The Nature of Knowledge

Is there an ultimate knowledge? Are there ultimate answers to all the questions we have?

One may use any word, or words, to describe the ultimate understanding; but it doesn’t really matter what words are used because a word is not the “thing.”

The problem here is that there is nothing to describe. As far as our knowledge is concerned we can only know what we consider. We can never know what lies beyond these considerations. We may certainly consider what lies beyond; but then, we would only know the consideration we make.

Thus, what lies beyond considerations is unknowable. As we dig deeper to know more we shall simply find more considerations. Actually, we may simply uncover more of our own hidden assumptions, speculations, etc.

This unknowable would then be nothing more than a carrot to help uncover the considerations, which may be hidden deep in our consciousness. That is more than wonderful.

What then is this consciousness? What is at the core of consciousness? Who or what is THAT, which considers, and which is conscious of these considerations?

THAT, which considers, and which is conscious, is beyond time because time itself is a consideration. Whether THAT exists for ever or for just a blink of an eye, is the same thing. All that we find existing is the consideration of TIME.

THAT is also beyond space because space itself is a consideration. Whether THAT occupies all space or no space at all, is the same thing. All that we find existing is the consideration of SPACE.

Similarly, THAT is beyond the considerations of energy and matter. Whether THAT is all powerful, or with no power at all, is the same thing. Whether THAT is complete substance, or with no substance at all, is again the same thing. Power and substance are considerations too.

Is consciousness just a consideration? Is THAT, which considers, and which is conscious of these considerations, itself a consideration? Would we ever know who we truly are?

The ultimate identification of “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” seems to be unknowable, as these questions lead to speculations and more considerations. I do not know what others’ experience has been in this regard; but for me the ultimate identification has been unknowable. I have to accept that.

Any answers to “who”, “what”, “where” and “when” then must be self-generated and self-contained. The seed must appear spontaneously and randomly somehow… from where… that is impossible to know. This seed may then balloon into a “sphere of considerations” in a background of unknown.

All considerations in this “sphere” must be interconnected. All these considerations must support each other somehow. We try to look for linearity, and a beginning and an end; but, on the ultimate scale, I do not find such linearity to be there.

No wonder, others find me to be going around in circles. There is definitely a truth to this accusation. I do not have the ultimate answer. Nor do I think that anybody else has the ultimate answer.

A seeming answer may lie in this self-contained and self-generated “sphere of consideration.” But that may only take one around in circles. Sorry! This is my conclusion.

But there seem to be freedom beyond a mere consideration of freedom. One can only be constrained by one’s own considerations. Freedom may mean not constrained by one’s own considerations. Only those considerations may constrain one that are being generated unconsciously. One may enjoy life fully; participate in any and all adventures, while also being aware of all considerations one is generating even at the deepest level.

That would be Nirvana of Buddhism… that would be Mukti of Hinduism… that may be the “salvation” of Christianity; for this doesn’t mean forsaking life and adventure.

Nirvana would simply mean absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It would mean total command over oneself. The Vedic concept of Brahma, as built into the process “neti, neti,” helps one move in that direction. With the process of “neti, neti,” one is simply saying, “This may not be the ultimate answer because this could just be a consideration of mine.”

This process then helps one question what one has been taking for granted, and look at it more closely to see if it is not just what one is considering. It is boring into the unknown and finding more and more of one’s own hidden considerations. When one knows that there are no more hidden considerations then only one knows oneself fully. That, to me, is Nirvana. From that point on one knows when one is generating, sustaining or dissolving considerations. It is the state of perfect equilibrium. This is just my take. It may or may not be true for another person.

Thus, Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then dissolve that consideration. Nirvana would not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana would simply mean total control over one’s considerations. One may then attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one’s enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana. Buddha lived to a grand age of 80, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana.

In that Nirvana… in that Mukti… in that Salvation… seems to lie the ultimate knowledge.

 .

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Comments

  • Cat Daddy  On April 17, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    whoopi

  • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

    Very good synopsis.

    I think that Neti-neti can be easily overrun leaving one in an apathy and “lack of having-ness” rather than a serenity. Again, a balance of considerations and no-considerations is important.

