Posts Tagged ‘advaita’

« Older Entries

the best way to play clueless mind games

May 13, 2013

I wrote this in facebook in agroup called “Mooji Sangha,” tagging Daniel in a post of the video below:

 

 

 Daniel Fritschler, I love this. Always remember that Advaita should be very intriguing to 4 year-olds and anyone who does not like Advaita must not be a true 4 year-old.

 

 

 

  • Today
  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok fire away why am I tagged in this video? Arrogant facebook posts? Please explain if you don’t mind.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    I understand now with some thanks to you and others that there is nothing to share and nobody to share it with. The only thing worth sharing is the beauty of the 4 year old’s kingdom which is not passing words or concepts along to others.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    So everything is a concept…even if that is true or right so what? All the words are medicine to come to the understanding that there is nothing to get hung about, once the beginner’s mind sets in and you are 4…be 4 and full of wonder and not full of concept killing.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I shared it with you because you are beginning to get the irony of worshipping confusion. To say “the only thing worth sharing” is totally arbitrary. What is worth sharing depends on who you ask. It is just an arbitrary concept.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes

    So the way there is relation to nature becomes irrelevant once nature becomes what it is?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You still worship concepts. You believe there is some true inherent “only one way.” You are still learning moderation. You are agonizing like the “advaita enthusiast” in the cartoon.

    Instead of enjoying the video, you want to know why you are tagged.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I do find that still happening but if it means anything it is not happening very often at all…at least in comparison to how often it was

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    “Why me? Why this? Tell me more?” I tell you that your agonizing is as beautiful as a tree. You say “why is MY agonizing as beautiful as a tree?”

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Well of course it is one representation of a tree of which there is an unlimited number?

    So it is as beautiful

    Acceptance?

    I am just clueless. Let’s just chalk it up to that

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Clueless is just a safe concept for you.

    It is your favorite excuse.

    You say it like you should be more “clued.”

    You crave clues and understanding, then you relax, then you dismiss, then you relax, then you crave again, and so on.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    The crazing is dying whatever that means

    Crazing

    Craving

    Wtf?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Dismiss is like “it is just because I am clueless.” Craving is “tell me, sensei, is it just because I am clueless?”

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes well it is my understanding until we dismiss desire and craving it will only cause anguish. But maybe not

    Dismiss in the sense of seeing it for what it is

    Nothing right or wrong about any of it

    So I don’t crave materialism but craving anything is the same thing right?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Until you recognize that dismissal is the same swinging pendulum as craving, then you will keep pushing the pendulum while claiming that you are pushing it to make it stop swinging.

    Craving anything is craving, yes.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Karma

    You just defined karma

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    If you dismiss materialism because you crave something else, then craving is dismissing.

     

    Artist Roger Dean designed much of the band's ...

    Artist Roger Dean designed much of the band’s album artwork, as pictured on Close to the Edge. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Right but the pushing of the pendulum is the introduction of karma…yes or no? I mean one way or the other be it dismissal or craving

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I just defined clueless agonizing.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ahhh

    So that would put me in the same boat as billions of others then

    Seems to be happening yes

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Forget karma. It is some foreign word. I am not fluent in foreign words. I am clueless. What does it mean? What does “satchitananda” mean? What does “craving concepts” mean? What is the best flavor of ice cream to eat, sensei, if I am about to wear a blue t-shirt on a Tuesday?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There is no answer to that

    Ok fine so forget all foreign concepts which would mean all concept because I can assure you there is being born and then being born into concept…two separate things alltogether

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    “Sensei, why don’t I understand what it does not matter whether I understand?”

    By the way, that is karma!

    When you watch the play of presumptions, that is not adding karmic momentum by craving or dismissing.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes that is starting to become clear

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You just notice the irony. You notice yourself chasing your own tail (like a cat) in a tangle of ironic presumptions about yourself and how you should be.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes and how that cycle can be broken…

    I notice that but it is not being broken

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Yes, and “but how can it be broken” is more chasing. “I should break it” is dismissing it.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    So moderation is allowing flow to flow and not trying to interupt or control anything?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Trying to control is trying to control. Just noticing is just noticing.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Right so notice that there is control issues that is all.

    Once that is noticed there doesn’t have to be a controller then there doesn’t have to be anything controlled?

    That there*

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Let the control issues be. Try to control the control issues. Answer the question about the right kind of ice cream. Figure out the best method to stop focusing on a particular method.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There is no method or answer about the ice cream…why do you keep asking questions that there is no answers for unless there is presumption first?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Remove the controller and then you can get in to heaven.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Heaven is just a concept

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Removing the controller is just a presumption.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    The right kind of ice cream is just a concept.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    I am starting to think my “problem” is that I have the intellect oof a 4 year old not just the mindset

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    What is the right way to just notice karma?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Umm there is no right way…just to notice would be enough which ever way it occurs

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    What is my real problem?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    I am not sure if you have one or any

    Talking to me probably

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Sensei, is my problem my mindset or my intellect or my choice of ice cream flavor?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There is no problem.

    Problems are created just to be destroyed. Mind games

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I am clueless about what the real problem is and there must be, so therefore being clueless must be a serious problem, right?

    There must be a real problem, right?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    No it seems to be no problem at all.

    Why does there have to be a problem?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    But I am am clueless about what my real problem is. Can you help me or not?!?!

    Is it my punctuation?

    Is it my karma?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    No I would think the one that creates the problem is the one that could see they are creating the problem and stop.

    It is no thing

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    If you cannot tell me my real problem, then how I am going to fix it?!?!

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There is nothing to fix?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    It MUST BE that I am clueless. I do not know whether there is nothing to fix or not. Do you?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    No I don’t.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Tell me, sensei, do I have a real problem or a fake problem or no problem or more than one? Why can’t you just give me a straight answer for once?

    You are clueless. You are not a real butt gin sensei.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Because there are no straight answers without presumption

    I am sorry I will TRY harder next time. Sorry to disappoint you oh master please forgive me

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    But are there gay answers? What about those? What about curved answers? Tell me now! I need to know now!

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Why do you care about answers so much. Live in the question and you too could be in heaven.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Which question?

    How do I know if it is a real question?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    I don’t know? What is there to even question? No idea…clueless here

    Without a clue there can be no questions and answers based on presumption

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I do not know whether or not you are clueless, but I know that I must be clueless and that it is a problem.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Wow you KNOW a lot more than me no wonder I am not a real butt gin sensei….damn

    So close

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Why don’t I have any presumptions? Can you help me fix this or not?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Because there was a noticing of what presumptions can do or actually do.

    Presumptions keep the mind game going which is also a concept of presumption

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Tell me, are presumptions karmic or is karma presumptuous?

    But how do I stop playing the mind game? How can I finally win it?

    You know, once and for all!

    Is it knowing the right flavor of ice cream? I am clueless about which presumptions are the most important and holy and sacred.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There are no winners or losers there is only a game and it seems presumptions must be karmic but you again didn’t really want an answer which is why you asked the question to point out foolishness in giving an answer on my part

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    My problem is that I am a fool. Noticing that I have been being foolish is the solution (the answer). But What is the right way to just notice that I am just noticing? How will I really know if I am just noticing the right way?

    How do I go beyond presumptions and karma ?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Well there is only one way to notice so how could it be right or wrong…there are an unlimited number of ways to be foolish and presume.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    How can I take my presumptions with me in to heaven?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There is no going beyond just recognize

    You can’t no man can even see the kingdom unless he is born again

    Born again being presumption free

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Well I am not like that at all. I presume that I am clueless.

    I am going to stay here in hell if you don’t mind. Is that okay with you, master? Will you be alright without me?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Still going with the sarcasm bit…you reverse psychologist you

    Yes you can stay in hell if you want

    The question is why choose?

    For the record how does one distinguish between heaven and hell without presumption….tell me master right now damn it?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Okay. Now I get it. The question is why choose! I will get back to you when I win the mind game. Give me a few hours or at least a few years and then when i figure out the way to make eternity start, I will get back to you.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha…nice one

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Oh… One more thing: what is the difference between agonizing and ice cream?

    (Obviously, I mean chocolate)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    There isn’t one…is there?

    One is enjoyed and one isn’t generally speaking.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I am talking about real ice cream here, not that crap that I do not enjoy.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    But I could hate ice cream and enjoy agonizing if I wanted to be arrogant about it

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I do not enjoy agonizing and I am not arrogant! Why do you say such things to me?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    What is real ice cream and what is fake?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    And how can I taste the difference?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ahh the I couldn’t taste the difference. The noticing couldn’t see a difference

    It is what happens after the noticing that differentiates

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    What good is just noticing? I do not get how it could ever help me with any of my problems.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Again to notice is never a problem…mind games present problems that have no basis in truth(concept). So what good is having problems? If you can just notice?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    What good is it to be clueless if I can just not have a clue whether or not I am clueless?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes clueless being a presumption it would be impossible for YOU to be clueless only presumption can be

    Noticing alone cannot be clueless, can it?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    What is the best way to insist that I am clueless and that I need you to answer the questions that I really need someone to answer for me?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    To take on an identity as a helpless clueless butt gin sensei on facebook perhaps?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Is that the mind game that will end all mind games?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    It wouldn’t seem so. Then again there is no mind game that will end mind games.

    Mind games will always be happening

    It isn’t about ending them

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I give up. I thought you could help me fix my problem of agonizing about being clueless about the right way to just notice the how ice cream punctuates, but I am beginning to questions whether or not you have a clue about that or if you are just playing mind games against me. Ttyl

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok  I am sorry to disappoint you. Ttyl

     

     

 

Related articles

 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

the Zen / Advaita / Jnana Yoga of clarity about grief and grievances

April 26, 2013
  • Today

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok I see now why you keep saying I am going to blame you or anybody else as I sit here and pretend like it is another’s fault that I believed in lies when obviously it is no one’s fault…. it just happened that way….sensei is that where you are trying to take me?

    Mooji & Brahma

    Mooji & Brahma (Photo credit: Loving Earth)

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Yes, something simply happened by itself. You learned to expect certain outcomes. You learned to resist simply accepting “what is” and reject it as “what should not be.” You learned to blame others for “what should not be” as a projection of shame, as a coping mechanism of terror. Then, you learned to internalize guilt for “what should be.”

  • Oops- what should NOT be.

    See what you just made me do?

    You embarrassed me! I am a very detail-oriented typist, but then you came Along and caused me to do what I should NOT have done.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha yes yes I get it and I am sorry I have all the power over you

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    This is not how it should be and you need to make it up to me for me doing what I should not have done (since it was your fault).

    [As for your apology,] You are just saying that.  You do not really mean it.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I will make it up by sending you some butt gin??? Whatever that is

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You don’t even understand me at all, do you?

  • Daniel Fritschler

    yes I do his dudeness sensei master

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    I try to be a good snobby sensei and show people the truth but you are just ugh such a dimwit. I am going to give up.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha oh come on mr miagi or however you spell it but danielson or the karate kid is fighting through his dimwit and he “believes” in you….wax on wack off or something like that

    If you have ever seen the karate kid….if not I absolutely believe that you have already proved you can show me ignorance….my own

    Actually I suppose it isn’t mine but a thought believed nonetheless

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    You have learned nothing useful. You do not even properly appreciate me and my sincerity. I am really frustrated trying to show you how you are not how you should be.

    For instance, you do not even know how to shame right!

    Osho („Rajneesh“ Chandra Mohan Jain)

    Osho („Rajneesh“ Chandra Mohan Jain) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Haha yes sensei I bow to you and your sincerity

    Teach me how to shame oh great one

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    It is embarrassing to me. I cannot take any more of this.

    No, your ability to shame other people for not being how they should be is grossly inadequate.

    You are letting humility and compassion for others sneak in and it just does not work that way.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes well maybe I should work on that instead of being like I should be, you think? I know stupid fucking humility and compassion… just hateful qualities anyway….I quit

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Wait no don’t quit. You must not do that! Have hope, danielson!

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Can I wax off now master

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Think of how great it will be when you are so good at gaming other that you qualify to get in to heaven. Santa will give you more toys too.

    Damn it!

    You made me type wrong again, you pest.

    Not gaming others- shaming others.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Can I get 40 virgins too. And haha you suck at all this typing stuff

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    But I am really trying to type correctly. No one ever appreciates that. For instance, I do not appreciate me ever and…

    Wait… Is that why you have been tricking me in to learning all along?

    Not why- WHAT… DAMIT! This typist sucks- or maybe it is the keyboard….

    Anyway, don’t give me that attitude about my typing errors. You knew what I meant (if you are as smart as you seem to think thra you re).

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Come on sensai there Is nothing to learn. Once all is unlearned just being is all that is left. And of course I am “as smart” as you think I am. I am a total idiot but I know that

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Do you really believe that 40 virgins crap? You are such a schmuck. They are GAMING you. You should be ashamed!

    But that would be cool if it was true, wouldn’t it?

    Osho Rajneesh Drive-by in Rajneeshpuram

    Osho Rajneesh Drive-by in Rajneeshpuram (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I am being GAMED in my own SHAME…I believe it all and you are a douchebag that is belief number 1

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Anyway, who is the one that applies labels like “total idiot?” That is what you need to learn to unlearn. So, You should check out my main man “mooji.” He talks about all that stuff. It will be the solution to all of the problems that you make up about how the world should be problem-free.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Mooji will fix your rude attitude too.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I love mooji but maybe I need to continue to let the words resonate. Well why is it so rude though?

    Because belief is still there that I am a victim or that I have been had?

    Yes I agree but I see that now

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Anyway, No, don’t send me the butt gin. You clearly need it more than I do.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Ok my friend I agree, I need all of the butt gin I can get. Ass holes need such things I suppose

    Or just the impliers need the escape from the implying.

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    In conclusion…

    The energy required to resist grief / grieving can be enormous. Eventually, the grief can arise and relax and bring huge relief. Do not grieve for “what should not have been.” Be thankful for the suppressing function of grief. It is also called humility / humiliation.

    Projected grief is grievance (blame, resentment, rage, frustration). Inward projection of grievance is shame / depression. It functions like a braking mechanism (a very reclusive, anti-social activity). Cool, huh?

    The one who is grateful for fear and shame and grief is an emotional sensei.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes I am starting to see that although clearly often I do not see that and yes its cool once it is clearly seen, when the bullshit that is believed gets out of the way…

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    that suppressive “buillshit” has a very important function… temporarily.

  • Daniel Fritschler

    Yes it is also the purpose for the medicine you mentioned yesterday. [Statements like] “All is an illusion” “there is no other” and all of that is used to train or discipline the mind until he(it) comes). Jesus said “occupy until I come” of course it isn’t a body that is coming…. he was speaking of clarity or JR Fibonacci Hunn

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    Blasphemer!

    Daniel Fritschler

    Buddha

    Buddha (Photo credit: anantal)

    Sorry to shame you again by comparing you to a 2000 year old corpse but I am calling it as I see it…

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Part 1 of 2: FRUSTRATION, resignation, and Zen / Adavita / Jnana Yoga

April 23, 2013
SB said of the following content:
“Hats off to both of you. Daniel was incredibly brave and JR was incredibly thoughtful.”
English: Kevala Jnana of Mahavira

English: Kevala Jnana of Mahavira (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Daniel Fritschler
Another day and another dollar…oh well when you are a misunderstood dimwitted prick like me what else to do? It isn’t as though love is an option so might as well continue on the path to hate and say all of the ignorant things so I can keep my perfect record going. Point is I will never understand anything it is all so tricky and to be a dimwit I might as well continue to speak with a forked tongue…what fun would it be to be in a place “beyond” wrong and right doing. What fun would it be to be in a place “beyond” choosing a side and then trying to make everybody else agree with me? What fun would it be to understand that love and joy are conditionless and as soon as we put conditions on life we have eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I am evil…I am good…I am indifferent or I am what I am. Does it even matter really?

 

J R Fibonacci Hunn Well, “if it is alright with you,” then resignation is certainly an option. Do you any more detail to share in public about what has been going on for you (or in private)?
  • Daniel Fritschler Really nothing just random, seemingly for no reason bouts of frustration??? Why am I frustrated no idea…
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Frustration typically is a sign of an unfulfilled desire or commitment. There is also irritability- but 
    “for no reason” probably means there is a reason, but until you relax enough to be aware of it, it will be “a mystery.” However, people around you may have some suggestions for what is important to you that, when unfulfilled, precedes moments of frustration.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sometimes the issue is that frustration is so familiar as a way of attracting attention from others, that it is instantly there. Maybe you just want certain kinds of interactions (or to avoid certain kinds of interaction). Frustration is always a signal of SOMETHING. As you relax, clarity will arise naturally without any effort needed, though some “effort” may also arise naturally.
    3 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If the desire is something you consider “evil,” then the kind of comments you made above would reveal the kind of ego inhibitions that are being “pushed” in to consciousness by the desire. “Do people understand me? Shouldn’t they?!?!”
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn “hate or love?” “what should I say?” “Why don’t THEY get it/get me?”
  • Daniel Fritschler pretty silly when you put it that way…
  • Daniel Fritschler probably right on though
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Look for unfulfilled expectation (of yours in particular but even of others). Do you expect others to have similar expectations as you? Do you expect others to value the “objectivity” of refraining from arguing?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Are you frustrated if others keep wanting to argue? Are you frustrated because other people are?
  • Daniel Fritschler it doesn’t really matter who or what gets me i suppose. what is there to get I have alienated the world and there is no way to take any of that back. So now it is what it is
  • Daniel Fritschler no i am frustrated because I feel as though it doesn’t matter who agrees or who argues there is just nobody around and i suppose that is my fault in a sense
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or maybe “I have alienated the world” is imprecise. You may have invested in behaviors that produced relative seclusion or privacy. So what?
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ok, so you want to reach out and you are not reaching out. (to other people)
  • Daniel Fritschler agreed. Most moments so what? But some moments is seems frustrating
  • Daniel Fritschler correct in a sense
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Ok, when you feel the disappointment of too much privacy, then reach out. When you feel too much interaction, slow down or withdraw.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes there is a balance to be had and I am working on that balance. Reality is there is noone to reach out to. Which I am sure has something to do with the way I reach out. What is done is done so just to accept isolation is all that is left I guess
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn forget “there is no one to reach out to.” that is just medicine. after you take the medicine and recover, then stop taking the medicine.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn if there is isolation, you could accept it. If there is an urge to connect and commuincate, you can act on it or not.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes this is all being created for nothing. Just a “bad habit” i suppose maybe I should just resign maybe it is time
  • Daniel Fritschler I am unable to communicate how I feel obviously which is part of the problem cant find the words
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn then shut up and listen
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or interact with very little kids or animals. they will not distract you with words.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes the sounds of silence which I do enjoy…it seems you have cleared up my “problem” for the moment. Thanks
    3 hours ago · Unlike · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn I presume that you want to interact with a variety of people in a variety of ways, but you can focus first on whatever is the most resonant for you. Go to a loud concert. NO one will complain that you are not talking much!
    3 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn More important than communicating what you feel can be to just feel what you feel. Take the opportunity to feel. When you are ready to communicate, you will.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes that is exactly what I needed to hear…feel it and the time will come when putting words to it will come. sounds “right” or sounds like that is the source of the frustration
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Sharing the feelings is as simple as being present with someone. Anyone attentive and perceptive will feel the feeling without you saying anything. Also, I do things like play music (write music or listen to it). I watch comedy. I do lots of things to “nurture” my emotional health- from sad music to angry music to funny music to amazing virtuousity.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If you are frustrated that you are not doing everything, then do more. If you are frustrated that you are doing too much of something, then do less or just stop, at least for a while.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes it seems this just takes getting used to. It is too easy to still believe a thought and run with it but everything you are saying is right on. Just feeling like a poor little me at times still but I understand that is just holding onto comforting lies and not letting go
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn We may get accustomed to being pressured a lot- by parents, school, work. When that familiar pressure is not present, it may be strange- even disorienting. That is normal.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • Daniel Fritschler yes exactly
  • Daniel Fritschler It seems I need to just sit back and enjoy what it is that I enjoy and everything else will take care of itself. this is what at times I am not doing and becoming frustrated
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn Interacting and communicating can be good for bringing the thoughts in to attention. Instead of having them run around in the background, you can write them down- even if you send them to no one.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn If you are pretending not to enjoy things you enjoy, that could be very frustrating.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn it takes a lot of energy to maintain a pretense like that.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes maybe I should start writing them down and not sharing foolishness with others. Yes it does take a lot of energy need to stop fighting what is.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn it can be good to have some inhibitions on “getting lost” in enjoyment. Fighting and inhibitions are part of what is.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn enjoy in moderation. write stuff down in moderation. share things in moderation. “fight what is” in moderation.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes moderation…the middle road…everything in moderation that sounds peaceful enough
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn and then be aware that there are times to be extreme as well, so “everything in moderation- including moderation itself”
  • Daniel Fritschler yes so just flow instead of trying to guess or effect the flow
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn peace- in moderation. activity and conflict- in moderation.
    3 hours ago · Like · 1
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn go with the flow- in moderation. effect the flow- in moderation. Remember, you are the flow. Occasionally it is useful to take the medicine of “there is nothing but THE FLOW” … but only in moderation.
  • Daniel Fritschler so the recurring theme here is moderation in moderation and lack of this is causing frustration
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn well, you know, what they say: “frustration- in moderation.”
  • Daniel Fritschler haha yes I suppose they do. So all is the part and part is in the all.
  • Daniel Fritschler the whole point is to welcome it and not fight it when it is happening
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn the cure for feeling frustrated is to feel the frustration.
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn or at least that is what “they” say.
  • Daniel Fritschler yes just like everything else feel it no need to verbalize it
  • Daniel Fritschler yes “they”
  • Daniel Fritschler Very good my friend appreciate it all
  • J R Fibonacci Hunn there is something about verbalizing that is also a recurring theme. there are things that you want to talk about/chat about and people that you want to talk to. stop pretending otherwise. We can talk again another time. if you want to send me contact info, go ahead.
    2 hours ago · Like · 1

 

Related articles

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

part 2 of 2: Moderation in Zen / Advaita / Jnana Yoga

April 23, 2013
The Compass of Zen

The Compass of Zen (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  • Daniel Fritschler

    wait… re “there are no others” & “all is an illusion”…. these things are just medicine? they are said [in order] to bring us back to the flow. We are the flow and only let thoughts and beliefs that have no basis in truth “take us away” from what is. So medicine to clear the mind? i guess

    kind of like when I smoke it clears the mind?

  • J R Fibonacci Hunn

    “there are no others” can interrupt obsessing over others.

    “all is an illusion” can interrupt most anything

  • Daniel Fritschler

    yes wow thanks again

  • 2:14pm

    English: Sudden Insight

    English: Sudden Insight (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

    J R Fibonacci Hunn

    here are some shapes on a screen

    is this your mind over here on this screen?

    If you type some words that I read, then where is the boundary of my mind?

    I perceive my own mind.

    My own mind is everything that I perceive.

    One myth is that mind is inside of the body

    another myth is that the body is inside of the mind

    Zen

    Zen (Photo credit: Josefe aka Hipnosapo)

    how can that be?

    what if all that is perceived is the mind?

    So, the body can be perceived- which makes is a percevied body or minded body or a body in mind or a body of mind.

    If this screen is “in mind” and this body is “in mind” and even “the enitre solar system” is in mind, then perhaps mind is rather large.

    Daniel Fritschler

    holy shit…sorry speechless over here

    it’s okay.
    it is ok.

    Zen

    Zen (Photo credit: seamlessgem)

    there can be the activity of language “in mind” which says “my mind is just the language that I use over here, which is distinct from the activity of language over there, which is not my mind, but someone else’s.” That is totally legitimate.
    mind is unlimited it is boundless then?
    all perceiving arises within mind
    yes
    Mind is just a verbal category. There is no such thing EXCEPT as a verbal category.
    That is what the Zen masters reference by “no mind.”
    But if there is no mind, then there is also no such thing as the verbal category of “Zen Masters.” Mind is “within” language.
    The presence of the divine being can be speechless or can use words. Mind only arises through language. “You” are the presence beyond language which creates language and uses it.
    “The Divine Being” forms language, which creates “mind” and other verbal categories. Language can also refer to a source beyond language as “The Tao” and so on. Those labels are just labels.
    once mind is divided in to perception through language, then contrasting perceptions (like “body”) can also arise, all well as “my body and your body” or “my mind and your mind.” Those labelings are all “done” by the Divine Being.
    If the Divine Being is speechless, then is it still the divine being?
    yes?
    I am just blown away here
    when there is no one in particular here, then no one cares either way.
    yes
    i am ignorant in some ways apparently
    but then again that isn’t me
    right, “ignorant” is just an identifying. Identifyings come and go.
    yes all of them transient

    zen

    zen (Photo credit: mkebbe)

    if you are the divine being who forms all things through speaking, then which one of your forms is the most permanent?
    which one of your shadows is the real shape of your shadow?
    If a dog is running through a park, which position of the dog as it runs is the real position?
    all of them
    all of them or none of them. All of the positions can argue over which is the most real. All of the forms of Divine Being can compete to be the least transient.
    ahh the agreement of the unagreed
    So then one naturally must ask, of the 50 states in the US, which one is the most real?
    They all exist through the functioning of language.
    They are all equally real. They are all equally false. Anyone can say whatever about them though and they are still just identifyings in language.
    all things remaining equal
    yes
    I just got a phone call.
    2:36pm
    all things remaining equal or moderation in moderation do you enjoy destroying a person’s “truth” because I am enjoying it
    ok later thanks
    truth- but only in moderation!
    🙂  moderation
    Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind

    Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

the Advaita of perceiving and identifying

February 27, 2013
Stained glass at St John the Baptist's Anglica...

Stained glass at St John the Baptist’s Anglican Church http://www.stjohnsashfield.org.au, Ashfield, New South Wales. Illustrates Jesus’ description of himself “I am the Good Shepherd” (from the Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 11). This version of the image shows the detail of his face. The memorial window is also captioned: “To the Glory of God and in Loving Memory of William Wright. Died 6th November, 1932. Aged 70 Yrs.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

“Please explain Reality in simple terms. Is reality is absolute?. Is the perceiver and perceiving different?” – prabhakara Rao Gogineni

 

A tree and a branch of the tree are distinct, but are they “different?” Are they exclusive?

 

Recognize that “the perceiver” is a label in language. All units of language can be perceived, right? Consider that the label “the perceiving” can include “any particular thing perceived” and “any particular thing perceiving.” So, I can say “I claim to be a limited little identity distinct from all else, like limited to the space of this body.” I can also say “I am my entire life, including the present, past and future.”

 

English: Through a distinct process of perceiv...

English: Through a distinct process of perceiving visual form – realization – change, Henck van Dijck invites the viewers to let his works lead their own imaginary lives. Nederlands: Via een denkbeeldig parcours, te weten: beeld-besef-verandering, appeleren de denkbeelden van Henck van Dijck bovenal aan het verbeeldende vermogen van de kijker het beeld een eigen imaginair leven te laten leiden. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

So, what can be realized now is that, through the use of language, there a many processes of identifying that are possible. I can identify myself as included in some category in language or excluded from another category. I can say “I am just an isolated perceiver” or I can say “I include the perceiver and the process of perceiving and even all that I perceive. My life is all of that. I am all of that. I am all of my life, including even the future… which is beyond any perceiving that happened so far!”

 

I can also say nothing at all- if only for a moment. When there is no speaking of a process of identification, what am I then? Do I cease to exist? Am I just an invented identity in language? What happens to me when the body sleeps and there is no consciousness of perceiving?

When driving, I say that someone almost “hits me,” but in fact it was not my body that was almost hit, but the back bumper of the 20 foot long truck that I am driving. And it was not “someone” that almost hit the “me” of the bumper on this truck, but another wheeled vehicle. So am I limited to the edge of “my skin?” If someone takes a skin sample of a few dead skin cells and carries the skin cells in to the next room and burns them in to ashes, when do the skin cells stop being me and become “someone else” or “no one at all?” Without language, how can such boundaries be invented or constructed or identified in to being?

 

Could I be deeper than identifying, deeper than any activity of language, deeper even than perceiving? Before there was a learning of language for this organism, like before there was a neurological recognition of spoken sounds and the coded meanings of language, did I exist? Before the development of any human language in prehistoric times, did I exist? Before the arising of humanity, did I exist?

 

Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem

Painter of the burial chamber of Sennedjem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

These questions do not make any sense except within the context of language, yet is language something that I do, or is language something that simply arises in to reality, with a recognizing of the activity of language, then perhaps a linguistic identifying of a “me” that is only a momentary exclusive identity: the one that began about one hour ago when a process of perceiving started for a body. But language can also identify a “me” that is a continuous identity that includes “my yesterday,” too. Those are distinct in language, not in direct perceiving.

 

“I am the eternal perceiving which has no name and has no beginning.” That linguistic identifying is also something that “language can do.” Through language, an identity is invented through a lingusitic process of identifying as some “this” which is “not that,” an isolating in language or excluding through language.

 

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, a...

The famous Greek word logos — “word, speech, argument, ratio, etc.” Deutsch: Das berühmte griechische Wort logos — „Wort, Rede, Argument, Berechnung usw.“ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

If language pauses identifying, there is no identifying of “me,” for identifying requires language. However, language can say “but language [The Logos, The Word] existed prior to identifying and identifying was with language and identifying was language.” Identifying is another way of labeling “I am.” So, there is the “uncorrupted” meaning of the first statement in the Christian New Testament (John 1:1).

 

A sequence of language can be translated- sometimes rather clumsily.  However, language is still present. Without the presence of language, there is no dividing of the heaven from the earth, the day from the night, the good form the evil, the light from the darkness.

 

Beware of getting caught up in the tree of the knowledge of contrasting categories (such as “good and evil‘). Both good and evil are just branches of the same tree: the tree of all life (all linguistic subcategorizing of life in to distinct, isolated branches of good or evil, me or not me, past or future, and so on).

 

There is tremendous foolishness and imprecision and presumption that can be experienced when language is “stuck” in the duality or divisiveness of contrasting labels. Language can agonize over “but am I a human or a mammal or an American, because I cannot be all three, of course, right?”

 

Tree

Tree (Photo credit: @Doug88888)

 

Well, actually it is possible for language to invent an infinite number of identifications, all of which are symbolic partners upon a tree with many branches, or within a mansion that has many rooms. These are the ancient teachings of the Hebrew tradition, some of which were apparently repeated by Jesus as he quoted prior prophets like Isaiah. “I did not come to reject the prior prophets, but to develop further what my Father (Creator, Source) began with them and continues with me.”

 

What is the Father? Is it language, or did language arise from it?

 

“I abide within my Father and my Father abides within me…. You are like a branch of the vine of I AM, with the branch of linguistic identifying abiding in you and you abiding in it….  Before Abraham was, I AM!”

 

The Biblical Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew Name f...

The Biblical Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew Name for God the Father. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Language [The Logos, The Word] existed prior to identifying and identifying was with language and identifying was language. Does perceiving exist independent of language? Is language perceived, and if language is perceived, then language cannot be the perceiver, right?

 

Language is secondary to the perceiving. However, without language and symbolic, poetic labels, there is really nothing much that anyone can say about the perceiving which is distinct from the activity of language. Indeed without a specific activity of language to identify, to label,  to invent a someone in to being, there is no one.

 

English: The Earth's atmosphere refracts the s...

English: The Earth’s atmosphere refracts the sunlight, causing the sun’s disk to appear squashed (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

The linguistic, poetic, symbolic creation of an isolated someone are like branches which are secondary to both the trunk of language and the root of that trunk, which language can identify as “perceiving” or “absolute, unlabeled reality” or “God” or whatever. In a moment, when the activity of language eventually ceases, does perceiving also stop? Does the root of the tree continue to live even when it is winter time and there a no leaves on the tree? Does perceiving continue to operate whether or not the activity of language is happening?

 

English: Eliezer Ben-Yehuda עברית: אליעזר בן-יהודה

English: Eliezer Ben-Yehuda עברית: אליעזר בן-יהודה (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

ADVAITA: Left, Write, or Wrong

November 22, 2012

Left, Write, or Wrong (On “getting back to a brand new reality”)

Now, in the beginning, life is already here. Reality is already here, too, right?

Is that absolutely certain? Is there any doubt whatsoever that reality is already here?

How much does reality include? Is there anything whatsoever that reality excludes?

If reality includes everything already, then there is never any real issue of getting back to reality for reality already includes everything and so there is nothing else but reality that could ever get back to reality. Because there is nothing but reality, there is nothing else isolated from it to connect to it. The whole idea of getting back to reality is just a joke from the beginning.

my tree at dusk

my tree at dusk (Photo credit: joiseyshowaa)

So, there is also no protection from reality and nothing else besides reality to protect from it. There is absolutely no escape from reality for there is nothing but reality which could escape from it.

However, reality has a variety of aspects, many qualities, infinite patterns. Reality includes all perceptions. Reality includes all. There is simply nothing but reality.

Next, because there is no way to get back to reality, there is no issue of how to find some way to get back to reality. There is also no issue of how to find the right leader who knows the right way to lead an isolated identity back to a distant reality.

All of that is merely foolish language. In fact, even foolish language is already part of reality.

Tree recreated in LOGO programming language us...

Tree recreated in LOGO programming language using recursion. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, this is already the perceiving of life. Life is perceiving now. What does life perceive? The activity of language may be perceived by life.

Language comes and goes. In contrast, the perceiving of life is eternal. The perceiving of life includes the perceiving of the creating of language by life. When life creates with language, the created language is not the absence of life, nor a new reality. Creations in language are just new combinations within eternal reality, like new positions of a dancer or new shapes of a cloud.

Language does not prevent reality or escape reality or stop reality or start reality, but silly ideas like those can be formed with language by reality. Language can even deny the existence of language (or of reality). Only within language is denial possible. In fact, the repeated use of the same language allows for denying something very obvious even for extended periods of time (as long as that particular denial is frequently renewed/ rehearsed).

[denial]

[denial] (Photo credit: Shovelling Son)

After some activity of language ceases, there is still the perceiving of life which notices the contrast between the activity of language and the absence of the activity of language. In the absence of the activity of language, the perceiving of life is always eternally present still.

Reality can construct patterns of language which divide reality in to life and lifelessness, but those are fundamentally just categories in language. The isolating of reality in to contrasting aspects, such as swiftly changing and slowly changing, is merely a linguistic isolating.

A linguistic dimension can be created, such as the dimension of the speed of change. That dimension can be divided in to two subdivisions, such as swiftly changing and slowly changing. However, there is no barrier between those two linguistic categories except in language. The words “slowly and swiftly” are just two contrasting boundaries in language with no precise border.

What if we divide reality in to not two but three categories like this: inanimate objects, slowly animating plants, and swiftly animating animals? Are these three linguistic categories only divided from each other in language or are they isolated realities that are pre-existing, distinct, and fundamentally disconnected? Consider that there is always only one reality.

Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", Darw...

Ernst Haeckel’s “tree of life”, Darwin’s metaphorical description of the pattern of universal common descent made literal by his greatest popularizer in the German scientific world. This is the English version of Ernst Haeckel’s tree from the The Evolution of Man (Published 1879), one of several depictions of a tree of life by Haeckel. “Man” is at the crown of the tree; for Haeckel, as for many early evolutionists, humans were considered the pinnacle of evolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

However, language can be used to divide reality in to any number of categories: 2, 3, 4, or 400. Reality is still fundamentally all-inclusive, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, almighty.

Language can be used to divide life in to any number of subcategories: 2, 3, 4, or 400. Life is still fundamentally all-inclusive, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, almighty.

A single tree may have many branches but it is still a single tree. The kingdom of reality is like that (also known as the kingdom of heaven or of god or the knowledge of the tree of life).

Meeting-Place of-Lords-Nityananda-Gauranga-Adv...

Meeting-Place of-Lords-Nityananda-Gauranga-Advaita-Shantipur (Photo credit: Swami Gaurangapada)

Reality can form patterns in language like “reconnecting the branch to the tree,” but that is a foolish joke from the beginning. “Getting back to reality” is also a foolish joke from the beginning. “The rebirth of the dead” is another foolish joke.

What does “foolish joke” mean? It means a construction in language. It means some pattern of language within reality.

Mayan Language Tree

Mayan Language Tree (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Language includes many patterns that are not foolish jokes, but what if all foolish jokes are just a bunch of language? What if “getting back to reality” is just a pattern in language? What if all patterns in language are just a bunch of real patterns in language?

Should you get back to reality as soon as possible, or should you wait for a while? Should you get back to reality the right way or should you find out for yourself that going to the left is not right but actually is totally wrong?

Which pattern of reality is the most real? Which pattern of language is the most alive? Which pattern is the most patterned?

Knowledge, observation and reality

Knowledge, observation and reality (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How can we get back to a brand new reality? How can we fix reality so that it is no longer how it should not be? How can we prevent reality from changing from what it should be in to something else? How can we fundamentally alter reality so that there is no longer any such thing as foolish patterns of language? How many realities actually exist: 2, 3, 4, or 400?

How can we make our lives how they really should be? How can we prevent them from staying how they clearly should have never been in the first place?

Whose fault is it that reality is not always how I was trained to expect that reality would not be? What hero or savior can make reality right instead of left, or on instead of off, or in rather than out? If we have already divided reality in to writers and non-writers, and then next we isolate all of the type writers from the fiction writers, plus all of the right writers from the left writers, isn’t every left writer wrong?

(This teaching goes by many names in many languages. It in Sanskrit is called “advaita.”)

An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philos...

An Essay towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Tags:, ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

a branch of the life of God is just the Living God branching

May 6, 2012

“Intellect is not intelligence as J. Krishnamurti said.It is very difficult to come out of this trap and come to

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

its ownself. Life unfolds its secrets only to those who comes to its ownself.” – Subhash Chander

https://www.facebook.com/subhash.chander.94/posts/183232668465642

What is “this trap?” If one recognizes the nature of the trap, one may find that the trap requires ongoing energizing and nourishing in order to persist.

In the absence of the activity of creating “a difficult trap that traps me,” the momentum of “trapping me” dissolves like the heat of a stove when one turns off the heat. The burner may still be red hot, but when there is no additional energy flowing to heat the burner, soon the burner cools a little and then eventually has no extra heat.

This fire heats the kitchen, and the magic cal...

This fire heats the kitchen, and the magic caldron heats the hot water and two radiators : Ce feu chauffe la cuisine et le chaudron chauffe l’eau et deux radiateurs à l’étage (Photo credit: hardworkinghippy)

So, what is the nature of “trapping me?” Is it related to defining myself and identifying an image and labeling how I am and how I am not? What if I am not any certain way? What if I do not reject any particular way?

Tree - leaf canopy

Tree – leaf canopy (Photo credit: blmiers2)

A branch of God can declare “I am just a single isolated branch- this one but not that one.” However, what if that branching is all the activity of the tree from the beginning? When there is the identifying of “I am only this branch,” that is the isolating of a particular branch. When there is no isolating of a particular branch, does the branch “become” the entire tree? Does the branch “achieve” inner tree-dom?

What if the branch never did anything of its own and all activity of branching was also the activity of treeing? What if “the trapping of the branch” was just one activity of the tree? What does the tree need to do in order to stop the trapping of the branching? The tree just branches. When the tree just branches, “the trapping of the branch” does not trap the tree.

“The trapping of the branch” is always just an activity of the tree. Can the branch of the Living of God come to the secret of the tree of the Living of God? No, but the tree of the Living of God can make up that there is a trap and there is a secret to get out of the trap.

If one recognizes the nature of “the trap,” who is it that could recognize the trap? Are you the “secret trap” of “I am just an isolated branch” or are you the one who recognizes and creates such isolating in language?

Nexus Tree

Nexus Tree (Photo credit: Kokotron)

“How did the branch get trapped in the tree? How did the tree trap the branch?”

When it is clear that those questions are nonsense from the beginning, then intelligence has recognized intelligence. The dreaming of the intellect (the mind, the ego) never trapped intelligence. The intelligence is the source of the intellect and the poetic dreams of neuro-linguistic “Maya” (delusion, ignorance, misperception, sin, Mara). This is the ancient teaching that in various languages has been called Advaita, Holiness, Wholeness, Catholicism, Salvation,  Enlightenment, Taoism, The Middle Way, The Good News, The Dharma, the Truth of Spiritual Liberation, The Revelation of Divine Unity, The Rebirth of the Eternal, Knowledge of the Tree of Life, Jnana Yoga, Zen Buddhism, and so on.

“I teach suffering, its origin, cessation and path. That’s all I teach.” – Buddha 

(The Four Noble Truths of Dukkha, Samudāya, Nirodha, and Magga)

Pholiota squarrosa growing on a fallen tree br...

Pholiota squarrosa growing on a fallen tree branch. This specimen is rare, as most grow together in clusters. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

understanding metaphorical parables like the tree of life, the eyes to see and the ears to hear

April 12, 2012
This image depicts the Tree of Life derived fr...

This image depicts the Tree of Life derived from the Flower of Life. Created by sloth_monkey 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Cover of "How Language Works"

Cover of How Language Works

Language is amazing. In fact, life is amazing and language is just one of the many amazing parts of life.

If life was like a tree, then we could say that there are stages in the growth of the tree of life. At one point, there may be exactly one trunk with exactly two limbs. Then, at a later point in the development of the tree of life, there might be several limbs, like spreading out in radiating circle from the trunk, right? The two original limbs are still there, not gone, but later there can be additional limbs beyond the original two.

Now, if language was was like a tree, then we could say that language can be divided in to two distinct categories: good language and bad language. Or, we could say that there is proper language and improper language. We could even say that there is proper pronunciation and improper pronunciation. Or we could say that, when babies make sounds, there are sounds of language and sounds of gibberish or nonsense.

Here is an example of another kind of gibberish: no anti-negativity metaphors understanding ears hearing eyes seeing tree life understanding nonsense literal interpretations could bee impossible 42ds53hsf FIVE. So, that was mostly a sequence of recognizable words of the English language, but stuck together in a way that is not especially meaningful, similar to a sequence of numbers like 1240834034. Those are real alphanumeric digits, but that is about all that is identifiable about them, right?

Video: Neva takes up gibberish

Video: Neva takes up gibberish (Photo credit: JasonUnbound)

However, language can be very meaningful. Language allows us to divide life in to categories. We could divide like in to exactly two categories, such as either “proper or improper” as in either “good or evil.” Those would be binary dichotomies of contrasting duality.

For thousands of years, people could have been attempting to point out that language can create exclusive binary categories as well as one-dimensional spectrums. For instance, language can create a categorization of “either only good or only evil,” yet language can also create categories of relativity, like “exactly how good or bad.”

I could say that eating apples is good and eating live bees is bad. I could say that eating fuji apples is best and eating allergic bees is worst. I could say that eating rotten apples is actually not so good and eating a tiny bee larvae accidentally in a honeycomb is really not so bad.

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Dürer (1507) given by...

Adam and Eve by Albrecht Dürer (1507) given by Christina of Sweden to King Philip IV in 1654. taken from http://www.owenbarfield.com/Images/Paintings/Durer%20Adam%20and%20Eve.jpg see also: http://museoprado.mcu.es/iadan_eva.html (links no longer work, see below) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

That would be a one-dimensional spectrum: a relative range between good and bad. So, first there is only good or only evil, which is a binary dualism or dichotomy. That is the first stage in the development of language. Later, there can be spectrums of relativity in language, like brightness, loudness, height, weight, and so on.

We all know that the linguistic construction of “4 pounds” is not inherently better in any particular way than “400 pounds.” We can say mathematically that 400 is 100 times as much as 4, but are we talking about pounds of silver, British Pounds, pounds of body weight, pounds of payload on an airplane or what? That is just a spectrum.

Similarly, linguistic constructions of morality can occur as binary dichotomies of either only good or only evil. Or, they can occur as spectrums of relative value or morality. There could be perhaps 5 distinct ranges in language of moral relativity: morally repugnant, morally unfavorable, morally questionable, morally favorable, and morally excellent.

Could there be 4 categories of moral value or 10? Sure! There is no single “correct” number of moral categories.

Eating Shiva

Eating Shiva (Photo credit: Mirror | imaging reality)

For a child, two categories are how we begin to develop discernment, like the most basic distinction between right and wrong or acceptable and unacceptable or rewarded and punished. Later, we develop discrimination, like assessing between several different alternatives.  Eventually, we recognize that context matters and moral values can change.

We might not wear the same clothes to a wedding or funeral that we would wear to a beach or in the privacy of our own home. That gets in to the issue of discretion and etiquette and so on.

It is not immoral to wear a tuxedo to the beach, but it would be unusual and perhaps inappropriate. However,  someone could have a wedding at a beach and then wearing a tuxedo on the beach at the wedding would not be so unusual.

All values or norms are relative. Relative to what? To social context. In other words, “context is decisive.”

So, along come some wise people who realize that a lot of folks are not clear about what works and how language works. So, they use some metaphors like “the tree of life” to explain how something can have exactly two distinct branches, but then later can have 5 or 6 branches, and later can have dozens of branches spreading in lots of directions.

Linguistic categories can form various numbers of categories. For an infant, it is enough to know “good” and “bad.” As a child grows, they learn to discriminate between several alternatives- not just two- and they can dress themselves and be trusted to pick clothes that not only match the weather, but with each item of clothing matching all of the others. They learn discernment and discrimination and eventually even discretion.

Of course, it would be fruitless to try to explain this to an infant. They do not have the linguistic complexity or intelligence to be familiar with “big words” like distinction and discernment and discrimination and discretion.

In fact, before those particular words existed, wise people could not just use those words. They had to use stories and examples and metaphors and parables- even silly parables.

They said things like “do not get bogged down in categorizing everything as either good or evil. That is a low level of knowledge or comprehension or maturity or intelligence. However, do not discard those categories either. Those categories are valid and useful. Just go beyond fanaticism and fundamentalism and learn to appreciate all of life and even how and why various things are good or evil. First, children just learn to repeat the categorizations they are trained to identify in regard to what actions are good and what is evil or bad or dangerous. Later, someone can learn WHY and WHEN and HOW those actions fit or not. They can learn of the relativism of all things, as referenced in this ancient scripture:”

“1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.”

