Click here to go to the next issue.

==GENE POOLE==

NDS

Nina, welcome to NDS!

This IMO is an excellent first step to an organized approach to understanding:

<http://www.mac.edu/~rpalmer/liminality.html>

If understanding is an issue in itself (which it is), then perhaps we
could formulate a 'way of understanding' or a methodology of
understanding. Hermeneutics is such a proposed way.

A closer look at languaging is called for, as well.

Lugwig Wittgenstein was one of the great masters of understanding
symbolic languages. His insights have not been surpassed to this day.

<http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~grau_c/witniet.html>

There are so many points of view, to consider when seeking
understanding of this sort. Fortunately, we are able to 'try them
on', with dedication and patience applied.

My own point of view, states that we are essentially 'made of
language'; that is, we are 'talked into existence' by the nature of
the Living Universe itself. Naturally, our own ability to use
language is a reflection of our 'parent system'. And the 'parent
system' is itself language.

<http://www.wolfenet.com/~archive/reality.html>

We continue the talk, as we look both back and ahead. Our
speculations are informed by our past; newness is not generally
considered a quality of language. Thus we tend to become satisfied
with a now-moment which is all too recognizable, because it has been
clothed in articles of past significance.

Wittgenstein introduced me to a way of seeing language, which made
language new again for me. He fiercely deconstructs language, using
the tools of language. Eventually we can come to see that languages
are simply made-up, but that the tendency to use language is innate.
We, as innate language users, can resort to using the very best and
most accurate expressions.

<http://think.hyperjeff.net/Wittgenstein/>


One task which may befall the ardent student, is that of learning the
most ancient of all languages, which is that of the constant
expression of the Living Universe itself. Our languages are specific
to culture, which is a context smaller than universal. To allow the
cultural language to serve its purpose, without blocking reception of
the ancient universal language, is a worthy goal.

"Long ago, men, animals, spirits and plants all communicated in the same way.
Then something happened. After that, humans had to talk to each
other in human speech. But we retained the Old Language for dreams,
and for communicating with spirits, animals and plants."

<http://www.sunflower.com/~dewatson/dma-st.htm>

The shamans of ancient Tibet, whose ways are now embedded in
Vajrayana, called the ancient language 'DISPLAY'. It is acknowledged
that there is nothing which is not Display. I see that Display is the
circulating talk of self; it describes itself. Being receptive to
Display, helps us to understand that 'everything' arises from the
same, and also to thus quell the drive to see only difference. This
itself, eliminates most arguments which occur within one.

Here is the best book:

Magic Dance: The Display of the Self-Nature
of the Five Wisdom Dakinis

by Norbu, Thinley

Shambhala, 1999.


Overall, while we may use keys to unlock complex mysteries, the keys
themselves can become burdensome. Eventually, it may be seen that
every key exists only to validate the corresponding locks; and that
holding the keys, makes us into our own jailers.

<http://www.nyingma.com/The%20Nine%20Yanas.htm>

Our computers and mass communications media are reflections of our
own nature, and our nature is a reflection of that of our parent
system.

What is the essence of language?


==Gene Poole==



GARY MERRILL

Hi Gene/Nina,

> What is the essence of language?

The question of language is being asked by language, self-reflexive.

My own exposure to this emanates from 'General Semantics' which
discusses the 'meaning of meaning', 'the knowledge of knowledge' etc.

It also includes a new language called 'e-prime' which is the
ordinary language without the 'is' of identity.

I notice there's a new UK General Semantics web site at:

http://www.general-semantics.org.uk/

Then again didn't Wittgenstein say something like 'about what we
cannot speak we should remain silent'?

Gary



ERIC BLACKSTEAD

Gene & Friends,

Great post on Language links, Gene. I feel certain that you already know
about Matrka Shakti, the energic Mother of the Universe as Mantra and
language. However, for a man of your interests not to know of this little
known theory of the manifestation of creation would be a supreme pity, so
I've undertaken to ask you. If, by some utterly strange coincidence you
aren't familiar with this Tantric theory, give me an email or notice on this
list and I'll point you in the right direction.

I've been meaning to read the Norbu book you cite about the 5 Dakinis for
some time now, perhaps you're mention of it will get me in gear.

yours in the bonds,
eric


JB a meeting with J. Krishnamurti

Since I consider J. Krishnamurti as being not so far removed from the
non-dual pack, I would relate the following story:
It was in 1982 I believe, in Switzerland, after a group meeting with
J. Krishnamurti.
Time came to say goodbye. I noticed how others very respectfully and
others more in the state of 'touching the master, goodie goodie' were
taking turns to shake his hand and say good bye.
For what it seemed an eternity, I was in a conflict.. between my
wish to touch this being and the other inner voice saying 'what
bull...., playing the guru game after all, eh ?!"

And while I was going around like a mouse trapped in a cage (there
was only one door,.. and he was standing there) suddenly I saw the
situation in a sober way.. just saying goodbye to someone one has
spent time together with.. no fuss, no "shaktipat" thoughts of
expectations and other glorious and pink astral emotions.
I was the last one in queue,.. so..No way out!..- I walked towards
him.. shook his hand and said thank you for this time & good bye..
"Yeees sir.." he said.
That's all, on the visually apparent level.

In those few seconds, Also the following happened :
He took my hand, and with his other hand my elbow,..it felt as if my
whole being and its contents were being shaken "in place".. a current
of quite a high speed, passed on thru rest of body from hand, head,
toes.. it was like a good & instant shower.. he loked into my eyes,..
I've never seen such dark, deep, large eyes !.. as a space with no
end, and this to-the-eye invisible floods of love, pouring out of his
eyes.. (and some people call him 'dry' and 'intellectual' ?!?)..
I was standing there hardly being prepared for all of that,.. and
this little men (he did not reach higher than my chest area) was
definetily felt by me, that he was about 4 times taller than me...

Since it all happened so quickly, only when I stepped out of the
roon, I realized what has happened.

I've had a few buzzes from other gurus (before I met JK.), but not as
delicate/subtle, clean and sober as this one.

He was a rare one !
I've read that he said himself (in spite that he hardly ever talked
about this kind of mystical stuff) that there will not be another
like him for another 500 years,.. the reason for this being the
necessity for a body that can withstand the enormous volume of energy
that passed thru his body.
He never talked about things such as Kundalini.

My mind, at times, throws up the the question: does such an
encounter, leave some kind of a 'seed' in one , or is it just
another 'wow'- experience ?
I'll probably never know,..
and probably it does not matter either.

JB




JAN SULTAN

And I thought this particular adage did not apply to spirituality or
non-duality!


Once you realize that the road is the goal and that you are always on the
road, not to reach a goal, but to enjoy its beauty and its wisdom, life
ceases to be a task and becomes natural and simple, in itself an ecstasy.
(426) - Nisargardatta

______________________
With Love,
Cyber Dervish

top of page