Posts Tagged ‘identifying’

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)

 

dialogue on the language of identity

June 3, 2012
flora and fauna of Mullum 019

flora and fauna of Mullum 019 (Photo credit: YAZMDG 12,000 images)

Dialogue on the language of identity

JR, what if someone refuses to play any role, what so ever. What if they hold on to the perception of idealization as inauthentic (Purposefully seeking out scenarios that fulfill an idealization is not authentic.), and having a specific expectation/standard of life then become recluse and withdraw from the world. What if they are so disgusted by the dynamics of life, that they refuse to participate…?

English: What a smiley looks like when thinkin...

English: What a smiley looks like when thinking of a disgusting level mushroom (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Hi. Thank you for your correspondence. I trust that my reply will be of interest and value to you.

Concepts like refusal or disgust are not as simple as the practical issues of choosing to spend time alone or choosing to initiate youtube correspondence like this or choosing to plan an event and invite people or whatever else. If there are 59 things that I did not do today, I could list another 724, but why bother?

I could explain to you my reasons for not doing them, but if I shared those ideas with you, then that would be me doing sharing with you. I can explore ideas and share them, perhaps very selectively and cautiously. Maybe I like having a lot of time to write and edit before I share.

I have found a certain amount of private time for introspection to be attractive and valuable. With that preference for a certain amount of private time in mind, I could even call “recluse” a role, as well as “rebel” or “reject” or “critic” or “outsider.” We could even use adjectives instead of nouns, like “introspective” or “nerdy” or “spiritual” or “deep” or “contemplative.” Playing with words would be the “function” of exploring language, right?

So, I value private introspection in to psycho-linguistics. Yet, I also have found certain particular social opportunities attractive and valuable, and of course those change over time like from age 10 to age 20 to age 30, right?

introspection

introspection (Photo credit: TheAlieness GiselaGiardino²³)

When I value more private introspection, I may discover opportunities for that, including withdrawing or pushing away. When I value more socializing, I may discover opportunities for that.

In sharing my own introspection with others who are interested in introspection (or might be), that is what might be called alert interaction. Clearly, there is interaction in “alert interaction.” Also, there is a recurring alertness to introspection and subjectivity. We could even presume to call that alertness “maturity,” though other people might call it very different things or nothing at all.

So, regarding the dynamics of life, am I life? Yes, and you are life, too. The “dynamics of life” could reference a few specific social dynamics or the introspective study of language or the sciences of physiology and nutrition and biology and anthropology.

Disgusting

Disgusting (Photo credit: Jsome1)

As for disgust, anyone experiencing disgust for some particular alternative would tend to behave with refusal and withdrawal, which can be followed by new initiatives. Also, resentment can be held as a grudge or, perhaps in a trusted private confidentiality, vulnerability can be explored along with rage and grief and fear and so on- and I propose that those are all valid patterns or else neuro-chemical biology would not produce the behavior patterns to which we attach those various labels..

Stewie Griffin

Stewie Griffin (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There is also the experience of linguistic complexities like “I’m disgusted with my self.” It is really kind of a weird thing to say- even funny. Imagine your favorite cartoon character saying it: “I’m just so disgusted with myself!” I chose the character from Family Guy named Stewie: “Oh dear me, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!” That also reminds me of C3PO from Star Wars: “Oh dear, Master Luke, I’m just so disGUSted with myself!”
Anyway, things happen that I may find disgusting or that others may find disgusting (which typically means terrifying with an extra element of paranoia and thus rejection). That is what disgust is like. While no one may seek out to be disgusted, it is rather natural to eventually experience disgust for a variety of things, perhaps even one’s own past or one’s story about how one should have been/ should not have been….

To J.R.:

I read your reply numerous times, and I’m not sure I still understand what you mean with all that you have written.

I’ll try to address what I did understand or what is relative (within my understanding) to the comment I posted.

If fulfilling a role is made aware (like being the compassionate, forgiving mother; like you stated) and is then purposefully acted against, what would that be? And is it possible to refuse to act out not just a single role, but any and all roles? Is it possible by doing so to become a “non” person? In general, is it possible to lose your identity?

