Inquiry and the intellect-Can intellect know what Truth is?

[Guest guest]

Question: Is an intellectual understanding of the Truth

necessary?

 

Answer: Yes. Otherwise why does not the person realize God or

the Self as soon as he is told that God is all or the Self is all?

One must argue with himself and gradually convince himself of the

Truth. (Talks, 16 Dec 1937)

 

 

Well, this is not a contradiction. We have to understand what is

being said. The truth is that there is something beyond the

intellect. It is possible for the intellect to understand it. For

instance, the intellect can understand that knowledge is always

incomplete. Knowledge is a process in which there is always an adding

to what is known. This has no end; intellect can never evaluate what

a thing, any thing - in its totality - is; therefore, knowledge is

always incomplete. There cannot be a complete knowledge, say, for

instance, about a simple blade of grass. So, the true nature of the

blade of grass is the immeasurable, as the true nature of thought is

the immeasurable. The true nature of everything is the immeasurable,

the infinite. Hence, all things are only appearances of the Self.

This is the truth in relation to the existence of the universe, of

everything. Now, this can be understood by the intellect, So, the

truth that the Self is all can be understood by the intellect.

Intellect cannot understand what a simple blade of grass is; what

about Truth? The intellect can understand that the Self is all, but

cannot understand what Truth, the Self, in itSelf, is. How could it

understand Truth, the Self? Intellect is only an appearance of the

Self, of Truth. As for the true nature of the intellect, it is the

Truth, the Self. And the Self has no need to understand the Self – It

is the Self.

Domingos

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote:

>

> dear Domingos ,

>

> that was so beautiful to read ,

> thank you ,

> vicki

 

> Thank you Vicki. And this I have sent to another fried:

>

> Knowledge is incomplete. So, intellect cannot know who or what I

am. Any evaluation on the part of the intellect is not what I am.

Therefore, I am the immeasurable. The totality of the phenomenon is

the immeasurable. A blade of grass is the immeasurable. There cannot

be complete knowledge about anything. So, all the things and beings

are the immeasurable. Now: I am the immeasurable, and the body, the

feelings, the emotions and the intellect are aspects of mine. This is

very clear. The aspects, in their totality, are also the

immeasurable – there is no complete knowledge about the aspects and

there will never be, because knowledge is always incomplete. If you

don't have an instrument that can evaluate, measure, decide what a

being or a thing, any thing - in its totality - is, then all things

are the immeasurable. So, there is an illusion that I have identified

myself with the aspects that are part of myself. These aspects appear

as if they were limited, but in their true nature they are the

immeasurable. Since the aspects appear as they were limited, and

since apparently I identify my self with what is limited, then I feel

inadequate and try to recover my sense of limitlessness, of

completeness, which is my true nature. All this is really a game.

Apparently I have identified my self with that which appears as

limited. So, now, I look for completeness in the field of

appearances. And now I look desperately for myself in the field of

appearances. There I have to accumulate, to have power, to rule the

earth and what not. How funny! So I hate, I fabricate wars, I destroy

people, I destroy the earth, all that in the search of happiness,

that is, in the search of what I am. One day I assume the form of

someone who tells me the truth and suddenly, in the midst of my

dream, I wake up.

Domingos

[Guest guest]

RamanaMaharshi, "domingosmsvieira"

<domingosmsvieira> wrote:

> RamanaMaharshi, "viorica weissman" <viorica@z...> wrote:

> >

> > dear Domingos ,

> >

> > that was so beautiful to read ,

> > thank you ,

> > vicki

>

> > Thank you Vicki. And this I have sent to another fried:

> > Sorry Vicki. To another friend.

>