The Book of Not Knowing: Exploring the True Nature of Self, Mind, and Consciousness Paperback – January 26, 2010

I truly don't know where to start with this. I've never read anything like it. Take that statement for what it's worth. I'm a college student and for the past five years I've had a drive to read everything under the sun as it relates to personal growth and what it means to "be" human. As the saying goes, we're human beings, we aren't "human doings." This is in a category of its own. It sounds funny and it is, but I could just feel becoming smarter as I read this book. So many "aha" moments just clicked into place. The book just feels *right.*
I can't describe this book as just something that adds more "stuff" to your head. This book is a pointer to experience. It's also an inspiration to be aware that a human being created something of such great value.
After all other readings I've done from psychology, leadership, eastern philosophy, you name it - this book becomes a unifying principle of everything. And it is immense. It isn't everyday that I say that something becomes a unifying principle for many other seemingly contradictory or paradoxical "realities." Yet this one somehow manages to do just that.

When you read a lot, when you experience a lot, you tend to let things just be scattered all over the place in your mind. When things in your mind are scattered, your experience of reality will equally be scattered. You will be like a leaf in the wind. And you will try to fight against any currents. This is a book that unifies everything together in a holistic manner that translates in direct experience. This book is not trying to convince you of anything, it does not, and cannot become a "belief." It is trying to SHOW you, NOW. After it has shown you, you are free to do what you like. It's a piercing expose of what it means to be human.

The advantages are clear: You walk around more centered in yourself, your mind will be clear, you will be more efficient and proactive in whatever it is that you do.

What are the flaws of the book? For the sake of staying balanced, I'll throw you a bone and pretend that "it's too long" is a flaw. There's too much to take in. It's so long, but paradoxically, it cuts to the chase. It's to the point. You know when you have your first experience when you are at a loss of words? That's where this book is trying to point you to. However, you will need to keep exposing yourself to influences that point you in the right direction. This book is long, but one read will not suffice. Your mind has too much momentum working for it, so you will probably want to make the decision of trying to slow it down by exposing yourself again and again to this book, and any other work that points to fulfillment or towards real experience.

What I love about all this is that it's all very practical and down to Earth, as it is. I have an aversion to any "airy" concepts that sound good but can't be nailed down. Anything too spiritual with too many wishy-washy words and examples can't really do it for me. Another great practical book is "Buddha's Brain" by Rick Hanson. If you're interested in this topic (and I know you are, since you've read this far), check it out. =)

[Edit - March 19, 2013]
For those of you who have finished reading the book, it's suggested that you read it again. And there's a proper reason for that. I finished reading it for the seventh time and here's why that's important. Seven times for a big book like this sounds crazy but consider that many other books on the subject pale in comparison. Much love to other authors and books as ALL of them have their proper place, but there is a place and time for real progress to be made! And decidedly this is the book that, for me, offers that possibility. What else would you spend your time on? Work? Sports and the news? Going to nightclubs?? (Actually hitting the club up is one of my favorite things to do, but I digress.)

I'm also happy with the fact that one of my college friends also picked up and is reading it for his first time.

That said, I think reading this book once is equivalent to reading any random book cover and assuming you know what the book is about. It just doesn't stick nor does it translate to the actuality the book is pointing to.

At any rate, the work continues to get done. Some things that weren't clear with my first reading became clear during the second reading. Some things that became clear during the fourth reading got lost and only became clear during the sixth reading. Some things that were never clear to begin with just became more clear with the seventh reading... and so on. Nothing is "done" or finished. It's a big task and I realize the scale of it with each reading. In fact, this may be the primary lesson after seven readings. It takes more and more commitment. There's no such thing as "done" until you're *done*. Don't confuse being distracted by other things as being done with this thing. You either dabble or you move forward.

It also makes me see that - for good or for bad - most people that read the book will take it as nothing more than a temporary entertainment. Or not. Who knows.

The *ONLY* reason why I've stuck with it for as long as I have is not out of discipline or confusion but out of its ability to open different doors at unexpected times. This is like a journey where you don't know what's around the corner or where that'll leave you next. As a result, one thing I refuse to do is form a "conclusion" or "solid opinion" about it. Because conclusions and solid opinions are what ends up closing doors for you experientially. (If you're unsure how to read a book, there's a book for that too, it's called "How to Read a Book" by Mortimer Adler.)

