many words, but only one reality

English: basmallah , , in the name of Allah (God)

English: basmallah , , in the name of Allah (God) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is only reality. Can you name anything that exists that is not part of reality? Can you name any part of reality that does not exist?

Language is just an aspect of reality. Myths and lies and fiction and jokes and pretense and denial are all actual patterns of reality. Words are real words. Dreams are real dreams. Hallucinations are real hallucinations. The words “unreality” and “realities” are real words, but there is no such thing as unreality and there is not more than one reality. There is only reality. There is only one reality.

There is no reality except for reality. There are not two or more isolated realities. There is only one reality, which is eternal and continuous and boundless and omnipresent and omnipotent.

There is not one reality in conflict with another. There is only one reality.

Now, while all of that is relatively simple logically, lots of people can be very confused about the sheer simplicity of reality. Of course, confusion is also a real pattern in reality.

Spirituality and religion are about resolving basic confusions about language. However, many people may not be familiar with that idea and may confuse spirituality and religion for something that they are not. Or perhaps spirituality and religion are about creating confusions about language, but there are some major exceptions to that premise.

Holy Trinity by Fridolin Leiber (1853–1912)

Holy Trinity by Fridolin Leiber (1853–1912) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Let’s review one of the most common spiritual words: God. I assert that God is actually just another word for reality, even if people may confuse the word God to refer to something else. In considering this idea, let’s review three simple statements about reality:

“There is no reality except for reality. There are not two or more isolated realities. There is only one reality, which is eternal and continuous and boundless and omnipresent and omnipotent.”

Now, let’s replace the word reality with the word God and notice if any of this sounds familiar to you: “There is no God except for God. There are not two or more isolated Gods. There is only one God, which is eternal and continuous and boundless and omnipresent and omnipotent. God can be represented in multiple aspects, such as the three metaphorical archetypes of the Holy Trinity, but that is still monotheism, not polytheism, including the Holy Trinity of Vishnu, Indra, and Brahman.”


If none of the above sounds familiar to you, you may not be familiar with the major monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Let’s try the same idea with a few eastern religious terms:

“There are not two or more isolated Buddha Natures. There is only one Buddha Nature and it is eternal and continuous and boundless and omnipresent and omnipotent.” That is, generally speaking, the Hindu teaching of Advaita as well as the primary meaning of the word Yoga.

Here’s another similar variation: “The Tao that can be spoken of is just a labeling of the Tao, not the actual fullness of the Tao. There is no Tao except for the Tao.”

hebrew heaven

Let’s do the same thing with another familiar spiritual word: heaven. “There is only one heaven, which is eternal and continuous and boundless and omnipresent and omnipotent. There are not two or more isolated heavens. There is no heaven except for heaven.”

We know that ancient people used the term heaven in two distinct ways: to reference the sky and outer space where clouds and the sun and moon and planets and stars can be seen, and to reference some place or experience of total acceptance and bliss. The sky is also boundless and eternal and so on, but the basic idea of astrology is that heavenly activity (such as sunlight or the phase of the moon) influences earthly phenomenon, such as the varying warmth of the cycles of day and night or of the seasons, as well as the cycle of tides and menstruation.

Now, let’s consider another two phrases common to Christianity: the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven. The English word Kingdom is also easily replaced with “realm” or “reality.”

The realm of reality is like a mustard seed or a vine. The small seed produces a huge tree with many branches and limbs. There is no part of the realm of reality that is outside of reality. Reality is inclusive, like every branch of a vine includes the vine and the vine includes every branch. Reality abides in each of us and we each abide in reality. We cannot be separated from reality, so it is meaningless to speak of reconnecting to reality. The realm of reality is within you. The realm of reality will not approach you from the outside. You cannot enter in to it like a man walking through a doorway. I am reality and so are you. Before Abraham was, reality exists.

Jesus was asked which teaching is the greatest, and he quoted the Old Testament, saying “Hear ye, O Israel, reality is continuous, whole, holy, unending, perfect, pure, complete. Study reality with all of your heart and all of your might and all of your life.”

The one who had questioned Jesus then said, “Rabbi, you speak the truth. There is only one reality and there is nothing outside of reality.”

For those familiar with the New Testament, they can find the common mistranslations of the simple ideas of Jesus. Note that any translator who did not understand the simplicity of the teaching would not be able to use a modern English word like reality and would likely use a much broader translation. This would be like someone translating all of the following three Greek words (agape, eros, philos) in to the same English word (love).

Imagine someone trying to translate the words calculus, trigonometry, and algebra when they do not really understood anything but arithmetic. In that case, they would call all forms of math by the single label “math.”

Likewise, in any language, there are many names for different aspects of reality. Brahman, Allah, Yahweh, and God are not referencing different ideas. They all reference the boundless reality which includes all the forms or identities referenced by language. All of the branches of reality are reality already.

Heaven (or Nirvana) could be a reference to the direct experience or realization that reality is an infinite, continuous, living process. Language, which a a function of reality, only labels different qualities of reality. Language does not divide or isolate the continuous unity of reality in to multiple, disconnected “realities.” Identifications in language are just real identifications in language.

In the beginning, reality spoke language in to existence. Language was with reality, within reality, and of reality. Language was not separate from reality.

Compare the simplicity of that statement with the common mistranslations of  John 1:1. It is through a fundamental confusion about language that naive people can innocently but foolishly or vainly believe in a schizophrenic or broken reality.

Reality cannot be broken. There is nothing except reality, so there is nothing to break it.

God cannot be divided. There is nothing except God, so there is nothing to divide God. Even language (Logos) is an aspect of reality, of God, of the branching of the living process of the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent One.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

28 Responses to “many words, but only one reality”

  1. therooflesschurch Says:

    Thanks for keeping it “Real”. I agree with you. Even though I mostly use christian language to express “reality”, to me, it really isn’t that different than me using English to express my observations of the One reality. It is more accessible to me because I grew up with it, but when I hear people honestly expressing themselves in there most accessible way, I generally can tell that we are talking about the same thing. I just don’t know the words to express that sometimes. I’m glad you’re doing it.

  2. jrfibonacci Says:

    As I said in the audio, if someone directly understands the simplicity of these issues, then of course they will use a variety of parables or metaphors to make a point, depending on the vocabulary and intelligence of the listener/questioner.

  3. Rula Mazigi Says:

    There is no part of reality that doesn’t exist, nor any part of existence which isn’t reality, nor can there be more than one reality (as far as I can see) – however, I find myself asking “if there is no one to witness Reality, would Reality exist?” The “reality of confusion” is only as ‘real’ as the observer’s interpretation of its reality. What is Reality without a perceiver? What is the observed without the observer?

    “God cannot be divided. There is nothing except God, so there is nothing to divide God.”

    Truth cannot be divided, but the seer of Truth can and IS divided, his mind is divided by thought which is his perception of Reality based on linear time. As you say, “an aspect of reality, of God” is not Reality/God itself, but an aspect, and one can never KNOW the ONE/TRUTH/GOD if one perceives just one aspect, because there is no such thing as an aspect…there is no division in Reality as you have said – hahahah It’s so strange…

    If division is an aspect of human reality, human nature (and evidently it is) then it is the word, the thought, the idea which divides the mind which divides the seer from the seen. It is an aspect of reality which makes up another aspect of reality, that is, the veil which covers the eye of the seer causing him to separate himself from that which he observes – what is this if not ‘unreality’ since Reality can only be ONE?

    I understand what you are trying to say – all of existence exists and thus is ‘real’, but that is an age old paradox, a question which Einstein belonged to one school of thought and quantum mechanics is beginning to show physical ‘proof’ of the other school of thought – namely, is there an objective reality apart from the seer? But how can it be if Reality is ONE, then observer and observed must also be one…and so on.

    What I mean to say is, there cannot be an ‘unreality’, but there can be a misinterpretation of Reality by seeing in terms of ‘aspects’, in dualistic terms…how can there be ONE and many at the same time? How can it be said that words are real and positions are real and fiction is real and ideas are real but Truth is only ONE? The question here is whether or not there can be any Reality without a witness to that reality…and from here we can extrapolate a great deal.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      You ask “if there is no one to witness Reality, would Reality exist?” You repeat at the end: “The question here is whether or not there can be any Reality without a witness to that reality.”

      The framing of the question implies that there is someone beyond reality who is really witnessing reality but from outside of reality. That is a misuse of the word reality, at least as I meant it.

      You are reality. Reality is you. This is non-negotiable. Other language can be constructed, like “we are not real,” but here we are anyway, right? We perceive our own existence or reality, and then we can label it as “me” and “my reality” and “my life” and so on.

      However, reality is more fundamental than language. In the absence of words, there is not even a question about existence. All of the questions are constructed from words. In the absence of not just questions but of all words, there can be the arising of words and of questions made out of words.

      “The seer of truth” and “the mind of the seer of truth” are constructions made of words. They are just labels. The different labels are divided (as in distinct).

      The label on the jar of pickles is distinct from the jar and from the pickles. The mind of the seer is distinct from the seer.

      The label on one jar says “this is neither a label nor a jar of pickles.” The label on another jar says “this is a label on a jar of pickles.” Another label says “this is a jar of pickles.” Which one is true? Which one is real?

      I forget to mention one detail: what if all of the jars are empty and none of them have any pickles in them? The labels are all just labels and will never be anything other than labels.

      “The seer” is also just a label. The label “unreality” is just a label. There are no unreal labels.

      Within language, there are just labels. Within language, there is only language. There are no labels that are not labels.

      The branches of a tree are already full of the tree. The aspects of reality are not unreal. The facets of God are not ungodly. The facets of God are God. The branches of God are God- already full of God- already full of the holy, inclusive, complete, indivisible “reality.”

      “The observer” and “the observed” are two real labels of one real reality which is itself beyond all labels, yet also includes all labels. Reality includes many labels, many languages, many names, many identities, many words- all of them.

  4. Rula Mazigi Says:

    You are right, and we say the same thing. What I am suggesting is that Consciousness itself IS REALITY. The observer IS the observed. This means that Reality is I or God is ME or I AM GOD…the words one uses are meaningless because it’s the sense behind the meaning which means. Two people who speak the same language and hail from the same village and who claim to know each other ‘intimitely’ will continue to miscommunicate because what one means by a word is different than what another means by using that very same word, despite that the word has a so called written ‘definition’.

    The point is that when I perceive myself as the observer and the ‘world’ as the observed then I am perceiving a distorted Reality and calling it “truth”. This perceiving as if I am separate from others and separate from other ‘things’ is, I feel, the essential thinking being’s “problem” or what some call “the human condition”. It’s essentially the cause of suffering, division of Reality into ‘this side’ and ‘that side’, into ‘beautiful’ and ‘ugly’, into ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, into ‘order’ and ‘disorder’, into ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ etc.

    Now, what can I do about this distorted perception? What can I do to Realize the Truth as it IS, “beyond all labels”? That is the real question isn’t it? Can the answer which is ‘beyond all labels, yet also includes all labels” be answered by using labels? Can the finite which is part of the infinite be used to understand the infinite? Is there even a question or is Truth beyond question?

    I am asking because I suffer – deeply, terribly. I am an automata, a machine, I am programmed and though I claim I want to turn right I continue to turn left. I am suffering in this prison cell chained to the floor – will using or misusing words bring me FREEDOM?

  5. jrfibonacci Says:

    Are you perceiving a distorted reality? You are reality, and you experience real perceptions, and then the real you applies real labels to your real perceptions.

    The labels do not distort the perceptions. The labels label the perceptions. The labels are just labels.

    By the way, labels are types of perceptions. The label “perception” is just a label. The label “label” is just a label. The labels “you” and “I” and “reality” and “distortion” are all just things that can be perceived, which are labeled perceptions.

    Can you perceive labels? If so, then labels are just one category of perception.

    Can you perceive that labels “I” and “not me?” If so, then you can identify yourself as just an isolated label or you can recognize that you cannot be other than reality. There is no thing isolated from reality. There is no branch of a tree isolated from any other branch of a tree. There is no isolated thing isolated from any other isolated thing because there is no such thing as an “isolated thing” except as a label of language.

    “Isolated” is a label. I can “isolate” my neighbor by saying that “people who leave their lawns looking like yours simply should not be allowed to live in this neighborhood!” However, is that me isolating my neighbor or really just me isolating myself from my neighbor- withdrawing, pushing them away, etc?

    I can erect a fence to “isolate” my yard from my neighbor’s yard. However, just because the fence is really there does not mean that a hurricane won’t come and blow away the fence and the houses too. Maybe an earthquake swallows it all up.

    I can play a game of tennis and say “here is the boundary and over there is out of bounds and over here is in bounds.” That is all just an arbitrary labeling. “Isolating the boundaries” is a social interaction, not a physical reality. For a dog or an infant, there is no “reality” (perception) of “the boundary between in-bounds and out-of-bounds.”

    However, a dog can be trained with a method of “if you cross this area, I will yell at you harshly.” But the dog has no labeling of “isolation.” The dog just avoids getting yelled at (perhaps) by staying where no yelling happens.

    The dog perceives yelling, but without labeling it. For a dog, there is no isolation in language, in words, in labels. Isolation has no reality except in language.

    In fact, are you sure that there is a boundary between “my dog over here” and “that tree over there?” There is a distinction between each of the different facets of God, but there is no isolation between them. The linguistic isolating is just a linguistic isolating. Even to say “the different facets of God” is only a real instance of language. Outside of language, there is no such thing as “different facets of God” or “a dog that is not a tree and a tree that is not a dog.” Those are just real linguistic isolatings.


    “What can I do to realize the truth beyond all labels?” You are the truth beyond all labels. You are not an isolated label that is isolated from truth and needs to realize the other isolated reality that you are not.

    In this song, I reveal the cure for suffering, which is simple and free:

    “I shut my mouth and stop trying to fix the problems of a dream.”

    There is no answer in words that is beyond words. There are no words beyond words.

    The faculty of understanding is just a finite part of the infinite. Understanding is not the infinite. Understanding is just one particular linguistic label. Notice the labels as labels. Be what you already are. If labels arise in language, that is just the arising of labels in language.

    You have made the linguistic label “freedom” in to an ideal, a prison, a hell- and that is totally normal, even required. You have been cultivating the experience of suffering and reality has been cultivating you through every experience. Congratulations. This is what suffering is like. Now you know suffering. Now you understand suffering.

    Suffering is just a label. Suffering is just mistaking real labels as something other than real labels.

    Labels are one kind of perception. All perceptions including the perception of labels are just different forms of reality.

    There is no form of reality that is not a form of reality. You cannot break free of being reality already. You can pretend to believe that you are not reality and that you should break free of it and that maybe you could. That gives rise to the perceiving of what can be labeled as isolation or suffering, but those are just innocent mistakes.

    Suffering by trying to escape from reality or to replace reality with another different reality would just be an innocent mistake involving the misunderstanding of the label reality as distinct from that which is beyond labels, which can be labeled reality.
    The label “reality” is just another real label.

    Being afraid of reality is fearing. Having contempt for reality is also fearing. Fearing is just one form of reality.

    I am suffering in this prison cell and at the same time billions of people are trying to get in to this prison cell so that they can escape from suffering. All of us are innocent fools making innocent mistakes because it is the will of the all-powerful God that we pretend not to be God, at least occasionally.

    Suffering is just one form of reality. Like all the other forms of reality, it is only a perception labeled in language.

    When a butterfly is emerging from a cocoon, there is no effort required for the one witnessing the emergence. When the naive, foolish mind of the so-called seer believes that there should be no such thing as suffering and that “I” should try to escape from what should not be, there is no effort required for the one witnessing the emergence of the perceiving of the labels in language.

    • Rula Mazigi Says:

      “You are reality, and you experience real perceptions, and then the real you applies real labels to your real perceptions. ”

      And who is the ‘real you’?

      “The labels do not distort the perceptions. The labels label the perceptions. The labels are just labels.”

      A label is a belief system, a particular idea interpreting the perception. If consciousness is all there IS, then what is there to label? Then you will label it ‘this’ and I will label it ‘that’ and we will fight. We believe the label we place on a perception, we believe in our interpretation of reality. If Reality is one thing, then how can there be two interpretations?

      “For…an infant, there is no “reality” (perception) of “the boundary between in-bounds and out-of-bounds.”

      Perception is one thing. Interpretation of what is perceived is another. Infant perceives, I think it’s obvious as body senses, touches, tastes, hears, sees. What an infant doesn’t do is say “good touch, bad taste, loud noise, ugly face”. There is a difference between Perceiving/BEING and interpreting.

      “Labels are one kind of perception. All perceptions including the perception of labels are just different forms of reality.”

      There is ONE Reality. The levels of understanding depend upon the level of Being.

      “There is no form of reality that is not a form of reality. You cannot break free of being reality already. You can pretend to believe that you are not reality and that you should break free of it”

      What is reality? You have labeled it in words and say that my prison is self made and it is, but only because my mind is conditioned to use labels, to compare, to judge reality. But the word isn’t the reality. If I’m hungry will I get nourishment if I reach for the shadow of the bowl of fruit, or if I reach for an actual fruit? Label is a shadow, a metaphor – I want to deal with Reality directly, why should I think anything when I already KNOW? When I walk into a dark room my body knows it’s dark, yet my mind insists on saying, “turn on the light.” Who is thinking? Did I think or is the thought thinking me?

      It’s not about escaping reality, the mind is well adept at that, in fact, 90% of all thought is either subconscious or unconscious. 10% is intentional. I know what that means for me. What does it mean to you?

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        “The real you” is the only you. There is not any other you than you… well, not really.

        Consciousness and reality and you and all other labels are various labels that all can be used to reference to “what is.” Are there different ways of relating to “what is?” Are there distinct patterns within the larger linguistic category “what is?”

        Can you tell apart a dog and a tree? If so, then those labels mean something to you. To an infant or a dog or someone who is not fluent in English, dog and tree do not even exist. Those labels are not even recognizable as real labels. However, all labels are real labels.

      • Rula Mazigi Says:

        An infant has eyes and will SEE. How can one say that the eye sees no difference between a dog and a tree? Obviously there will be a physical difference in form, but there will be no thought or image or label of “dog” vs “tree” with all the personal accumulated data stored in the form of a personal history of impressions, associations, images/labels over TIME. What time?? There is only NOW. I am only “the real me” when I am NOW, otherwise I’m a bundle of conditioned suggestions, a machine.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Reality is not a thing. God is not a thing. Consciousness is not a thing.

        How is the word “thing” being used above? A thing is an object.

        If we use the word “thing” in some other way, that is some other way of using it. Words are just symbolic codes. There is no monopoly on how to use the word thing. There is no thing on how to use the word monopoly.

        You say “yes, there is.” I say “no, there’s not.” You say “We are fighting now.” I say, “no, I am just playing with you.” You say “I am not talking to you.” I say “no, I am not talking to YOU!” You say, “well, if you are not talking to me then I am really not talking to you!!!” Then I say, “Alright, then we ARE fighting.” Then you say, “no, not anymore. I am not even talking to you.” Then I say “Please, fight with me again. Just talk to me, okay?” You say, “no, I am not going to fall for that again. Seriously, I am not talking to you, okay?” I say “okay, wow, you don’t have to be such a bitch about it.” You say “I am going to punch you if you don’t stop that!”

        Let go of the words that you have used to label reality. They are just a tiny isolated little sequence of words. Reality includes every other word and every other sequence of words. Stop being so stingy with yourself. Unless you like it this way.

        Consciousness can invent language and then refer to a body as me or to a thought as me or to a name as me. I ask who is “Rula Mazigi?” You respond “I am. That’s me.” I say, “Oh, okay, yeah I remember you and, by the way, thank you for not punching me in the face in that other paragraph. I was really scared for a while there.”

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        There is no such thing as escaping reality. However, it is perfectly valid to use the phrase “escaping reality” to refer to choosing to do something different from what one was doing before.

        I ask “Rula, would you like to come and visit me this weekend?” You say,” Well, I was thinking about escaping from reality. Maybe that would be good. What do you have in mind exactly?” I say “I would like to escape from reality as well. Maybe we could go to see a movie or go to see a live theatre performance where a bunch of actors are pretending to be characters in a story that is just made up for fun to entertain people.” You say, “Actually, I prefer documentaries.” I say, “Yes, that is what I meant. Most people are pretending to be actors in someone else’s script instead of being the co-authors of an unreal improv comedy sketch.” You say, “That sounds wonderful, but I am busy this weekend. How about next weekend instead?” I say, “no, that is impossible. The story is almost over. You have to come right now or else it will be too late to earn our way in to heaven by doing really good things and saying the magic words and wearing this very unreal hat. That is what you are going to do.” Then you say, “Well, if that is what I am going to do, then I will just go ahead and do that. Will you put the unreal hat on my head for me, please? How do I look?”

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        You include the machinery of the bundled of conditioned suggestions. You as an organism did not personally invent language. You as an organism did not personally invent DNA or the earth. You are just stuck here with the earth and a bunch of DNA that you did not even ask for and all of these words that you personally did not invent. You do not even have any choice as to the pleasure you feel. It just happens by itself. You cannot escape from pleasure or from anything else. There is no escape from trying to escape except to simply stop trying to escape.

      • jrfibonacci Says:

        Intentionality is just a perception. When I notice that I am breathing, I can say that my breathing is my intention. However, I am just a process in language and attention. Suddenly language can claim that there is someone here who intends to breath, but before there was language, was there anyone there to intend to be there? Is all that I am a bundle of intentions? Am I just a bundle of words?

        Or, am I unconditional, non-linguistic, and beyond language as well as within it? Who says that I am not also you? Who say says that I am not also the tree and the dog?

  6. Rula Mazigi Says:

    Hahaha all right. Pleasure speaking with you.

  7. Rula Mazigi Says:

    Words are meaningless. Playing with them can only be a pass time, an entertainment. Linguistic realities hold no interest for me. If one finds one’s self speaking in a different language one should simply refrain from speaking at all. Take Care. 🙂

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      re “Linguistic realities hold no interest for me.”

      This sentence holds no interest for me. Neither does this one.

      In fact, the only part of reality that I find interesting at all is the left side of reality. However, every time that I turn to the left to get a better look at the left side of reality, the left side of reality keeps moving to my left and so I keep turning to the left until I spin and get so dizzy that I realize that I am just a cat chasing my own tail.

  8. Rula Mazigi Says:

    Just ask what is a thought. From where does it arise? Language? There was a time it didn’t exist, though people did. Where one has a choice and one does not is a matter of going from blindness to seeing. If a nation of blind men failed to recognize their blindness they would label themselves as ‘seeing’. And the one eyed man would be hung from a tree, crucified.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      I looked to see if I made a reference to the one-eyed king in this post or in our conversation. That is one of my favorite metaphors. This is my website:

      I made it some time ago. I just noticed that the first words on it are “Respect reality.” Nice!

      Anyway, if the one-eyed man “understands what language is” and everyone else is blind to metaphors, then the one-eyed man might be able to direct the blind to either open their closed eyes or else he would just stop talking, making him totally invisible to them, so that they could not crucify any heretical prophet.

  9. Rula Mazigi Says:

    Quite frankly no one is saying anything hahaha.

  10. Rula Mazigi Says:

    “I keep turning to the left until I spin and get so dizzy that I realize that I am just a cat chasing my own tail.” – precisely.

  11. Rula Mazigi Says:

    Thanks for the website, I’ll check it out. As for the one eyed man he must live in society, no man is an island. Nor can one man see on behalf of another, as you said he can only point, and then only if the blind man recognizes he is blind, otherwise the one pointing becomes a ‘menace’, an ‘lunatic’, or a ‘traitor’. He will either be committed, shunned, or condemned. I don’t find language to have anything meaningful to add here. Language and words mean only what one means by them. In the land of the insane, the sane man is the one who will be labeled ‘mad’. I am not keen on remaining as a blind amongst the blind.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Rula, consider that in some ways, you and I are like people who can see amongst a bunch of folks who are metaphorically blind to the reality of language and neuro-psychology. There is a stage of “trying to get others to open their eyes,” but what if they don’t? The blind cannot see who can see and who cannot. The one who can see COULD easily fool someone who cannot see in to presuming that “I think exactly like you.” The one who has really developed in the use of language may be the most safe. I do not HAVE TO display my intelligence to people who might be threatened by it.

      In one of my latest posts, I indicate that the author is not me. That is a lie. We could call it a pseudonym (and indeed Fibonacci is just a pseudonym), but I actually used someone else’s name as a joke- with explicit contradictions so that EVENTUALLY someone CAN get the joke, though some might never get it. Of course, someone somewhere might condemn me or some group of people in which they include me.

      The idea that you might want to escape from language is unusual. When you understand that language is an amazingly effective tool for directing the attention, perception, and behavior of others, you may use it less, but only because you can be so much more efficient when you do use it. There may be a transition phase when you are slower to speak, slower to put yourself in situations in which you can expect to speak, and so on.

      However, you are already much more advanced than most people in your linguistic development. As we interact in the “safe” environment of online chats, we might (or might not) develop power and elegance and soon be EAGER to speak with people, even with groups, and so on.

      You are not (linguistically or “spiritually”) blind. It’s too late for that. You can certainly pretend to be blind, though. However, you would not be able to fool me. You could fool those who are blind and indeed they may automatically presume that there is no such thing as seeing unless you or someone else brings up the subject, of which they may be entirely ignorant.

      There can be a stage of disorientation as one “wakes up to the metaphysical realm of language.” Other people can seem rather idiotic, but I can be reserved without being offensive, right?
      It is an extra sensitivity, not a handicap.

      So, I have business interactions with people, like I could have regular interactions with a child. Being clear about language does not prevent me from speaking English if I were to also be able to speak Chinese or Arabic or Farsi.

      Some people are drawn to me- even that already know me and notice some new magnetic appeal. Others are terrified of me and disturbed by my presence. People who previously were “pleasant and interesting” for me may suddenly be “boring or even annoying.”

      I have many controversial subjects in my blog. I used to be a political rebel and I have many friends and associates who are, but now I have reversed my prior contempt for various governments, which creates a rather large gap between myself and those people who are most comfortable only with people who have a particular contempt as a primary focus of their socializing.

      So, I do not hate Democrats, but I can empathize with people who do. I do not hate Republicans, but I can empathize with people who do. Empathy is not a handicap. An open mind is not a handicap. Freedom is not a handicap. Maturity is not a handicap. To be able to see amongst the blind is not a handicap.

      In the linked website, I make reference to economic forecasting. Many people have been extremely upset by the results of their financial choices. Some of them have been consistently warned by me since early 2003. It can be very embarrassing for them to even talk to me.

      However, I can empathize with their grief at financial loss, their worry, their anger, their blame, their hope, their naivete, their arrogance, and so on. I can challenge them or not. I can offer to lead and they can follow me or not.

      Notice that one who can see is not conerned with others approving of their perception. I do not mind if someone disagrees or ridicules an idea or makes a personal insult. Sometimes I may withdraw, sometimes I may remain silent and attentive, and sometimes I may “run circles around their words.”

      Do I get upset if a spanish-speaking child that has never been exposed to the idea of another language ridicules me for “pretending” that there is another language besides Spanish?
      I might get upset, if that was actually useful in some way, but the child’s perception and their statement might not get much attention or interest from me.

      If someone says to you “I do not believe in the existence of North Carolina and I think you are lying about having been there,” so what? Change the subject! Withdraw!

      “I do not believe in the existence of words.” That is one of my favorite replies. Joke with people. Say something illogical. “Well, actually someone told me that North Carolina exists and I believed them- maybe I was naive and maybe they were trying to trick me in to thinking that what does not exist in fact does not even exist.”

      Not only do words not exist, but they should not exist. It is a damn good thing that they do not. If words existed, that would give some folks a huge unfair advantage. They could indoctrinate people about Santa Claus as well as hell and heaven.

      However, hell and heaven are real. They are just not outside of “this reality.” They are within this reality as ways of relating to this reality. Heaven and hell are just patterns in language, patterns of relating.

      Say you are trapped. That is a real saying. Say you are suffering. That is a real saying. Say you are free. That is a real saying. Say that you recognize that there is only Reality and you repent of your frightened contempt for any aspect of reality.

      Repenting once does not mean you cannot ever again get frightened or tense or mad. You may still be frightened already. Repentance is not getting a tattoo, like it is a one-time thing. It is like breathing. You can do it as often as is relevant.

  12. Rula Mazigi Says:

    “The idea that you might want to escape from language is unusual. When you understand that language is an amazingly effective tool for directing the attention, perception, and behavior of others, you may use it less, but only because you can be so much more efficient when you do use it”

    What is an effective tool? What does it do? You build a house with a hammer and you put the hammer down. You have shelter. You use your spade to plant a garden and put the spade down. You have food. But what does one do? One doesn’t put down the hammer and simply live, instead he declares himself “the builder”. One doesn’t put down the spade and simply eat, instead he declares himself the “farmer”. I ask ‘who am I?’ Am I builder? Am I farmer? If I become lame do I lose my identity as builder/farmer? Am I who I think I am, and not who I think I’m not? It all sounds like complete absurd nonsense.

    The tool is being misused. Thought is meant for the intellectual center, for surviving in the external world. It is not a tool for SELF IDENTIFICATION.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Language can construct a boundary (in language) between “the external world” and “the other one, over here, in here, the Self.” Is that boundary “out there” beyond language or is there no “out there” except linguistically?

      When the proper relationship or order is realized or even identified with a label in language, then there is no misuse. There is just using a hammer to pound a nail and then using a hammer (the kind with a claw) to pull out a nail.

      Words do not only have one possible usage as the only possible usage or even the only correct usage. “Correct” and “possible” and “misuse” are just labels in language. When language is clear as only language, then the mud in the glass gets stirred up by the water in a dance of water and mud and glass.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      In other words, why try to become patient? It sounds like something that is just going to take an awfully long time- probably several seconds at least- and it really may not be very valuable. I think I am going to just procastinate a bit longer before I eventually try to become patient later, which I am absolutely sure that I might not ever bother doing because it sounds like a lot of fun, and that is one thing that I am tired of having too much of. I am going to wait here while you train to become more patient, if that is okay with you, okay? I mean, I can’t already be any different than I already might be. I would try to become patient, but soon I won’t even have time to procrastinate, so I need to get that out of the way real quick if you would just stop bugging me.

  13. bhaktisaburi Says:

    Was very thought provoking. Just one correction- the trinity aspect in Hinduism is Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara: The creator, preserver, and and destroyer.

    ‘Brahman’ is the absolute reality that is AKA-God i.e., Cosmic intelligence which is the substratum that pervades every thing in the universe, and ‘Brahma’ is the creator aspect of God.

    ‘Indra’ is a celestial king endowed with godliness in mythological stories. He too is subject to imperfections based on different situations presented to him.

    • jrfibonacci Says:

      Thank you for the corrections. One who is familiar with the details referenced instantly realizes when another is not especially familiar with Sanskrit labels and gently corrects.

      Brahman is the label for the unity of Yoga (to the extent I am using that word well). Any trinity is a trinity.

      It is my understanding, perhaps not referenced in this blog, that the English word God, which is hundreds of years old, derives from “an epithet for Indra,” which is what I read in a dictionary of word origins. What exactly does godliness mean? Again, there are thousands of years of commentary devoted to that subject. Godliness may be one of the most popular topics in the entire history of written compositions. (I think it must be next to cleanliness, right?) ;p

  14. Only one reality? « power of language blog: partnering with reality by JR Fibonacci Says:

    […] The word “shlama” (peace) in Aramaic round (Syriac) and square (Hebrew) script (Photo […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: