Of Faith and Doubt

..that quiet, still voice, that pervades our soul...

Wolfgang

Interesting article.

"Quiet, still voice" .... what a nice way of capturing what we Hindus call Shantih --- the peace that defies description!

Your welcome...it is a peace that defies description- one, that I believe we all seek.

Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgang Amadeus

Thanks Barbra. I think the voice that speaks within us is the same for all of us. We may call it by whatever names we will. As you say, "the principles of God" are above all Biblical names and above all texts. Religious texts are perhaps a watered-down version of the voice that speaks within us. The texts are only for initiating us and sensitising us to the voice.

I am often absent from Gather due to my preoccupation with work. But whenever you write something or otherwise feel like sharing some thoughts, please drop a personal mail to me.

Satish,

"Vimrisya means "examine it from every angle" and aseshena means "exhaustively, leaving nothing more to be examined".

Therein lies great wisdom, says I.

For all that presents itself is for us to behold. That is why it is presented.

John,
For all that we humans know, "all that presents itself is" most likely "for us to behold". But can we be absolutely sure? May be the universe has another bigger purpose and man is just incidental. Who knows? These questions are so big that I generally push them to the periphery of my mind, so that I can concentrate on issues more immediately relevant.

On this forum you have often spoken of faith. In such bigger issues, faith seems to be the only answer and the only refuge. Like you, I have faith that all is presented so that humans may behold it, and that man is central to God's design.

Satish,

Nothing can be more immediate than what one is presented with in their own awareness, I think. Is it not the actual "present" itself?

By what authority can the thinking mind rationally set aside what presents itself to it within? How can it know that the intelligence it is merely a small part of, is in anyway "invalid", or misguided? Is not that which presents itself to us a response of one sort or another by the very intelligence that we, the thinker, is generated by?

Within the memory of the creature we are a part of, there are innumerable thoughts and images. If we declare, by our choice not to look into the actual response of the intelligence systems we rely upon to think, are we not in some sense enshrining the will of the thinker, above the totality of the whole of intelligence, wherein wisdom and understanding dwell? Are we not in a sense "vetoing" that which our intelligence has offered as an indication of where further understanding may be found, in preference for some presumed higher understanding, which one has become accustomed to providing the thinker some form of comfort or reassurance?

The root of all faith is the necessary assumption that one can indeed rely upon the intelligence and order of the whole of the being's nature. If the whole of the being is not reliable, no thought or impulse of the being can be. Faith in God, is therefore dependant on faith in what He has made, in making us . . . thinks I. If there is no God, there is no basis for faith at all.

"The root of all faith is the necessary assumption that one can indeed rely upon the intelligence and order of the whole of the being's nature." --- I am fully with you in this.

"By what authority can the thinking mind rationally set aside what presents itself to it within? " --- There is no need to set aside what presents itself. So, I am with you in this.

The point I was trying to make was: even taking whatever presents itself to us as valid and relevant, could there still not be aspects of the universe that are apart from human existence, and that have a relevance unrelated to human existence? Could these aspects not be even more central to the existence of the universe than human existence? Theoretically, it is possible. But since such a possibility does not reduce the relevance of the immediate present for us, we can ignore it and concentrate on the present. And of course, live in the faith that man is at the centre of the Creation and the be all and end all of Creation.

Satish,

Yes, one can rely on such faith on such grounds. However, there is a small error I see in one aspect of your reasoning, which causes me to speak of other things. One can see it in the concept of "concentrating" on the present, as if something other than what one was currently presented with. If what one means by "the present", is not what is presented, which comes before any further reaction of memory, then a gap exists. How can the thinker, know what the presented would have led to, or from whence it came, if one screens it in any significant way ?

This is not to say that screening ought not take place, it must, but it is implying, to my mind, that it ought not be done hastily, or according to the preconceptions of what is significant and what is not. Rather, it ought be done in the very state of responding to the presented, which allows us to remain in the present, with all the wisdom of the being having a chance to be heard. In that state, a point will naturally be reached most often, where the false or frivolous will "die" away, since it gets no corroboration or impetus to continue. It "dies" a natural, fully conscious death, at the hands of the whole of the being's nature. Not a prepared death, at the hands of any "self".

It will thenceforth, be a part of all wisdom, not a particular ignored foolishness. For the false bares truth as well, naturally.

Do I understand you to mean that one must surrender to the present as it is presented to one, rather than consciously try to "assess" it in terms of its significant and insignificant elements? If that is what you mean, I fully agree. The surrender to the experience of meeting the present moment --- the unalloyed reaction to it --- is what would help us get the best out of it. No doubt about that.

I must confess that you have a philosophical bent of mind --- or, may be I am too down-to-earth. At times, I find it difficult to get the total meaning of what you say. I have to infer the meaning. Perhaps this happens when a person like me whose thinking is very down-to-earth interacts with a person like you who tries to capture Truth in its full complexity.

Satish,

Your patience in these matters is greatly appreciated, these are delicate distinctions we draw, but they are quite real and important, I think.

Hmm, I do not believe I am being at all philosophical in what I am suggesting, but rather advancing the purely "mechanical", and directly observable ramifications of what we actually experience in real-time. I will attempt to be very direct and careful in my words.

In your summation of your agreement with the need to "surrender to the experience of meeting the present moment", you spoke of something you called "the unalloyed reaction to it", and this may be where we are diverging somewhat, though it is difficult to know what you mean by that phrase, since any "reaction" to the presented, is not the presented, but itself a new "presented". That which is sensed, IS the sensing itself, and not any subsequent response to it by memory or emotion. What I am suggesting is to be aware of the sensed (or presented), and any response to it, as different things, for they are.

In the instant that one senses a reaction to an event one has observed, they are NOT observing the event itself any longer, but the new events of the reaction. If we fail to recognise that distinction, but believe our reaction is a part of the observed event, we then lose any bases upon which to recognize where the "world", the present reality ends, and the self begins. We then become vulnerable to infusing the original experience with our personal response to it.

For example, if I say some words to you, that is perceived on various levels by various aspects of your physiological and intellectual "intelligence systems". If you feel a reaction from yourself, say, a sense that you are being disrespected in some way, that reaction is something generated by yourself, and may or may not have a foundation in the external being (me) which spoke the words.

If the distinction between what was actually perceived by you originally, and the thoughts and images of your subsequent reaction are intermixed, the ability to correct any error on your part can be increased greatly. If you are under the impression you have essentially "seen" me insult you, when what you really saw was something of me, and something of your own, from that point on, you will be observing me as an insulting person. For your initial reaction has been incorporated into your understanding of what is happening outside yourself (in me).

It is therefore, too late to examine the original event any longer, without a somewhat difficult re-separation of what has become a combination of the observed, and the reaction to the observed. IF however, one clearly and intentionally watched the sensed, and then saw the reaction, one can be free to examine other possible reactions, and use the memory of the original perceptions of me, to ponder or analyse them. The key is to NOT take that first (or second) reaction to be "real", as in, something actually observed occurring outside oneself. That possibility is made far more unlikely if one has attachment to the reaction, and considers it "valid" in any significant way, such as a philosophy, or ideology.

So, I'm proposing that the observer, and the reactor, be seen independently, to the extent one can manage, and to be patient in accepting any reaction as the true, or final, response of the human being itself. Our memory systems are associative reaction generators, and that first reaction will almost always be one by our protective, impulsive, defense "programing", which will automatically respond to any threat to the creature, or by extension if one is not careful, the "self", the idea of the creature. It is not a particularly wise thing, for it operates at lightning speed, for obvious reasons. Our wise responses must be given a chance to have a clean look at the presented too, or we will be swept away by our defensive reactions.

John,
I think I understand a lot of what you have written. What you have put more subtly and in greater detail is what in common parlance would be put as the subjective-objective distinction in orientation. From what you say, I am able to infer the following:

* We should not allow our reactions be controlled by our programmed defence-mechanisms.
* The observer within us should retain its ability to keep its separation so that it can constantly re-adjust its observations of the situation and make these observations more and more accurate rather than merely impressionistic.
* We should remain consciously aware that our observations may not completely reflect the reality as it exists. These are afterall our reactions and not the reality. Therefore, we should not mistake our reactions for the reality.

