Why there is Ambiguity in Philosophy

Philosophies that are vague and ambiguous are profound but simultaneously the most dangerous pieces of knowledge out there. Let me tell you why, Let’s commence by establishing common definitions: What do I mean by ‘vague’? I refer to philosophies where one feels that everything is said, yet nothing concrete is expressed. 

The problem is: that the people who live in their comfort zone and are better at self-deception love such a concept because it’s only ambiguity that can be molded in any way which is the most comforting thing. After all, if you can put a hand on “what to do” It would force you to transform. 

If you are not doing what is said there will be regret, so to escape all this as I said comfort seeking mind embraces the ambiguity of nothingness, it ultimately helps a deceiving mind to interpret things where you have to do nothing or allow to be at peace with whatever the one is doing in case of relationship, life, love, happiness, sorrow, joy and what not.

In such philosophies, finding any conclusion is similar to grasping in the air, If I ask you so what or how to do? You would be blank and use the plugin “There’s nothing”. So is it the problem with these philosophies? No! It’s just you. 

Imagine how absurd it would be if someone just introduced new words and problems about love, living, awareness, truth, and emotions without guiding what to do about it. How could that piece of knowledge be relevant over the years? See, the relevance persists because there are instructions actually; there are ways.

Otherwise, Tao would have stopped writing further after declaring “there’s no way” as the first line of his book. If there truly isn’t a “way”, then just stop writing further—what are you even saying in further 81 chapters? Yet, no philosopher ever halts. Why? Because there’s a way. “There’s no way” isn’t any declaration made by philosophers but precaution, it’s just that they can’t convey it directly. 

Hence, they often provide disclaimers asserting that there is no way, preventing the instruction-seeking mind from fixating on the words alone and encouraging an exploration between the lines. In contrast, unfortunately, or regrettably I’d rather say, this vagueness of “There isn’t any way” often backfires. 

People just grasp onto words that “there isn’t the way” as it’s clearly said so their actual “instruction-seeking mind” follows and understands what’s said and written and they stop right there, they don’t read between the lines throughout philosophy. This results in a type of philosophy where everything is said, yet when asked for specifics, nothing comes to mind because their word-seeking minds did not delve into the subtleties so they have nothing to put their hands on. 

There’s something that’s why there are countless commentaries on the Bhagwat Geeta, countless interpretations of Tao Te Ching. Osho after interpreting Tao Te Ching’s first line that “there isn’t a way”, ends up giving hundreds of lectures and four volumes on Tao Te Ching means there’s something and that something can only be comprehended by the phenomenal mind and the mind that is eager to transform because such mind can only dare to delve into subtleties. It can understand the actual meaning behind “there isn’t a way”, instead of settling with it by taking it literally.  

Therefore, a discerning mind is the only mind that is capable of extracting the way. Now mind me I’m not saying only specific people can interpret it well that would be a very aristocratic thing to say I’m trying to say anybody can do that but most people interpret ambiguous philosophies the way which is comforting and settling for them and miss the opportunity to be phenomenal, nothing comes easy. 

Vagueness is deliberately maintained by geniuses to articulate the inexplicable subtly, guiding individuals passively. Pay close attention, especially to the word ‘passively.’ There is no philosophy that is just a farrago of words and still relevant; there are instructions and ways. 

From Tao, Buddhism, Shiv Sutras, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible, Western philosophy to Eastern methods, from Thales to Russell, Krishnamurti, or Osho—they are conveying something, they aren’t speaking gibberish they are indicating something, they aren’t introducing problems and complicacies without providing solutions and ways. It’s people who aren’t able to read between the lines.

However, again it requires a keen mind to discern and understand the actual message conveyed between the lines i am saying this for the third time to understand the gravity of it. 

When I initially read the first book by J. Krishnamurti three years back, I realized there’s no given way to attain self-awareness, when I listened to the initial interpretation of the Tao Te Ching, I realized there’s no way at all, but that was naive and partially knowledgeable of me. 

Later in life, I read six other books by Krishnamurti in their entirety, apart from his lectures. I listened to 127 lectures of Osho on the Tao Te Ching completely and exposed myself to many philosophies, ideas, and books and I’m telling you “The Very Way” emerged to me; instructions emerged to me because I was never seeking any comfort and settlement or deceiving myself at any point which made me realize how it works. 

Now, back to the first line of this article: Philosophies that are vague and ambiguous are the most dangerous pieces of knowledge out there because people can mold the vagueness into their comfortable subjective clarity and don’t bother to go in-depth. 

Otherwise, no revolutionary philosophy is there to make you feel comfortable in whoever you are right now and let you be who you are. It’s always about revolution, transformation, and challenge but you can escape that labyrinth easily and just merely learn facts, names, and concepts, like “there isn’t a way” without interpreting them in the intended way and carrying on.