I wrote this for a facebook group, and transferred it on yet another group from which I expected more feedback. The beginning might lack a little context, but it should be OK. It was a blog post concerned with this title topic.
…Very nice. About overreaching [“conflating belief and knowledge”], etc. I had not tought about this precise understanding. And obviously it’s still a matter of insecurity, sheer hidden fear clinging to dogma as if for dear life…
I liked the idea of beholding – rather than clinging to – “the inherent mysteriousness in the religious transcendent” and I’d add its nondual sister immanence.
Why do we need so bad to assert?
Mystics and great meditators know better and that’s why they take the apophatic language to refer to what they have intuited, glimpsed or sensed: ineffable, unfathomable, inconceivable, both this and its opposite, neither that nor not that, etc. These last two are paradoxes, which are also essential tools of the mystic expression. And obviously they talk with an abundance of metaphors, parables, etc. knowing it’s still just that, words and images.
Yet the “realm of timelessness” affects this world very subtly, it’s seems. Hence mysticism. But this also says that our human cognition can apprehend that elusive realm even though it cannot comprehend it.
(I hope my English is still OK at this point…..!o!)
Finally I was thinking that the ineffable in Buddhism is: Emptiness, Nonduality, and Buddha-nature. I started smiling to myself as I realized, that these three all have a technical concrete counterpart… As if we said: OK we’re not gonna wait for satori here, so let’s work with this… So I was wondering if it was a sidestepping or perhaps a steppingstone for the mystic insight…
[Technical versions of the triad to come]