Overall, what I gather from your message is that the mind should be allowed to remain a dynamic, active instrument that constantly analyses and tries to understand and cognise reality. There should be no fixation and there should be no attempt to channelise reactions along pre-determined lines (say, for instance, those guided by an ideology or our previous impressions --- the example of the insult you gave).

I hope I am not very much off the mark.

Satish,

You hit the mark rather well, I'd say.

The problem I see in many "paths" to enlightenment, is that they assume an "enlightened state", an end to "doubt", if you will. In that very idea, that very instant, darkness descends again.

So, in an odd twist . . . word-wise, respecting doubt, is faith in God. Believing doubt is useless or harmful, is believing He has erred in providing us with the whole universe of doubt, and it's intricate subtleties. It is believing that not all we are presented with, is for us to receive.

John,
I am not prescribing doubt as a deliberate policy. I suggest two things:

1. The ability to be comfortable with doubt.
2. Allow faith to be born out of an examination of doubt.

Satish,

I am suggesting no policy of any kind regarding doubt. How can one have a policy regarding what one does not yet understand? Any preconceived response cannot be a response to that which is occurring in the present moment, but a reaction to it.

Any classification or other rationalization instantly removes the doubt itself from awareness, and so destroys the "presented" as an actuality, and replaces it with "preprogrammed" concepts and memories. Doubt then loses it's usefulness in exploring what it is born of, or where it might lead us to look. One is left with merely the thoughts and images we associate with the policy, which we already have.

A doubt resisted or repressed will not die, but remain as a doubt.

John,
I take your last message as a re-statement of what I have said in the second part of my article. Your message nicely describes doubt as a dynamic process of exploration which comes to a halt the moment you bring in pre-programmed conclusions. Your last line "A doubt resisted or repressed will not die, but remain as a doubt" re-emphasises the role of doubt in reaching the Truth.

Finally, we seem to be on one ground.

Satish,

While I believe we are seeing a very similar set of premises, I am still rather sure we are not drawing the same conclusions. The second part of your article is what I am taking issue with, for it does not speak of doubt as a rich source of insight to come, the very bridge to truth itself, which I have found it to be; But as "suffocating emptiness", and a thing to be seen best as an event or state of mind which has befallen one.

While I agree that a certain unpleasant feeling accompanies doubt, to me, that is a blessing; as the uncomfortable feeling of pain, greatly enhances our ability to avoid real damage to the body. Pain is not comfortable, or desirable to experience, but it is in fact the very best ally one could hope for, in keeping oneself whole, physically. So too, the sense of distress which accompanies any lack of sound foundation for believing something. That is the very measure we are blessed with, to keep us from self delusion. Without it, we would simply accept what was not based in true understanding, quite happy with our preferred conclusions. Yet, not at all safe from foolish behaviour those conclusions might lead us to undertake.

It is, I believe, the very act of looking away from the actual sensations we are presented with, and replacing them with the IDEA of our-self in a state of doubt, which is giving rise to a difference in how we see this matter. I say; Any CONCEPT about ourselves as a being in doubt, is NOT the experiencing of the presented itself, but the experience of the imagined. Such "replacement" of the actual, specific, "presented", as it truly came to us, with the IDEA of an "us" having something we call "doubt", is a trick we have learned to play on ourselves. By identifying the "presented", we can then respond to our concept of ourselves having a doubt, and mess around with concepts, without actually "receiving" what was presented to us in reality.

The idea, is not the thing. The idea of a being in doubt, is not the same as the living being watching what it has actually been presented with. Just as pain is most useful in preventing us doing the wrong thing in the physical world: Doubt is most useful in preventing us from doing the wrong thing in the psychological realms. And just as it would be foolish to think one could avoid damage to the body, by anesthetizing ourselves to reduce the thing we have named 'pain', it is foolish to think we could avoid false beliefs, by doing anything at all to our God given sense of incomplete understanding, which we have named 'doubt'.

I say; just let these things be, and simply watch the presented, which they are a most excellent part of. Even if we don't enjoy them.

Dear John,
There is a lot of wisdom in what you say:

"the sense of distress which accompanies any lack of sound foundation for believing something. That is the very measure we are blessed with, to keep us from self delusion. Without it, we would simply accept what was not based in true understanding, quite happy with our preferred conclusions."

However, I don't either understand or agree with what you have said in the following lines:

"It is, I believe, the very act of looking away from the actual sensations we are presented with, and replacing them with the IDEA of our-self in a state of doubt, which is giving rise to a difference in how we see this matter. I say; Any CONCEPT about ourselves as a being in doubt, is NOT the experiencing of the presented itself, but the experience of the imagined. Such "replacement" of the actual, specific, "presented", as it truly came to us, with the IDEA of an "us" having something we call "doubt", is a trick we have learned to play on ourselves. By identifying the "presented", we can then respond to our concept of ourselves having a doubt, and mess around with concepts, without actually "receiving" what was presented to us in reality."

Obviously, you are talking of the interplay between consciousness and the object of consciousness. I think the interplay varies over a wide range. Sometimes, the conscious self is somewhat removed from the object (or the presented, as you prefer to call it); at times the self merges with the presented; at times it stands aloof and changes everything into ideas and concepts in a kind of computer-like processing. These differences, I believe, occur in the same individual in different contexts. When you say "simply watch the presented", do you mean we should let the mind react to each situation whichever way it would --- merging or changing into concepts or whatever? If that is your meaning, I would say we agree.

Satish,

Such good reasoning, very fine stuff. We are speaking of things which are now just so to me, like hearing a sound, or feeling one's cold fingers, words are difficult . . . for this is of the moment before words, and ideas . .

First, terms are irrelevant to me, for the most part, in this matter. I picked up on something you said, in speaking of the "presented", and it seems a good word to use for now. Consider;

I hear something, in the bushes nearby. It is a low rumbling sound. I don't have a clear understanding of what is making the sound I heard, but I am feeling a surge of response. From the memory comes images, ideas, possibilities. I struggle to "identify" what made that sound, and somewhere within the being each image is "tested" within the whole of understanding, the whole of intelligence.

I, the "thinker" is not testing the ideas, but assembling them, from various memory reactions, various combinations of associative thought and images presented in the imagination, born of memory. I, the thinker, am presenting these "packages" to something greater than myself. I am presenting them to the whole of the being's intelligence. Could the thing in the bushes be a tiger? I, the thinker can see that it is, or see that it is not. But, the original "package" received through the ears is crucial to the process. If it is lost, or distorted significantly, I cannot trust what I imagine, I cannot have faith in what I conceive. I can deceive the being.

The human being, the creature itself, is riveted to those bushes. It is gathering more sounds and sights and aromas. Each moment is more "presented", more real input into the process. Within the mind, perhaps comes the thought that it just cannot be a tiger, for that would require a very unlikely set of facts to be true, a very unlikely reality to have occurred within what the whole understands the world to be like. That thought is not FROM me, I do not understand the whole of reality, I am only dealing with a small set of images at each moment. But I heard that sound, and it matches with what I believe a tiger would make.

And now I see black and yellow stripes, vaguely . . . but are they "real", or something born of a blending of the images of the eyes, and the images of the imagination? I am "in doubt". I am not able to reconcile what I am being presented with, I see eyes looking back at mine, but are they real? The DEMAND from the being is growing intense, and the reactive mind is overwhelmed by it. It is becoming useless, it has become a blur of reactions to reactions to reactions.

The being disengages from the reactive mind, it senses the "problem" that is occurring. It realizes the mind is not trustworthy. It COMMANDS us to return to the original "presented". We, the self, are NOT the master. We are a servant, and we cannot be trusted to resolve what is in doubt. We, the self, cannot be the source of faith. What "makes sense" to us, is NOT the same as what we "believe".

So; No, "letting the mind react to each situation whichever way it would" is not the answer to the state of doubt. We ARE the "mind", and we do not determine what is believed, but merely take part in the processes which lead to belief. To disregard doubt, in the mind, does nothing to alter the fact that we do not believe, in reality. Wanting to believe has no effect, for that is independent of what is real, and can be misleading. The whole of the being does not have faith in the mind, and there is nothing the mind can do about that.

We can only be "presented" with what is believed, for that is the acceptance of something by the whole of the being, which we are only a small part of. The mind must learn to listen to what it can "see" of the whole, so as to be relevant to the process of determining what is real. When the rigorous demands of the whole are met, IT believes, even if we, the thinker, is unaware of that.

What the human being believes, is what it acts upon. By observing it's actions, which is of the "presented", we can grasp what is believed, with ideas. We can "know" what we believe, but we cannot "ourself" believe. Ever. For we see too little of the total understanding at any one time to "know" such a thing. Doubt is our normal state. It is nothing to be concerned about, it is just a request from the whole, for something to be remembered about. It is building understanding, and we ought to have faith that it is well made, and do what it requests of us. It is the creation of God; faith in it, is faith in God. I serve, for I have faith in it. I can tell it believes in God, when it acts as if there is God, when it strives to do what is right, when it rejoices in it's righteousness.

John,
Perhaps the difficulty lies in trying to analyse a process which does not lend itself to analysis. As you hint, a number of activities go on so subtly and intricately intertwined that the necessity to untwine them to understand them makes them unreal. It is like conducting a postmortem to understand life-processes: you kill your object in order to understand it.

I think you have described the process as accurately as it can be put in words. Especially, the following words define doubt very nicely:

"we see too little of the total understanding at any one time to "know" such a thing. Doubt is our normal state. It is nothing to be concerned about, it is just a request from the whole".

As you rightly say ( and have nicely put it), doubt is the awareness of being incomplete and the desire to acquire completeness. If you do not have doubt, you must either be a god who has full knowledge, or you must be blind not to see your own ignorance.

Thanks for your analyses.

Satish,

You are most surely welcome. Please accept my thanks in return, for you tolerated some rather unconventional forms of speaking of some rather unconventional perspectives. It was an honor to approach a man so peaceful.

Thanks John, perhaps the discussion will crop up again at some other time on some other forum. These are issues that will remain central to philosophy for years to come.

You have a philosophical mind. I think mostly in concrete formats. I find it difficult to conceptualise in philosophical terms. That is perhaps the reason why our discussion tended to drag on a bit.

All the same, thanks for all your insights.

hiiii Mr dogra . thanx fr the comments . very kind of u. thanx again

Most welcome Ashish.

Satish,

Been thinking about what you said, regarding "philosophy", verses "concrete formats" etc. . . . and I'm kinda baffled by the notion of anything more "concrete" possible in the realm of human consciousness we are discussing, than direct observation. There simply is no other means of comprehending what is happening within us when we "doubt", and/or have "faith". There can never ever be anything at all more "concrete" in the exploration of such things, and to me, it is far less "solid" to work from concepts about human experience itself.

There is an illusion, I think, generated by the adoption of "frameworks", which themselves are only as "real" as anything else one might imagine. Those frameworks too are built on the sand of maybe, and "it sounds plausible", and never can become more than guesswork. It is not philosophy to watch oneself carefully, and there is simply no other way to determine what a human being actually is, or does, than to observe for oneself. There is no other means of verification available for anyone.

If you wish to understand what doubt is, you have to see it first hand. One cannot approach such a thing through theories or rumors. To me, it is you who is philosophizing, and I who is being "concrete". I am getting as close to these matters as I can, with direct observation, whereas you are approaching it with mindsets and frameworks, which can never be anything but derivatives of what is observed, completely dependant on the quality of one's first hand observations. If one cannot actually SEE what is going on in their mind, no amount of conceptualizing will bring bring about faith in one's ideas about what one would see.

You can call such frameworks concrete, but they are less than dust. I believe what you are really speaking of is "consensus", the faith in the illusion of agreement among thinkers, whom none of which is in any better position than oneself to grasp such things, no matter how many others they "believe" have the same ideas as they. One goes alone to that realm beyond imagining, or one does not go at all.

Dear John,
Some of your messages are crystal clear to me, as is the last one. But there are passages which I am not able to fully comprehend. This is my handicap, not yours. Over the years, I have somehow missed developing the talent to look at things in their full philosophical implications. The word philosophy is not used pejoratively, but appreciatively. And my "concrete formats" are not presented as a superior way of cognising, but as a method with its limitations.

If I had difficulty understanding all your communication, I might have put the blame on you. Now when I find 80% of your communication very clear in its import and have difficulty with the remaining 20%, I must conclude that there is some inability on my part.

Your philosophical capability was meant to be a compliment, not criticism.

Satish,

Forgive me, I did not understand, it seems. But I must say, if you can understand most of what I said clearly, the rest is not beyond your grasp. I believe it is mere unfamiliarity with one or two perspectives you have not yet explored. I have no doubt whatsoever that you understand many things I could barely apprehend, and what I have going for me in this "realm", was a very early start. It is my "specialty" one might say, this watching within. It is second nature to me now, and not anything truly difficult.

In fact, it is my slow hesitancy to have faith in my thinking, which to me appears to be my saving grace. I can't make it on cleverness, so I go by what I can see. My "self" needs all the help it can get.

Dear John,
I'll tell you how suddenly certain portions in your writing begin to confuse me. In your last message, your first paragraph is very clear. It says that you have been analysing your own mind and observing your own mental processes for so long that it has become a second nature with you --- a "specialty" as you call it.

In the second paragraph, however, I get confused:

Does "slow hesitancy to have faith in my thinking" mean "some reluctance to jump to conclusions"? In what sense is the hesitancy slow?

What is the saving grace? Not jumping to conclusions? Or having doubts till one is satisfied?

What does "I can't make it on cleverness" mean? Does it mean I don't go by logical processes of thinking? In what sense is "cleverness" used here?

Does "self" need help from others? Or from yourself? What type of help?

There can be two reasons why such communication gap suddenly comes in: either you are from a non-English speaking country and you use concepts which might mean one thing in your mother tongue and another in English; or your thinking processes are tuned to a philosophical bent of mind, as I put it earlier (philosophy to me is the highest form of learning and I never use the term pejoratively. It is unfortunate that over-emphasis on science has created a climate against philosophy and people who are called philosophers react as if they have been abused!).

With all such minor communication gaps, we have been able to carry out very meaningful conversation, and the overall import of whatever you have written is quite clear.

Satish,

Ah, you are so clear in your thinking that perhaps even I can catch on eventually ; )   I think what you're seeing is my POETIC bent, more than my philosophical habits; I often try to give a "feel" to things, a sense of what the personal experience of what I am speaking of is like.

You see, it is a reflection of the non-conceptual basis for exploring the inner realms, which I am attempting to point at to another. What is not known through a remembered idea basis, a "logos", or conceptual framework; is of necessity based on things that are "felt" when looking at one's "reality". I cannot, for instance, give a technically precise explanation of "slow hesitance", for there are no words which directly capture such a state of being. I am trying to relate to something I hope the listener is familiar with in life "first hand"; a state of cautiousness to accept what the reactive mind offers in words.

It is similar to the way one might listen to a politician; deciphering the words, but aware that those words are not wise to accept as the truth itself. One knows that various thoughts and images will be triggered, but that one ought not assume those thoughts and images are born of some look into the actual world or understanding within the politician, but rather, have a purpose, a predetermined impact on the mind, which favors accepting the politician as wise. I am saying I listen to what my memory is prompted to call up as I think, but not to believe there is any deep significance or trust-ability to such associative reactions of memory. Those reactions are dependant on many factors beyond my true understanding.

So, it is a "slowness of reasoning", born of the awareness that I am not listening to some great wise voice within me. I am hesitant to take things I might think, as if things I can depend on in further thinking. I intentionally break the "chain" of reactive thoughts, and look for indications of the verifiability of what is called up from memory. I try not to be operating based on a sequence of assumptions which appear reasonable at first glance, but rather, watch for the telltale signs within emotions and intuitions which accompany each movement of the mind, and provide alternative lines of exploration of one's reality. Every unfounded conclusion seems to produce a very specific set of indications of just where the mind is working on assumption, and why. But those indications must be taken seriously and allowed to themselves have an impact of the next moment of thought, if one is to avoid being convinced by one's "programed" responses.

I am therefore in a state of constant "doubt" of my own memory's "spiel", much as one hesitates while listening to another's "spiel". I treat my own "voices" as I treat the voices of others; something someone thinks, not something someone KNOWS. My knowledge is no different than another's, it is just what one person saw within the chatter of memory's reactions. Describing that state is difficult, and opens the door to further reactive thoughts, so I try to bypass the chains of words, and get the listener to recognize the state directly, by looking right at it within the present moment of awareness. As the poet does quite often.

Free Will. God, by whichever name, should not demand blind faith and devotion, but understanding of all things as we are allowed to see them, by our own selves.

John,
While trying to understand complex phenomena, in your case you try to capture the experiences as they are --- poetically, as you say --- I try to reduce them to as clear a statement as possible. This results in our different approaches. Starting in different directions, we are moving closer to the same goal --- the goal of understanding the complex processes of the mind.

Over the days, I have learnt to take your expression of your experiences as complex and deep rather than unclear. That is why I did not complain of it but tried to understand it.

Georgiana,
Your expression "blind faith" itself describes the nature of such faith. How can what is blind show you the way? As you rightly say, the self should undertake its own explorations.

Satish,

Yes, I think I understand, and indeed clear words are necessary to keep one from simply believing one comprehends what another is speaking of. However, that can only take one to the edge of what is known, as a map can. To go beyond, into the non-conceptualized, the non-memory based observation of what is not born of the reactive mind; one must cease speaking to oneself altogether. There must be nothing generated by reactive memory dominating attention, if one is to perceive what is born of things other than the reaction of memory. One simply cannot do both things at once.

So, like it or not, there comes a point at which one can no longer be told, by oneself or another, what is being observed. One must watch quietly. So, when I think I have made myself clear, and the other has followed my words to that edge of the knowable, the clearly expressible in words; I switch to the "poetic", which can hopefully point toward what is beyond, without mucking it up with words and their reactive imagery. There can never be words which describe clearly, what is happening beyond the thought of what is happening. The words limit experience at that moment of watching. Says I.

Imagine trying to tell another precisely what saltiness is like. One can't, but only observe it apart from words. Words are not the things they describe, but are themselves a form of pointing at things.

John,
I agree and accept. May be I'll try to silence my past experiences and try to observe the pure experience for what it is. Perhaps it will take time --- months, years, may be. But certainly it will add a dimension to my understanding of things.

Thanks for all your comments.

Bernie,
This type of sincere and well-meaning debates are what make Gather what it is. Thanks for your interest in the article.

Satish,

You are an extraordinarily thoughtful person, and I tell you the truth; You do the thing I speak of here many times every day, or you could not be patient and reasonable. It is a natural function of the intelligence of the creature as a whole, and happens as a normal part of understanding and learning, but the "me" part of intelligence is not the "actor" in that, so us "me"s don't grasp it's occurrence, or significance.

The mere fact that you have listened to this clumsy attempt by another to speak of this thing, will work naturally to enhance the quality of intelligence, even if you never see any relationship. The reactive memory has not stopped you from looking more closely at the matter, and the whole of intelligence grows wiser and more complete with every moment of serious inquiry, especially into it's own nature. It is learning itself. To the extent that the reactive mind is less reactive, or takes it's reactions less solemnly or solidly, you will be a freer mind and being.

Take care.

John,
I agree when you say: "You do the thing I speak of here many times every day, or you could not be patient and reasonable."

And yet, after our conversation, I realise that trying to further develop the ability to surrender to the experience by switching off what you call "the reactive memory" could be a good way of sensitising the mind. I'll try this.

Thanks.

Barbra,
I had been terribly busy with work and did not open Gather for nearly three months. Today when I logged in, I saw your message. I am glad you found in my article something to support you at a moment of need.

I am sorry for such terribly delayed response.