Posts Tagged ‘God the Father’

The dreaming of language to contrast

March 11, 2012

Sleeping

One morning I woke up and recognized the reality that I had been dreaming. I noticed that seeing and hearing and all forms of perceiving are components of dreaming. Another component of dreaming is relating to the visual and audio perceiving by making patterns out of the perceiving and then labeling or interpreting or identifying with the patterns of perceiving. When identifying with the patterns of perceiving, that is believing the dream. When believing the dream, there are physical results of that believing, including the possibility of speaking.

I have seen someone who was sleeping that was talking while they were dreaming. Someone who is sleeping can make sounds and then words and then sentences. Even infants and animals which are sleeping can make sounds for communicating with the identities that they believe in during their dreaming. They believe in the identities that they make up as they relate to their interpretations of the patterns that they perceive in their dreaming.

While dreaming, other physical processes besides speaking could arise, such as movement and different kinds of breathing that go with dreaming about being terrified or dreaming about being sexually active. Of course, speaking is also a type of breathing and all breathing is a type of moving.

So, as we dream, we move. One kind of moving that we do is breathing. One kind of breathing that we do is making sounds. One kind of

Sleep

Sleep (Photo credit: ex.libris)

making sounds that we do is speaking. One kind of speaking that we do is speaking with the identities that we believe in. One kind of speaking with the identities that we believe in is to relate to them as another identity that we also believe in, but that we believe to be isolated from the rest of the dreaming.

While dreaming, there can be the experience of identifying other external identities as distinct from the identifying of the primary identity as in “the one who is having the dream.” However, while sleeping, dreaming is not always present. Only when dreaming is present is there the identifying of “the one who is having the dream.” So, whenever there is the identifying of “the one who is having the dream,” that can be called dreaming.

In other words, even when an organism is not sleeping, the organism can believe in the linguistic identifying of a someone isolated from all the rest of the patterns of believing. The organism can believe in the patterns labeled as “you” and “us” and “them” and “me.” The organism can perceive those beliefs resulting in the perceiving of physical processes like moving and breathing and speaking.

However, speaking is a pattern that is a single category in language. Speaking is a subcategory of breathing. Speaking is totally distinct from hearing or from seeing. Seeing and hearing are both subcategories of sensing. All of these categories in language are patterns of language.

Perception

Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

Language is what contrasts one pattern from another. Language is what identifies one pattern as distinct from another and then may believe in those identifyings and interpretings and relatings.

Speaking is distinct from believing. For instance, language can speak words that are recognized as a joke or even as nonsense. Language can construct contradictory statements like “this is not language operating.”

That is obviously false. Language can construct false statements. In fact, language creates the possibility of a huge range of accuracy or falsehood. For instance, a statement like “you always look best in red” could actually be an instruction to “wear red.” If language says “William Shakespeare is the best author in human history,” that language is expressing a sentiment or an opinion or a way of relating to something. However, to someone who only knows the Hebrew language or Chinese or Sanskrit, but not English, William Shakespeare may not be even recognized as an author at all. Realistically, the vast majority of humans living today may have never even heard of William Shakespeare.

However, a statement about labeling the best author in human history is entirely valid even if there are many possible linguistic

List of titles of works based on Shakespearean...

Image via Wikipedia

constructions about who is the best author in human history which may contradict each other. Language also allows for the possibility of irony.

For instance, in a dream, one person may say “William Shakespeare is the best author in human history.” Then, another persona in the dream may say “I disagree. I think it was that guy who wrote those plays about Romeo and Juliet and the one about Hamlet. I don’t recall his name, but you know who I am talking about, right? He wrote something really great about how life is like a dream played out by idiots plus how all of the world is a stage. He had a bunch of parables and metaphors and stuff. Parables and metaphors is what makes him the best author in human history, so, anyway, all I am saying is that you are totally wrong about who is the best author in human history. I know. You don’t know. I forgive you for your innocent mistake as long as you do not repeat it over and over again and again. Still, you are just plain ignorant to believe in your own opinion so highly. You should really pay more attention to my opinion in the future, okay?”

Another thing that can happen in language is a statement like this: “This is actually only the operating of a single isolated identity which is completely distinct from all other identifyings in language. The identity is not just a pattern in language. The identity is not just a pattern of dreaming. The identity is the one who believes the language patterns that the identity believes. The identity is not just some opinion that language made up out of thin air or something. The identity is the one who sleeps, even though when sleeping is the only thing happening- like no dreaming also happening during the sleeping- there is no identifying of an identity in language.”

The identity is the one who creates language and creates the sleeping organism and is responsible for immediately figuring out who is the best author and why. Identifying is not just a process in language which can produce the perceiving of an identity and the believing in that perceived identity. Identity is the one who believes in things. Identity is the one who dreams. Identity is the one who created language.

Or maybe not. How many dreamers are there? How much dreaming is there?

There is living. Living creates language. Language creates perceiving or belief or experience or dreaming.

Language creates words in English like “Holy Spirit” and “God the Heavenly Father” and even borrows words from other languages like “Logos.” Language is the source of all words, including the word language.

sleep

sleep (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

One morning I woke up and recognized the possible reality that I had only been dreaming of an isolated personality that was completely distinct from all of the rest of life, similar to how the front of my hand is isolated from the back of my hand. However, labels do not isolate. Language only contrasts.

What if the label “the back of my hand” has never really been disconnected from the label “the front of my hand?” What if they are both just entirely valid creations in language of language by language?

The above is a distinction in language which in Sanskrit has been labeled “advaita” for the last several thousand years. In Hebrew and other languages, this same distinction or similar distinctions may be given other labels. The “Heart Sutra” of Zen Buddhism and thousands of other scriptures in many other languages may reference it, too, along with certain works of that one author who is clearly the best in human history, though I do not recall his name at the moment….

The symbol of the Holy Trinity

February 19, 2012

 

Detail - Glory of the New Born Christ in prese...

Image via Wikipedia

English: a Venn diagram-like symbol for the Ch...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the presence of the operating of language. This is also the presence of the noticing of the operating of language. In fact, even the word “noticing” is itself the operating of language. There is no word that is not the operating of language. The word presence is the operating of language, too. The words “the operating of language” are of course also the operating of language.

The operating of language includes every instance of labeling. To reference the noticing of any particular thing is to reference the labeling of a particular thing in language. Thus, noticing something and labeling something are both the operating of language. What something can be noticed without labeling it?

Of course, the presence of noticing is also vast. The presence of noticing can include the presence of the noticing of a perceiving that is distinct from the presence of labeling, such as a development that does not quite fit any particular label already operating in language. In other words, there can be the presence of noticing a perceiving of the distinction between perceiving and labeling.

Noticing and perceiving are basically two labels for the same thing. Every noticing is also a perceiving. However, the noticing of the operating of language can begin and end, like when there is the noticing of a movement or a shape or an unfamiliar sound. The presence of noticing remains with or without the operating of language.

The presence of breathing is the noticing of breathing. That is, noticing always involves a presence. There is no noticing of an absence. There is only the noticing of distinction among various forms of presence.

There can be the noticing of the operating of language in contrast to the noticing of other developments, such as the hearing of sounds or the seeing of light and colors and shapes. While the operating of language may involve the hearing of sounds and even the seeing of symbolic shapes such as letters, there are other instances of the hearing of sounds and seeing of shapes distinct from the symbolic sounds and symbolic shapes of language.

There can be the noticing of both the actual sound of an “o” sound as well as the labeling of that sound specifically as an “o” sound. There could also be the presence of the noticing of the “o” sound as coming from the howling of the wind or from the vocalizing of an animal such as a human or from the hum of a vibrating bowl or from the blowing of a musical instrument like a horn.

So presence itself is eternal and the noticing of various temporary distinctions contrasts with the continuity of presence itself. When noticing the distinction between a familiar sound that is automatically labeled in language and an unfamiliar sound, noticing is present.

So, there are three distinctions: the noticing of a sound, the noticing of the labeling of a sound, and the noticing of the distinction between the sound itself and the labeling of the sound in language. Further, there is a fourth noticing that each of those distinct instances of noticing are all the presence of noticing.

In order to notice the distinction in language of “pure noticing,” other forms of the noticing of distinctions are recognized and labeled in language. There can be the noticing of sound, the noticing of labeling, and the noticing of the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling.

Those three are all the noticing of a particular presence. None of those three are the noticing of the presence of noticing itself.

So, the noticing of sound is first. It is like the elder in the family of noticing. The noticing of sound can be labeled “the father.”

Next comes the noticing of labeling. It is like the child of the elder in the family of noticing. When the noticing of sound is labeled as “the father,” that labeling can be noticed as “the son.”

Further, the distinction between the noticing of sound and the noticing of labeling can be called the distinguishing of noticing itself. Noticing sound is not noticing labeling and noticing labeling is not noticing sound. That is the noticing of distinction. Not only are there distinct sounds that can be noticed, as well as distinct labels in language, but the categorical distinction between the label “all labels” and the label “all sounds.”

Noticing multiple forms of noticing is still the presence of noticing. This presence of noticing may also be labeled the spirit of noticing or the spiritual presence of noticing the similarity of all instances of noticing as instances of noticing. This noticing can be labeled “the Holy Spirit.”