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/3-1.htm

They can learn of scriptures like this:

Romans 14:14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced …

… I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself,
but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. …
//bible.cc/romans/14-14.htm – 17k

Mark 7:18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing …

… Don’t you know that nothing that goes into a person from the outside can
make him unclean? … Jesus said to them, “Don’t you understand? …
//bible.cc/mark/7-18.htm – 17k

They can learn also of these radical statements of “moral relativism.”

Titus 1:15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are …

To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe,
nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. …
//bible.cc/titus/1-15.htm – 17k

Romans 14:20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. …

… All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. …
All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eats with offense. …
//bible.cc/romans/14-20.htm – 17k

Romans 14:2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

Here is a much older scripture than those of the old or new testament:

“Good and evil of this world of duality are unreal,
are spoken of by words, and exist only in the mind.”
– Bhagavatam, XI, ch. XXII.

Here is a rather recent comment, which even if a frightening and challenging idea for some people, it may reflect the actual experience of many actual people.

“…there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”

Shakespeare (spoken by the character Hamlet).

John 8:15 ”You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.” (Jesus speaking to the orthodox religious leaders)

The one who judges other seeks to glorify himself. (See John 8:50)

“Judge not. Condemn not. Resist not evil. Turn away from evil. Remove the obstruction from your own perception before go poking around in other people’s perception. Yo, chill out, player. Have mercy on their innocent mistaken presumptions, like for your own good, baby, just forgive them and be responsible and clear, clean, open, humble, meek, godly, holy, perfect, pure, dignified. Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about!”

For those who have the capacity to understand these metaphors in language, let them understand. For those who have the ears to hear beyond their own confusion and fanaticism and fear and idealism, let them hear. For those who have the eyes to see beyond their own arrogance and shame and blame, let them see.

Ezekiel 12:2 “Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people …

“Son of man, you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but
do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people. …
//bible.cc/ezekiel/12-2.htm – 16k

Deuteronomy 29:4 But to this day the LORD has not given you a mind …

… But to this day the LORD has not given you a heart to
understand or eyes to see or ears to hear. …
//bible.cc/deuteronomy/29-4.htm – 15k

Romans 11:8 as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor …

… just as it is written, “GOD GAVE THEM A SPIRIT OF STUPOR, EYES TO
SEE NOT AND EARS TO HEAR NOT, DOWN TO THIS VERY DAY …
//bible.cc/romans/11-8.htm – 17k

Psalm 119:18 Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your …

… Open my eyes to see the wonderful truths in your instructions. …
//bible.cc/psalms/119-18.htm – 15k

Isaiah 43:8 Lead out those who have eyes but are blind, who have ears but are deaf.

Jeremiah 5:21 Hear this, you foolish and senseless people, who have eyes but do not see, who have ears but do not hear:

Ezekiel 2:7 You must speak my words to them, whether they listen or fail to listen, for they are rebellious.

Matthew 13:13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

Matthew 13:14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

Mark 4:12 so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'”

Mark 8:18 Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember?

Luke 8:10 He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, “‘though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.’

John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn–and I would heal them.”

Acts 28:26 “‘Go to this people and say, “You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.”

<< Ecclesiastes 3 >>
King James Version

1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

http://kingjbible.com/ecclesiastes/3.htm

Arbre de la vida

Arbre de la vida (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ernst Haeckel's "tree of life", Darw...

Ernst Haeckel’s “tree of life”, Darwin’s metaphorical description of the pattern of universal common descent made literal by his greatest popularizer in the German scientific world. This is the English version of Ernst Haeckel’s tree from the The Evolution of Man (Published 1879), one of several depictions of a tree of life by Haeckel. “Man” is at the crown of the tree; for Haeckel, as for many early evolutionists, humans were considered the pinnacle of evolution. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Related articles
morality over legality

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 48 Comments »

why I do not believe in the existence of atheists

March 29, 2012

Below is a dialogue between myself and Mark Newbrook, “resident” Linguist of Skeptical Humanities (as of a few weeks ago): http://skepticalhumanities.com/

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2012/03/01/introducing-our-new-contributor-linguist-mark-newbrook/

http://skepticalhumanities.com/2012/03/01/im-very-pleased-to-be-a-new-contributor-to-skeptical-humanities

Major levels of linguistic structure

Major levels of linguistic structure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This dialogue emerged from my recent post linked below, with Mark’s original comment (not interspersed with my reply) posted at this link: https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2012/03/17/language-can-form-anything-the-new-realm-of-possibility-or-kingdom-of-heaven/#comment-3176

…It is claimed here that language means nothing and never will mean anything.
It is claimed where? Let’s imagine that someone did claim exactly what you stated. Wouldn’t it be self-evident as nonsense and thus inspire no further comment?
Given my deep appreciation for parody, let’s imagine that I may have said “language does not mean anything.” If I were to say something so obviously absurd, such as “this sentence is not an instance of language,” that might only be for the “philosophical” point of playfully demonstrating the absurdity of the issue.
Of course language has meaning. For instance, one obvious definition would be that language means “symbolic codes for directing the attention and behavior of other humans.”
However, what I may have written (and I also reserve the right to make innocent typographical mistakes), is that no particular symbolic code has any particular meaning. The same word can denote a few very different things or a multitude of not very related things, and that is just denotation- not even connotation.
The mere fact that there is such a thing as connotation (as well as “secret codes”) points to the fundamental reality of language: the meaning is not in the words themselves. The meaning is in the social context in which the words arise- not just in the context of syntax, but of non-linguistic social “cues.”
From sounds, language arises. However, the mere fact that it is possible NOT to be fluent in a particular language is prima facie evidence that the language itself inherently means nothing. Only in a particular social context can language arise, and the social context DEFINES the meaning of the language.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to my cat or my infant? Nothing at all.
What do these shapes on this screen “mean” to you? Something very specific!
Language is amazing. In fact, it is so amazing that I titled this video that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoBIYEqiRDA
Now, is this supposed to be news to linguists or anyone else? Of course not. It is self-evident. Everyone knows from direct experience that language is amazing and that social contexts define the meaning of language, like “I love you” can be spoken with several different tones that all communicate different WAYS OF RELATING, such as the soothing “oh, sweetie, I love you” and the apologetic “Really, I love you” and the defensive “hey, I love you, alright?” and the longing, manipulative “but, but…. I love you!”
Actually, it is all manipulative. Language is manipulating. That is what it is for- at least in the broad sense of manipulating as influencing or re-organziing.
So, I state the obvious not to inform you of something new, but to establish a particular context or way of relating.  Now, let’s explore from here together, given that what we have been doing all along is self-evidently nothing more than that.
English Language and Linguistics

English Language and Linguistics (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

  Subject to the major issues regarding how the term nothing is being used here, this viewpoint is, of course, contrary to prevailing opinion both popular and academic (the latter including both linguists and philosophers), and thus needs to be justified at this point. Indeed, it might be suggested that if language ‘means nothing’ it cannot itself be used to say anything useful.  And, while – as is proclaimed here (albeit in somewhat strange wording) – language can be seen as ‘a sequence of codes for the directing of attention’, it is generally taken as obvious that language has other functions and aspects in addition to this.
Such as? I challenge you to name one instance of language that is not directing my attention to whatever alleged instance of language you might name.
You could say that language is the moving of attention or the motion of intelligence or the activity of consciousness, but all that would be a trivial variation on the other statement. You can say that “unconscious linguistic events” do not qualify as “directing attention,” but that is limiting the verb “directing” to its transitive case only, which is not the only possible meaning.
Within language, it is accepted here that different words and letters are distinct.  (The use of the term letters seems to betray a folk-linguistic starting-point; a writer with knowledge of linguistics would instead talk here primarily of phonemes.)
…perhaps unless writing for an audience that may lack a knowledge of the formal lexicon of non-folk linguistics. Whatever, though…. Or are you unplayfully applying the standards of a academic linguistics journal to a non-academic linguistics journal internet blog entry?
  But these words and letters are all seen as variations on ‘nothing’ (this raises the above-mentioned issues regarding this term); and, while they do possess meaning (this apparently contradicts what is said earlier), this supposedly arises only ‘through perception’. Concepts are identified as ‘linguistic formations’ arising ‘out of nothing’, which is ‘the capacity for linguistic formations to simply happen by themselves’.  Like individual words and ‘letters’, each specific language is distinct, being seen as ‘a specific set of distinct, isolated formations’ – and is ‘finite’, in contrast with ‘language itself’ which is ‘infinite’; it is not clear how the terms finite and especially infinite are to be understood here.  And boundaries between languages are, again, seen as different manifestations of ‘nothing’.  I find the conceptualising obscure at this point, and it is difficult to comment helpfully.
What if all concepts are inherently obscure and only so precise? What if the spectrum ranging between precision and obscurity is one which language can never escape?
Further, returning to the issue of language as a utilitarian (or “useful”) phenomenon, what if directing attention does not require any more precision than actually “required?” What if, upon the fulfillment of whatever amount of clarity is deemed subjectively “enough,” the activity of language simply ceases?
I add here brief comments on some specific points in later sections of the material.‘One language evolves into another, with perhaps an entire family of languages being similar to each other’While essentially ‘along the right lines’, this claim apparently mixes diachronic and synchronic points and needs to be clarified.  (The term evolve is also contentious here.)
I admit that in the case in point, I was just synchronicalizing mixtures of diachronology. Okay, I might have just made up those words, but apparently you made up synchronic and diachronic first before I did because, when I see those words, I instantly recognize that they are synonyms for harmeronomic diaxophosphate, by which I mean slightly unfamilair to me.
linguistics

linguistics (Photo credit: quinn.anya)

‘Languages mix and influence each other.  Languages may be called distinct, but the boundaries between them shift’Although the reference to shifting boundaries is obscurely expressed and perhaps mis-conceptualised, these general points are, of course, very familiar to linguists. 
This reminds me again of my clearly stated disclaimer at the beginning of the article: “this is written exclusively to professional full-time linguists, both of them.”
‘If the boundaries shift, then the boundaries are arbitrary. In fact, the alleged boundaries between various languages are alive, existing only through the declaration of language’This appears obscure.  There may be a good (if familiar) point in the former of these two sentences, though it needs to be much more clearly expressed; but the second sentence, as expressed, is very strange (what do alive and declaration mean here?).
Alive means changing or evolving. And that was a great question: what do these words actually MEAN?
My analogy is this: how many colors are there. Are there exactly 6 colors, as any 2 year old can tell you? Or, are there actually 24 different colors, as anyone 4 year old with the big yellow box can tell you? Or, are there any number of colors depending on however many distinct labels one chooses to categorize?
Language is categorizing. How many languages are there? 214? 32,915? That is a trivial question. Fundamentally, there is one language which is language itself.
The most famous poets of human history, such as Lao Tzu and Buddha and Abraham, have referenced the singularity of that universal meta-language by such labels as Logos, Tao, and even The Heavenly Father, through which “the world of subjective experience” is “created” by what method: speech!
Name one word that is not fundamentally just a word. Yahweh? YHWH? Jehovah?
No, those are all words, too- though those “words” are all references to something “subtler than all other concepts.” Linguists who do not comprehend “metaphysics” may be liars, insofar as metaphysics and linguistics could be two labels for the same- but wait, that simply could not be possible to have two labels or appellations or names or titles for the exact same pattern, right?
What if when ignorant translators translate some ancient Sanskrit phrase in to the English words “name and form” and then call it “Buddhist mystical metaphysics,” that is an ENTIRELY ARBITRARY way of relating to those Sanskrit terms, though of course an entirely valid way of interpreting them or labeling them or translating them or relating to them? Was the Buddha a linguist or not? Well, if the English word “linguist” had not been invented by the time of his life, then how could he have been a linguist? Maybe he is finally now a linguist, but only became a linguist within the last few sentences- not that I care, by the way- but that brings me back to the earlier question raised by our academic correspondent of what is meant by declaration: by declaration, I mean all instances of language, as in all instances of the directing of attention, including gestures or then again possibly not… 😉
Anyway, there was no such thing as a linguist until someone created the term “linguist” and then declared self-authoritatively themselves to be the apt target of such a label. “Linguist” is a totally arbitrary label like all labels of symbolic code, but many “academic” linguists may or may not pretend otherwise, even though they do not deny the self-evidence of any of it.
Before there was a linguist, there was language. Linguist is just an instance of language, as is “The Buddha” and “metaphysics” and “spiritual poetry” and “incurable diaxyphosphatitis.”
I am the author of language. Why? Because I said so.
Is it even true, though? Well, declarations in language are never exactly TRUE. They are just more or less USEFUL. Precision (aka “TRUTH”) is a spectrum invented in language and language never can get all the way to the end of a spectrum that only exists as a linguistic concept.
In other words, precision is just a relative term. In fact, because precision is just a relative term, all terms are just relative terms. Truth is just a relative term. Language is just a relative term. “Absolute” is, ironically, just a relative term.
In the ancient Hindu tradition of Advaita (“non-dualism”), the fundamental relativity of all terms of linguistic relating is relatively recognized as just one way of relating to the absolute relativity of all language, except of course for the word “joke,” which is actually not a word at all. 😉
‘Is Creole [= a particular creole language? (MN)] a language? Clearly it is entirely composed of other languages.  [Not necessarily the case. (MN)]  However, it is also not a dialect of any particular language. What is it? It is whatever it is called!’It is not clear that there is a genuine issue here regarding creoles as such.  There are relevant definitional-cum-philosophical issues at a more general level concerning the individuation of languages, the ‘language’-‘dialect’ distinction, etc.; but these are not rehearsed here.
Labelification is individuation. That was my point.
The fact is that “languages” is just a label and so is “dialects.” You can’t get away from the fact that all words are just symbolic categorical linguistic conceptualizations of individuation or division or duality. Beyond language is the non-duality called “nothing” by certain Buddhists, about which there is really not a lot that can be said, but then again, all language is an expression of that nothing and a labeling of that nothing and a directing of that nothing.
While quite contradictory, language is inherently contradictory. Or then again, maybe not. However, there either are or are not any instances of contra-diction except only in language. If language is not inherently contradictory, fine, then I take it back and contradict myself as if to demonstrate the point: language gives rise to the possibility of contradiction, not that it is at all important to point this out.
It may simply be a lot of fun. But that could be important, too, right?

‘Is there such a thing as “I” (“me”)? In many languages there is such a thing as “I” or similar concepts to the concept of “I.” However, “I” is fundamentally a concept, a construct of language, merely a thing. “I” is not itself fundamental (which is the ancient teaching called anatma).’

There, of course, are words meaning ‘I’ in all languages.  But it is not clear how significant linguistic facts of this kind might be for philosophical issues regarding the reality or otherwise of persons; as I have argued elsewhere, it is probably dangerous in a philosophical context to focus too heavily upon the ways in which ideas are expressed in specific languages – although this approach is common enough in mainstream ‘analytical’ philosophy.
What do you mean by the “reality or otherwise?” What are you talking about in reference to something besides reality?
“Person” is a real WORD. Isn’t that enough? Is it so dangerous for me to just come out and say what is self-evident? Next thing you know you are going to launch in to some obscure poetry about “nothing.” That would be very diaxyphoshate of you, sir!
 ‘Language is more fundamental than “I,” and nothing is more fundamental than language.’It is not clear what fundamental means here, or what this claim amounts to.

 

The same source presents https://jrfibonacci.wordpress.com/2011/12/22/maturing-beyond-sinfulness/.  This material again deals with some linguistic issues, this time in the context of an essentially religious discussion involving claims regarding souls, sin, etc.  Linguistics, as an empirical discipline, cannot be grounded in specific theological viewpoints; and as an atheist I would prefer not to engage in this context in discussion which assumes a religious stance that I do not share.
“Religion” is just a category of language. If you deny the existence of that particular category of language, that is entirely alright with me.
As a worshiper of Santa Claus, I would just like to state for the record, your honor, that there is no such thing as mythology or poetry or humor. Also, I do not believe in atheists. There is simply no such thing, by which I mean no such word.
 However: it is undoubtedly true, as is claimed here, that it is a conceptual error to mistake a piece of language, such as a word, for the item in the non-linguistic world to which it refers.  Like the well-known picture of a pipe by Magritte, the word pipe is not itself a pipe.  Some such conceptual errors are potentially damaging.  But the further claim that ‘belief in words is the root of all malice or ill will’ is not adequately defended and appears vastly overstated.
I completely agree. I furthermore assert that the hypocritical idiot who made such a ridiculously dramatic accusation was entirely precise in an “absolute truth” kind of way. Forthwith, the diachronic subjective experiential pattern of “malice” is completely unrelated to words, which are just ways of relating, and therefore do not exist, at least not in the absolute sense of the word. I arrest my case.
More credentials of Mark:
http://www.csicop.org/author/marknewbrook
Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

the spirit of agonizing conflict and the spirit of holiness

March 25, 2012
Many agonize over what is right vs what is wrong, what is good vs what is evil, or what is the truth vs what is imprecise (which has been one of my favorites). That pattern of linguistic model is the basis of all political campaigns and conflicts: at least two sides oppose each other by asserting that (at least) two conflicting proposals are “the best, the only right one,” then they have wars or elections or whatever to “resolve” the issue.
It is like pressing your two hands together with great force, like so that they tremble, rather than just resting them with palms barely touching. It produces a big caloric expenditure, but very little productive activity. It just exhausts energy. That is my metaphor for much of politics.
Of course, I am oversimplifying in that huge decreases in population can result from those conflicting expenditures of energy (as in through war). Also, major technological advances can come from the friction of the two opposing forces of military-industrial complexity, kind of like rubbing sticks together with great friction can produce a spark and light a fire.
So, agonizing can be internal, with a lot of energy and time and perhaps reading and conversation and so on. Or, agonizing can be interpersonal, with lots of debating and arguing and shouting and perhaps laughing and “make-up sex” (having sex right after having a big dramatic argument and nearly “breaking up”). Or, agonizing can be “social,” as in political conflicts and wars and organizing demonstrations and strikes to promote the interests of the union employees or nursing home residents or public schools and so on.
That is more broadly termed “conflict.” I am calling it “agonizing” because I am focusing most particularly (below) on the internal or private or INTRApersonal context of conflict.
That can manifest in language patterns like “what is the right job for me? Is this the right relationship? What political party is best? Which candidate is the right one for “2012 best actress in a comedy?” Which religious tradition is the most true? How am I going to fix humanity so that there will no longer be any conflict, at least not in the Northern half of the state of Arizona, which is obviously the region of geography on this planet which is the most important to God Almighty, as evidenced by her clear specification of that region in the holy Book of Mormon? Which words are evil and which are good? Omigod, did I just say something wrong? What thing that I said was the wrong thing to say?”
In the programs of Landmark Education, that particular portion of the realm of language is called the “already always listening.” It has been labeled in many ways in the last few thousand years, with ancient terms like Dhukka (suffering) and Gehenna (Hell) being among the terms used for referencing it. Here is a reference from the New Testament, with the “tongue” being used to reference the process of language and speaking and so on:
“…Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. 6 The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell.“
James 3:5-6

“It’s not what goes into your mouth that corrupts you; you are corrupted by the words that come out of your mouth…. The words you speak come from the heart—that’s what corrupts you” Matthew 15:11,18
Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus

Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Jesus taught that the spirit of divisiveness (the spirit of accusation, of the adversary or of the devil) is a very distinct pattern of spirit from “The Holy Spirit” or the Spirit of God. Jesus repeatedly rebuked people for “being self-righteous,” calling those people hypocrites and “children of the devil.”

43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies…. 47 He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” 
John 8:43, 44,& 47
Ironically, the translation there above (“NIV“) is only so clear, perhaps because the translator(s) were not precisely clear about the point being made. The point is that anyone who “belongs” to the Spirit of God or is fluent in that kind of language will understand the words of anyone else who is speaking in that kind of language. However, just like anyone who is deaf cannot make sense out of the sounds of someone speaking English, anyone who is “possessed” by the spirit of opposition cannot comprehend the language of the spirit of holiness or wholeness or non-dualism (“advaita”).
The translator wrote “because you are unable to hear what I say.” This is not a reference to the lack of the capacity to literally hear the sounds, like the wind was too loud in the background or something like that. Clearly, what Jesus was referencing is something about those listeners in regard to their personal development or intelligence, which Jesus contrasts many times with another possibility (the capacity to comprehend the messages from the Holy Spirit)- even something that could eventually be possible for people for whom it is not currently possible.
When people made reference to things like waiting for the messages of the Holy Spirit to begin to be transmitted (like waiting for a TV program or radio program to being broadcasting, Jesus corrected their misunderstanding:
“20One day the Pharisees asked Jesus, “When will the Kingdom of God come?”

Jesus replied, “The Kingdom of God can’t be detected by visible signs.d 21You won’t be able to say, ‘Here it is!’ or ‘It’s over there!’ For the Kingdom of God is already among you.e”

Luke 17:20-21
Again, we have a case in which different translators have rendered this passage in to English in distinct ways. Consider the following version from the Aramaic Bible in Plain English:

20And when some of the Pharisees asked Yeshua, “When is the Kingdom of God coming”, he answered and he said to them, “The Kingdom of God does not come with what is observed.” 21“Neither do they say, ‘Behold, here it is!’ and ‘Behold, from here to there!’, for behold, the Kingdom of God is within some of you.”
Those translators were not translating Greek translations in to English, but apparently were translating the original statements in the Aramaic language (the one actually spoken by Jesus) directly in to English. As I skim through a few dozens translations of that verse in to English, only this one says something exclusive like “within SOME of you.” All of the other translations leave out the reference to an exclusive subcategory of people who have the capacity to recognize something that other people would not recognize. Incidentally, I never had seen the Aramaic translation of that verse until moments ago, but that translation is the only one consistent with my direct personal experience, or one could say the one that is most consistent.
John the Baptist baptizing Christ

John the Baptist baptizing Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Of course, for people who do not have any direct personal experience that they associate with these words, they might be interested in the secondary authority of translations and proclamations from a particular church hierarchy and so on. For those who know through the authority of direct experience, any form of secondary authority may be of no relevance to them.
21And when they entered Kapernahum, at once he taught in their synagogue on the Sabbath. 22And they were dumbfounded at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one having authority and not like their Scribes. 23And in their synagogue there was a man who had a vile spirit in him, and he cried out 24And he said, “What business do we have with you, Yeshua the Nazarene? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, The Holy One of God.” 25And Yeshua rebuked him and said, “Shut your mouth and come out of him.” 26And the foul spirit threw him down and he cried out in a loud voice and came out of him. 27And all of them marveled and they were inquiring with one another, saying, “What is this?”, and “What is this new teaching? For he commands even the foul spirits with authority and they obey him.” 28And at once his fame went out in the whole region of Galilee.
Mark 1:21-28
Above, some poetic metaphors were translated in to English in phrases like the foul spirit, the vile spirit, the evil spirit, teh demonic spirit, the spirit of the devil, the split spirit or the broken spirit. In Greek, the wording might be “skhizein (σχίζειν, “to split”) and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; “mind”).” The Greek roots together mean a split mind or dualistic mind, a broken heart, a spirit of opposition, or even a suppressed breathing or respiration. In 1912, one century ago, a new English word was created from those two Greek roots which could be used in future translations of ancient spiritual texts about personal development and “human potential:”

schizophrenia

1912, from Mod.L., lit. “a splitting of the mind,” from Ger. Schizophrenie, coined in 1910 by Swiss psychiatrist Eugen Bleuler (1857-1939), from Gk. skhizein “to split” (see shed (v.)) + phren (gen. phrenos) “diaphragm, heart, mind,” of unknown origin.
However, there is a connotation to the modern term “schizophrenia” as a category for a rather exceptional or unusual condition, like only a small percentage of people are labeled diagnostically as schizophrenic. Note that what Jesus (and Buddha and Isaiah and so on) were referencing was a widespread typical condition within an entire society. Within any culture, only a rather select group of folks “awakened” from that general social norm of “unenlightened language” or “unawakened consciousness.” The Holy Spirit is available to all, and while many people may talk about it or “give lip service to it,” it may be rather rare that one “possesses” it, rather than being “possessed” by an ego or a “psychological shadow” or a “split persona.”
Jesus said: 6 “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites,” He [Jesus] replied; “as it is written, “‘This People honour Me with their lips, while their hearts are far away from Me: [and they do not know me or belong to me]

7 But idle [vain, worthless] is their devotion  [worship, reverence, faith]  while they lay down precepts which are mere human rules.’

8 “You neglect God’s Commandment: you hold fast to men’s traditions.”

Mark 7:6-8
Well, there is another interesting inconsistency in Bible translations that I never noticed until just now. Skimming through a couple dozen translations of Mark 7:8, I see that only 3 refer to the commandments or commands of God (plural rather than singular). All of the rest refer to the command of God or commandment of God, as in the authority of God.
People may neglect the actual functional authority in favor of symbols of authority or labels of authority. However, claiming a secondary authority (an authority derived from some other source, such that there may be conflicts of authorities) is quite distinct from the exercising of authority as the author or root of all authority.
Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected J...

Latter-day Saints believe in the resurrected Jesus Christ, as depicted in the Christus Statue in the North Visitors' Center on Temple Square in Salt Lake City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

So, in summary, as we mature, we humans naturally notice conflict interpersonally, like two puppies wrestling or two kids fighting over who gets to hold the puppy next and for how long, then next we are exposed to conflict socially, and further as a “higher” or later stage of development, we notice it “internally” or “introspectively” in our own patterns of language. That internal conflict is what I am calling “agonizing,” though others have called it “suffering” or “sin” and “neurosis” and “foul spirit” and “bad attitude” and “negativity” and so on. Whatever it is labeled, it is basically a pattern of “linguistic behavior,” as in neuro-chemical programs or sequences.
It is labeled awakening or enlightenment or the dark night of the soul. “Meditation” and all spiritual rituals are for relaxing the tendency or momentum of internal neuro-chemical “struggle” (like “a tug-a-war” with two teams of people trying to pull a rope in opposite directions).
The name of the Chinese martial art Wu Shu can be translated as “stop fighting.” “Stop resisting” is the key, not “resist resisting,” but just “notice resisting and do nothing other than notice it.”
In fact, even “resisting” implies two opposing forces, so we could say “stop pushing” or “notice pushing yet do nothing other than notice it.” Again, though, that focuses attention on pushing and isn’t focusing already a subtle pushing? Soon, along comes a Jnani Guru like Jesus Christ who says something like “Who am I? Well, who are you? Notice who you are! Be still and know God, the Supreme being, the presence I am. Before Abraham was, I am.”
That kind of communication can interrupt “doing” and “noticing” and “stopping.” That patterning of attention can produce a deep relaxing, often followed by laughing or weeping.
So, there is language for agonizing and for arguing over what is true and for gathering together congregations and armies to oppose others in the war to end all conflict and negativity. That is all the expression of the hypocritical spirit of the divided one, the dualistic, the self-righteous, the devil.
Further, there is language for influence. In fact, even language to forbid reverse psychology is still language for influence. Prohibitions against dualistic language are the black magic at the core of all religious traditions.
“Beware of prohibitions and reverse psychology. They are strictly forbidden.” 
In particular, you will experience eternal torment and agony and hell if you practice the behavior of agonizing. You will be cast out of paradise and heaven if you argue against the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is the worst of all possible sins.
Here ends the Gospel of Santa. Here begins the experience of the absence of language, even if only for the briefest of eternities.
Related articles

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

« Older Entries