Anyone dumber than I?

[Guest guest]

Let us assume there are two types of languages. The first type of language is

used “internally” for thoughts, words. Since everything is “internal” let us

assume that a thought is nothing but a word.

This internal language is a verbal-language, or thought-language. A

verbal-language can only tell us about thoughts, words. A verbal-language

cannot tell us anything about no-thoughts, no-words, no-language. And if a

verbal-language cannot tell us about a no-language it can certainly not tell us

anything about a verbal-black-hole.

 

The Hindus discovered this limitation of verbal-languages five-thousand years

ago. They could not use their verbal-language to tell us what their

unified-field of “verbal-black-hole” was. The best they could do is use their

verbal-language and point to this “verbal-black-hole” which they called Atman.

The second type of language the mind projects outside -- like the language of

physics and its energy, and computers and their electricity.

These projected languages are different from internal verbal-languages in that

they give us their “no-language.” They give us their black-holes.

When all energy is gone in physics we have a black-hole. A computer has digital

code which is its language. When you turn the electricity off the digital code

vanishes and you have a digital-black-hole. When the computer is turned on the

digital-black-hole appears to vanish.

The Hindus did not have imaginary energy fields and electricity to understand

that when these are turned off it leaves a “black-hole” – Atman, Samadhi.

Put the two types of languages together and you have “reality” that is simply a verbal-black-hole.

Verbal-language is nothing more than a verbal-field that keeps everything

created out of words, thoughts “real.” When this verbal-field is turned off we

have the no-language, the verbal-black-hole, dreamless-sleep that the Hindus

called Atman, Samadhi, Kundalini, Nirvana.

 

Where have I gone wrong?

GP

 

 

[Guest guest]

om namo bhagavate sri ramanaya

namaste,

No, that seems about right...'I', indeed, creates such judgements as dumbness and/or clarity etc.

Thank you for your analogy.

> Let us assume there are two types of languages. The first type of language is

> used “internally” for thoughts, words. Since everything is “internal” let us

> assume that a thought is nothing but a word.

However, there is no need to assume anything. This is the very problem.

Brahman, which is without a beginning and an end, and celebrated as neither

more, nor less, than One, is the essence of language. It remains with neither

sequence nor form. The threefold (or fourfold, etc. - depending on commentator)

divisions are mere impositions. Although undifferentiated it appears as

differentiated, merely through its own denotative potential, while all the time

the One, the seed of all, to whom, paradoxically, this multiplicity appears to

belong, remains as the enjoyer, that which is enjoyed and, indeed, the

enjoyment. Traditionally, the three divisions described [by Bhartrhari and

other Grammarians], are, vaikharI (gross speech - spoken and unspoken),

madhyamA (pre-sequential but formative) and paSyanti (essential/Silent). These

can be resolved by means of Atma Vichara. PaSyanti has been used as a synonym

for Self or Atman. But paSyanti is far from being a black hole. The root of

the word is 'paS' - 'see clearly, look on, experience, shining etc.'. The

manifestation of speech is quite simply the manifestation of Sakti (and its

various divisions such as prana, cit etc.). Sakti, as language, carries the

borrowed denotative potential. This borrowed light of paSyantI is assumed to

divide (like light through a prism). This ego-prism must abandon its assumption

of separation from the Self and, retracing its steps, merge in its source.

Retracing its steps the ego does not find a black-hole, but rather that which

was obstructing true vision quite simply falls away. Black-hole seems to be

analogous to the Sanskrit terms 'SUnya' or 'laya', both of which have been used

to describe the pitfall of 'blankness'.

> The Hindus discovered this limitation of verbal-languages five-thousand years

> ago. They could not use their verbal-language to tell us what their

> unified-field of “verbal-black-hole” was. The best they could do is use their

> verbal-language and point to this “verbal-black-hole” which they called Atman.

Not sure what you mean by 'Hindus' here. The term Hindu seems to refer to such a

wide range of philosophcal systems. In fact, the Grammarians were so sure that

Language, or its Science, was a darsaNa that they were bold enough to say that

the science of the Grammar, and the word, was the 'dvAram apavargasya...'

(Doorway to Liberation). In SabdapUrvayoga (the esoteric science of vyAkaraNa)

one learns to stand at the Door at all times.

Kind Regards,

Miles