So, here are these three distinct forms of noticing: the noticing of a perceiving such a sound, as in “the symbolic Father,” then the noticing of the labeling of distinct perceivings in language, as in “the symbolic Son,” then the noticing of labeling itself as in the noticing of the symbolic labels of language or the noticing of the operating of language, as in “the Holy Spirit” or “Logos.”

All of these three distinct instances of noticing are all noticing. The noticing that all instances of noticing are all noticing is the recognition that the label “noticing” is just another symbol in language.

If noticing were compared to a tree, we could say that the tree had several branches: the branch of noticing sound, the branch of noticing labeling, and the branch of noticing the distinction between noticing labeling and noticing sound, which is also the noticing of noticing itself. All three of those branches of noticing are instances of noticing.

Notice that the three distinct branches of a single vine are united as branches of the same vine. We could label three distinct branches of a symbolic tree with the symbolic labels of “The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost).” All three of those symbols in language would merely be symbols in language. Each of the three branches of a tree would merely be a branch of a single vine.

The noticing any group of contrasting distinctions in language is presence of noticing. Notice the presence of noticing.

The noticing of labeling itself is the presence of noticing. There is no labeling that is not labeling. There is no branch of a vine that is not a branch of a vine. There is no noticing that is not the presence of noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Heavenly Father is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Divine Son is noticing. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of Holy Spirit is noticing.

The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is distinct from noticing any of the three symbols of that Trinity. The noticing of the linguistic symbol of the Holy Trinity is the presence of the noticing of linguistic symbolism. All instances of labeling are symbolic.

The noticing of the sound “o” is not the noticing of the labeling of that sound as a letter. When labeling a sound as also a letter, that is making the sound itself in to a symbol, in to an instance of language.

Language is the realm of the divine or the symbolic. Language is symbolic. Language is divine. Symbolism is divine.

The noticing of noticing itself is distinct from the noticing of any other particular noticing. All instances of noticing are noticing.

Notice the presence of the operating of language. Notice the presence of any of the various contrasting symbolic labels in language. Notice the labeling of the inclusive category of noticing.

Which symbol is not a symbol? Which branch of a tree is not equally a branch of a tree?

Which is the most important linguistic symbol in the Holy Trinity: the symbol of the Heavenly Father, the symbol of the Holy Son, or the symbol of the Holy Spirit or Ghost or the Presence of the noticing of noticing itself? Is not each symbol equally symbolic?

The Holy Trinity is itself just a fourth symbol in language (distinct from the other three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). There is no label in language that is not just a symbolic operating of language. Every symbolic label in language is the presence of the operating of language.
In language, there is also a symbolic category possible that can be called “anything that is not the operating of symbolic language.” Of course, that alleged “thing beyond language” may be a joke, an instance of silly non-sense, a construction in language that is useful for distinguishing the all-inclusiveness of language itself.

What is beyond language? Name one thing that is beyond language, if you can. By the way, notice that the labeling of the presence of an isolated noticing as “mine” or “not mine” may be entirely symbolic.

When breathing is noticed and labeled as breathing, that is distinct from labeling the breathing as mine or not mine. “Mine” is a symbolic labeling of the operating of language.

Name one thing that is beyond the operating of language. Name one thing that is not a symbolic label.

Name one name that is not the operating of naming. Label one label that is not the operating of labeling. Notice one noticing that is not the operating of noticing.

Even “Mine” and “my” and “me” and “I” are just symbolic operatings of language. They are namings, labelings, and noticings. All namings, all labelings, and all noticings are the operating of language.

Name one word that is not the operating of language. Name one instance of the operating of language that is not the operating of language.

Even foreign words, such as “anatma” and “advaita” are still words even without the recognizing of those patterns as symbolic patterns of language. Are those words still words even when not recognized as words or when no definition or comprehension of those words are present?

What is the difference between a round shape of a circle and the shape of the letter “o”? Perhaps it is the same difference between six and half a dozen: the difference is purely linguistic, purely symbolic, purely arbitrary.

Below are two artistic depictions of the “Holy Trinity.” One is called the Trimurti of Hinduism: Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva (AKA Shiva). It is several thousand years older than the other depiction, which is Roman and would be labeled in Latin rather than Sanskrit (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva) or English (Heavenly Father, Divine Son, and Holy Spirit).

Notice that the operating of language includes all instances of the operating of language. Are there three distinct symbolic trinities (Sanskrit, Hebrew, Latin, and English) or only one trinity but three different languages for labeling it?

Temple carving at Hoysaleswara temple represen...

Image via Wikipedia

cuadro que representa a la Trinidad (santuario...

Image via Wikipedia

 


%d bloggers like this: