The Ineffable

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Hi Everyone,

I locked my thread “Holy God or Creator-Sadist? Or simply a Mystery?” for reasons that may be clear if you read where that thread was going and attempt to pick up the strands here. I found the indication that Uccisore gave me to John Hick very helpful and quoted him extensively there. Now I would like to pick up on what he said about the ‘Ineffable’ or ‘Transcategorical’:

Can we go on from here?

Shalom
Bob

2

Well, to start things off: The idea of an object having neither positive or negative attributes would be simply ridiculous if we were talking about anything mundane like a mountain, a person, or a building.
Now, do you think Hick is saying that God does have negative and positive properties, we just aren’t aware of any of them, or is he saying it’s ok for God to exhibit logical absurdities?

3

Hi Uccisore,

I think that ‘his’ concept is a far more radical one - just as the mystical component is far mor radical and consequent:

The consequence is namely, that, assuming our awareness is sensing the ‘God behind the theistic god’, then that which we are commicating is not the Mystery, but the impression that was left on human beings - an imprint if you like, or a fingerprint, but by no means the whole reality.

Shalom
Bob

4

Hi Bob,

Then the theistic god is a man-made construct attempting to give language, hence meaning, to our awareness? This is radical, but in a positive understanding. The theistic god (of which there are several) is both fallible (as a man-created explanation) and non-exclusive (god as a cultural explanation).

This take’s away the ‘god on our side’ arguments, and allow’s the discussion to move from what is, to how and what are the commonalities of our various cultural explanations. Perhaps such an understanding become’s the round table?

JT

5

I feel that he is saying that to attribute characteristics which belong to the realm of the physical world, the world of duality is absurd. That the ultimate reality is not something that can be grasped from the perspective of the intellectual mind because the mind is in fact a tool which in itself does not possess such a radical principal. The mind without the part of us that animates us or the ultimate reality within us is simply nothing. So we need to be asking the questions not from the minds perspective which is tainted by knowledge, self gained and otherwise, but rather from a deeper place, a place that does not fall into the world of duality. Duality is afterall manifested from One is it not?

6

liquidangel,

Please explain how one would escape language (tainted knowledge) and still form questions. I understand intuitive awareness (momentarily), but it would seem that we are caught in the paradox of needing language to express that awareness. This is perhaps the difficulty in talking about the concept of ‘god’, and why the metaphor/symbols are so obscure when attempting to go beyond our conceptual and linguistic abilities.

JT

7

Hi JT,

Exactly, it is the answer to many unanswered questions and the way to non-exclusiveness and understanding between the cultures. Of course it has been said many times before (the blind men and the elephant), but John Hick manages to give it the plausibility that people like me can’t supply.

The enthralling part for me is the fact that the “incarnation” of God in Christ is representative of the Manifestation of the Mystery in our world. It is this embodiment of all of the discovered principles of Being itself in a human being, the enactment of the classical drama of justice and betrayal, the immediate comprehension of pure love in the ephemeral whisper of the wind, the realisation of the chasm between ourselves and the origins of righteousness, that is found in all cultures and all religions - and should be common to us all.

The power of Being is within us all, latent strength is there waiting to be discovered - but we call up brute force. We could feed the world, but we spend $300 Billion on wars. We are equipped with a variety of cognitive, emotional and intuitive intelligence, but use exclusively one side of our brain. We have the ability to adapt to a variety of environments, to discover the fluids and minerals, the fruits and the vegetables, the radiances and the oils that are good for us, but fill ourselves with junk-food. We can hear the Mystery, but we drown out the intimate breath of revelation.

And my sister or brother in other cultures have the same ability, they can reach out and touch, and even grasp momentarily the Mystery, to be inspired in their own unique way. And it is such a diversity that it never becomes boring - but with the stability of eternity against the backdrop of our incredible Universe. What waste we have to answer for, what humiliating waste. Sometimes it is as if we have already turned into the Morlocks of HG Wells Time Machine, consuming the beautiful Eloi like cattle.

Shalom
Bob

8

Hi Bob,

Wow! I’m having trouble getting past your eloquence. A beautiful explanation. And now, if you will forgive me, the cold water bath.

With such understanding, how does one begin to bring those of like understanding together? It isn’t as if we are the only ones who have this understanding. There are many who have posted to this forum who, in their own way, seem to have grasped the essential message, There must be thousands of others world-wide who have ‘threaded the needle’, from all cultures and all religions. And yet, the voices are but a whisper.

It isn’t as if I haven’t asked this question before, but what is the mechanism, the venue, the … that starts the process of conciliation? Is there no way, no path that will bring cooperation among religions? Perhaps this is another thread, but why has religion failed the masses? Is there a fatal flaw in all religions that preserves the myoptic exclusionary view of what life is about? For all its’ power to bring good, why does religion preside over so much misery?

Enough of that. Back up. How do we begin to cooperate? Begin at the beginning.

JT

9

JT,

Actually I don’t suggest that we escape language at all, although language may be limiting, it is indeed a way in which we are able to express ourselves, but we must not limit ourselves to say that it is the only way. (There are other ways of expression but we’ll leave that to another discussion some day maybe…) I am saying that attributing human characteristics to God is simply stupid. God is such and such or that way or this way…God is God. God cannot be good or kind or right or wrong or whatever. The mind cannot grasp the concept because God is not a concept. Language is something developed by humans, and the word God is also something developed by humans. I have come to realise that the reason for communication issues between say Chinese people and Western people is that the Chinese mind and the Western mind is vastly different. Not because there is anything different inherently but rather because the training is different, the culture. Try an experiment. Go into your room, close your door and record for one hour all the thoughts that cross your mind. No editing allowed. Just whatever thoughts you are thinking, say them out loud and record them. Then play back the recording and see what comes out. Probably some pretty interesting stuff, but also a whole lot of rubbish, which you censor and never reveal sometimes not even to yourself. You will be surprised at the amount of rubbish that comes out of your mind. I’m not accusing you of thinking nonsensical thoughts, merely trying to illustrate that in the same way a car without a driver is useless, the mind without a director is equally useless. Thoughts need to be directed but who is the director? You will say I am the director. But who are you?

10

liquidangel,

Yes. Of course. “The Tao that can be named is not the Tao.” The words are not and cannot be the reality. The ‘slippage’ occurs the moment we attempt to organize our intuitive understanding conceptually and begin to apply explanatory metaphors (language).

The Tao suggests that the ‘Way’ is a paring away of knowledge (knowing) until there is nothing but that which is. Living without knowing. Which, if we’re honest, is our base and constant state of being. It’s frustrating to listen to the western heads who interpret this to mean that the Tao is saying that we should live in ignorance. (cultural differences?)

Still, much of the world understand’s the concept of god through religion and regardless the culture, learning and/or training is couched in concepts and language. I can accept that there is something beyond, but most of what we think is filtered through language. Please note that I make a distinction between what is thinking and what is understanding.

You suggest other ways of expression. I’d like to hear what that might be.
Given the un-learning needed, I haven’t managed to find a way of expression that doesn’t finally end up in language.

JT

11

JT,

Yes, exactly.

The Way of Tao is very practical. Reminds me of the story of the philosopher and the mystic. The two of them lost in the forest in the dark. All of a sudden lightning strikes and while the philosopher is trying to work out the meaning, why did the lightning strike, what is the purpose etc etc., the mystic was looking at the ground and for a moment the path was illuminated. Beautiful story, suggesting that the Way is a very practical grounded way a very simple way. The way of the heart. Expression of the heart is only possible when we live in the heart and move into the world from there. I want to go into this more deeply but I have to go right now…

more later…

12

JT,

hmm, got myself into this one…now how to get out?

Bloody words…

Have you ever looked into someone’s eyes and felt something which they were expressing yet weren’t speaking? You knew what they were ‘saying’, you knew because you could feel it. It is heart to heart communication - call it whatever you feel like, the name doesn’t matter. The heart is the core, is the centre, the source. Everything that we do comes out of the heart. Whatever I think about someone, that is where my heart is. Whatever I think about anything, that is where my heart is.

In human beings the Tao is our heart. It is our true nature. The Tao can be found everywhere, it doesn’t matter where we look, there is a principal in everything that is known as Tao. It is the electricity of the light bulb. It is the part of us that animates us. It is a frequency. Bearing in mind that you have already quoted “the name that can be named is not the name…” So in order for the Tao in us to be expressed, we need to tune into its frequency. We do this through study - intellectual study and practice - knowledge without practice is nothing - applied knowledge is wisdom. Once we apply our knowledge we begin to connect with the heart and then we move into the world from the heart - the true heart, not the human heart, not from the energy realm, but from the absolute realm.

…then walking is zen, sitting is zen, moving, unmoving…

Then when sit, it is Tao sitting, when we sleep it is Tao that is sleeping, when we eat, it is Tao that is eating. That is the only expression. Tao is manifest.

13

liquidangel,

A very nice explanation. I apologize for putting you on the ‘hook’, but you got yourself off nicely.

Yes. Emptying out. Releasing all the pre-conceived concepts and ‘seeing directly, acting directly, out of one’s true nature’. It’s almost too simple for most people to understand, let alone practice.

I find language to be the biggest hurdle. Not so much for myself, (I know what I mean!), but in the interpersonal discourse with others. It’s the old problem of what do you mean by what you say? There are copious examples of this right here on this forum, where many of the ‘statements’ are really just questions about meaning. One-on-one communication is relatively easy in that regardless the words, we intuitively understand the intent seen in the eyes or body language, or… The dilemma is when we try to communicate in some abstract format such as what we are doing right now. A collection of glowing phosphors attempting to talk to another collection of glowing phosphors. Language certainly isn’t perfect, but in too many cases it’s the best we can do. Enter the wisdom of the wordless teaching. :slight_smile:

JT

14

Yes, as you say, it’s very simple. Things become complex however, because there are a hundred and one reasons for us to become complicated. There is an effect of every cause. As we sit here inside the millions of effects of our own causes, how are we supposed to see the simplicity of design? We can’t because the truth is too simple and we are blinded by our own desires by our own intellect by our self created chaos. Who can find a way out of all of that?

Have you read the Alchemist by Paulo Coehlo? The student is in search of an emerald where the secrets of alchemy are engraved. Originally when the emerald was engraved the alchemists understood the soul of the world (Tao) and were able to very simply write it down. Then everyone was trying to interpret the meaning of the stone, studying, philosophising, writing texts of explanations, but the ability to read the omens, the ability to understand or tune into the soul of the world was lost.

The truth has always been very simple, for us to grasp it we have to become simple, we have to lose everything that is given to us by others, we have to find our own rhythm, our own heart beat, and when we discover this treasure…we will discover God.

15

“If you meet the Buhdda, kill the Buhdda”

JT

16

very jonathon livingston seagull. you have to find your own way, and when you do return to teach others the way.

of course like JT (tentative) said “when you meet the buddha kill the buddha” people dislike being told they are not following a spiritual path, especially those deeply entrenched in religious dogma.

17

Enlightenment means seeing into
your own essential nature,
and this at the same time means
seeing through to the essential - Yasutani

18

Hi Bob!

These few quotes taken from your opener, itself a quote, serve to supply us with a very clear picture of the so-called ineffableness of god:

In other words, god is beyond our ken, transcends our understanding, we cannot even say his/her/its name. Yeah? And now, though, suddenly, realisation of that which is most obvious, namely:

Yes, how can we, indeed! We surely cannot even say of the ineffable that it is ineffable, can we?

So, we hit the ground running. . .

(By the way, we’re still talking about Pseudo-Dionysius.)

But this is more than a mere, ‘beginning,’ for, Denys sets about the construction of a new Tower of Babel, or should that be castle in the air?

