# The Ineffable
**URL:** https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747
**Category:** Religion and Spirituality
**Created:** [February 13, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747 "2005-02-13T17:08:50Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2005, 5:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/1 "2005-02-13T17:08:50Z")
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’:
> [@](#):
>
> Buddhism and Taoism and Confucianism and some strands of Hinduism do not see that eternal reality as an infinite Person. Suppose then, as an experiment, we now use the word ‘God’ as our western term for the ultimate reality which some do and others do not believe to be an infinite person. We then broaden the question, Who or what is God? by not confining it at the outset to a particular concept of the religious ultimate. When we do this some prefer not to use the term ‘God’, finding it almost impossible to detach it in most peoples’ minds from the notion of an infinite divine person and use instead such terms as Ultimate Reality, or the Ultimate, or the Real.
>
> But let us for our present purpose stick with the familiar term ‘God’, reminding ourselves however from time to time that we are not now using it in a sense restricted to what are called the western monotheisms – although in fact they all originated in the Middle East.
>
> Where do we now go from there? I suggest that at this point it will be helpful to take account of an enormously important distinction drawn by some of the great Christian mystics, as well as by mystics of the other major traditions. Although the writer who has been given the derogatory sounding name of Pseudo-Dionysius is largely unknown outside the history of Christian mysticism, he has in fact probably been the most influential single individual in that history. He wrote in the name of Dionysius, the disciple of St Paul (Acts 17: 34), thus assuming a near apostolic authority, and he was a major theological influence throughout the thousand years prior to the Reformation. Thomas Aquinas, for example, quotes him as an authority some 1700 times. He is generally believed today to have been a Syrian monk writing around the year 500, and whether he would have exerted the same immense influence if this had been known before Erasmus and others became suspicious of his identity is one of history’s fascinating unanswered questions.
>
> But he did exert this immense influence, and in my opinion it was a very creative influence. For it reinforced the existing emphasis on the ultimate ineffability of God. I am not fond of the word ‘ineffable’ and prefer ‘transcategorial’, meaning beyond the range of our human systems of concepts or mental categories.
>
> Theologians have nearly always taken the ultimate divine ineffability or transcategoriality for granted, though usually without taking its implications to their logical conclusion. Augustine, for example, about a century before Pseudo-Dionysius, said that ‘God transcends even the mind’ (On True Religion, 36: 67), but did not develop this further. But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications. In his central work, The Mystical Theology, he says in every way he can think of that God is utterly and totally transcategorial. God is ‘indescribable’, ‘beyond all being and knowledge’. God, the ultimate One, is ‘not soul or mind, nor does it possess imagination, conviction, speech, or understanding. . . It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding . . It does not live nor is it life. It is not a substance, nor is it eternity or time. It cannot be grasped by the understanding . . It is neither one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness . . It is not sonship or fatherhood . . There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.
>
> This last statement, that that to which the term ‘God’ refers is beyond assertion and denial is crucial. For Denys is not simply doing negative theology, saying that God does not have this or that attribute but, much more radically, that our entire range of attribute-concepts do not apply to God at all, either positively or negatively. To apply them to God in God’s ultimacy is, in modern philosophical terms, a category mistake. To say, for example, that molecules are not stupid, although true, is misleading because it assumes that molecules are the sort of thing of which it makes sense to say that they are either stupid or not stupid. And to say that God is not ‘one nor oneness, divinity nor goodness’, although true would likewise, by itself, be deeply misleading because it assumes that God is the kind of reality to which such qualities could be rightly or wrongly attributed. We have to take on board the much more radical concept of a reality which is what it is, but whose nature lies beyond the scope of our conceptual and linguistic systems. When we speak about such a reality we are not, then, speaking about it as it is in itself, totally beyond the range of our comprehension, but about its impact upon us, the difference that it makes within the realm of human experience, to which our concepts and hence our languages do apply.
>
> It is worth stressing that the divine ineffability does not entail that the ultimate reality, which we are calling God, is an empty blank, but rather that God’s inner nature is beyond the range of our human conceptual resources. This is also, incidentally, what Mahayana Buddhism intends when it speaks of the Ultimate Reality as Sunyatta, Emptiness: it is empty of everything that the human mind inevitably projects in its acts of cognition. Going back to Denys, although he himself does not make this further qualification, modern philosophical discussions of ineffability have introduced a distinction between on the one hand what we can call substantial attributes, meaning attributes which tell us something positive about the divine nature, and on the other hand purely formal, linguistically generated attributes, which do not tell us anything about the divine nature. Thus that God is ineffable formally entails that God has the attribute of ineffability. And even to refer to God at all entails that God has the attribute of being able to be referred to. But such purely formal attributes give rise only to trivial truths, trivial in the sense that they make no difference and do not in any way contradict or undermine the divine ineffability.
>
> But given divine ineffability, problems immediately arise for Christian theology. Denys was, we presume, a devout worshipping Christian monk. And as well as teaching the total divine transcategoriality, he also took for granted the main body of Christian doctrine. Although Denys takes surprisingly little interest in the traditional dogmas, he does nevertheless take it for granted that God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Second Person became incarnate as Jesus Christ. But how can one both hold that God is totally ineffable and also profess to know all these substantial truths about God? God cannot both have no humanly knowable attributes and also have such humanly knowable attributes as being a Trinity, etc. On the face of it this is a sheer contradiction. And Denys saw this quite clearly. He asks, in his book on The Divine Names, ‘How then can we speak of the divine names [i. e. attributes]? How can we do this if the Transcendent surpasses all discourse and knowledge, if it abides beyond the reach of mind and of being, if it encompasses and circumscribes, embraces and anticipates all things while itself eluding their grasp and escaping from any perception, imagination, opinion, name, discourse, apprehension, or understanding? ’ (593A -B).
>
> And he makes at least a beginning in answering this question. He has said that God is self-revealed in the scriptures. But then he goes on to say that the scriptural language about God is metaphorical. He does not use the modern term ‘metaphor’ but a later Denys, Denys Turner of Cambridge, points out very clearly that when Dionysius speaks of symbols he means what today we call metaphors (The Darkness of God, p. 35). Denys - the early medieval one - says that ‘the Word of God makes use of poetic imagery’ (The Celestial Hierarchy, 137A-B), and he speaks of ‘what scripture has revealed to us in symbolic and uplifting fashion’ (121A), and of how the divine Light makes truth known to us ‘by way of representative symbols’ (121B). Further, he says that the function of the scriptural symbols and poetry is practical, to draw us forward on our pilgrim’s progress: ‘By itself [the ineffable One] generously reveals a firm, transcendent beam, granting enlightenments proportionate to each being, and thereby draws sacred minds upward to its permitted contemplation, to participation and to the state of becoming like it’ (The Divine Names, 588C-D). Again, God ‘uses scriptural passages in an uplifting fashion as a way . . . to uplift our mind in a manner suitable to our nature’ (The Celestial Hierarchy, 137B). When I translate this into my own terms I hear Denys saying that in the scriptures we speak about God in true myths, that is to say, descriptions which are not literally true but which nevertheless have the effect of evoking in us an appropriate dispositional response to the ultimate subject-matter of the myths. He does not however go beyond the scriptural ascriptions to apply the same principle to Christian doctrines. If he had he would have been in tune with the teaching of the Buddha, a thousand years earlier, that the function of religious doctrines is to help us onward at particular stages of our spiritual journey and that when they have served their purpose they are to be left behind.
Can we go on from here?
Shalom
Bob
---
### Author:  [@Uccisore](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Uccisore)
#### Post date: [February 13, 2005, 11:28pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/2 "2005-02-13T23:28:15Z")
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?
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2005, 5:54am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/3 "2005-02-14T05:54:54Z")
Hi Uccisore,
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
I think that ‘his’ concept is a far more radical one - just as the mystical component is far mor radical and consequent:
> [@](#):
>
> We have to take on board the much more radical concept of a reality which is what it is, but whose nature lies beyond the scope of our conceptual and linguistic systems. When we speak about such a reality we are not, then, speaking about it as it is in itself, totally beyond the range of our comprehension, but about its impact upon us, the difference that it makes within the realm of human experience, to which our concepts and hence our languages do apply.
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
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2005, 4:32pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/4 "2005-02-14T16:32:21Z")
Hi Bob,
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [February 14, 2005, 5:13pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/5 "2005-02-14T17:13:24Z")
> [@Uccisore](#):
>
> 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?
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?
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/6 "2005-02-15T18:58:41Z")
liquidangel,
> [@](#):
>
> 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?
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
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/7 "2005-02-15T19:59:03Z")
Hi JT,
> [@](#):
>
> 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).
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
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/8 "2005-02-15T21:37:19Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [February 16, 2005, 2:08pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/9 "2005-02-16T14:08:26Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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,
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?
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/10 "2005-02-22T16:01:42Z")
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
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/11 "2005-02-22T17:23:12Z")
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…
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [February 22, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/12 "2005-02-22T19:00:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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
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.
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [March 1, 2005, 6:27pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/13 "2005-03-01T18:27:20Z")
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. 🙂
JT
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [March 2, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/14 "2005-03-02T12:11:01Z")
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.
---
### Author:  [@tentative](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/tentative)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/15 "2005-03-03T16:45:39Z")
“If you meet the Buhdda, kill the Buhdda”
JT
---
### Author:  [@scythekain](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/scythekain)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/16 "2005-03-03T16:55:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/17 "2005-03-03T16:57:27Z")
Enlightenment means seeing into
your own essential nature,
and this at the same time means
seeing through to the essential - Yasutani
---
### Author:  [@phrygianslave\_the\_wi](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/phrygianslave_the_wi)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/18 "2005-03-03T20:53:26Z")
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:
> [@](#):
>
> the existing emphasis on the ultimate ineffability of God. I am not fond of the word ‘ineffable’ and prefer ‘transcategorial’, meaning beyond the range of our human systems of concepts or mental categories.
> [@](#):
>
> But Dionysius – or Denys, to give him a more user-friendly name – makes the divine ineffability central and begins at least to struggle with its implications.
> [@](#):
>
> It cannot be spoken of and it cannot be grasped by understanding
> [@](#):
>
> There is no speaking of it, nor name nor knowledge of it . . It is beyond assertion and denial’.
> [@](#):
>
> whose nature lies beyond the scope of our conceptual and linguistic systems
> [@](#):
>
> Thus that God is ineffable formally entails that God has the attribute of ineffability. And even to refer to God at all entails that God has the attribute of being able to be referred to.
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:
> [@](#):
>
> God cannot both have no humanly knowable attributes and also have such humanly knowable attributes as being a Trinity, etc. On the face of it this is a sheer contradiction. And Denys saw this quite clearly. He asks, in his book on The Divine Names, ‘How then can we speak of the divine names [i. e. attributes]? How can we do this if the Transcendent surpasses all discourse and knowledge, if it abides beyond the reach of mind and of being, if it encompasses and circumscribes, embraces and anticipates all things while itself eluding their grasp and escaping from any perception, imagination, opinion, name, discourse, apprehension, or understanding? ’ (593A -B)
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. . .
> [@](#):
>
> And he makes at least a beginning in answering this question.
(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?
> [@](#):
>
> I hear Denys saying that in the scriptures we speak about God in true myths, that is to say, descriptions which are not literally true but which nevertheless have the effect of evoking in us an appropriate dispositional response to the ultimate subject-matter of the myths.
Well, Bob, we’re back to myth! So what comes before myth? (_see below_)
> [@](#):
>
> the function of religious doctrines is to help us onward at particular stages of our spiritual journey and that when they have served their purpose they are to be left behind.
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,
> [@](#):
>
> Can we go on from here?
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.
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€_
Hi Liquidangel!
> [@](#):
>
> 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.
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.â€
God, is just an idea, a concept, a hypothesis, a supposing, that’s all.
Hi tentative!
> [@](#):
>
> most of what we think is filtered through language. Please note that I make a distinction between what is thinking and what is understanding.
Surely, all thought is done in language? Isn’t thought to do with understanding and vice-versa? What is the distinction?
---
### Author:  [@liquidangel](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/liquidangel)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/19 "2005-03-04T11:19:22Z")
[quote]
God, is just an idea, a concept, a hypothesis, a supposing, that’s all. [/quote/
Wise,
Know thyself.
---
### Author:  [@Bob](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/u/Bob)
#### Post date: [March 7, 2005, 8:09pm UTC](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747/20 "2005-03-07T20:09:29Z")
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… 😉
Shalom
Bob
[Next page](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/the-ineffable/4747.md?page=2)