When we hear "omniscience," we so often tend to think of it in terms of mental knowledge, facts, understanding, information.
Your column brought to mind Krishna's statement to Arjuna in Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita: "I am the knower of the Field in all Fields.... knowledge of the distinction between the Knower and the Field, O Arjuna, that in my view is true wisdom."
Here, the "Knowing' is not knowing "about" - it is the Knowing in which, as St Paul put it in Acts II, "we live and move and have our being." It is that Knowing without which nothing could even exist, it is the Logos which brings the world and all worlds into being from timeless moment to moment.
Perhaps ironically, or even paradoxically, it is through our individual unknowing, not-knowing, that we most fully come into union with this Supreme supra-mental knowing. It is beyond left or right brain, though with right brain as master and left as emissary, we are more likely to be open to it, because we let go for the left brain's obsession with certainty, and we open to the right brains' joy in non knowing.
*****
Timely enough, I'm giving a brief talk next week in celebration of "the Descent of Krishna's consciousness into Sri Aurobindo, in 1926, and the subsequent descent of the Supramental Consciousness into the earth's atmosphere in 1956, and the influence it has had on the world ever since.
This involves both the increasing dissolution and almost literal dismemberment of the mental structure of consciousness that has dominated since some 2500 years ago - just as Iain McGilchrist illustrates in his first book (and Jean Gebser covers as well) - first in its holistic form, with right hemisphere as master, leading up ultimately to what Gebser refers to as the "deficient" form of the mental structure, the left hemisphere dominated mental consciousness of the past several centuries.
This is all coming apart as the new integral consciousness is affecting the world. The great danger here is so many who are drawn to the "disruptors' and "chaos agents" don't realize that the kind of destruction many of them bring leads us back to a more primitive semi-conscious participatory consciousness rather than forward to what Owen Barfield called "final participation."
In any case, none of these complicated concepts are ultimately necessary. As Ramana Maharshi put it, let attention be not on what is seen or the act of seeing, but
"That which sees."
Knowing that, all is known (back to omniscience!!)
thanks - especially the last paragraph - we have so many complicated ways to express what we have found and managed to witness. About Iain McGilchrist, I really appreciate how his monumental work has shown the value in the different thinkings from the left and right hemispheres of the brain. But, although he describes 'attention' such as 'presencing' he does not show how we choose / decide which to use when. That is a dilemma that interests me and it is very much related to 'letting go'. Maybe we need to let go the desire to know, and learn how to respond to what comes?
Sending you and your sister love amidst the not-knowing. xxx
When we hear "omniscience," we so often tend to think of it in terms of mental knowledge, facts, understanding, information.
Your column brought to mind Krishna's statement to Arjuna in Chapter 13 of the Bhagavad Gita: "I am the knower of the Field in all Fields.... knowledge of the distinction between the Knower and the Field, O Arjuna, that in my view is true wisdom."
Here, the "Knowing' is not knowing "about" - it is the Knowing in which, as St Paul put it in Acts II, "we live and move and have our being." It is that Knowing without which nothing could even exist, it is the Logos which brings the world and all worlds into being from timeless moment to moment.
Perhaps ironically, or even paradoxically, it is through our individual unknowing, not-knowing, that we most fully come into union with this Supreme supra-mental knowing. It is beyond left or right brain, though with right brain as master and left as emissary, we are more likely to be open to it, because we let go for the left brain's obsession with certainty, and we open to the right brains' joy in non knowing.
*****
Timely enough, I'm giving a brief talk next week in celebration of "the Descent of Krishna's consciousness into Sri Aurobindo, in 1926, and the subsequent descent of the Supramental Consciousness into the earth's atmosphere in 1956, and the influence it has had on the world ever since.
This involves both the increasing dissolution and almost literal dismemberment of the mental structure of consciousness that has dominated since some 2500 years ago - just as Iain McGilchrist illustrates in his first book (and Jean Gebser covers as well) - first in its holistic form, with right hemisphere as master, leading up ultimately to what Gebser refers to as the "deficient" form of the mental structure, the left hemisphere dominated mental consciousness of the past several centuries.
This is all coming apart as the new integral consciousness is affecting the world. The great danger here is so many who are drawn to the "disruptors' and "chaos agents" don't realize that the kind of destruction many of them bring leads us back to a more primitive semi-conscious participatory consciousness rather than forward to what Owen Barfield called "final participation."
In any case, none of these complicated concepts are ultimately necessary. As Ramana Maharshi put it, let attention be not on what is seen or the act of seeing, but
"That which sees."
Knowing that, all is known (back to omniscience!!)
thanks - especially the last paragraph - we have so many complicated ways to express what we have found and managed to witness. About Iain McGilchrist, I really appreciate how his monumental work has shown the value in the different thinkings from the left and right hemispheres of the brain. But, although he describes 'attention' such as 'presencing' he does not show how we choose / decide which to use when. That is a dilemma that interests me and it is very much related to 'letting go'. Maybe we need to let go the desire to know, and learn how to respond to what comes?