I appreciate Mr. Ralston taking the time to write on such a complicated subject. It is evident that he knows (experientially) of what he speaks.

"The Book of Not Knowing" will be one of the books I reread ever year or so. It is a wealth of knowledge for the truth seeker. I say this more so because - even though getting through the details is gut wrenching to read at times - it filled in some knowledge gaps for me and affirmed parts of my own path over the last 50 years (self analysis, truth seeking, travels, meditations, etc.).

For what is sometimes a lonely path - truth seeking - it is nice to periodically have your experiences and insights independently validated. Thank you Peter!

***** for subject matter
** for execution

The subject matter is tremendous. I've been interested in this sort of thing for a long time, but have never come across a book that deals with it, at least in any depth. Since I was a teenager I've had the notion that the only thing we know is that something is itself. I remember arguing the point with a friend, who wasn't really into that kind of thinking, so his eyes glazed over before we got anywhere. And so its gone most of my life.

So this book is about trying to get to a point where we can really experience ourselves--our true Being, as opposed to a concept of ourself (our conceptual self that is seemingly created by our beliefs/assumptions about everything). It deals with getting to the Truth, which in the end, involves a lot of honest indepth contemplation.

To experience this a bit, sit back, relax and comtemplate the follow: What are you? Not what you do in life, or how you're feeling right now, or what you're thinking, but just what are you basically. What is it that is thinking about this right now and where is it exactly? In your head? But is it really? How do you know? Feel that itch/pain in your ankle? Is that you, the pain in your ankle? If so, are you your ankle? Now stop thinking and just be aware of your ankle. Where is that awareness? Can you be aware of it or look at it? Awareness is like looking out of your eyes, you can't see it just like you can't see your eyes directly. So where is that awareness coming from exactly? It can't be coming from anything you can be aware of, can it? And so on.

So why two stars for execution.

1. Because the book is way too verbose.
2. There are far too few concrete examples when there could/should be many.
3. Because there's no way to cross reference and no index.
4. Because Ralston repeats, over and over "I will go into this in more depth later," but never says where exactly. In the end, often he doesn't really clarify the subject after all--at least to my satisfaction and I'm left to wonder and doubt that he does go into it in more depth later on.

1.The book is very repetitive and that's okay. The subject is difficult to grasp at times, complex and needs to be hammered home to a degree. I think Ralston over does it though, especially where it concerns some fairly simple material. But that's a minor complaint at best.

This kind of book needs to be as concise as can be, where it concerns language, and Ralston is anything but. He could have used a ruthless editor to pare the meaningless and redundant phrases and sentences. Reading it once, ok, we've all read good subject matter that wasn't well written. But this book is meant to be read more than once. Having to reread the extra junk is really annoying, time consuming and it makes it difficult to find one's way around the material. A couple examples follow. They refer to who/what is generating thoughts in us. First from the book unedited:

"In this case, it is much like the Wizard of Oz running the show from behind the curtain. We don't see the Wizard, we only see the show: and in our case we simply suspect that there is a Wizard or real-self back there generating and perceiving these thoughts and emotions."

My edit:
--It is much like the Wizard of Oz running the show from behind the curtain. In our case we suspect that there is a real-self (the Wizard) back there generating the thoughts.--

And another more elaborate example two paragraphs further along. I think this one is actually rather more confusing than my edited version:

"What if the very sense of your "self behind the curtain" is actually not you? Consider the possibility that this self-sense is founded on an assumption that you must be the one generating thoughts and reacting to stimuli, so whatever does generate these activities would be thought to be you. If what does generate thoughts and emotion is a complex domain of mind that isn't recognized, then this would be held to be your real self, wouldn't it? This assumption, combined or confused with a background perception of an overall bodily sensation, could provide that "feeling-sense" that you assume is you. Imagine that all together these form that sense of your "real self" existing just behind your awareness. If this is true, then the real source that you are could easily be missed, couldn't it? It's possible that your ingnorance of the workings of your own mind makes it appear as though the complex processes of the uncognized mind that produce your thoughts and feelings are the real-self. Such an assumption would play a central role in any conclusion you might make about yourself, and would tend to stand in the way of the openness necessary to ask: if this uncognized mind isn't me, then what is?"

My edit:
--What if the very sense of your "self behind the curtain" is actually not you? Is it possible that this self-sense is founded on the assumption that you're the one generating thoughts and reacting to stimuli. This assumption, along with a background perception of an overall bodily sensation, could provide that "feeling-sense" that you assume is you. Such an assumption would play a central role in any conclusion you might make about yourself, and might stand in the way of the openness necessary to ask: if this uncognized mind isn't me, then what is?--

I'm putting together a kind of outline/manual of the book for my own use; I'm going through this time consuming process because this book needs to be reread and studied, and in its current form it's a real mess.

2. Lists of examples, things to contemplate, typical beliefs and assumptions that people have, etc. would have been invaluable, particularly in the first one third or so of the book. For instance, Ralston will ask you to think about your beliefs and assumptions. Examples would be relevant or might remind you of some of your own similar or opposite beliefs. You wouldn't be left with a blank slate trying to figure out how to think of (unconscious) assumptions. It would be useful if the book included an appendix which listed all kinds of assumptions, beliefs and other particulars that people are unconscious or semi-conscious of. A list of contemplation subjects would also be very nice to have available.

3 & 4. Since the book is long, and often refers to other unnamed places in the text, it's almost impossible to find them. Exercises and contemplations are also part of the text, and so without index, difficult to find. Why a book of this length and complexity is without index is beyond me; unless there's an ulterior motive, which might indeed be the case, I'm loathe to say. It may be that there really aren't as many specifics and topics as Ralston suggests as he goes along; an index would expose that. I.e., Ralston says he'll discuss the current topic in more detail later, but doesn't tell where in the book later is. That may not matter much the first time you read the book, but it sure matters the second and third time. And since Ralston highly recommends you read the book several times..., you get my drift. This is very frustrating indeed.

I am wondering a little about this book as I reread it. I'm wondering if Ralston isn't being a bit disingenuous. He constantly writes about recognizing beliefs as being just that, beliefs--not truths, and that we don't really "know" anything without direct experience, yet he tells us quite often how important certain concepts of his are and that if we keep them in mind they will lead us to important changes. Yet he doesn't specify what the changes are or how to get there. Here's an example of just-take-my-word-for-it kind of thing. No explanation. This is re the difference between perceiving something "for itself" and "in relationship to oneself." This can be far more subtle than we normally think, and more important than we give credit. It doesn't seem to matter, but it does." And here's another statement just thrown out there, no examples. "The most profound experiences arise from questioning the obvious." Nice and pithy but...?

There also seems to be a "leading us on" quality to the book; "hang in there, be patient, we'll get there," but we never do. This may be part of the way the subject goes, and I think that is the case, still the book suggests otherwise, but doesn't come through.

Although the negatives are abundant and real, I still suggest, if you're interested in this sort of thing, and want to learn to look at yourself (your essential being) and the world differently (as-it-is) this book is a good place to go, and possibly the only place to go. It is definitely worthwhile; it may even be an "important." book. Obviously, the fact that I'm creating a manual for myself suggests that I think highly of it, but it also confirms its many shortcomings. That the interesting concepts and thoughts are much fewer than the length of the book suggests, that it's frustrating to use, it's lacking in examples, and it's extremely difficult to find specifics in it (no index).

This is not a book of information. It is not a belief system to be adopted. It is not intellectual deliberation. It is a experiential inquiry into YOU, performed by YOU, that will leave YOU transformed in ways you quite literally cannot begin to imagine. It is a hand pointing the way. I am working through this book for the third time, and find it totally different each time. Same book, profoundly changed reader. I challenge all students of philosophy, truth seekers, and cynical intellectuals(this was me!) to sincerely work their way through this book, and not find authentic transformation. For you see, thats what this is all pointing at, an authentic experience of being. "Someone showed it to me, and I found it all by myself." Whether or not you decide to take this challenge, BE happy friends.