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)
But what if I don't know what "sulphury" is like? Then the information you give me is useless to me.
Oh, everything can be used for something! Question is, whether that thing, or knowledge, truly brings you happiness.
I disagree.
What answer to "Who am I?" or "Why do I exist?" can you offer that will not cause me suffering?
Really? If you consider that all empirical exploration is inherently relativistic and never completed -- then the results it renders are never truly satisfactory.
Sure. But I am gladly ignorant of the colour of George Bush's socks or the half-time of Plutonium -- if I the time I would need to learn about those things, I can invest into finding what truly makes me happy.
But, humans are not all the same, so we have different pursuits.
You can't actually prove (with the means of your mind) where the line between the material world and your mind is.
The problem with this conception is that it does not take into consideration the other aspects ofs consciousness, namely, awareness, sensory perception, emotional perception, and the observance of thoughts.
I'm sorry? Are "consciousness" and "mind" one and the same thing?
They are impermanent and relative, conditioned.
In what sense? And how does this differ from physical things?
Thoughts are impermanent in that they come and go. You may try to hold on to a thought -- but eventually, you'll lose it (or your mind).
In some worldviews, thoughts are counted as sensory input -- meaning that they set thoughts in the same line with sights, smells, sounds, tastes, tactile sensations. In that sense, thoughts have the same nature as physical things. (While traditionally, in the West, we are used to strictly separate between thoughts and sensory inputs.)
can tell you how exactly burnt toenails smell like - sulphury -
But what if I don't know what "sulphury" is like? Then the information you give me is useless to me.
The idea that there is some form of knowledge which is not useful is, to me, an absurdity.
Oh, everything can be used for something! Question is, whether that thing, or knowledge, truly brings you happiness.
Moreover, this anti-philosophical attitude of not asking those three great questions solves nothing.
I disagree.
What answer to "Who am I?" or "Why do I exist?" can you offer that will not cause me suffering?
In fact, unlike other desires, the desire for knowledge of specific things -can- be satisfied by indulging it,
Really? If you consider that all empirical exploration is inherently relativistic and never completed -- then the results it renders are never truly satisfactory.
and one ought to seek knowledge as it is superior to ignorance.
Sure. But I am gladly ignorant of the colour of George Bush's socks or the half-time of Plutonium -- if I the time I would need to learn about those things, I can invest into finding what truly makes me happy.
But, humans are not all the same, so we have different pursuits.
The material world is real in the sense that it is something. But it is not real in the sense that it appears to be something it's not, it has no factual basis of it's own.
In what way does the material world have no factual basis on its own?
You can't actually prove (with the means of your mind) where the line between the material world and your mind is.