Certainty

[Prashant Sharma]

Hi Allan,
        What I wanted to say is this: for me not knowing is a myth (because I live
in a space of thoughts...). What is there instead of "not knowing" is
....knowledge projecting the state of freeing myself from the known. So
this
demand to be free from the known (when I say that there is an X which can't
be identified with any of the knowledge that society has loaded me with) is
also a problem!
So I feel that you are right to say that
>"there is no need to complete the equation X = ? "
since this X is not-knowing.
But my statements are refering to the other part of your question:
>"Is that all there is to it?"
And the "answer" to that is that this very question is an attempt to
renounce the known (since if the answer to this is yes, then the next step
is : I should throw away everything that I know..). But you see that this
is still all happening in the realm of thought. Hence I wrote that
"renunciation of renunciation is so important ...".
        I hope I have made my statements clear in this mail.
Regards,
Prashant.
----------
> From: Allan Curry <acurry at uvic.ca>
> To: psharma at BUPHY.BU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Certainty
> Date: Thursday, November 06, 1997 4:49 PM
>
> Hi Prashant
>
> Namaste
>
> >    There is no not-knowing but knowing projecting the state
> >    of freeing oneself from the known. So infact this very
> >    demand to be free from the known is the one that is
> >    creating the problem. Which is of course why the
> >    renunciation of renunciation is so important (and yet it
> >    can't be practiced: "whomsoever it chooses, to him it is
> >    revealed").
>
>
> I don't understand this, but that seems OK and I don't know why.
>
> -Allan
>