    • vinaire  On April 17, 2011 at 3:32 PM

      You seem to be using the word “overrun” the way it is used in Scientology. “Neti, neti” is a Vedic process. It is not a Scientology process. It is not run like a Scientology process.

      “Neti, neti” is there simply to question the ultimate reality of considerations.

      .

      • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2011 at 10:39 PM

        So I am wrong, but in what way? What are you saying?

      • vinaire  On April 17, 2011 at 10:46 PM

        If there is anybody wrong here then it is probably me for not being clear. It is just the nature of truth.

        ~Vinaire

    • vinaire  On April 18, 2011 at 6:07 AM

      I am not sure what you mean by “lack of havingness.” There are plenty of considerations to have. One is not trying to get rid of any considerations with the process of “neti, neti.” One is simply saying, “This is not the ultimate answer because it is just a consideration of mine.” This process then helps one question what one has been taking for granted, and look at it more closely to see if it just what one is considering.

      It is boring into the unknown and finding more and more of one’s own hidden considerations. When one knows that there are no more hidden considerations then only one knows oneself fully. That, to me, is Nirvana. From that point on one knows when one is generating, sustaining or dissolving considerations. It is the state of perfect equilibrium. This is just my take. It may or may not be true for another person.

      ~Vinaire

  • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2011 at 7:59 PM

    We keep dancing all over and around conceptualizing “nothing.” For me, this only means it isn’t physical. This is the straight-wire of neti neti. You just go right there to where you can go. Past that is nothing. Another kind of something which isn’t anything. You say it and then I say it and then you say no it isn’t that and I say right it isn’t that and you say no it isn’t what you are saying it isn’t.

    This is not correct since it is circular and goes nowhere. It is the definition of a trap and I think some of these mantras have no other purpose.

    We proceeded from what wasn’t and toward what is. Maybe the “Game” cycles this way or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe it finally runs its course. Maybe it can be rehabilitated. Maybe it doesn’t need to be. Maybe the lacking is individual and entirely within ourselves. Maybe we should drop the figure-figure and proceed forward creating effects with purpose.

    The “human game” is apparently tiny as compared with MEST taken as a whole. Ironically, we applaud our own spirituality and say how we want to be cause over MEST when we struggle to get a job or put food on the table or worry about a “credit score.”

    When Geir says the urge to survive is a basic aberration, this makes total sense to me.

    Backing away from the effects that we observe, don’t we arrive at ourself? Not the ego or ball of considerations, but ourself behind the considerations – I don’t particularly conceptualize myself as one-with-the-great-all-in-the-sky. But this may be my self-determined self writing this. Individuated from all others.

    And yet, when being pan-determined don’t I embrace every other viewpoint?

  • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2011 at 8:03 PM

    LRH said living well required the correct balance of force and intelligence.

    Your vedic process is intelligent, granted. Once one has reduced what is to the irreducible minimum, the purpose was what?

    • vinaire  On October 15, 2011 at 5:10 PM

      Maybe the purpose is to have no hidden or suppressed considerations; but have everything laid out on the table totally visible.

      .

  • vinaire  On April 17, 2011 at 9:29 PM

    I am afraid I have not been able to explain myself too well. So, I am going back to the drawing board.

    ~Vinaire

  • Chris Thompson  On April 17, 2011 at 10:59 PM

    You are writing but I don’t feel I am being read.

    • vinaire  On April 17, 2011 at 11:08 PM

      I shall read your input again. Thanks for commenting on my blog.

      ~Vinaire

  • Anonymous  On October 15, 2011 at 2:14 PM

    Hunting the considerations about God seems to me very useful to not be stopped on a believe which is ignorance . I’m going to practice neti neti observing the toughts I have on the topic. If we don’t put force, there is no risk of ovorrun

    • vinaire  On October 15, 2011 at 5:12 PM

      There is no risk of overrun at all if you take the KHTK approach of looking at what is already there, and not adding anything more to it.

      .

  • rafgila  On October 16, 2011 at 5:06 AM

    Yes I concur but please what is the exact meaning of KHTK?

  • rafgila  On October 17, 2011 at 5:14 AM

    thank you for the explanation and the link

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: