How is it possible for someone to trick themselves into knowing something when they only have a loose grasp of the reality which they speak? It seems that this is more the case than not, and is known commonly as a “belief” or an “assumption”, which is only a partial knowledge. But, to discern the difference is an intriguing endeavor.
Knowledge appears to be what we can know about anything specifically. As simple as a snake venom is poisonous, to as something complex as the process of photosynthesis is what allows plant’s their life. But, what we can know is always subjective, meaning that it can only be perceived or comprehended by a consciousness. This means that all knowledge, is in actuality, self-knowledge. Only something we can come to terms from the perception of our self. As an example, “snake venom is poisonous” may not be the case for the sages who consume lethal amounts and remain unharmed.
So when someone knows something, there is no doubt in their mind. It is as it is, for that individual, because their experience has revealed it as a type of unwavering truth. Of which, never seems to change. Thus, they act according to that principle— since knowing is synonymous with action. It is visceral and complete.
I talk about this now, because I am reminded of this constant endeavor to be honest with myself. Do I really know what I am saying? Or, do I merely believe I know? The difference is hugely relevant to a more transparent conversation.
For instance, on the idea of the ‘Law of Correspondence’ (also known as Law of Attraction), I know has functioned to certain degrees within my life. Such as when I had negative thoughts, and I fell off my bike, as a result. Or, because I had positive directed intentions, I was able to create fantastic lucid dream experiences.
This law, as a whole, I don’t yet know. It therefore still remains a belief. Unfortunately, this logically means that I believe something outside me has some amount of control in how my reality functions. This is not ideal, but it is more honest with how much I understand of the law. If I truly knew it, and embodied it, I would likely have a great deal more abundance and balance within my life. But, I don’t know it, though I do know it is possible to know it! Since I know, that everything is consciousness.
If we were to look closer at the idea that reality is consciousness, or that reality is completely subjective. This, I see through and through. This I know, is the absolute case! You would not be able to say enough words to convince me otherwise, because any other view is too limited in scope, to come down to. Like telling a mathematician that algebra is wrong because 1+1=2.
I see many continue to say what they only believe to know to be true. Usually, easily noticed, because of the limited nature of their belief. This is no judgement, because the challenge with anything we believe to know, is saying the words, “I believe”. Belief can easily be seen as a type of doubt in someone, since it is not a complete knowledge within experience.
As a writer, I would like people to be inspired by my words. Inspired towards higher ideals and higher principles. Which is why, often saying the words “I know” becomes a more powerful instrument than saying the words “I believe”. Words similar to “fact” or “truth” are highly convincing to any reader or listener. Along with, what is usually purported by those who speak on the ‘Law Of Correspondence’— which is to act as though you already know. Taking on the vibration of someone who has the continual experience of which can only be imagined, by someone without that realization.
This appears to be exceedingly inauthentic. Though, at the same time, it does appear to have its virtues. Acting like you know what you are talking about, does make it feel like you actually do! Which creates a type of confidence. Seemingly, you are embodying the truth of which you know only a little about— until the very moment someone with actual experience is able to correct your knowledge all the way through. Then drawing that line backwards from the self-generated false identity is rather demanding. It is a vibration of frustration that does not want to fall into guilt. The only solution I have found, is to remain neutral. After all, you can only be as honest as you know how.
In such a manner, I see myself using words differently to approach the most authentic conversation. Especially, if we are to speak about civics. Yet, I desire the conversation to not only be authentic to my lower self, but authentic to my higher self. Which means I may indeed, continue to say words that my lower self hasn’t completely integrated into, as of yet— while still aloof, as to where my words could become too much of a distortion in paradigm.
This all said, being honest with our current self-knowledge, seems like the best approach in accelerating to a more balanced communication with our self and anything perceived as “another”. In this, we can talk in simultaneous terms. Accepting the hidden aspects veiled in our psyche, while candidly trusting our self to remove the obstacles that obfuscate the more expanded truth.
So I write this verse:
Believing And Knowing
One side plays on the other
I trust my knowledge
Believing in something more real
Seeing clearly the saint’s eyes
The full spectrum of her aura eludes my gaze.