Guest guest Posted May 16, 2005 Report Share Posted May 16, 2005 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > Hi Pete, > > Yes it could be taken as a metaphor and not literally and vice versa. > They also can be disregarded and seen as non-sense. It is possible > that the words can be seen as saying that there is nothing but words > floating in nothingness. Anything can be done to those words and they > can be taken in as many ways as one imagines.... > > However, the latter conclusion about words floating in nothingness > would indicate a gross misunderstanding of Dr. Theo's thesis. Such a > conclusion indicates an inference and assumption about, a desire for, > a belief in, or an attachment to " somethingness " over " nothingness " > and this works to alter, interpret Dr. Theo's point that " no thing " > lies beyond words to mean that " words float in nothingness, and are > the only existent, which would be ridiculous. " In the English lexicon > these words can both exist simultaneously with all the meanings and > sensations and perceptions, experiences and uses attached to them. For > example, chair is a word. Is there something beyond the word chair > that the word refers to? What is beyond the word chair? There is one > experiential possibility. > > And that is to give an explantion or description in words in anyway > imagined, individually and socially (common, practical, scientific, > literary, etc,) which leads to infinite progress of descriptions in > words and or use of the word to do things (like sitting down, or > bashing someone with it, or changing a lightbulb or shutting a door > (the conventional truth in Buddhist terms). This Dr. Theo's point. > Words pointing to more words with the use of imagination that creates > meanings, experiences, perceptions and sensations and uses. You can > assume the various meanings and uses of the chair and use it and > experience as it goes. A chair is not always a chair as it is defined > in the formal lexicon. It is indexical and it is used, experienced as > the context requires. How is it concluded that words float in > nothingness? > > P: Excuse me, Lewis, there is an obvious element of academic bullshit > in the above. People do not come up with words first and then invent > uses, or things to fit the words. And no one is so naive as to believe > that when Toombs says " Nothing exist. " he is impuning the reality > of a word. And if a nurse tells me, " take a chair', I know that > doesn't mean take the chair home, or hit me with the chair. But > when someone says, " There is nothing but words, " I know this is > nothing but a bad meta4, because words are just units of > communication, and for communication to occur the symbol must > point to something beyond itself. Now, that when it comes to > philosophy and religion the symbol is often the mesage, is what needs to > be understood, and that doesn't mean' there is 'nothing but words' > when talking cats, dogs, and chairs. > > ========================================== FIRST was the word, and the word was god. God did not create words - words created god. God is nothing more than a word. I should know because I also am nothing but a word call it god or anything else words can be. If you are " more than a word " then just add a few letters to this " more than a word " that you are. the other word .. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.