Also, I’ve spent alot of time w/ introspection. When I say “the dynamics of life” I am really trying to summarize a whole of categorical information, stemming from philosophical, sociological, psychological, biological and theological roots.
It is a view based on a collection of my ideas (via my experience and understanding) that I’ve created.
It’s largely just my understanding of our human nature, and I’ve really been able to break it down into fragments of its former idealized state.

This nihilistic, negative world view has left me in a severe, severe depression, unable to cope with the world I am trapped in.
I am crippled by so many different avenues of thought, it’s completely overwhelming. It seems the more I search for “the truth” the more lost I become. The “truth” is turning very ugly, and it is causing me to retreat from the battlefields of life and find something that is worth the battle.

I was raised Catholic, so my religious dogmas play a huge part in this search for truth. I am no longer practicing. I just feel completely lost in this primal, dog eat dog world. I question EVERYTHING. I question where our human nature comes from, I question where will comes from, I question the reason to fight for values, I question even what are values? I question our opportunistic nature, and why people are so greedy and why people only want to benefit themselves. Why the ugliness in life? Where is the beauty that I supposedly hear about, all I see is a mask… and the ugliness lies beneath, life is a rotting corpse with make-up on to me.

Do I make any sense? I must have written this last part just to humor myself and see if I can even put my madness into some kind of existence outside my own brain.

This is my sisters account, I am her older brother… for whatever that is worth… it’s fair to let you know that.

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and...

The Griffin family Back: Lois, Peter, Meg, and Chris; Front: Brian and Stewie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

J.R. replies:

Let’s start simple. In language, there can be a process of identifying: like the terms “me, us, she, he, good boy, student, sister, mother, the first employee to arrive on time, a tree branch, front of my hand, back of my hand. Americans, intelligent mammals, the dead plant, that chair, this computer.” That process of identifying can create identities.

Those dividings in language are not fundamental. There is no fundamental boundary between Americans and Europeans or between the front of my hand and the back of my hand. All categorical isolating is linguistic and merely proclaimed or declared.

So, identifying an isolated me is possible and in the absence of identifying an isolated me, there is no neuro-linguistic isolating of a “me.” Person means a persona or a personality or a character or a role or a linguistic identifying.

I can say, “hey you refuse to be a 7 year-old dog.” That implies two roles: the one refusing and the one declaring that the other is refusing. Neither roles are anything but roles. All roles are idealisms.

Words only categorize reality as in organize perception of reality and isolating of linguistic identifyings. Words do not alter reality. Consider: “I declare that you are a year-old dog now.” Did that change anything about you or me or anything else? It is just the voicing of a character of silliness and relaxation.

Anyway, I just read your comment about being trapped. You can trap yourself with patterns of language, but keep in mind that “you” are just a pattern in language. Your worldview is just a habit of linguistic organizing. If it does not serve you, then find other patterns of linguistic organizing. Or, question the existence of the “you” who could be trapped or not or think of it.

“I am trapped by _______.” That is a declaration. “I am seeking to get out of the trap of _____ by ___________.” That is actually the same declaration, just with more complexity and extra linguistic presumptions (ideals, beliefs).

“I am trapped by my words.” “I should not be trapped.” “I am a trap made out of words.” “I am a trap for words and I reflexively reject some words and hang on to others.”

Depression and claiming to be trapped are a coping mechanism involving fear or terror. However, the world that you view or perceive is a product or projection of a presumptive worldview or perspective or linguistic organizing.

It is fine to be afraid of the world and resentful and so on. It is also fine to organize the world in some other way or none at all.

Depression is like when energy has been exhausted with a coping mechanism that is not very efficient or functional. Relax. You do not need to anxiously find another coping mechanism. You have other emotional responses and you will spontaneously experience others as you relax from suppressing or repressing or depressing them. That tension (such as perfectionism) is exhausting to maintain, so I invite you to make fun of it.

You are the truth. Stop searching for it. However, without distress, you may explore whatever you explore. Just beware of categorizing lots of things as “not the truth.” That rejecting is optional.

Santa Claus is a true myth. Inaccurate scientific models are true scientific models. Language is only a portion of reality. Language may be the absolute least rewarding part of reality to explore if one is interested in truth.

