Considering my family situation right now, I wonder why I’m being drawn back into a response… I thought I was done, here. Oh, well.
Isn’t that what we’re saying?
I suppose that Aquinas’ words, like all good art, could be evaluated only from the subjective point of view, but since we tend to gather together into intersubjective agreement on such things, I would join Anon and disagree with your interpretation that he was referring to Jesus.
What Aquinas meant, by most accounts, is that though he spent his life writing, when faced with his divine revelations of God, everything he wrote, everything he tried to express, everything he tried to codify was
trivial in the face of such knowledge and awareness. And yet, he saw the holiness in all things, including horsecrap. (Perhaps that’s when the term “holy crapp” first came about?)
Language constructs are only pointers to the objects or concepts that they represent. Again, being symbols, they are not Truth itself. Truth cannot be conveyed by words, which was Aquinas’ problem; which is why Jesus was silent before Pontius Pilate; and, generally, why there is so much spiritual confusion! No one can use symbolic, dualistic language to convey the nature of unified, undivided, nondual Truth.
Don’t feel badly; this has
always been the problem, both in the past and right this second. It’s why Jesus was so misunderstood (or, at least one of the reasons.)
So, for those who are in a position to need religious belief for their apprehension of Truth, then religion brings them much of the way toward – how are we referring to it now? – the esoteric, but it’s not ‘all the way home.’ This is best evidenced by what we see as the notion of ‘life after death’, where you only get your reward in the hereafter, even though Jesus promised the possibility of heaven on Earth.
For other people who see through the problems of belief, the search for Truth is a process of negation. As ancient sages used to say,
“neti, neti” – “not this, not that.” This search for Truth requires setting aside all ideas, concepts, beliefs, and falsehoods, stripping everything away until all that is left is direct realization of Truth, unsullied by any dualistic pointers that can only lead away from Truth.
After the point of realization, ideas, concepts, and other forms of ‘everyday life’ will arise again, but they are seen for what they are.
Oh, sure you can. All you have to do is ask, “Hey, was your experience like mine?”
While this does not constitute objective, empirical, third-person verification by an external observer, we often rely on inter-subjective comparisons of subjective experiences in order to verify experience.
I could extend your argument right back to your religious beliefs: Even if you’re Catholic and not Gnostic, how can you possibly verify your beliefs outside yourself unless you compare them to people who share those beliefs, or have those experiences? This is why science and religion clash – science cannot verify the internal experiences of a subject any more than it can verify the nature of transcendental experiences. Science can identify correlates – brain waves, chemical activity, etc. – but science cannot quantify the experience itself. And yet, those experiences are so real to the subject that the shortcomings of science are dismissed.
The Truth that is being pointed to can only be experienced directly, without the obfuscation of words and belief. Belief can get you to the gate, and can support your search, but you yourself have to enter ‘naked’, like the child.
Beats waitin’ around 'till I’m dead in order to find out.
You think. That is what you believe.
No, you don’t. That’s what you believe, and does not constitute Truth.
Any sort of spiritual experience is simply an experience. Like all things impermanent, these experiences come and then go. The meaning that it holds for a person is based entirely on their background, conditioning, and belief system. If you and other people had experiences that seemed identical, the relating of those experiences would still be steeped in conditioning. One person would report, say, seeing Jesus. The others might report seeing Krishna, or Mohammed, or any number of other deity figures throughout history. Same quality of experience, different interpretations, none of them being Truth… it’s just an experience, with an interpretation taken too far.
While many would agree that this has been lost, I don’t hold that opinion. I think that religion IS the foundation for the esoteric (and I know that Detales agrees with this wholeheartedly.) Religion can take us to Truth, to the transcendental experience of experiencing at-onement with God, but sadly, most religions take you only partway there, and then keep you partway there.
Religion, at its best, should be a ‘conveyor belt’ for moving people through advancing stages of realization and understanding, teaching you what you need to know, asking the questions that will get you to open the next door in your unfoldment, and then sending you on your way through the next gate. And this can continue from a very low, fundamental level, all the way up the ladder to Truth realization.
To say that most organized religion has failed in this task is an understatement. It is more obvious that religions are organized in order to keep people at one level of understanding, and they do not encourage moving on from that level of belief, as we can see so clearly even here in the fora.
The “blackness” is metaphorical. It’s the notion that you need to let go of everything to find Truth, with no safety net, no raft. Even Jesus said you must leave your family behind… everything you hold dear.
See the problem with language?
