Posts Tagged ‘tree of life’

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 see also: (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.”

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
// – 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? 
// – 17k

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

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

To the pureall 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. 
// – 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. 
// – 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. 
// – 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. 
// – 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
// – 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. 
// – 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.

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)

morality over legality

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)

morality over legality (Photo credit: GoatChild)


on “The Supreme Being” (and dreams of isolation)

March 23, 2012


CB wrote:

@JR – in your mind, “Who is the Supreme Being”? In speaking of the “one”, is the one you? I’m having difficulty following you train of thought as your words are foreign to me.

JR replies:


I could make many references to the term Supreme Being, and some would be familiar to you. “Supreme Being” is metaphorical or symbolic, not literal. It is a term used in parables like the following:

If all of life was a tree, the branches [of that tree] would still be life, right? The Supreme Being is like a vine and we (as individual identities) are like the branches of the vine of Supreme Being, but there is nothing but vine in every branch of that vine. You know that metaphor already, right?

Here is another. In an ocean, the surface may form in to waves. Which wave is apart from the ocean? Which wave is not the ocean?


Waves (Photo credit: waɪ.tiː)

The Supreme Being is like the ocean while the details of life are like the waves. There is no wave that happens beyond the motion of the ocean itself. The waves are the motion of the ocean.

What creation is not created by the Supreme Being? What creation is a threat to the Supreme Being? What wave is a threat to the ocean?

Words may come, saying “I am an isolated wave apart from the ocean and I am competing against those waves over there.” Could it be that the ocean has formed those words too? Could it be that the vine has formed each branch?

The Supreme Being is not apart from you or me. You and I are not apart from the Supreme Being.

We are the branches of the Tree of Life. We are the motion of the Supreme Being.

These words on this screen are the motion of the Supreme Being. Everything is the motion of the Supreme Being.

The breathing that may be noticed- whose is it? The hairs on every head- who put them there? Whose are they?

Crashing Wave

Crashing Wave (Photo credit: Clearly Ambiguous)

Words may say: “No, this is my doing. I personally did it. The glory and the shame are mine alone.” Who invents words? Who puts them together?

Even glory and shame are concepts invented by the Supreme Being. Is the Supreme Being ashamed or proud? Shame and pride are just waves, just branches, just words.

Does the word shame change the ocean? Does the word pride change the ocean? The ocean changes and words are like the sunlight glistening off of the top of the ocean’s changing.

The ocean does not need to speak to be the ocean. The Supreme Being does not need to speak to be the Supreme Being. However, just as the ocean makes waves and the waves make sounds, so also does the Supreme Being make words.

CB replies:

To JR – I understand your post, and I agree with your post where the ocean, and vines are concerned.  As for who you are referring to as the “Supreme Being”, your answer remains ambiguous – like answering a question with a question – open ended as it were.  I would have to repeat the question, “…in your mind, who is the “Supreme Being”?  In speaking of the “one”, is the one you?”

While it would appear that you come from the stance that you and the “Supreme Being” are “one” like the wave and the ocean, I would have to disagree.  To be “one” with the “Supreme Being” we must take upon ourselves His attributes and non-physical characteristics.  To be of one heart, one mind, one purpose, one faith – that we may all be “one”.  This is the challenge and quest of life.  It is an absolute.♥

JR replies back:

The ocean has no challenge in having waves (or not). The waves have no challenge in being the ocean (or not).

The Supreme Being is not a personal or exclusive identity [but, in contrast, is all-inclusive or whole or “holy”]. The characteristics of vine are already within every branch of vine. [The branches do not need any rituals to become more the like the vine, for they are already entirely the vine.]

One may think that one needs to strive to attain holiness. Such striving may be the devil’s trick: “I do not have holiness, so I will try to become holy eventually and here let me invent a new and more complex method for pretending that I am not already of the vine of the Supreme Being.” However, even that “devil’s trick” is God‘s creation.

While dreaming this morning, one aspect of the neurological process of dreaming perceived itself as the dreamer who witnessed the various events of the dream and the other participants in the dream. However, the dream includes all the events and all the “participants,” including the perceiving of a dreamer.

So, yes, the dreamer is the Supreme Being and so are all the events of the Supreme Being’s “dream,” and all of the identifyings in language of self and other.

The dreaming does not need to do anything to make the dreamer more dreamy (or less dreamy). The dreamer is part of the dream. The experience of an isolated identity of “me, the dreamer” is incidental.

Supreme Court

Supreme Court (Photo credit: P Hansen)

So, does one stop perceiving dreams as real? Perhaps! But dreaming may go on and there is no real challenge in dreaming, though the perception of a dream challenge may arise in the dream [like this: “but how can I ever reconnect with life? I am over here and life is over there? How will I ever reconnect!?!?!”]

The dreaming begins, perceptions arise, including perception of a someone [who is] dreaming the dream, and then the dreaming ends. When the dreaming continues during the “wakefulness” of the physical organism [after a body wakes up from sleep], we can call that sin or maya or error. When the awake dreaming is “lucid,” then that [mode] can be called enlightenment or salvation, and the operating of language is recognized as merely the operating of language.

This is the shift from the experience of a [so-called] isolated identity talking about the spirit of God to the spirit of God actually experiencing itself talking. The spirit of God already has the characteristics of the spirit of God. The experience of [“broken”] individuality must “die” [or cease] before the spirit of God [again] experiences itself without the “dream” of an isolated self “doing” the dream.

The Supreme Being is the source of the dreaming. The experience of isolated individuality (and of needing to strive to become like the Supreme Being) is a language-related figment of the dream of the Supreme Being.

“You” may not understand this at least not within any pre-existing belief system. “You” may be terrified of it. Furthermore, it may

Supreme Court

Holy Temple of the Supreme Court (Photo credit: pepsobert)

“kill” that “you.”

However, when a dream is “killed,” it is recognized as being only a dream. Nothing “real” is changed by the ending of a dream. In the dream, the dreamer may be terrified of dying in the dream. However, the Supreme Being is eternal and when a direct awareness of the Supreme Being is present within a particular human organism, a fearing of the death of the organism does not arise. Fear is part of the dreaming, as is shaming, and striving, and so on.

The effects of the dream perceptions are real effects for organisms. However, the Supreme Being does not identify itself as limited to a particular organism, except if dreaming “momentarily.”

You may find all of this quite consistent with certain parts of familiar scripture. Generally, institutional religious [traditions] do not preserve the simplicity and coherence of this message. Perhaps all churches are apostasy, but perhaps that is entirely functional [and incidental].

The [“Almighty”] Supreme Being is not threatened by apostasy or heresy or blasphemy. The Supreme Being is the creator of all of that as well.

CB replies again:

I will once again have to disagree with your statement that the Supreme Being is the “creator” of “apostasy…heresy…or blasphemy”.  All that exists has always existed in one form or another, that would include good and evil.  We, through our choices, identify with one or the other, God or the adversary.  It has little to do with outward thoughts and appearances and more to do with the spirit and heart of mankind.  Appearances can be deceiving as mankind battles with overcoming the flesh and subjecting himself to the Spirit.  The adversary is the creation of God, while the “devil’s trick[s]” are his own creation and not those of God.  Our choices are our own creation and determine our “holiness” or lack thereof.  Holiness is not to be sought after, it is achieved as one chooses to draw close to the Supreme Being, through witnesses from the Spirit.  This can never be achieved until one accepts His existence, His love, and His plan, and feels after Him.

United States Supreme Court building in Washin...

The Supreme Being is God the Father of us all, who have or will exist, on the earth as we know it.  He is both personal and exclusive in identity.  How well one identifies with Him, depends on how well they know Him.  How well they know Him depends on how diligently they seek to know Him as they listen to the Spirit, the witness of all truth, who speaks to our spirit.♥

JR replies again:

I see- you think that the adversary is the creation of God, but has power distinct from God. Consider that “I have power distinct from God” is the voice of the adversary, which is just a form of God.

Also, to clarify, I was not referencing the spirit and heart of mankind (the “lower” man), but of the Supreme Being (the “higher” self). When the spirit of the “lower” is absent, the eternal presence of the Supreme Being is not covered or obscured. Further, once the “higher” (or core) is recognized, any momentary arising of the “lower” or superficial is recognized as… merely superficial.

Without beliefs, do you still exist? Without idealism and idolatry, do you still exist?

What would happen if argumentativeness was seen as innocent, if “the adversary” was seen as innocent, if there was no fearing of an adversary? Do you dare to find out? 😉

There is a stage of the process in which terms like “diligence” may be relevant. Also, there is a stage when the witnessing from “the Spirit” may include these words here, and even all others!

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as see...

The inscription Equal Justice Under Law as seen on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building- with the archetypical/mythological Gods of the Roman Pantheon carved under the crest of the Holy Temple of the great imperial Church of the United States of America  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Published on: Sep 13, 2011
Related articles


the tree of life and improving the branches

March 23, 2012
Trunk Call Looking up into the branches of a f...

Trunk Call Looking up into the branches of a fir(?) tree near to Measham Hall (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“self-improvement and expression/development of Self”

Here is a trunk and it has many branches. Life is the tree (or vine). We are just branches.

I do not even know how to grow a single hair on my head (or a leaf on my branch), yet each hair (and leaf) grows by itself. What about this branch is really my own doing? Even the words “but I did all this myself” remind me of some sounds that I may have heard coming out of a few other branches…. Did I also invent language and make the sun and the earth and the seed from which a tree may grow? Did I inherit nothing? Did I create my parents, too?

I as the personal branch does nothing of it’s own will. I as God does everything, even producing the experience of an isolated persona with an isolated personal will: i.e., the accuser, the slanderer, the one so guilty and ashamed to blame and condemn… the devil. Who else but God could create the devil- who else would even dare?

Blue Sky Growing a Tree Branch in the Garden o...

Blue Sky Growing a Tree Branch in the Garden of Success (Photo credit:

So, what exactly is there to improve about any of the branches? The tree does not need improving, nor does any branch. There is nothing evil in the tree, not even any perception by one portion of the tree that some other portion is evil.

Stop any judging against the tree or other people or yourself, then stop trying to improve perfection and just celebrate. Develop yourself. That is how the tree is developing: branch by branch.

Be faithful to the tree within you, the divine that IS all of you already. Stop judging against God. God is the whole tree and every branch, including you personally. You’re not special, nor is anyone else, but you are absolutely unique, as is each branch of God. Who are you to “improve” God’s work?

Tree - leaf canopy

Tree - leaf canopy (Photo credit: blmiers2)

The humble branch celebrates the glory of the whole tree- even other branches- whether or not certain other branches may judge it as humble or proud, better or worse, devil or saint. Has any sage- any prophet of God- ever before been accused of being confusing, arrogant, a devil, a heretic, a threat?

What is humility? It is having no special interest in the words of the other branches- without defense of any words that might insult or attack or humiliate; that is humility. Open to the words of others, but unattached to anything but the trunk itself, what could we call that?

From the edge of the branches, one can look back at the tree and see a particular view (except for any of the branch behind, out of view). That is fine. From the trunk, however, one can easily see the unity of the tree- and the centrality of the trunk.

One may know from anywhere that there are hidden roots, but not seeing the hidden roots may not stop one from FEELING them. One may even be able to feel the whole tree from the tip of the branches. However, it is possible that at the trunk, it may be easier to directly feel the roots than at the distant, remote regions of the tips of the branches. Let the trunk feed the branches- for what good is the trunk but the hub that feeds the branches?

Neither position- from the tip of a branch or from the trunk- are better or worse than the other… merely distinct.

Nectarine tree branch

Nectarine tree branch (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One, however, may experience isolation and antagonism and suffering- at least until there is a shift in language from “I am a branch appearing at the top of a tree” to “I am the tree experiencing itself as a branch.”

Some of us may have seen others/their words as confusing and/or inauthentic. Some of us may have seen see others/their words as arrogant and unattractive. Wouldn’t that be interesting if that was one’s experience of much of the rest of the tree, too- even most or all of it, except perhaps for one’s own branch, right? 😉

First Published on: Nov 20, 2009

Related articles

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


condemning condemnation

June 12, 2010

You may have the experience of setting yourself up as the judge of which expressions of “love’s essence” are the true ones and which are false. There may be the idolizing of “unconditional love” and the shaming of everything else (which is not especially loving, but just more idolizing!).  That to me is the pinnacle of silliness (and vanity/idolatry).

Consider that what some “spiritual people” may reference as “our essential nature” and “unconditional love” are like the seed or roots of a tree. All of the branches of the tree come from the root, but are distinct from the roots, right? The branches are all conditional, like affinity and personal relations like marriage and biological ancestry. Those are extremely conditional, but they are not “false,” just “specific!”

So, all of the branches are specific (as in conditional) yet they all proceed and are nourished by the roots. For anyone to “sit in judgment” of their own tree of life and say “those branches are good and these branches are evil” is living from sin, from maya/error, from hell, from agonizing, from guilt, from condemnation.

The branches are distinct. They are not better or worse from each other.

The branch of condemnation is also an expression of unconditional love. You cannot experience that through the rational mind, but consider it possible anyway even though it seems like a logical paradox.

Try this instead first. Everything is an expression of “god’s will” or it would not exist. That is logically solid. The idea that there is some other will in operation besides God‘s will is not consistent with the definition of God that I use. That is foolishness, silliness, vanity: “my will is not god’s will.” What? That is like saying that this one branch over here is not part of the tree. That is total nonsense. Only one deep in maya/error/sin would assert a personal will that is not itself the expression of divine will.

So, if you get the logic of the analogy, then it is possible to experience the behavioral process of condemnation from an entirely distinct perspective. Condemnation, like so many processes in language, is always an expression of an inner purpose. It is always the will of God or it would not ever happen.

Condemning something sets up a hypothesis or theory focusing on that something. It is a sorting process of rejecting something consciously while still giving it some energy and attention (like a root system feeding a branch). \

As the condemnation “hypothesis” gets explored, people eventually may come to appreciate something they previously condemned. It is like 7 year old boys making fun of girls then, by the age of 14, reversing their rejection to adoration… for the exact same girls perhaps (now young women).

At age 7, the boys need to develop certain qualities of masculinity, which means getting the distinctions of masculinity. By age 14, the same feminine traits that were repulsive may suddenly be attractive (of course, noting that there is an immense physiological difference between 7 year old girls and 14 year old girls) – a new polarity or charge is created, but first we may express our divine purpose by condemning something as we focus primarily elsewhere. “That energy is too much for me right now!”

Later, at age 14, a boy tends not to ridicule 7 year old girls with antagonism, but perhaps with appreciation or at least neutrality. Thus what before was actually in some ways truly terrifying (yuck, 7 year old GIRLS!) is later the object of light-hearted teasing, like saying nonsense things to a neighbor or cousin: saying “oh, now you are acting like a 7 year old” to someone who actually is 7.

7 year old boys can be quite mean to little girls, with the classic behavior of pulling pigtails and so on. 14 year old boys do not typically do that, right? They may tease little girls, but they just are not INTERESTED enough to actually put out the energy of condemning 7 year old girls because 7 year old girls are no longer a THREAT to the average 14 year old boy.

What is the bottom line of 7 year old boys condemning and ridiculing girls? “I am too immature to contain my intense attraction to the feminine, so it is best for now for me to push away any feminine magnet in my midst. When I mature further, I may chase after what I have chased away. I may even use the same words like ‘I hate you’ but said with a ‘devilish’ smile, a lusty honesty, a playful non-chalance.”

Condemnation is simply revealed as a developmental stage. Those in the middle of that stage may not see that. To them, one part of the tree must be good and one part must be evil. They simply condemn condemnation, establishing behaviorally that they are still in that stage of condemnation.

Instead of condemning many branches as evil, they condemn the behavior of condemning as evil. Again, that is the extreme of irony, of silliness, of vanity.

Upon recognizing this, the tree of life is revealed to be holy- complete. Then, unconditional love shifts from being a good idea that we may talk about until we are blue in the face to something we do, a behavior, the activity or process of loving. Every stage on the way to the process of unconditional loving is part of the process of unconditional loving, just as every stage on the way to being a butterfly IS itself already the process of the emergence of a butterfly.

Some caterpillars may go around condemning butterflies (or caterpillars). That may change nothing as to their future.

Words are trivia. Notice the energy patterns directly.

Caterpillars are part of the process that is butterfly. Yes, a butterfly is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “caterpillar.”

Condemnation is part of the process of unconditional loving. Yes, unconditional loving is a PROCESS, a development, an activity, an act of God- which includes “condemning.”

Do not miss the forest for the tree. Or, if it fits for you, focus elsewhere and miss the forest for the tree! FINE, JUST BE THAT WAY! Either way, there is no forest except for a mutltide of trees.

%d bloggers like this: