What is Unknowable?

With the use of the Vedic process “neti, neti” I have finally arrived at the following understanding. This is also referred to as BRAHMA in Vedic terminology.

(1) I shall use the word UNKNOWABLE for the moment in an attempt to describe my understanding at this level. It doesn’t really matter what word I use because word is not the “thing.”

(2) The problem here is that there is NOTHING to describe. As far as our knowingness is concerned we can only know the considerations that appear spontaneously and randomly… from where… that is impossible to know.

(3) 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.

(4) Thus, we can only know the considerations and not what is beyond them. As we try to dig past considerations, we simply find more considerations.

(5) Actually, as we dig deeper in our attempt to describe what is beyond, we may simply uncover and describe our own hidden considerations.

(6) Thus, this unknowable beyond is nothing more than a carrot, that may help us uncover the considerations that, maybe, lie hidden deep in our consciousness. This is more than wonderful.


(7) When we think of beingness we think of the being (soul). That being is not the core of beingness. The core of beingness is unknowable.   

(8 ) Whether the being dissolves into the unknowable is neither here nor there. Beyond considerations there is no time. So, whether one is “Unknowable” for a billion years or for just a blink of an eye. It is the same thing.

(9) We will never know if we had ever dissolved into the unknowable or not. All we would ever know at the highest level is being a “soul” in its simplest form.

(10) As far as we are concerned, the idea of the unknowable is simply there to help us uncover the deepest of our considerations.

And beyond this:

(11) A being (soul) can be constrained only by its own considerations. Total freedom would mean not be constrained by one’s own considerations.

(12) Only those considerations would constrain a being that are being generated and held fixedly in place because of ignorance.

(13) A being 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.

(14) That would be Nirvana… that would be the unknowable beyond… that would be attaining Brahmahood; for this doesn’t mean forsaking of life and adventure.

(15) Nirvana, or total freedom, simply means absence of hidden considerations even at the deepest level. It means total command over oneself. The concept of Brahma, as built into the process “neti, neti,” helps one move in that direction.

(16) Nirvana would simply mean the ability to generate a consideration, hold on to that consideration, and then destroy that consideration.

(17) Nirvana does not mean forsaking this universe. Nirvana simply means total control over one’s considerations. One can attain Nirvana while being in this universe. In fact one’s enjoyment of this universe would be infinitely greater after attaining nirvana.

(18) Buddha lived to a grand age of 80, quite rare for his time, after attaining nirvana.


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • marildi  On November 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM

    I get the idea that we can KNOW ABOUT Unknowable – certain things, as in 7 and 8 above – but we cannot KNOW Unknowable in the sense of being able to perceive it or have experience of it, of its actual nature. “Know about” vs. “know” – is that a helpful key to understanding your conception?

    I really like the intention behind the “big carrot” idea and also the description of Nirvana.


    • vinaire  On November 13, 2011 at 9:22 AM

      Mine is just a speculation. But I am trying for consistency.



  • R  On November 13, 2011 at 8:59 AM

    You can only make a true statement about Nirvana if you have attained it yourself (and IF there is a Nirvana as believed and so largely described).
    And even so there might be no need for such considerations.

    But… I cannot really tell.


    • vinaire  On November 13, 2011 at 9:26 AM

      There is no truth (read absoluteness).
      There is only consistency (read relativity).



      • R  On November 13, 2011 at 9:38 AM

        There is no truth = “truth”
        There is only consistency = “solidity”


      • vinaire  On November 13, 2011 at 10:15 AM

        What does consistency being “solidity” mean?



  • R  On November 14, 2011 at 4:58 AM

    Solidity = Mind phenomena = Illusion = Emptiness

    Consistency = Emptiness = Unreality

    Consistency [In(t0) W0rds] = Relative, mutable, contextual, moldable

    What consistency are you looking for…


  • Maria  On December 7, 2011 at 2:59 PM

    Vinaire, I do believe you will find this essay very fruitful:



  • Maria  On December 7, 2011 at 3:05 PM

    p.s. this is in response to your asking me to contribute to the discussion of unknowable on the scn forum. Sorry it took so long, and really I am still in process on my responses. But I have had some fruitful glimmerings from the article I posted for you. See what you think.


    • vinaire  On December 7, 2011 at 7:47 PM

      This beginning sentence caught my eye.

      “Under and behind all outward appearances or manifestations, there must always be a Substantial Reality.”

      I look at it as a speculation or consideration that is being used as the stable datum in this article. I am continuing to read.

      “”Reality” means: “the state of being real; true, enduring; valid; fixed; permanent; actual,” etc.”

      Reality is defined in this article as a function of time. This, right away points out the inconsistency of the stable datum above.



    • vinaire  On December 7, 2011 at 8:15 PM

      “Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit,…”

      This is an interesting observation. Basically it is saying that a manifestation (universe) is capable of considering itself. Actually, This is a valid observation. I regard that as something which is consistent in itself. Please see,




    • vinaire  On December 7, 2011 at 8:20 PM

      “He sees that nothing really IS, but that everything is BECOMING and CHANGING.”

      Well. the fact that there is something to observe and that he is observing something, is unchanging.

      So, the presence of the superset called “universe” is unchanging from the viewpoint of the “universe.”



    • vinaire  On December 7, 2011 at 8:21 PM

      I think that is enough for now. Sorry, if I have disappointed you in some way.



    • vinaire  On December 8, 2011 at 7:48 AM

      “We accept and teach the view of the great Hermetic thinkers of all times, as well as of those illumined souls who have reached higher planes of being, both of whom assert that the inner nature of THE ALL is UNKNOWABLE. This must be so, for naught by THE ALL itself can comprehend its own nature and being.

      “The Hermetists believe and teach that THE ALL, “in itself,” is and must ever be UNKNOWABLE. They regard all the theories, guesses and speculations of the theologians and metaphysicians regarding the inner nature of THE ALL, as but the childish efforts of mortal minds to grasp the secret of the Infinite.”

      To me “THE ALL” represents a manifestation. UNIVERSE is THE ALL. Universe is the ultimate manifestation. Universe has the capability of being aware of itself. Awareness is part of this ultimate manifestation we may call the Universe.

      What is beyond manifestation is UNKNOWABLE simply because it is not manifested. We may speculate about it, but, then, we simply manifest our speculations which are part of the Universe.



  • katageek  On December 21, 2011 at 11:07 AM

    “Neti, Neti” sounds a lot like the koan “Mu.” Perhaps Bodhidharma did a little cut and paste. But we’ll never know. . .


  • katageek  On December 21, 2011 at 12:08 PM

    Perhaps this idea can help Vin:

    “We cannot know the unknowable, but we can EXPERIENCE the unknowable.”


  • vinaire  On December 21, 2011 at 1:49 PM

    I won’t speculate anything where unknowable is concerned. Even the symbol “unknowable” is just a placeholder.

    Happy holidays! Katageek.


  • vinaire  On June 16, 2012 at 5:43 AM

    Can we go beyond consideration?

    Maybe. If we do not consider, but merely look. I do not know what that would be like because there is no consideration.



  • vinaire  On March 30, 2014 at 11:24 AM

    I read this essay after a long time. It still sounds good.


%d bloggers like this: