What's in a name?

[Guest guest]

When we have a kid or kidi, we name him or her after

much thought (I suppose) and though we lose sight of

the meaning soon after, that word still has that

meaning in the map of human consciousness. With the

right to the name comes the responsibility of its

meaning, or put another way, the bearer becomes a

representative to all its meaning(s). Perhaps not

consciously, but in the consciousness of those who

identify the word to meaning, you by defining yourself

through that limitation become the representative for

their understanding of its definition.

 

That is abstract, but what am I getting at? Suppose I

say " I am a Brahmana " . It is a limitation by name,

that defines " me " by separating from the universal

whole. I have picked certain attributes of function,

appearance, activity, and defined " me " through them.

Fine. But I have done more: I have borrowed a name

" Brahmana " from outside as the identity marker for the

locus of those attributes. But the name not only

represents the manifest attributes I choose, but the

unmanifest potencies behind those attributes which

have manifested throughout human history while keeping

association to that very name. By choosing to limit

the Self through that name, I have become the bearer

of all the good and the bad that can possibly come

from that superimposition; and I can be charged or

praised for each and every

one of them by another for my identity now includes

that of the name. To say: " I study the scripture "

defines a particular action; to say " I am a Brahmana

and therefore study the scripture " defines me through

an outside identifier and my duties and the action is

a consequence of the duty defined through the name.

But in the consciousness of another, that name

Brahmana may mean " Hater of sudra " , and yes by

defining myself as Brahmana, I also share the

responsibility of such manifestations that occurred

under that name, for the definition is by separation

from the whole. And the the three gunas direct from

that separated standpoint in *both* directions, and

one who takes that standpoint bears witness to both

even as he/she personally strives consciously (say) to

the 'good' direction.

 

The same is true even with regard to identifications

as " man " , " woman " , where our definition seems

" natural " : yes, I partake responsibility for every

propensity that the label indicates: for the label I

hold as mine links me to all other limitation-defined

consciousness -- it connects me to the rest of 'those

outside of me' and their views of the label based on

their experience become also my share. --- ... so long

as I define myself through the limitations, as the

locus of attributes.

 

That is why only the true jnani who has no

identification with the names is also ever free from

its responsibilities. The name-calling of the 'jnani'

by ajnanis is also non-existent to consciousness that

abides without definition.