I found this reading profoundly difficult to grasp, and I was forced to read through it several times. It seemed like a lot of this section was devoted to trying to impress on the reader that God is something unknowable. This concept I can agree with, and I always liked the idea of God being something beyond our comprehension. I feel that this is far closer to the truth than a Zeus like figure that sits on a thrown in the sky.
The earlier section where they discus Self I was completely lost. I think the problem here was that I simply don’t understand the premises of this discussion. I suppose the Self is rather like a soul, they also talk about the fact that it is not a personal thing. It is also said in this section, “Unmoving, it moves faster then the mind.” I suppose this means that because self is everywhere it doesn’t have to move to travel faster the mind. In the end I think what they are getting at is like God, Self is one of the unknowable things.
The section where sense is discussed came together a lot easier for me. Here they say that, “That which makes the tongue speak but which cannot be spoken.” Which to me mean that God is the impious for the thought and then action of speaking, but because It is unknowable we can’t speak of it. I certainly could stand behind that notion and how it applies to the other senses.
All and all I don’t know if I would say I liked this reading. It seemed to be written for the explicit purpose of confutation, but then again that might just be what this reading is trying to impress.
-Shay out
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey Shay,
I found this difficult as well to comprehend, just as the writer says that one can't "know" God.
I agree with you that the purpose of the section is to confuse, which in turns makes you think! Perhaps they don't have the answers either if they are truly wise as they say, but they've just spent a great deal of time pondering the matter, and are just kind of "puttin' it out there".
I'm not a big fan of theolosophy, since I prefer cutting to the chase. Yet at the same time I do agree with the writer, and you, that concrete images of God doesn't have anything to do with knowing God.
Post a Comment