Refutation of understanding – Refutation of Not-Understanding: Refutation of Rejection of Both, and of Acceptance of Both

M: Tell me, what are you here to do?
S: I am here to comprehend the nature of the world as it is
M: Do you mean in a transcendental sense? Mathematical sense? Phenomenological sense? Be more specific!
S: I mean in all the above! Show me what is true! I do not care in what sense it is true, as long as it is ultimately true.
M: What do you mean by “ultimately true”?
S: I mean eternally true. I mean knowledge which, even if it is not knowledge of everything, reduces all other knowledge to unimportance. I wish to know that ultimate knowledge, knowing of which will make knowledge of anything else simply meaningless.
M: You are off-course, then. Your current state is one of confusion and non-knowing of this supposed eternal truth. Thus, existence includes both knowing and non-knowing. Any comprehension or understanding you acquire, then, is merely you having experienced a specific state. A specific state is simultaneously not any other specific state. Thus, the acquisition of understanding reduces your experience to one way as opposed to another way, thereby causing you to not-know, first-handedly and presently, another state of consciousness. In knowing something, there is not-knowing of something else. In not-knowing something or anything, there is simultaneous knowing of this not-knowing.
S: So then, it is the transcendence of knowing truth and not-knowing truth, the transcendence of knowing facts and knowing delusions, which is the ultimate truth that reduces these variations to unimportance!
M: Actually, no. See, this intellectual transcendence of knowledge or confusion is an understanding in and of itself. See, prior to this conversation, you did not think or know of this rejection of both knowing and not-knowing; understanding and not-understanding. Your current experience of feeling above or free from that dichotomy is itself an understanding. Thus, you have not really escaped it. Searching for the substratum upon which truth and falsehood rest, is merely to search for a greater truth; greater knowledge.
S: So I must reject truth, falsehood, and the combination of both of them as two different types of experience!
M: Don’t forget that your understanding of negating truth, falsehood, and both as complementary experiences is itself also an understanding. Yet, you also cannot reject the understanding of these things, for not-understanding and understanding are merely complementary aspects of each other, both specific and both incomplete. I remind you, though, that the understanding of their complementarity is merely an understanding, thus, to reject both (truth and falsehood), to accept both, to accept one, or to accept the other, are all ways to bring yourself back to a state of some kind, as if you are trying to intellectually get outside of the intellect. Notice that the intellect cannot get at itself in the same way a fire can’t burn itself.
S: So what do I do?
M: Neither nothing, nor something, shall you do.

Comments are closed.