But then it becomes very difficult to say anything. Whatever can be said about the divine can be said only through the windows, because anything that can be said is really being said about the windows, not about the sky itself. When we see beyond the windows, the sky is so vast, so limitless. It cannot be defined. All words are inapplicable; all theories are inadequate.
So one who is in the fourth has always remained silent about it, and definitions of the divine have come from the first three. If the one in the fourth has spoken at all, he has spoken in terms that seem absurd, illogical, irrational. He contradicts himself. Through contradiction he tries to show something. Not to say something; to show something.
Wittgenstein has made this distinction. He said that there are truths that can be said, and there are truths that can be shown but not said. A thing is definable because it exists among other things. It can be related to other things, compared. For example, we can always say that a table is not a chair. We can define it by reference to something else. It has a boundary to which it extends, and beyond which something else begins. Really, only the boundary is defined. A definition means the boundary from which everything else begins.
But we cannot say anything about the divine. The divine is the total, so there is no boundary; there is no frontier from which something else begins. There is no “something else.” The divine is frontierless so it cannot be defined.
The fourth can only show; it can only indicate. That is why the fourth has remained mysterious. And the fourth is the most authentic, because it is not colored by human perceptions. All the great saints have indicated; they have not said anything. Whether it is Jesus, Buddha, Mahavira or Krishna, it doesn’t matter. They are not saying anything; they are just indicating something – just a finger pointing to the moon.
But there is always the difficulty that you will become obsessed by the finger. The finger is meaningless; it is indicating something else. It must not catch your eye. If you want to see the moon, the finger must be absolutely forgotten.
This has been the greatest difficulty as far as the divine is concerned. You see the indication and you feel that this indication is, itself, the truth. Then the whole purpose is destroyed. The finger is not the moon; they are absolutely different. The moon can be shown by the finger, but one must not cling to the finger. If a Christian cannot forget the Bible, if a Hindu cannot forget the Gita, then the very purpose is destroyed. The whole thing becomes purposeless, meaningless and in a way non-religious, anti-religious.
Whenever one approaches the divine, one must be aware of one’s own mind. If one approaches the divine through the mind, the divine becomes colored by it. If you approach the divine without mind, without you, without the human coming in, if you approach the divine as an emptiness, as a void, a nothingness, without any preconceptions, without any propensity for seeing things in a particular way – then you know the quality-lessness of the divine, otherwise not. Otherwise all the qualities we give to the divine belong to our human windows. We impose them upon the divine.