Post by Frater G on Feb 1, 2012 16:15:49 GMT -5
So linguistics cannot universally define, of course since language is wrapping....speech in the silence. Well then...I grasp your point here thank you! To define is a personal empathic point of connection ultimately. Emanations manifest from the nether, Will....Thelemic. You say soul is echo...reflection? If so then plasticity? Spirit then is primary? Chicken or the egg...language. So if we're soul and spirit then there must be a star point singular prior dual....monad..just thinking here. What is language anyways, reflection...or starLight?
A mentor of mine once told me that concepts such as these are approachable, yet undefinable. Basically, as soon as you grasp the meaning, it is gone.
Basically, looking at it from the point of view that dogma is indeed useful, as soon as you are able to define the concept, you place it in the box. But you immediately realize that the box is not "enough," ergo, the definition is somewhat lacking.
And it always will be. Each new definition is reflective of your understanding and growth, and each time that which is momentarily grasps dissolves as you close your fist around it serves as a reminder that you are still growing.
Man teaches the dharma with a clasped hand...vajramukti. The buddha teaches with an open hand. What can be held in the clasped hand can only approximate that which is held in the open hand.
So like a lightning bolt two ends of polarity are momentarily connected, the truth of the whole is glimpsed, the received light is recorded, only to be told in what could only be relative language. Time being movement(s) means truth is relative to the observer and the connection to what is observed and not. Thank you for the insights.
all embracing and accepting......Law..
