L
Lunitik
Guest
See, this is what you go on doing, missing completely.
I have said I permit body because it is irrelevant, so you interpret this as placing the body above all else?
Indeed.
Religion of not knowing
- Thread starter garro
- Start date
See, this is what you go on doing, missing completely.
I have said I permit body because it is irrelevant, so you interpret this as placing the body above all else?
Indeed.
Nope. I own relationships, because I have a part in them.
L
Lunitik
Guest
My statement is more for him than you, it is a strange sensation the first time you realize you are not the doer, but he is getting close to letting go and encountering this. He is becoming in tune with existence, and in this he will come to know oneness and the state of the witness, he will encounter much unpleasantness more than likely because ego will resist. It is exciting that he is close though, he is almost home.
Your question was simply an opening to share some of what he has in store so he doesn't enter unawares.
Your question was simply an opening to share some of what he has in store so he doesn't enter unawares.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Nope. I own relationships, because I have a part in them.
This is the kind of statement that I am talking about when I say you know nothing of spirituality. You have gone into a belief system, a system of morality, but this is not spirituality. True virtue arises from the experience of merging with the divine, otherwise you are just a trained dog.
Hi Garro, and welcome.
For a start I would say everyone is a spiritual person, the person is a unity of body, soul and spirit, therefore what do we mean by 'a spiritual person'? It can only be the recognition of a given quality, which we term 'spirit', in which case, if one does not know, one wouldn't be able to recognise it. And if one does, then one needs first to know what it is one recognises.
So I would say no, it's not possible to not know and know at the same time.
To know the distinction between knower and the known, on the other hand, is something else altogether. I tend to think the 'not knowing' is then not the deficiency of knowledge (the known), but the recognition of the unknowable-ness of the knower ... to know something truly as it is, one must be able to view it, as it were, from all sides. To contain it.
Man can contain an infinite number of things in mind, but even the sum of all he knows will never equal the startling and primordial fact that he is a creature who knows ... and moreover a creature who knows he knows ...
To know in itself is greater than the sum of all possible knowledge, to know is infinite whereas knowledge renders things finite.
The apophatic way of knowing then is not access to a body of knowledge, esoteric or otherwise, rather it is a knowing according to being, rather than a knowing according to a theory of knowledge. This is a 'dark knowing' or 'divine ignorance', but it is full and rich. It is properly called Faith.
Many like to assume 'faith' is a deficiency of knowledge — this is incorrect (ignorance is). Faith transcends knowledge because it speaks in essence and not in form, of being and not knowing.
In Catholicism we have the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Paul (in his letters) which both speak of not knowing, and a way of being that is a new creation in Christ.
Then, in the world's view of the mystical tradition, we have some pretty heavy-hitters — Clement and Origen, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximus the Confessor, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, St Thomas Aquinas and St Bonaventure, Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart and my favourite, Johannes Scottus Eriugena, who was about a 1,000 years ahead of his time.
BTW, it depends upon how you define 'mystery'. In the common sense today, it means an unknown, a who-dunnit, or perhaps what-isit, a problem without solution, in which case it seems you mean mystery in a scientific sense — how the world is. And certainly, thanks to microscopes, telescopes and HD-TV, there's plenty enough in nature to astound and beguile the senses.
If however you mean 'mystery' in the traditional, spiritual sense, then the question is not how the world is, but why the world is.
Mystery in the Christian sense, for example, is not 'the unknown' but rather 'the made known' — for there to be a mystery means something must first be revealed — the veil, the archetypal symbol of the mystery, reveals and conceals simultaneously.
God bless,
Thomas
I think every system encompasses this aspect. In Christianity it is the apophatic tradition, the way of not knowing.
Consider the question.
For a start I would say everyone is a spiritual person, the person is a unity of body, soul and spirit, therefore what do we mean by 'a spiritual person'? It can only be the recognition of a given quality, which we term 'spirit', in which case, if one does not know, one wouldn't be able to recognise it. And if one does, then one needs first to know what it is one recognises.
So I would say no, it's not possible to not know and know at the same time.
To know the distinction between knower and the known, on the other hand, is something else altogether. I tend to think the 'not knowing' is then not the deficiency of knowledge (the known), but the recognition of the unknowable-ness of the knower ... to know something truly as it is, one must be able to view it, as it were, from all sides. To contain it.
Man can contain an infinite number of things in mind, but even the sum of all he knows will never equal the startling and primordial fact that he is a creature who knows ... and moreover a creature who knows he knows ...
To know in itself is greater than the sum of all possible knowledge, to know is infinite whereas knowledge renders things finite.
The apophatic way of knowing then is not access to a body of knowledge, esoteric or otherwise, rather it is a knowing according to being, rather than a knowing according to a theory of knowledge. This is a 'dark knowing' or 'divine ignorance', but it is full and rich. It is properly called Faith.
Many like to assume 'faith' is a deficiency of knowledge — this is incorrect (ignorance is). Faith transcends knowledge because it speaks in essence and not in form, of being and not knowing.
In Catholicism we have the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Paul (in his letters) which both speak of not knowing, and a way of being that is a new creation in Christ.
Then, in the world's view of the mystical tradition, we have some pretty heavy-hitters — Clement and Origen, Dionysius the pseudoAreopagite, St Gregory of Nyssa, St Maximus the Confessor, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, St Thomas Aquinas and St Bonaventure, Nicholas of Cusa, Meister Eckhart and my favourite, Johannes Scottus Eriugena, who was about a 1,000 years ahead of his time.
In every tradition, yes ... but finding them ...
BTW, it depends upon how you define 'mystery'. In the common sense today, it means an unknown, a who-dunnit, or perhaps what-isit, a problem without solution, in which case it seems you mean mystery in a scientific sense — how the world is. And certainly, thanks to microscopes, telescopes and HD-TV, there's plenty enough in nature to astound and beguile the senses.
If however you mean 'mystery' in the traditional, spiritual sense, then the question is not how the world is, but why the world is.
Mystery in the Christian sense, for example, is not 'the unknown' but rather 'the made known' — for there to be a mystery means something must first be revealed — the veil, the archetypal symbol of the mystery, reveals and conceals simultaneously.
God bless,
Thomas
radarmark
Quaker-in-the-Making
Very good post, Thomas. The apophatic tradition, not knowing, and the mystery (of a lot of things) is a cornerstone of Orthodoxy (and Catholicism, too, I believe).
Hi Thomas, you have given a wonderful description of not knowing in the Christian sense. I suppose that I have developed agnosticism towards anything that other people say has been revealed about the mystery. I am influenced by Buddhism but I use it much in the same way that a tourist might use the ‘Lonely Planet” guidebook. It is a guide that is my personal preference because it usually works for me, but I still don’t know if it is the actual truth. I think the Buddha said something along the lines of ‘don’t mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon’.
I have no problem believing that people do experience 'contact with the divine' - I have had such experiences myself. The problem is that we will tend to interpret these based on our current belief system. So if a Christian had such an experience they might view it as contact from God whereas a Buddhist might view it as just part of the path to enlightenment. Of course I have no real way of knowing, but I suspect that all the people around the world who have had spiritual experiences will have similar events occur to them. The only difference is that they will have interpreted them differently. This is the problem for me and puts me into the position of having to say I don't know - it is all an unknowable mystery from start to finish.
Of course it is reasonable for people to accept certain ideas and attach this onto their not knowing. Personally I prefer to keep my not knowing simple – not that I’m necessary right to do so
L
Lunitik
Guest
Yes, garro, the only difference is interpretation - what the ego brings back in. It is difficult, how to convey with language what language has not been intended to express? You will have to point and say "this is a table", but it is not so easy in the spiritual world - if it were, where would the mystery be?
Your overall tone of keeping things simple rather than scholarly is beautiful, too. This is a poor medium for expressing that knowledge merely takes you away from truth, it is a forum intended for sharing knowledge - an avenue for mind to strut about all it has learned. Spirituality is not something which is learned, it is something remembered, for it was the case before you founded the "I" statement, and it will always be.
That is the art, for whom does this "I" arise? Even before YHWH - "I am what am" - what was? Who asserts that they are? It is pure awareness, can you find it? Whatsoever can be observed is not it, for it is aware of that which is being observed. Can awareness be aware of itself? If so, can you say there is two, or is only awareness present? Look and see... who is looking?
Your overall tone of keeping things simple rather than scholarly is beautiful, too. This is a poor medium for expressing that knowledge merely takes you away from truth, it is a forum intended for sharing knowledge - an avenue for mind to strut about all it has learned. Spirituality is not something which is learned, it is something remembered, for it was the case before you founded the "I" statement, and it will always be.
That is the art, for whom does this "I" arise? Even before YHWH - "I am what am" - what was? Who asserts that they are? It is pure awareness, can you find it? Whatsoever can be observed is not it, for it is aware of that which is being observed. Can awareness be aware of itself? If so, can you say there is two, or is only awareness present? Look and see... who is looking?
[FONT="]Thanks Lunitik, it does seem to be that sharing knowledge takes you away from the truth. I'm reminded of how the Buddha did not want initially to teach after his enlightenment. He had discovered something beyond words. Perhaps most religion is a clumsy attempt by people who have witnessed some truth to explain it in words. [/FONT]
L
Lunitik
Guest
It is because language is the function of that which he has gone beyond... how can mind have a dialog with Mind? It is the very barrier, but it must be used with those that do not understand silence.
Please do not overlook the device previously stated though, permit the seed to sprout, do not hold it back for then it is never harvested. There are no walls keeping you confined to the wheel, you can merely step out but your very questioning is keeping you confined... do you understand it?
Hi Garro —
That attitude always perplexes me ... no-one goes to a doctor who declares that he eschews all knowledge of medicine because that's just what other people say.
How can you do any other?
That's not an argument, that's an excuse for not-doing. It's a discreet variation of the 'sour grapes' archetype.
And how, without some measure from outside, can you be sure your experience was of the divine? I've met about half a dozen correspondents here who assure me they have the ear of God directly, unmediated, and everyone else has got it wrong.
The 'problem' is you need to pick a system and do it. That's the only way to really know.
And it's far from unknowable ... what if they all experience the same thing, but express it differently? The words are different, but the essence is the same.
What it might also mean is that everyone experiences according to who they are, except you, who has decided not to experience at all.
But good luck, and God bless!
Thomas
Yet you favour Buddhism? Is that because of what it says, or what it says it doesn't say?
That attitude always perplexes me ... no-one goes to a doctor who declares that he eschews all knowledge of medicine because that's just what other people say.
Nor will you. You can only discover the truth of a tradition by doing it.
How can they do anything other?
How can you do any other?
That's not an argument, that's an excuse for not-doing. It's a discreet variation of the 'sour grapes' archetype.
And how, without some measure from outside, can you be sure your experience was of the divine? I've met about half a dozen correspondents here who assure me they have the ear of God directly, unmediated, and everyone else has got it wrong.
Not really ... what it actually means is you're using others as an excuse for not putting in the effort.
The 'problem' is you need to pick a system and do it. That's the only way to really know.
And it's far from unknowable ... what if they all experience the same thing, but express it differently? The words are different, but the essence is the same.
What it might also mean is that everyone experiences according to who they are, except you, who has decided not to experience at all.
No, personally I don't think you are ...Personally I prefer to keep my not knowing simple – not that I’m necessary right to do so
But good luck, and God bless!
Thomas
L
Lunitik
Guest
Certainly there is something which can be known, but it is not a knowledge. This is where you have missed, you think your knowledge is meaningful to anything, in reality it takes away from the mystery and feeds your ego. He is letting go to what is, and your words may bring him back if you persist.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Buddhism provides devices for finding what you are based on making you aware of what you are not. There is a lot of nonsense in any tradition, but Buddhist texts provide much more of value than anything else simply because it says "don't take my word for it, don't blindly trust even Buddha, experience". Conversely, you have read much of your faiths texts, and now you think you know something of the divine through that text... it is not so. Jesus himself says it is not the way, you have to develop the wonder of a child to enter the Kingdom - that is the situation of not knowing, and not needing to know.
It doesn't mean a not doing, do you think prayer and ritual is going to help though? You are further crystallizing that something else is divine, and thus never encountering it yourself. You are going through motions yourself, thus thinking yourself the doer and trying to impress the God who is other... Buddhism doesn't even have you believe in God...
Buddha was walking along when a man approached him asking "Is there a God?" Buddha replies "yes" and keeps on walking. Soon, another man comes to him and asks the same, Buddha answers "no". Later, yet another asks the same question, yet this time Buddha simply sits down and meditates. An hour later Buddha opens his eyes and the man opens them at the same time. He thanks Buddha for what he has done for him that day...
Ananda has been there the whole time and has become frustrated, when the man is out of sight he turns to Buddha and says "what is this? you have answered the same question for three different people in three different ways, they were not here but I was and you are confusing me". Buddha replies "the questions were not for you, the first man was a theist, the second an atheist, the third was innocently asking. I am merely a mirror to whatsoever is there, only the third was ready to really know".
Christianity provides answers that you never encounter truth, Buddha gives you the tools to know for yourself. Christianity is adamant no man can be as Christ, Buddhism is adamant that it is the potential of every man. Jesus himself has probably gone to Buddhist monasteries though during the lost years, this is why he differs so much from the orthodox Jews, but the Christian priests are just like them now.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Take Jesus and Buddha and everyone else who has arrived as a guide, but do not try to emulate them, it will not help. They have already been done, it is not good there are only 300 religions on this earth... there should be 7 billion - each of us will arrive in a different way, and this is a celebration of our uniqueness. If we continue emulating another though, we simply void our own existence, we have created a carbon copy.
L
Lunitik
Guest
I am not for Buddhism any more than I am Christianity - getting wrapped up in any system is a poison, it will hold you back. Tradition is the enemy of the present, and answers are the enemy of the true seeker - it is not a coincidence, ready made answers cause the seeker to stop looking, tradition is creates a mindlessness, a repetitiousness that does not stir awareness. The best thing about Buddha is he says to drop even him when you arrive, certainly if any Christian has arrived they have not dropped Christ.
If you trust, existence itself is ready to show you all of its secrets, but you turn to a book to try to understand it. Why do you need to understand when you can simply trust and enjoy? It is not helpful to try to comprehend it all, it is more than enough to simply live it though. Then no ego is brought in, you simply are in awe that this even is, you are open and you allow existence in - existence will occupy the space where ego once was.
If you trust, existence itself is ready to show you all of its secrets, but you turn to a book to try to understand it. Why do you need to understand when you can simply trust and enjoy? It is not helpful to try to comprehend it all, it is more than enough to simply live it though. Then no ego is brought in, you simply are in awe that this even is, you are open and you allow existence in - existence will occupy the space where ego once was.
L
Lunitik
Guest
Also, Thomas, you say it can be known, yet in the past you have said it is not possible for man to merge with God. What then is the basis for your knowing? If it is merely through someone elses words, it is not your knowing at all, it is a memorizing and a believing... what good is this? What can this possibly accomplish, you don't know it is true, you just think it is - and ego feels good about how sure you are.
Belief is something held as truth WITHOUT a knowing. Faith is the same, something you have convinced yourself of. Trust is faith coming from the heart, yet it has no theories of its own, it doesn't bring nonsense in, it simply trusts with nothing else necessary. Trust existence completely and it reveals itself to you, think you already know and it will find someone else who is innocent, who is free from arrogance.
Nothing meaningful is found by the crowd, ever.
Belief is something held as truth WITHOUT a knowing. Faith is the same, something you have convinced yourself of. Trust is faith coming from the heart, yet it has no theories of its own, it doesn't bring nonsense in, it simply trusts with nothing else necessary. Trust existence completely and it reveals itself to you, think you already know and it will find someone else who is innocent, who is free from arrogance.
Nothing meaningful is found by the crowd, ever.
L
Lunitik
Guest
This makes my point far better, do you understand it?
When the tool has served its purpose, leave it behind, do not continue to carry it with you forever for eventually the very device that has been beneficial will become your biggest burden - and you will not realize it is so.
When the tool has served its purpose, leave it behind, do not continue to carry it with you forever for eventually the very device that has been beneficial will become your biggest burden - and you will not realize it is so.
If a person is selfish and evil enough to see another person as a mere tool for their benefit, then perhaps what you say is true: drop them if they don't benefit you any further. Whereas if a person wishes to know love, to be loving, I submit it will require dropping that selfish pursuit of self benefit, and taking on the so called burden of helping to benefit others.Lunitik said:
[FONT="]For me the most wonderful thing about Buddhism is the invitation that people go look for themselves. The Buddha never asked people to accept thing on faith. He didn’t create anything new he just pointed at something already there. I don’t do well with any teachings that expect me to accept things on faith – I don’t have that type of mentality. That is why I gave up Christianity in my early teens. [/FONT]
[FONT="]I prefer to approach the world in an open way these days. Every time I develop a strong opinion on something it means that a door in my mind has closed. Once enough of these doors close then I become closed-minded. There are religions that do sound a bit childish to me, and there is the temptation to judge the believers of such faiths to be a bit daft. It is only my attitude of ‘not knowing’ that allows me to give such individuals the benefit of the doubt. It means that I can accept that while these teaching seem absurd to me that they may be good for other people. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite my increased tolerance for people of different beliefs I do struggle to communicate with those who have strong opinions about what is right for me. I find such an attitude extremely arrogant and patronizing. I no longer get any satisfaction from debating with such people. This is because I have nothing to learn from them, and they are unlikely to care about what I want to say. I have met people who I’m convinced had attained a high degree of spiritual attainment. There were individuals who did not need to use the ‘hard sell’ with their wisdom; they also didn’t seem to have much to say on how other people were ‘doing it wrong’. [/FONT]
[FONT="]I accept other people’s right to believe; I would never claim to know what is best for them. Personally I choose to view the world as one big mystery. It makes me happy. The more I let go of my opinions and beliefs there is an increase in my state of well-being. It also means that I can be of much more service to other individuals. If I ever start thinking that I know what is best for other people this will be a sign that I’ve gone off track again. [/FONT]
[FONT="]I prefer to approach the world in an open way these days. Every time I develop a strong opinion on something it means that a door in my mind has closed. Once enough of these doors close then I become closed-minded. There are religions that do sound a bit childish to me, and there is the temptation to judge the believers of such faiths to be a bit daft. It is only my attitude of ‘not knowing’ that allows me to give such individuals the benefit of the doubt. It means that I can accept that while these teaching seem absurd to me that they may be good for other people. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Despite my increased tolerance for people of different beliefs I do struggle to communicate with those who have strong opinions about what is right for me. I find such an attitude extremely arrogant and patronizing. I no longer get any satisfaction from debating with such people. This is because I have nothing to learn from them, and they are unlikely to care about what I want to say. I have met people who I’m convinced had attained a high degree of spiritual attainment. There were individuals who did not need to use the ‘hard sell’ with their wisdom; they also didn’t seem to have much to say on how other people were ‘doing it wrong’. [/FONT]
[FONT="]I accept other people’s right to believe; I would never claim to know what is best for them. Personally I choose to view the world as one big mystery. It makes me happy. The more I let go of my opinions and beliefs there is an increase in my state of well-being. It also means that I can be of much more service to other individuals. If I ever start thinking that I know what is best for other people this will be a sign that I’ve gone off track again. [/FONT]
L
Lunitik
Guest
If a person is selfish and evil enough to see another person as a mere tool for their benefit, then perhaps what you say is true: drop them if they don't benefit you any further. Whereas if a person wishes to know love, to be loving, I submit it will require dropping that selfish pursuit of self benefit, and taking on the so called burden of helping to benefit others.
If your love is dependent, it is not real love, it is nothing more than dependency.