I feel like rappin' over coffee this morning,
and there is really no "meat" for doing so in
last night's posts, so I'm going to go back to
the last post that does contain such substance:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Stu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What I am getting at here is, what is important? No doubt that
> human consciousness is structured by language. The linguistic
> mind goes a long way towards insuring our survival. The intrinsic
> facility of language is a terrific evolutionary step.
>
> However in the larger scheme of things our presence in the moment
> is found beyond language.
>
> I am not saying we need to abandon language. We should remember
> we are not our words/concepts/thoughts.
Important stuff, and not said enough here IMO.
>From my admittedly warped point of view, MOST
of the disagreements here are the result of
someone's *identification* with their words,
concepts and thoughts. Their egos have devel-
oped such a strong identification with them
that the egos feel threatened when someone
challenges the words, concepts and thoughts.
As Lester Burnham said so well in American
Beauty, "IT'S JUST A COUCH!!!"
His wife is getting all bent out of shape and
losing the spontaneity of the moment (a spon-
taneity that could easily have gotten her back
in love with her husband) because she identifies
more with the COUCH than she does with him. That
couch IS her in her mind -- she chose it, prob-
ably after weeks of searching through catalogs
for the "right" couch, one that represents the
image she wants to transmit to the world. In a
previous scene (losing it and going hysterical
when she fails to sell a house) we in the
audience have already seen how real this image
she wants to transmit is; it's an enormous lie.
But it's HER lie, and she is more attached to
it than she is to happiness.
That's what I think is going on sometimes with
the arguments we see on Fairfield Life. People
have become more attached to their lies (that
is, the words, concepts and thoughts that they
identify with) than they are to the quieter,
more still and far more enduring aspect of
themselves that they experience in meditation.
But it's not that I see the words, concepts and
thoughts as lies *in themselves*. It's the
clinging to them and identification with them
as some kind of never-changing "truth" that is
the lie, and that causes the attachment. It's
mistaking one aspect of life (the never-changing
transcendent) for another (the ever-changing
relative).
> Form and eternity do not blend so well. Form is transient.
I would say that form is just another version of
eternity. Its essential nature IS eternity (in that
it is ever-changing, emphasis on the "ever"), and is
*just* as eternal as the formless. Form is just a
different "kind" of eternity, that's all.
But when one comes to *identify* with the form of
one's ever-changing words, concepts and thoughts
and tries to impose never-changingness ("truth")
upon them, *there* is where the problem arises IMO.
Today's words, concepts and thoughts are *valid*.
For today. Tomorrow they may not be, because the
very nature of words, concepts and thoughts (and
the whole relative aspect of creation) is that
they are ever-changing. But some folks tend to want
to glom onto a particular set of words, concepts
and thoughts that they *identify* with and pretend
that they *aren't* ever-changing. They're "truth,"
something cast in concrete, something eternal or
close to it.
And WHY? Because their ego -- which is itself ever-
changing -- identifies with these words, concepts
and thoughts, and that ego would like to consider
*itself* eternal and never-changing. I sometimes
think that folks who have never become comfortable
with the fact that their ego/self IS ever-changing
are the ones who find such comfort in words, concepts
and thoughts and trying to pretend that they are
some kind of eternal "truth."
> Better we stick with the source of transcendental reality.
> We can leave the world of concepts as a tool so we can
> communicate with each other and compare notes. And keep in
> mind at all times that these are just concepts/thoughts/ideas.
> Subject to transience as are all words.
AND as eternal as "transcendental reality," just in
a different way.
Don't get me wrong...I'm agreeing with Stu that get-
ting all bent out of shape over the words, concepts
and thoughts that we prefer to identify with and
that we use to transmit an image of our ego-selves
is silly. *Especially* if the words, concepts and
thoughts that you use to "define" your self haven't
*changed* in a while. That's being stuck in a rut,
not having discovered "truth" IMO.
But there is a way IMO of identifying with BOTH an
eternal, never-changing absolute AND with an ephem-
eral, ever-changing relative. It's not an either/or
situation. BOTH are "us." BOTH are eternal, in their
own way. And NEITHER gives a shit whether we iden-
tify with them or argue about them.
IT'S JUST THE TRANSCENDENT!!!
IT'S JUST THE RELATIVE!!!
BOTH of them are "us." For some, focusing on the
transcendental side of life allows them to remember
that IT'S JUST A COUCH!!! and that the important
thing is to go with the moment. For some, focusing
on the ever-changing nature OF the moment allows
them to stay in the flow of it. Some can do both.
Identifying only with the transcendent is IMO mis-
sing half of life. Identifying only with the words,
concepts and thoughts with which we perceive the
relative is IMO missing half of life. Arguing
about which is a better thing to identify with
is probably missing the whole tamale.
