That which is not of the mind

Is there such a thing as exploring the unknown? Is there such a thing as knowing the unknown or being familiar with it? If you look at it clearly, simply, the answer is obviously not. The unknown is where knowledge cannot enter.

So, when someone talks about knowing the unknown or understanding the unknown or being familiar with the unknown, the meaning is the concept of unknown, the name ‘unknown’ along with all the meaning that is associated with, which is knowledge. In the face of the unknown, either one invents knowledge to escape the unknown or one ends. End, in the sense of trying to grasp, to understand, to comprehend, to associate with, to have anything to do with the unknown, all that ends. So look at it, only not knowing can meet the unknown and no other knowledge comes out of it. This fact is most avoided because no one can come back and tell about it, including this ridiculous attempt here and now.

So, there is no intention to talk about the unknown. The talk is about the fake unknown, the unknown that can be known, that concept. And we can talk about something very similar, if not the same, which is death. People can talk about death, people can describe it as the end of everything. But they do not know death. Only death can meet itself fully without adding any movement of knowledge to it.

So, this unknown, this death, this ultimate void, this infinite question beyond words, what does it have to do with you, with your life? If at all. Maybe ignoring it, as you do, is the meaning of your life. And from that comes out all the expressions, all the meanings, all the activities, all the experiences, which you are so heavily invested. If that’s the case, we reach the point of “understanding”. But if not, and if you dare to look truly into this self-avoidance, a different kind of observation may take place, an observation that is not of the known or trying to know. Observation that is not a confirmation of something you have as an idea, rather an observation of not knowing.

Surely, such observation only expands. But where would it lead you? Obviously nowhere. And what would it give you? Obviously nothing. So being so used to reason, being so transactional in your whole operation of the mind, in the mindset, this is not an option. This is not something you would seriously consider, because it may demand the ultimate price, give everything to it, everything you know, and stay with nothing. And surely, if at all, there is not even a shadow of control that you can exercise upon that.

So, what do you do with this? Can you look at that, think about it, feel it, and meet the end of it, drop the concept of it, the whole set of ideas, and stay with the truth of it, which is not knowing? To me, this is truth, not truth that can be explained or justified or measured against the false, but a living truth. There are no conflicts, no complications, no contradictions in not knowing. Despite your biased intuition, not knowing is the most living, you can call it, ‘state’ for you, where that which ends is the artificial, and that which begins teaches you the truth about your nature.

And the truth about your nature is not known, and only the unknown can meet that truth, not by coming to it and have some kind of relation with it, but by realizing that the nature of unknown is the nature of itself. And stay with it, because it’s the only thing that is living. The end is the only beginning. The death of the known is the only living knowledge. Surely no one can talk about it. Surely any attempt to do so, such as this, cannot be considered valuable to the knowing mind, but it may present a key to something which is not of the mind. And to touch that which is not of the mind, in a childish way, you can say: it’s what your heart longed for before time began.