Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ketzer
Amen
Knowledge is fine, but it is not wisdom, nor is it necessarily truth.
In my youth I was far richer in knowledge (at least I thought it was knowledge) put relatively poorer in wisdom. The very idea that human intellect had an upper bound somehow bothered me, and I regretted that I would not live long enough to learn everything there was to know.
Fortunately, life came along and slapped me around enough to teach my thinker some humility. I unlearned many things I thought were knowledge and gained a bit of wisdom from the suffering along the way, much of which I brought about myself. As I get older, I find though I know more and more facts, they start to conflict and contradict, so thankfully, I do not accumulate as much knowledge to weigh me down as I once did, and wisdom can get in without quite as much suffering.
|
Looking at your age, you are two years younger than myself. I was curious.
As I get older, I realise that all personal truths are totally relative. It is what led to the election of the current US president (re: alternative
facts).
I also learned that people will believe whatever they want about
anything and climate change is the perfect example.
Some can see the immediate effects backed up with a century's worth of statistical data, and others cannot see any change at all, saying "show me the records for 500 years ago!" however, the disbelief has more of a political agenda so as not to ratify any other country's protocols regarding it.
Some believe the earth is flat, some believe and act as if Christianity IS religion and condemn all religion in the name of Christianity, saying "religion is responsible for massive genocide and persecutions" without using the word 'Abrahamic' and so, I say "Hinduism and Buddhism are both religions the last time I looked".
Some believe the new era of spiritual salvation is upon us, when there's no real global evidence of it apart from "people are more disenchanted with organised Christianity than ever before" as a basis for that belief.
Then, there are those who will say "non-duality" is the true path and "duality" is the false one as if the two were somehow mutually exclusive and 'true' and 'false' is a dual dichotomy within itself.
Then others will say "your God is yours and my God is mine" when God is God and how can there be a 'my God" and a "your God?" so, is our version of God mostly in-house? while ever there exists a 'version' of God, then It is in-house, however, when there's an invariant concept of the omniscient and omnipresent almighty, it's pretty much a universal nomenclature.
The aspect of variability can lead to invariability and then according to
others the version is 'in-house' because it's experiential, but according to the experiencer, it is absolutum in toto and can be anything and everything it presents itself to be.