Which is worse?

Understanding, but not letting go?
or
Letting go, but without understanding?

 

Letting go without understanding? How can you do that? Can one truly, consciously let go without understanding? Does not understanding, perceiving the truth of things, allow us to let go naturally? I mean, if you understand, you already have let go.

And on a paradoxal side note:

There's nothing to let go and nothing to hold onto.

 

Hey that painting is very interesting.

 

fight club is a very buddhist movie. aside from all the, yknow... fighting.

...nah, i guess that was pretty buddhist too.


letting go leads to understanding. understanding leads to letting go. it doesn't matter which comes first.

 

thank you....

 

To let go one must understand, but once one understands, what is there to let go of?

 

doesn't all the world's suffering begin with letting go without understanding?

objectively it certainly appears to.

(perhapse there is something about this "letting go" i am missing.)

=^^=
.../\...

 

I know this was said earlier but I'll reiterate. I truly believe that it is impossible to 'let go' (assuming you mean letting go of this illusory 'ego-world/self') without understanding. The DESIRE to let go probably comes before anything, but in between desire and the actual letting go is the search for understanding which inevitably comes. I think when one understands it actually hurts to hold on.

 

Understanding is letting go and letting go is understanding. It is like a word and its meaning - separate but not separate.

 

"letting go without understanding"
Perhaps you can just assume that you should let go of everything, but you have no idea why you're doing this or what to do afterwards.
"Understanding without letting go"
I've seen this. Like my mother (a vegetarian) understands that fish is a meat, but still eats it.

 

My motto: Insanity is to know what's right, but not to choose it.

 

It is not possible because you may let go of everything in the world, but until you give up your ego, your sense of self, you have given up NOTHING. And it is impossible to give up the sense of self without true understanding.

First of all someone eating fish is not a vegetarian, they are a meat eater. And I refuse to accept that she understands. If she understood the suffering of a fish that opens its mouth to eat and finds its mouth stabbed by a hook and dragged painfully out of the water to die of suffocation - probably the most painful and drawn out kind of death. If she understood truly then she would not eat fish.

 

Sounds more like stupidity to me.

 

What's the difference?

 

bit harsh speech there!

 

The difference is that stupidity can be overcome with knowledge, insanity cannot. It is not a matter of harshness, indeed, it is the opposite. There is hope for us fools.

 

i see i see

you have a way with words

 

Stupidity is a function of ignorance, but I have equated insanity with knowledge -- to know what's right, but not to choose it. I would also have to dispute the statement that all manifestations of insanity cannot be overcome.

 

Insanity can almost never be overcome with self effort. Thus it is set apart from ignorance.

And to know right and not choose it is to not know right truly. Superficially maybe, but on a deeper level we only do what we think is right and beneficial to us.

 

This is, sadly enough, an objective point. There are those who believe, and will argue to the end, that fish is not a meat.

Not saying I share in that belief, but it has and will continue to be argued for eternity.