Hereandnow wrote: ↑
December 21st, 2017, 4:10 pm
"To speak is to lie!"
Now that is a good one. The others, well, too thick, like a jungle of questions attached to each.
Yes, a jungle of questions for someone who reads it, finds meaning, and can formulate the questions.
I offer the 'distillate' that might have taken 'centuries' at which to arrive, Occam's razor and all that trims a 'bible' into a haiku!
I am always happy to answer questions/elucidate and help with blazing trails through that 'jungle'. *__-
But to speak is to lie. It's simple and invites inquiry: what is it about speaking that is lying?
Sure, language is 'thought/ego'.
Thought/ego/language is predicated on 'duality'; this, not that. A word, for instance, means 'this', not that. Etc.
But ego/duality is only a tool (the conditional, contextual) by which we can Know/experience the ultimate Reality of the One (unconditional, non-contextual, transcendental, unlimited, indefinable, Universal...), Omni- Self!!
Schizophrenia is the fragmentation of that which is One.
So; if we 'believe' thoughts/feelings (feelings are thoughts), we have entered insanity. If we believe that the tool by which Reality/Self is Known is (ultimate) Reality, we err. (Yet even that erring, false, wrong, lying... thought, is an inherent (conditional) feature of Reality, Our unconditional Omni- nature.
Thus the 'lie' aspect of all thought/ego', and the language that expresses it.
If we take all as metaphor, everything perceived, from rocks at our feet to daydreams, we do well.
Literalists remain clueless, but the 'superficial' must also be Known for Us to be Omni-scient!
Is there something about language itself that carries the lie such that even in these words I write, I am putting illusion into play? To talk about lying implies that there is some (hopefully unproblematic) assumption regarding truth telling, otherwise 'lying' would make no sense at all, as with an up without a down. So, what is it that is in this implicit claim about what is true, real, non-illusory; some sort of indubitable bedrock of truth telling? Is it altogether wrong to speak of such a bedrock? Some say it is. If it is, then where does that put any claim about what is illusory? If not, then what is it and how do you confirm it to be foundational?
As I have mentioned, (t)here exists One Universal Consciousness (that peeks from all eyes).
We are all unique Perspectives of the One unchanging, ALL inclusive Consciousness/Reality/Truth... Universe.
When we ignore all the Perspectives of the One Truth but our own, and fall into the toxic Aristotelian notion of 'either/or', 'right' or 'wrong', in such limited truncated context, we can have 'true' and 'false'.
2+2=4 is true only in very limited context, such as only in the base ten system. In a base three system, 2+2=4 would be a false statement.
Without knowing the context, the statement is both true and false and maybe, etc... all at the same time.
Opposite Perspective APPEAR as conflict, problematic, lies...
Consider the implications and meaning of Guinon's quote;
"Every kind of partial and transitory disequilibrium must perforce contribute towards the great equilibrium of the whole!" - Rene' Guenon
Words/thoughts present the 'apparent' "partial and transitory disequilibrium"; dualism, because we do not see the larger picture, the "equilibrium of the whole".
Understanding/Knowing of the Perfection/Balance, at any moment of existence, of the Universe, one is less likely to fall for 'appearances' presented by the tool by which Self! is Known.
"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - n
tat tvam asi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi