Mo' On ET

[Guest guest]

P: Well, what you wrote below is clear enough. I don't think Harsha

can claim he doesn't understand what you mean by that.

 

 

Lewis: If the Self is present, then there is no need to assume " Harsha

presenting Self as object " (this is the identity referred to). For

example, It is uncessary for me to speak continuously saying, " Lewis

(i.e. Self) is this or that " or " This is how I realized Lewis (i.e.

the Self). " I can say simply say it, " I am this or that " or " This is

how I came to realize the nature of my existence. " The character of

this speech is of the individual appearance speaking for itself alone

as it is. I say it. No one else says it or can say it except in their

imaginings of me being this or that. I need no one else's or

experiences or constructions or concepts to say it though I may find

other words useful to convey meaning dialogically and then turn them

to suit my appearance and undergoings. So I learn the speech and

concepts of others, to speak in their tongue, so to speak. This how I

expand my appearance and enter in the myriads of worlds. Abstractions

and concepts are used unavoidably for language allow no other way and

such doings are about " my " undergoings, " my " appearance and not

universalized conceptions of them or imaginings of what others

undergo. Let others tell me their stories so I can see what is in it

that touches my appearance, moves it, perplexes it, stimulates it,

shows what is in it, and so on. This approach may be more " fruitful "

in that the likelihood of " seeing " something and undergoing something

in my appearance is greater than if known doctrine and dogma is all

that is said. Harsha's projection of what he is as he is has for more

fruitbearing potential than Harsha presenting well known

universalized, generalized concepts and abstractions of venerated

individuals.