Well, Bob, we’re back to myth! So what comes before myth? (see below)

I agree, and as such religious doctrines are necessary components, (and pleasant companions,) in the life-voyage of the individual, if he is to develop in full. I believe this is indisputable.

But then, Bob, you ask,

Well, really, I cannot accept that the ineffable has any veracious existence outside the human world of ideas. God, for me, is, in one aspect, mere idea, (but what idea!) However, I would speak rather not of god, (or God – with a capital g,) but instead of god-idea. In the same way let us be clear that the ineffable might be better named, ineffable-idea, just so that people don’t forget and thereby make the absurd mistake of attributing concrete actuality to what is after all idea-stuff.

There is undoubtedly a chasm between us and our origins, but there are illuminating studies done that go a good way to ‘explaining’ where we come from religiously, for example, check out perhaps:

The God-Idea of the Ancients or Sex in Religion – Eliza Burt Gamble, the author, says, (amongst a host of other things,)

“Although through a partial revival of the ideas entertained by an ancient people the attempt was made by Zoroaster, Confucius, Gotama Buddha, Pythagoras, the Stoics, and other schools of philosophy, to elevate the masses of the people, and, although the unadulterated teachings of the man called Christ were doubtless an outgrowth of this movement, yet the human mind had not, even as late as the appearance of this last-named reformer, sufficiently recovered from its thraldom to enable the masses to grasp those higher truths which had been entertained by an earlier civilized people.”

and,

“In the first century of the Christian era may be observed among various sects, notably the Gnostics, a desire to popularize the teachings of an ancient race, and to accentuate those principles which had been taught by Buddha, Pythagoras, the Stoic philosophers, the Roman jurisconsults and others. In other words the object of the new religion was to stimulate the altruistic characters which had been developed during the evolutionary processes, and to strengthen and encourage the almost forgotten principles of justice and personal liberty upon which early society was founded, but which through ages of sensuality and selfishness had been denied expression.”

I wonder about such things as, “earlier civilized people,” and, “the teachings of an ancient race.” And here’s a further quote, Bob, (same source,) with reference to myth, or, ‘mythos,’

“By comparing the languages used by the earlier races to express their religious conceptions; by observing the similarity in the mythoses and sacred appellations among all tribe and nations, and through the discovery of the fact that the legends extant in the various countries of the globe are identical, or have the same foundation, it is probable that a clue has already been obtained whereby an outline of the religious history of the human family from a period even as remote as the “first dispersion,” or from a time when one race comprehended the entire population of the globe, maybe traced.”

Hi Liquidangel!

Hang on a minute! How can it be “stupid” to invest god with human characteristics?

Look, e.g., at what Proudhon says, (much better than I could,)

“Thus, without a God or master-builder, the universe and man would not exist: such is the social profession of faith. But also without man God would not be thought, or–to clear the interval–God would be nothing. If humanity needs an author, God and the gods equally need a revealer; theogony, the history of heaven, hell, and their inhabitants,–those dreams of the human mind,–is the counterpart of the universe, which certain philosophers have called in return the dream of God. And how
magnificent this theological creation, the work of society! The creation of the demiourgos was obliterated; what we call the Omnipotent was conquered; and for centuries the enchanted imagination of mortals was turned away from the spectacle of Nature by the contemplation of Olympian marvels.”

God, is just an idea, a concept, a hypothesis, a supposing, that’s all.

Hi tentative!

Surely, all thought is done in language? Isn’t thought to do with understanding and vice-versa? What is the distinction?

19

[quote]
God, is just an idea, a concept, a hypothesis, a supposing, that’s all. [/quote/

Wise,

Know thyself.

20

Hi Everyone,

sorry I was offline for a while just as we were having problems posting.

I’ve been to Turkey for a week, looking at the archeological remains of many of the cities mentioned in the Bible and was unable to follow the posts made. I’ll catch up now - promise… :wink:

Shalom
Bob