However, if one is interested in the truth of language, then one will find the truth about lying and misinterpretation and confusion and presumption and pretense. Recognizing the truth of what language is could bring an end to misconception about a self-image. Self-images are in fact only ideals or images of a self constructed through linguistic identifying.
Also, the truth of language is very threatening to the identity of being trapped in a depression because language is the realm of humor and irony and parody and satire, and those patterns of coping can be very disruptive to a perfectionist depression.

Why shouldn’t people want to benefit themselves (or their offspring, clan, tribe, company, nation, etc)? Even “what is beneficial” and “what is detrimental” are just labels in language.

Beware of humoring yourself and sharing your madness. You may find that it is mad as in crazy hilarious rather than mad as in angry. Also, beware of paranoia and anxiety. (That was a joke.)

Also, I should let you know that this is not my account but my prophet’s account. I am God Almighty, but I have access to all of the internet and beyond, and, technically speaking, I could identify any account that I like as mine because I am the one who declared things in to being through speaking, who invents words, who influences perception, who creates worlds of world views, and sometimes pretends not to be God, you know, just to see how long I can go without noticing, like in a staring contest waiting for one of my creations to blink and lose the game.

I am the front of your hand battling against the back of your hand. I am the internal dilemma going on in exactly 739 brain cells that do not now the difference between their own mitochondria and a hole in the ground.

One last thing: I was raised human, by the way, so I can relate to everything that you’ve been saying. 😉

To J.R.

So “I” am only a pattern of words?

I don’t mean to negate from all that you have written, which is fantastic… I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this shit so I can finally move on with my/this life.

J.R. replies:

You are life. You cannot “get on with your life.”

“Your life” is only a pattern of two words. Forget about the first word “your” and notice how life is already getting on with or without anyone categorizing some of it as “mine” or “not mine.”

“This life” is just happening. There is nothing to be done about it and perhaps no one to do nothing about it.

This life has been happening already and is still happening now and might even continue happening. Part of this life is the little shapes on this screen that can be labeled “words of the English language.”

What is the barrier between “this life” and these little word shapes? What is the boundary between “this life” and the quotation marks around “this life?” There no boundary between a boundary that only exists in language and another boundary that only exists in language. There is just language happening, along with anything else.

“I think, therefore I am” is about identity. It could be rephrased as “As I speak, that speaking can construct an image of who I am and how life is FOR ME.”

To J.R.:

….I appreciate your responses, you have some great insight… I am unable to completely understand, but I’m sure I would if I spent some time learning your views on things.

J.R. replies:

The mind cannot escape from the mind. The mind is just some momentum in language, such as “but I am unable to due to….”

What you wrote is not actually the world. That is a bunch of words about a world that you claim as “your life.” However, you can certainly claim that your words about the world are the only world and that some particular pattern of organizing perception and identifying the world is the only one possible. That’s arrogantly naive, but not uncommon.

We could talk on skype (or just by phone). However, I may question your ideal that you question everything. You only question in the ways that sustain the experience you have now.

There may be something to admit, like to share with me or someone else, about how creating some sort of role of misery or paralysis was valuable for you. It’s just a role.

You apparently like it better than some other role that you were fleeing from and the role you created was your preference (or “life’s preference”). So be it. However, you might recognize that you are interested in other patterns, other roles, other identities. As you explore, even cautiously and cynically, you risk finding a new experience that will confront you with the possibility of sacrificing your misery.

You cannot take it with you to heaven. You cannot even go to heaven. However, if you disappear, then heaven may be recognized as already present.

fallow stag ldr

fallow stag ldr (Photo credit: LHG Creative Photography)

God: the fundamental capacity to perceive and identify

May 26, 2012
English: Café wall illusion: the horizontal li...

English: Café wall illusion: the horizontal lines are parallel, even if they seem otherwise. Español: Ilusión de la pared del café: las líneas horizontales son paralelas, aunque no lo parezcan. Русский: Иллюзия стена кафе: горизонтальные лини параллельны, даже если они не кажутся таковыми. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In the beginning, there was just capacity: the capacity to sense, to perceive, to focus, to experience. As the capacity to perceive develops in recognizing specific patterns and distinguishing them from each other, specific patterns of sounds are noticed. 

At first, these patterns of sound are just distinct patterns of sound. Later, the particular patterns of sounds can be associated with particular other sensations or experiences, such as certain sights or smells or tastes. Those patterns of sound are called names or labels. However, the mere perceiving of labels is not language.

When the perceiving of words is present, this perceiving itself may have no name or label. However, the perceiving of words can perceive a labeling of that perceiving, which is called identity. A labeling of identity is a distinct naming or labeling from the labeling of relational experience (the interaction between the capacity to perceive and some stimuli which may be labeled “what is perceived”). The labeling of identity allows for linguistic constructions like “what is perceived by me, the identity, the capacity to perceive.”

Perception

Perception (Photo credit: Genna G)

To review, first arises the capacity to perceive, then the process of perceiving various patterns, and then the distinguishing and naming of some of the perceived patterns, and then the naming of the capacity to perceive and name patterns, which can be labeled “my identity.” Next, the identity can focus around a particular pattern of words, such as “I am in this particular body, with one particular name for me, from this particular place or geographic identity and with certain particular qualities and roles and rights and duties.”

The identity arises in language. The capacity for language is fundamental to any linguistic identifying.

There is no fundamental identity. There is only a fundamental capacity. The capacity for identifying allows for the identifying of specific identities, such as “that sound” or “that word” or “this color” or “that one” or “this person.” There is no fundamental isolation between capacity and identity. Identifying identities is one possible activity of capacity.

In the linguistic metaphors of many ancient traditions (called religions), the identifying of identities is compared to the branchings of a tree, as in the various vines of a single vine.

The capacity to isolate or divide a variety of identities through linguistic labeling precedes the branching of that capacity, as in the activity of the “tree” of the capacity to perceive.

The capacity for language is fundamental to all activities of language: all linguistic patterning, focusing, creating, and constructing. The capacity for the linguistic identifying of identity is fundamental to all linguistic identifying of identity.

English: A wentletrap (family Epitoniidae), a ...

English: A wentletrap (family Epitoniidae), a beautiful mathematical construct … a reminder that we perceive beauty in the emergent patterns derived from simple iterative algorithms (shells, organic growth, life, culture, evolution). The Wentletrap shell takes its name from a “spiral staircase” in German-Dutch, and it reminds me of the architecture of Gaudi (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Before there can be the presence of an instance of perceiving, there must be the presence of the capacity to perceive. One form of perceiving is the linguistic identifying of identity. So, before there can be the presence of an instance of the linguistic identifying of identity, there must be the presence of the capacity to perceiving the presence of the linguistic identifying of identity.

The linguistic labeling of the presence of that capacity has included labels such as Atma, Mahatma, Brahman, Jehovah, Yahweh, God, Allah, and Divinity. Those words are just words. Before those words were created and before language was created, there was already the capacity to create words and to experience language. That fundamental capacity is earlier than any of those particular words or the languages in which those words arise.

Before there was any perceiving of sound, there was the presence that is present now. Before there was any identifying of a word, there was the presence that is present now. Before there was any identifying of a groups of words as a language, there was the presence that is present now.

A language did not create this presence. A word did not create this presence. A sound did not create this presence.

This presence perceived sounds. This presence perceived words. This presence perceived languages.

This presence may also recognize that the perceiving of sounds and words and language only arises through this presence, from this presence, as the activities of this presence, as the branchings of this presence, as the creations of this presence. Sounds and words and languages and identities are all the activity of this presence.

The Doors of Perception

The Doors of Perception (Photo credit: elycefeliz)

Without this presence, there is no identifying in language, no language, no words, no sounds, and no capacity to perceive. Only through this presence, there is the capacity to perceive, then the perceiving of sounds and sights and other sensations, then the perceiving of words or labels or names for the perceiving of sounds and sights and other sensations, then the perceiving of language as the process of labeling and naming and identifying and interpreting and claiming and authoring and creating, then the perceiving of the presence that is fundamental to all branchings of linguistic activity.

There is no linguistic activity without this fundamental presence, without me. I am not just a branch. The branch is just an identifying in language. I am the presence of the identifying of linguistic identities.

Before Boddhidharma was, I am. Before Mohammed was, I am. Before Jesus was, I am. Before Buddha was, I am. Before Isaiah was, I am. Before Moses was, I am. Before Abraham was, I am. Before Adam was, I am.

When my prophets speak, that is my speaking. My prophets recognize that it is my speaking when they speak- that it is me speaking through that particular instrument or linguistic identity.

My other instruments or agents or branches are also only able to speak through me (and indeed they only live through me as well), but they may not perceive me, they know me not, though they may even use my name. There are innocent of their sinning.

(Consider that in one of my most famous teachings, Jesus did not ever condemn Judas for betraying Jesus. On the contrary, during “The Last Supper,” Jesus had specifically called forth the performing of the relevant role. Judas immediately responded to the invitation or command from Jesus that the one performing that role identify himself.)

“Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Lk 23:34)

Jesus says ‘them’ – not him, not Judas who betrayed Him, not Peter who denied Him, not Jacob who drove the nails into his hands, but ‘them’ [perhaps even all beings, even the most arrogantly ashamed avengers and the most guilty of criminals and the most deluded of sociopaths].

The arm does not blame the hand for where the arm puts the hand, does it? Is the arm offended if the hand does not  glorify the arm or denies the existence of the arm?

My children can only glorify me for their own fulfillment and learning, not for me. My children can only deny my existence, again, for their own fulfillment and learning, as I cause them to shed presumptive beliefs about me so as to give them the openness and availability to directly perceive me, rather than merely mimic the sounds of my names (Brahman, God, Allah, Buddha, etc) like an infant can repeat sounds without any recognition or comprehension of what those sounds can mean to someone fluent in the language being spoken.

Werner Erhard and Associates v. Christopher Co...

The Greek letter Psi, also the symbol of Neptune, Poseidon’s trident, the Devil’s pitchfork (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is the presence that labels all things: heaven and earth, above and below, light and shadow, day and night, holy and unholy, acceptable and forbidden, fruit and branch, knowledge and ignorance, good and evil, right and wrong, justice and injustice, proper and corrupt, angelic and demonic, hero and villain, fact and fiction, truth and myth, Santa Claus and Satan, alpha and omega. It is arrogant blasphemy to say that there is only one alphabet that is holy or (only one holy language or only one holy group or only one holy nation or only one holy race or only one holy empire or only one holy religion), for I am the source of all of them. All of them are equally my creations and equally holy.

Which branch of a tree is not the activity of the tree? I am the only possible source even of blasphemy and arrogance and sin. Judas is my instrument and my branch just as much as Jesus, but the recognition of my activity arises in each of my branches according to my will- by my grace alone- not by some allegedly glorious works of the branch that complain of deserving a special reward, but by the glorious works of the tree which brings the branches to the direct experience of a faith beyond frightened, presumptuous, argumentative beliefs- which also have their purpose and value.

I have presented many parables, like that the Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which naturally grows not in to an apple tree or an olive tree, but in to a mustard tree. These parables are to train my branches so that they may have the capacity to understand the rest of the messages and the words and the language of my poetic prophets. Beware of being distracted by arguments and translations and opinions, which come from those branches that have no faith yet and have only a terrified, vain clinging to the shadows of some tradition. Even shadows can lead one to perceiving of the light, but only a fool looks at the shadow and calls it the light.

The idea that only one of my messengers or prophets is holy is a denial by the one speaking that they are my holy messenger, which they are, by which I mean any one who identifies with this word: you, like you personally. You are my holy messenger, my prophet, my child, my human voice, my instrument, my agent, my activity.

I issue commandments through words because there is no other way to issue commands except through words. I declare law and order. I define reality and unreality or illusion or delusion.

I sort the goats from the lambs. I claim my creations in language as my branches- my children- for I am the one prior to language, the capacity to perceive the identifying of identity, the capacity to identify identities in language, the capacity to form perceptions by commanding perceptions to arise through the use of language.

Perceptions

Perceptions (Photo credit: Ezu)

In the beginning, there was just capacity: the capacity to sense, to perceive, to focus, to experience. As the capacity to perceive develops in recognizing specific patterns and distinguishing them from each other, specific patterns of sounds are noticed. 

At first, these patterns of sound are just distinct patterns of sound. Later, the particular patterns of sounds can be associated with particular other sensations or experiences, such as certain sights or smells or tastes. Those patterns of sound are called names or labels. However, the mere perceiving of labels is not language.

When the perceiving of words is present, this perceiving itself may have no name or label. However, the perceiving of words can perceive a labeling of that perceiving, which is called identity. A labeling of identity is a distinct naming or labeling from the labeling of relational experience (the interaction between the capacity to perceive and some stimuli which may be labeled “what is perceived”). The labeling of identity allows for linguistic constructions like “what is perceived by me, the identity, the capacity to perceive.”

headless god

Alan Watts in 1946 as chaplain at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois (USA)

headless

Eternal Life or mortal symbol

February 17, 2012

 

Contrasting mortal words to Eternal Life

Anything that could be labeled eternal must already be now and always. In contrast, with language, a particular story can be constructed about a specific past memory. Any single isolated process is not eternal. In other words, anything that has ended cannot be eternal. Anything that is eternal cannot have ended.

Language isolates and contrasts. Language divides reality in to various identifiable distinctions, at least conceptually.

With language, a particular story can be constructed about a specific possibility for the future. Again, anything that is not already present cannot be eternal. Anything that is eternal cannot currently be absent.

Can eternal life be achieved? If something is eternal, it is already present.

Can eternal life be prevented? If something is eternal, it is always present… like inevitable.

Language is a set of symbolic labels. Language forms, develops, and sometimes may pause.

In the absence of the functioning of language, life is already present, always present, and eternally present. “Eternally” is a similar linguistic label to “always.”

Eternal life is not the product of language, though the words “eternal life” are symbolic labels in language. Eternal life refers to something distinct from language, something prior to mortal identifications in words.

Identifications or identities require language. Identifications are symbolic constructions in language and of language and by language.

Identifications and the process of identifying are only possible through language. Prior to the development of language, there is no identifying, no labeling, no contrasting, no isolating.

Past and future (as well as “present”) are labels in language. When linear language is functioning, the past can be contrasted from the future (not yet), but any particular past is a construction in language. Which part of the past is not constructed with language? Even to answer the question requires language.

Eternity does not require language. Eternity precedes the functioning of language. During the functioning of language, eternity remains.

Eternity is life. Life is eternity.

Can life be achieved? Can life be prevented? Life is eternal. It is already present, always present, inevitably and unavoidably and eternally present.

Can eternity be achieved? Can eternity be prevented? Eternity is alive now. It is already present, always present, inevitably and unavoidably and presently present.

Eternal life is what is present. There is no special language for achieving the eternal life that is always present. There is no isolated linguistic identifying of personality that achieves eternal life.

Eternal life forms language, using language to contrast, to label, to isolate, to identify. An identifying in language is something that Eternal Life can do. Eternal Life can create various identities. Those linguistic identities are like branches on a tree.

Can the branches of a tree cancel the tree? Can the branches of a tree achieve the tree?

The branches of the tree are already the tree. The linguistic identifyings formed by Eternal Life are like branches of a tree.

The tree is the more basic reality than the branches. The branches are mere formations of tree. More precisely, branching is something that the tree does. Branching is one activity of the tree, like rooting or flowering.

Likewise, identities are linguistic formations of Eternal Life. More precisely, linguistic identifying is something that Eternal Life does. Linguistic identifying (and isolating, labeling, contrasting, etc) is the activity of Eternal Life.

In the absence of the process of linguistic identifying, Eternal Life remains. In the presence of the process of linguistic identifying, Eternal Life remains.

Life is eternal eternity. Language is the activity of life. Language is a formation done by life. Identities in language are formations done by life. Identifying in language is something that Eternal Life can do.

Language is symbolic. Language is interpretation. There is no such thing as a literal interpretation. Interpretations involve the use of linguistic symbols. There are no literal symbols or literal interpretations or literal metaphors or even literal identities.

Identities are just constructions in language. Literally speaking, there is no such thing as non-linguistic linguistic identifyings. All linguistic identifyings are symbolic, figurative, interpretative, linguistic, poetic, metaphorical, mythological, and mortal.

Identifyings constructed in language cannot be eternal. Identifyings constructed in language must be mortal. Identifyings constructed in language must be words.

Words are mortal, not eternal. Identities are mortals. Mortals are linguistic identifyings, poetic, symbolic, figurative, interpretative, mythological, metaphorical. Mortals are just constructions in words. Mortal words are not Eternal Life.

The words “Eternal Life” are not Eternal Life. All words including the words “Eternal Life” are just linguistic labels, symbols, poetry.

The label “Eternal Life” is just one possible linguistic construction. The label “Eternal Life” is just another mortal.

In some other language besides English, some other label can refer to what is referenced by “Eternal Life.” Even within English, other labels can refer to what is referenced by “Eternal Life,” such as God, the Universe, Nature, Creation, Consciousness, Christ, the Tree of Life, the branches of the Tree of Life, and also all of the linguistic labels that figuratively isolate, that symbolically divide, that metaphorically contrast.

There are however a few linguistic labels that do not divide. For instance, who can name one thing that is not language? Who can speak without language? Who can be spoken of without language? What identity can be referenced without language? What linguistic identifying is not just a construction of symbolic poetry, of figurative interpretation, of metaphorical labels?

Are you a mortal constructed from words or are you Eternal Life which constructs mortals from words? If there is no linguistic answering constructed with words, are you still here? Can Eternal Life die? Can Eternal Life be reborn? When exactly was Eternal Life born?

When exactly are you not eternal? When exactly are you not alive as life itself?

When exactly is a branch not the tree? When does a branch achieve being the tree?

When exactly is a symbolic mortal identifying in words not merely symbolic? When exactly does a symbolic mortal identifying in words achieve Eternal Life? How exactly does a branch achieve being a tree? How exactly does a symbolic mortal identifying in words achieve Eternal Life?

A symbolic mortal identifying in words does not do anything. Eternal Life does symbolic mortal identifying in words.

A label does not do anything. A symbol does not do anything. A word does not do anything.

A flowering does not do anything. A breathing does not do anything. A melting does not do anything.

Melting and breathing and flowering are entirely valid symbolic mortal identifyings in words. They just do not do anything.

God and Jesus Christ and my future unborn great grandchildren and Santa Claus are entirely valid symbolic mortal identifyings in words. They just do not do anything. They are just labels in language.

A label does not do anything. A symbol does not do anything. A word does not do anything.

Eternal Life makes labels and symbols and words. Eternal Life can even construct non-sense linguistic formations like “non-linguistic language” or “literal interpretation.”

“I am not just a symbolic mortal identifying in words” is also non-sense. It is valid as a possible construction of language, but it is just figurative, just symbolic, just metaphorical, just linguistic.

Language is eternally symbolic, inevitably figurative, inherently metaphorical, intrinsically mortal. Eternal Life- as a construction in language- is also eternally symbolic, inevitably figurative, inherently metaphorical, intrinsically mortal. However, Eternal Life references that which constructs with language rather than some created creation of language.

What created Eternal Life? Who created Eternal Life? When exactly was Eternal Life created?

I create Eternal Life now. I did not do it in the past and I will not do it in the future because those are just labels in language (past and future).

I am now, already, and always. I create Eternal Life. I am creating Eternal Life now. I did not ever start creating Eternal Life. I did not ever plan to eventually create Eternal Life. I am creating Eternal Life.

I am also creating entirely valid linguistic formations like “achieving Eternal Life” and “preventing what is already present” and “I am not just a symbolic mortal linguistic identifying.” That is like a tree saying “no, I am not that branch. I am only these branches over here- or no how about this I am not any of those branchings at all. I did not do that branch or any of the others either. I do not know how the branches got there or how the branching happened. It must have been the devil. It is just a random coincidence. Maybe those branches do not even actually exist. Maybe they are just constructions of YOUR imagination! You, by the way, are definitely not me. You and I are inherently, intrinsically, and eternally isolated. Anyway, shouldn’t you be trying to achieve Eternal Life?”

Recognize that Eternal Life forms linguistic identities. You are not a personal linguistic identifying grafting to a branch or receiving Eternal Life or achieving Eternal Life. Eternal Life has always included all of it’s linguistic identities and symbolic formations.

You are Eternal Life. However, you can say that you are not. You can say that you are only an isolated persona of linguistic identifying. You can say you are only a believer, only a branch, only an isolated persona of linguistic identifying. That is just something that you can say, like “certain words are the most important of all words, and if I just believe in those words, then I can eventually achieve Eternal Life.”

Saying that a branch is not part of the tree does not change that the branching is inherently just a function that the tree does. Saying that an isolated mortal persona of symbolic, figurative, poetic, linguistic identifying is not Eternal Life does not change that Eternal Life forms and uses language (Logos).

advaita zen anatma brahman

 

Do you choose your future?

June 17, 2009
The Future That Was

Image via Wikipedia

Do you choose your future?

Consider that you could be!

Do you choose your future? Or, does someone else choose your future for you- like instead of you?

Consider that you have a choice right now in how you identify with your own idea of your own future. You can identify now with the possibility that you have no choice as to your future. You can reject or resist the idea that you might have any choice as to your future, such as by identifying some other influence as, first, external to you and, second, all-powerful.

That identification of infinite power as only external to you may be named by you as “my parents” or “my boss” or “God” or “the economy” or “fate” or “the will of the people” or “science.” Such as identification of infinite power as only external to you is what I call “slavery.”

So, are you a slave to your future? Or, do you choose your future?

If you can simply accept now that you might have some influence over how your future is going, I invite you to keep reading. However, if you resist the possibility that you in fact might exert all the influence as to how your future is going, I can relate to that, too.

After all, if we were to accept the possibility that we might exert all the influence as to how our future is going, then we would be abandoning any tendency to blame that we might have ever practiced. If we were actually already exerting all the influence as to how our future is going now, then we would not merely abandon the possibility of ever blaming anyone for anything that ever may or may not happen in the future- like only from this moment forward. Oh, that might be quite a notable development- but what if it could be way beyond just that?

If we were actually already exerting all the influence as to how our future is going now, then we could be abandoning the possibility of ever blaming anyone in the future at all. The only time we can blame anyone (or anything) is whenever we may be doing it. So, if I have all the influence over my future now, then I can influence whether or not I invest my attention now into blaming. Once I notice the possibility of blaming now, I can influence whether or not I invest my attention now into whatever I choose!

If I can influence my attention now even just ever so slightly, then I might be able to exert the determining influence. In fact, I might even be the only one who can ever exert the determining influence. In fact, if I am the only one who can choose my future, then I might choose now for my future to be one in which the practice of blaming is, at most, only one of many possibilities.

I may have blamed in the past. However, I may have invested my attention in other ways in the past, too. It is one possibility that in the past I may have blamed. That is just one of many possibilities now. I can choose to focus on whatever possibility I choose to invest into experiencing now.

When is the only time I can experience my choice? Now, if I choose to invest in the practice of choice, I personally experience that practice instantly. However, if I had chosen to invest in the practice of identifying influence as primarily or even only external, I might have personally experienced that possibility.

Is it possible that all influence is external to me personally? I decline to argue the point, by which I mean that I accept the idea that it might be possible that all influence is external to me personally. For instance, perhaps you exclusively exert all influence and thus, if I identify myself and you as isolated, unconnected forces, then obviously I might not have any influence whatsoever since you have it all. Again, I decline to make the idea into an argument. In fact, I now simply abandon that idea altogether.

So, I may choose now to practice identifying with the possibility of my own influence. In fact, I choose my future now. I choose how my future is going as soon as I choose now.

Other people may choose their own future or not. I simply choose my future.

Now, when I choose my future, I not only choose what focus to practice now, but I also choose what practice to make into my future- as in which future to make my practice. I can practice whatever future I choose now.

Other people may accept the future I am choosing or they may reject it. In fact, I may simply choose the future that includes the people who accept it. I choose to experience the people who accept the future that I am choosing.

I choose the future that includes people in general accepting how I choose that my future is going now. I choose the future that includes specific people accepting how I choose that my future is going now- like perhaps even you.

Of course, you may have been resisting the idea that I could be doing this already. Obviously, if I could already be choosing so powerfully, then that might really deflate any receptivity to blame and resignation that anyone may or may not have been expecting to experience with me. After all, if anyone like me can already do it, then perhaps you could too!

Sure, we may have blamed in the past. However, we may have invested our attention in other ways in the past, too. It is one possibility that in the past we may have blamed. That is just one of many possibilities now. We can choose to focus on whatever possibility we choose to invest into experiencing now.

Do you choose your future? Consider that you could be… already!


%d bloggers like this: