Message Boards Message Boards

Science and Meditation

What would language be like in an enlightened world ?

Toggle
What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/24/19 3:22 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/24/19 3:55 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/24/19 4:57 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/24/19 5:13 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 9:17 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? junglist 8/24/19 8:48 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 9:19 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/24/19 10:41 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/24/19 10:53 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/24/19 3:06 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Dan Jones 8/29/19 9:49 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/24/19 10:46 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/24/19 11:25 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/24/19 3:17 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/24/19 6:29 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/24/19 8:06 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 1:46 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 7:31 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 8:07 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 5:07 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 4:18 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 7:27 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 8:03 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/25/19 8:22 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 4:44 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 3:46 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 5:00 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 5:25 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 5:58 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 6:09 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Nick O 8/26/19 10:07 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/29/19 5:52 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? S. 8/25/19 5:43 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 5:51 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/25/19 5:55 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? spatial 8/25/19 5:56 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 5:15 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/27/19 5:33 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Siavash 8/27/19 6:17 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/28/19 6:31 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Siavash 8/28/19 8:09 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/26/19 6:44 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Laurel Carrington 8/25/19 9:29 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Edward 8/26/19 1:27 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/26/19 2:26 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 4:24 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 4:35 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 12:58 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Chris Marti 8/25/19 6:18 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Milo 8/25/19 8:59 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 5:01 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 9:47 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 10:34 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/27/19 12:35 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/27/19 2:02 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 8/27/19 2:32 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Shaun Steelgrave 8/24/19 1:28 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? curious 8/25/19 5:39 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Raving Rhubarb 8/26/19 4:28 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Shaun Steelgrave 8/26/19 9:46 AM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Dream Walker 8/24/19 7:49 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? S. 8/25/19 4:55 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? Stickman2 8/25/19 5:15 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 9:56 PM
RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ? terry 8/26/19 9:11 PM
Many spiritual teachers say that, even though they have no sense of self any more, they still use language with personal pronouns simply to communicate with the unenlightened masses.

Let's say the new age dawns, and nobody has a sense of self anymore.

Is language still necessary - that is, the language that revolves around a sense of self ?

Does language as we know it disappear ?

How, practically, does this work ? You go into a coffee shop and say - "there is a feeling of wanting coffee, yet I could not say who wants it." and wait for the barrista to figure out that the body in front of her wants coffee ?

Isn't it the case that society needs language of the self in order to function ? Which, to all intents and purposes, and despite the agency less perception of the newly enlightened masses, means that selves still exist ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 3:55 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
It certainly needs language in order to function the way it functions now.

I don’t know what the potentials are for other ways of functioning.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 4:57 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
It certainly needs language in order to function the way it functions now.

I don’t know what the potentials are for other ways of functioning.

Hm. It's one reason I think enlightenment is an illusion like blind sight. People who don't percieve their own self operate as if they still have one.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 5:13 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Why? I don’t think society would be the same if all people were to awaken. I just don’t know what it would be like. Also, I’m not sure there will ever be a reality consisting of only awakened people. I highly doubt that. Reality seems to be about becoming. Reality is creation, manifestation.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 8:48 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Many spiritual teachers say that, even though they have no sense of self any more, they still use language with personal pronouns simply to communicate with the unenlightened masses.

Let's say the new age dawns, and nobody has a sense of self anymore.

Is language still necessary - that is, the language that revolves around a sense of self ?

Does language as we know it disappear ?

How, practically, does this work ? You go into a coffee shop and say - "there is a feeling of wanting coffee, yet I could not say who wants it." and wait for the barrista to figure out that the body in front of her wants coffee ?

Isn't it the case that society needs language of the self in order to function ? Which, to all intents and purposes, and despite the agency less perception of the newly enlightened masses, means that selves still exist ?

I think there have been cases of arahant's talking to each other, which would suggest that language as we know it would remain.

To use your example, I would imagine that the words "can I have a coffee?" could arise causally as a result of myriad conditions – sensations, feelings, memories – none of which would be part of any selfing processes.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 10:41 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
I think, based on recent events and the nature of this question, I need to say:

STOP with the mystical, other-worldly, super-human and nonsensical assumptions about awakening.

emoticon

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 10:46 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2, do you have a meditation practice? I'm genuinely curious.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 10:53 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
I don’t know if that surprises you, but I agree with you, Chris, at least partly. Super-human assumptions do not make sense.

I think basically any general change to a whole population, if such general changes would hypothetically occur, would have some kind of impact on how society manifests. That doesn’t make it mystical. It would be another world, sure, but that goes for if all of us were to need wheelchairs as well. I have engaged in such thought experiments as well. Sometimes they tell us something about what we take for granted.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 11:25 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
But honestly, do they really say that they do it only to communicate with the unenlightened masses? That sounds like rubbish to me. They are still conditioned by the society they live in. It’s not like they would suddenly not find practical purposes for pronouns in daily life even when talking to each other. Many of them seem to enjoy talking to each other about their practices, for instances. They even compare concepts and experiences, it seems. Sometimes they quarrel about it.

How many arahants does it take to change a light bulb? Or something that requires more precision as to division of labor...

And what if they were to fall in love with each other? Wouldn’t they want to enjoy being embedded in that experience of meeting each other as individuals on a more mammalian level? They are not all monastics, after all. And if they would not have any such interest, there would be no point to asking the question since that society would only last for one generation anyway.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 1:28 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Language would be precisely like DhO, utter perfection.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 3:06 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
It's not assumption it's a response to what enlightened people say. If they didn't say there was no self, then I wouldn't say those things.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 3:17 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
But honestly, do they really say that they do it only to communicate with the unenlightened masses? That sounds like rubbish to me.
Many do. I've been hearing it for decades. As an example of the most blatant kind, let's try page 33 of I Hope You Die Soon by Richard Sylvester
.
Words can only describe phenomena. Liberation is neither a phenomena nor a collection of phenomena.

Nevertheless if there is to be a discourse about anything, including liberation, it can only be carried on in words.

All language is suspect. But in this book the following words should be regarded with especial suspicion and always be read as if in quotation marks because the assumptio contained in each of them is false:

mind person past future now then time place here there I you me choice freedom

The word "I" in the sentence "I am happy" has exactly the same force as the word "It" in the sentence "It is raininng." There is no "It". There is no "I". Rain simply falls. Happiness simply arises.
Most writing that purports to be about non-duality is absolutely dualistic. As soon as a writer suggests that there is someone who can do something to bring about liberation, you are reading nonsense. Often it will be highly articulate, fluent, complex and persuasive nonsense."
Not the only one who says things like this by a long chalk, and I'm sure many buddhists say things like that too. Indeed, they should.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 6:29 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
I see nothing in that quote that indicates that he would only use pronouns to communicate with unenlightened people. He is merely pointing out the limitations of language. Of course language is limited. It is like a map. Its purpose is to simplify reality to make it easier to deal with. A map that was as nuanced as reality would be useless. It would be like bringing another earth in order to find your way on this planet. It wouldn’t help one bit.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/24/19 8:06 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I see nothing in that quote that indicates that he would only use pronouns to communicate with unenlightened people. He is merely pointing out the limitations of language. Of course language is limited. It is like a map. Its purpose is to simplify reality to make it easier to deal with. A map that was as nuanced as reality would be useless. It would be like bringing another earth in order to find your way on this planet. It wouldn’t help one bit.


Using the language of the self when there isn't such a thing is more than just a lack of nuance. You're mapping a terrain with no actual features, and maybe not even any land.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 1:46 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Well, there is the mimick of a self, something that has a pragmatic function.

The newtonian rules of physics do not exist either, but at a certain scale they are accurate enough.

And still, the quote did not exemplify the condescending attitude that you were critisizing.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 4:18 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2, you seem to have much doubt about the path, and yet you remain very active here (which I appreciate). What’s up with that? Are you trying to abate your doubts by intellectual means? Sorry, I don’t think that will work.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:39 AM as a reply to Shaun Steelgrave.
Shaun Steelgrave:
Language would be precisely like DhO, utter perfection.
Best comment of the week.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 7:27 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Stickman2, you seem to have much doubt about the path, and yet you remain very active here (which I appreciate). What’s up with that? Are you trying to abate your doubts by intellectual means? Sorry, I don’t think that will work.
Are you taking it upon yourself to police me for not taking the party line ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 7:31 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Well, there is the mimick of a self, something that has a pragmatic function.

The newtonian rules of physics do not exist either, but at a certain scale they are accurate enough.

And still, the quote did not exemplify the condescending attitude that you were critisizing.


Condescending is, I think, your humourless pejorative.
As the ideal is no-self, rather than a Newtonian self, the physics analogy doesn't hold up.
The correct analogy would be to have no material reality at all upon which to model physics theory.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 8:03 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Stickman2, you seem to have much doubt about the path, and yet you remain very active here (which I appreciate). What’s up with that? Are you trying to abate your doubts by intellectual means? Sorry, I don’t think that will work.
Are you taking it upon yourself to police me for not taking the party line ?



It wasn’t intended as policing, but I can see why it might be perceived as such. I’m truly sorry for giving unwanted advice.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 8:07 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Well, there is the mimick of a self, something that has a pragmatic function.

The newtonian rules of physics do not exist either, but at a certain scale they are accurate enough.

And still, the quote did not exemplify the condescending attitude that you were critisizing.


Condescending is, I think, your humourless pejorative.
As the ideal is no-self, rather than a Newtonian self, the physics analogy doesn't hold up.
The correct analogy would be to have no material reality at all upon which to model physics theory.


Ah, okay. Then I misunderstood. I thought what you were saying was that they actually talked like that. I think that would have been somewhat condescending. But it was really a humorous phrasing from your side? Okay then.

Hm, I don’t think you are getting how I was using the analogy, but nevermind. It’s not that important.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 8:22 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2, do you practice meditation? 

BTW - there IS a self or better yet, there are selves. They're just not permanent, lacking any essence that remains constant through time. Whoever says otherwise is in denial or misunderstanding their situation. The proper terminology is "not-self," another of the three characteristics or marks of existence along with impermanence and discomfort/suffering. So all the talk about there being no self, no persons, is nonsense.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 4:44 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Stickman2, do you practice meditation? 

BTW - there IS a self or better yet, there are selves. They're just not permanent, lacking any essence that remains constant through time. Whoever says otherwise is in denial or misunderstanding their situation. The proper terminology is "not-self," another of the three characteristics or marks of existence along with impermanence and discomfort/suffering. So all the talk about there being no self, no persons, is nonsense.
No I do it for real.

Selves not permanent - that's banally obvious, you don't need meditation to know that your personality changes.
I also think that the claim of impermanence has a big flaw - namely - you need a permanent record to compare things with to know they are permanent. Pretty obvious.
I can only think that impermanent is the nearest English translation of some very subtle concept in Pali.

Are you sure you don't experience life with no localised sense of self ? That would be no self to me.
Enough people seem to see things that way to have to say things like Richard Sylvester says.

But yeah maybe I am mixing a couple of things up. One is that some say they have profound mental quiet and none of the old sense of a self boundary. That would be no self in two different ways.
You're saying that there is mental and emotional and perceptual activity, but that it doesn't add up to a sense of self. Which sounds a lot messier and noisier, and much less of a change. It also sounds like the buddhist notion of suffering is a bit of a get out - it still happens but can't be said to happen to anyone.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 3:46 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
It’s more impermanent than that, though. Like moment to moment.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 4:55 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
I think there are interesting elements at play to consider, even working with the premise that there could be connections between enlightenment and language use.

Is all language about communication? Language can be action.

What about non-verbal language? Your theory and scenario could apply to body movement too, no?

Or the languages of expression like what clothes you wear?

Coming back to language as communication, what is so (dualistically) self-centered about indexical language? 

I think the structural elements of pronouns and personal references could be seen from an information theory point of view.

Assume that you want to give everyone in the world a number to use to refer to them instead of a name or a pronoun (and you would refer to yourself by this number). Really all of these numbers could be addressed purely randomly and of equal length. If you are doing this in binary digits, you will need 2^32 or 2^33 numbers to represent each person. If there were only 4 billion people in the world you could represent each person with a number like:

1234
01010001
00110000
10111011
00100011

and another person:

1234
11101111
01011101
00101001
01011101

To look at this another way this means also that if you had a giant list of every person in the world and you wanted to play "20 Questions" using yes-no answers to narrow down a truly random person down to one specific person, you would not really reliably be able to do so without having 32 questions (32 binary digits), even if your questions were maximally efficient and cut the search space down by half each time.

In practice though it is frequently possible to win at 20 Questions. Why? Because if you add up all the real people you know and all the fictional, historical, or mythological people you know, you probably don't have more than just 1,000-100,000 names you can conceivably pick from. Some figures will also stand out disproportionately, maybe like the Buddha Superman, or the American president. 

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number]Dunbar's Number theorizes that the number of people who are 'real' to you is about the size of your 'tribe,' maybe 150 people. Would dissolving the sense of the dualistic Self also dissolve your whole tribe?

From an information theoretical efficiency viewpoint it does not make much sense to use a universal addressing system assigning equal weight (length) to each person. Instead you should weigh names according to their probability of use, or maybe some other criterion of their importance. The more precise way is to tie the description length directly to the probability of reference, but even a rough weighting along those lines is good. 

In your local system of reference the person you are likely to talk about the most is yourself, and also people around you (such as "you" the person you are talking with). I/me, you/u are efficiently short in English. First names, nicknames, certain other indicators are all also short local address system use.

If that still sounds strange to you because you might imagine enlightened humans do not conceive of themselves or maybe other people as conceptual objects, consider that this same set of ideas applies to phone numbers, physical addresses, and other objects.

Humans often exchange information about their local environment and have the most information about their local sphere versus things further away in time or space. The fact that language points towards things around you or the needs or your body is not too strange.

"This body is unhealthy." "This mind is learning today." "This mind does not have the information you seek." 

That's probably a bit unnecessarily burdensome. 

That said, in your thought experiment I do wonder what kind of world or language enlightened people would build. Perhaps concepts connected to enlightenment or the experience of enlightenment or meditation might be expanded, used more commonly, and many sub-terms would be developed? Twenty flavors of impermanence. I am not sure how different the world be, but hopefully at least a little better. Perhaps people would be less reactive, and would process mammal bodies and sensory information differently? Perhaps the world would be better at Dharma diagnosis.

Language is probably also affected by the environment and environmental needs around it (such as having more words for snow in wintry countries, or more words for technology and logical concepts in certain languages). I suspect there could be structural connections in your scenario between enlightened masses, landscape, technology, and the word. It wouldn't just be language that might change.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:00 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
It’s more impermanent than that, though. Like moment to moment.

That sounds more reasonable. People get funny when I raise the point, although it's not conceptually difficult. There may be subtleties behind the simple analogies, I don't know. Maybe other people think of it entirely differently, in non obvious ways. I've been going on the assumption that the conntemplative insight into impermanence matches the every day understanding of impermanence - which is just using memory to see what's changed.

eg. How do you know your hair hasn't been the same forever ? Because you have a memory of how it was last week and it's different.
How do you know your memory hasn't changed ? It's magically permanent.
If it's not permanent, then it's not a reliable guide to the past, and can't be used to make comparisons, and thus no claim of impermanent hair can be made - your hair might be the same as it was at the dawn of time, you'll never know.

Thus, as there is no permanent record of anything, the best that can be said is that permanence cannot be proved. Which isn't as strong as saying impermanence is proved.

And that's my take on that.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:15 PM as a reply to S..
Maybe like a bunch of pre-talk pre-self infants bumbling around sticking stuff in their mouths. I think I cracked it emoticon

I hdan't thought about non verbal communication, the masters never mention that, but why not ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:07 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Well, there is the mimick of a self, something that has a pragmatic function.

The newtonian rules of physics do not exist either, but at a certain scale they are accurate enough.

And still, the quote did not exemplify the condescending attitude that you were critisizing.


Condescending is, I think, your humourless pejorative.
As the ideal is no-self, rather than a Newtonian self, the physics analogy doesn't hold up.
The correct analogy would be to have no material reality at all upon which to model physics theory.


Ah, okay. Then I misunderstood. I thought what you were saying was that they actually talked like that. I think that would have been somewhat condescending. But it was really a humorous phrasing from your side? Okay then.

Hm, I don’t think you are getting how I was using the analogy, but nevermind. It’s not that important.

If they were condescending would it really be worth the effort to try and morally correct it ? Seems too compulsive to me.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:25 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Yeah, with that interpretation of impermanence your objection is very valid. Those types of stories about change definitely require a sense of continuity. I think the main point of impermanence in the dharma is the questioning of that continuity, which also means questioning the idea that the change belongs to a solid entity that was there a moment ago too. The construction of it still remains, because that’s how human beings function. As long as we are living human beings we will keep relating to time as an organizing principle despite the fact that time itself is a construction of the mind. The mind kind of comes with life - it’s a package deal. However, there are meditative experiences that make it clear that it is an illusion. It’s an illusion that we will keep partaking in, because becoming is life and life is becoming, but it is seen through in a way that I’m just beginning to have glimpses of. From here it looks pretty cool. I think it’s actually kind of miraculous that all these rapid arisings and passings of sparks, or whatever one should call it, with nothingness between them, make up such a complex and habitable and embodied fiction.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:43 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
When you do kasina practice, like with looking at a candle flame and then looking at the after-image with your eyes closed, you will see a dot appear and disappear. It will move around sometimes the way you want and sometimes out of your control like a floater in your eye. At some point it starts flashing, or twinkling like a star.

If that happens the 'twinkling' you are seeing is the better definition of impermanence. Moment-to-moment change that can be perceived. It can be found in all the senses.

More things in your vision can look like pixels or TV snow.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:51 PM as a reply to S..
S.:
When you do kasina practice, like with looking at a candle flame and then looking at the after-image with your eyes closed, you will see a dot appear and disappear. It will move around sometimes the way you want and sometimes out of your control like a floater in your eye. At some point it starts flashing, or twinkling like a star.

If that happens the 'twinkling' you are seeing is the better definition of impermanence. Moment-to-moment change that can be perceived. It can be found in all the senses.

More things in your vision can look like pixels or TV snow.

Yeah I thought it'd be something like that, but a lot of people use it like "things don't last". But how do you know the moment's twinkle hasn't always been like that ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:55 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Because I’m still human, and except in some very hard jhanas, my mind persists in keeping up the delusion of time passing.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:56 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
S.:
When you do kasina practice, like with looking at a candle flame and then looking at the after-image with your eyes closed, you will see a dot appear and disappear. It will move around sometimes the way you want and sometimes out of your control like a floater in your eye. At some point it starts flashing, or twinkling like a star.

If that happens the 'twinkling' you are seeing is the better definition of impermanence. Moment-to-moment change that can be perceived. It can be found in all the senses.

More things in your vision can look like pixels or TV snow.

Yeah I thought it'd be something like that, but a lot of people use it like "things don't last". But how do you know the moment's twinkle hasn't always been like that ?
Is somebody asking you to believe this? I don't look at this as something that needs to be "proved". 

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 5:58 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Yeah I hadn't thought of it that way - change happens to a thing but what happens when there's no thing ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 6:09 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Saying that there is no thing is misleading too, I would say. Things come into being all the time. Things also dissolve all the time. And they are constructions. And there is also a construction of continuity that is fundamental to human life. It’s not weirder than physics, really.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 6:44 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
No I do it for real.

Stickman2, I don't think you actually meditate. If you did, even with a little bit of sincerity, you wouldn't be asking the questions you ask and making the arguments you make. So I think you ask your questions and make your arguments for your own entertainment. Most of your comments and questions are rejections of what folks here experience, or of Buddhism in general. And you ask them over and over again even though various people here answer them honestly and to the best of their ability. You're acting like a troll. Are you a troll?

I'd appreciate an honest answer and not a deflection like the one above.




RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 6:18 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Selves not permanent - that's banally obvious, you don't need meditation to know that your personality changes.
I also think that the claim of impermanence has a big flaw - namely - you need a permanent record to compare things with to know they are permanent. Pretty obvious.
I can only think that impermanent is the nearest English translation of some very subtle concept in Pali.

Are you sure you don't experience life with no localised sense of self ? That would be no self to me.
Enough people seem to see things that way to have to say things like Richard Sylvester says.

But yeah maybe I am mixing a couple of things up. One is that some say they have profound mental quiet and none of the old sense of a self boundary. That would be no self in two different ways.
You're saying that there is mental and emotional and perceptual activity, but that it doesn't add up to a sense of self. Which sounds a lot messier and noisier, and much less of a change. It also sounds like the buddhist notion of suffering is a bit of a get out - it still happens but can't be said to happen to anyone.

It seems to me that you're intentionally mixing things up hoping no one will catch on to the nonsensical nature of your comments. Your comments on this topic alone should dispell anyone from thinking you're seriously curious about Buddhism or awakening.

So what's your purpose here?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 8:59 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
BTW - there IS a self or better yet, there are selves. They're just not permanent, lacking any essence that remains constant through time. Whoever says otherwise is in denial or misunderstanding their situation. The proper terminology is "not-self," another of the three characteristics or marks of existence along with impermanence and discomfort/suffering. So all the talk about there being no self, no persons, is nonsense.

+1 on this. Constantly misunderstood.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/25/19 9:29 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
[quote=
Chris Marti]
I'd appreciate an honest answer and not a deflection like the one above.



Crickets

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 4:28 AM as a reply to Shaun Steelgrave.
Shaun Steelgrave:
Language would be precisely like DhO, utter perfection.

It's your fault my neighbours woke up because I had to laugh so hard emoticon

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:46 AM as a reply to Raving Rhubarb.
Raving Rhubarb:
Shaun Steelgrave:
Language would be precisely like DhO, utter perfection.

It's your fault my neighbours woke up because I had to laugh so hard emoticon


yw

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 1:27 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
No I do it for real.

Stickman2, I don't think you actually meditate. If you did, even with a little bit of sincerity, you wouldn't be asking the questions you ask and making the arguments you make. So I think you ask your questions and make your arguments for your own entertainment. Most of your comments and questions are rejections of what folks here experience, or of Buddhism in general. And you ask them over and over again even though various people here answer them honestly and to the best of their ability. You're acting like a troll. Are you a troll?

I'd appreciate an honest answer and not a deflection like the one above.



Another thread successfully shut down by heavy-handed official and unoffical moderators. I'm unsure this is necessary or in line with this site's guidelines. 

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 2:26 PM as a reply to Edward.
Well, please read the guidelines for yourself: https://www.dharmaoverground.org/faqs

What is inappropriate?

Seeking attention in a personal manner, speculating about half-understood concepts, guessing instead of finding out, and being dogmatic and closed-minded. Though uncommon, the moderators of the Dharma Overground will warn folks who aren't following the basic guidelines of this site to cease and desist. If there are repeated behaviors which undermine the health of the community you will be asked to leave. Though again this isn't common, we've found it necessary from time-to-time to ask someone to leave, in order to preserve a safe and rationally-grounded space for discussion.

Additionally: don't post personal information about people that they wouldn't want posted, and don't violate basic laws (e.g. posting private health data, committing libel, telling malicious lies or even needless malicious truths that don't further the goal of promoting skillful practice). Not only should you not do unto others as you wouldn't have them do unto you, but also don't do unto them as they wouldn't want done to themselves regardless of whether or not you care if it was done to you.


Chris Marti
DhO Moderator


RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:11 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Many spiritual teachers say that, even though they have no sense of self any more, they still use language with personal pronouns simply to communicate with the unenlightened masses.

Let's say the new age dawns, and nobody has a sense of self anymore.

Is language still necessary - that is, the language that revolves around a sense of self ?

Does language as we know it disappear ?

How, practically, does this work ? You go into a coffee shop and say - "there is a feeling of wanting coffee, yet I could not say who wants it." and wait for the barrista to figure out that the body in front of her wants coffee ?

Isn't it the case that society needs language of the self in order to function ? Which, to all intents and purposes, and despite the agency less perception of the newly enlightened masses, means that selves still exist ?

   If everyone came to know nonduality, would duality disappear?

   Or, "Is the enlightened person still subject to karma?" (mumonkan, case 2)

   The zen answer might be, "duality cannot be disregarded."

   As for languages without pronouns, some argue that japanese doesn't have pronouns, though there are words in japanese that are used as such. I think it likely some early languages (eg piraha) lacked pronouns altogether.

terry

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:17 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
It certainly needs language in order to function the way it functions now.

I don’t know what the potentials are for other ways of functioning.

Hm. It's one reason I think enlightenment is an illusion like blind sight. People who don't percieve their own self operate as if they still have one.

   Blind sight is certainly not an illusion. According to scientific american's david dobbs:

Blindsight is thought to be due to information flow through secondary neural pathways that bypass area V1 but which nevertheless convey a small amount of visual information to higher visual cortices. For some unknown reason, these secondary routes are not sufficient to maintain the feeling of sight. Thus the blindsight patient has the subjective feeling that he or she is blind, and reports visual information only when forced to take a guess.

   Blind sight may indeed be related to enlightenment, in the sense that we intuitively know things we are not and cannot be conscious of.

terry

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:19 PM as a reply to junglist.
junglist:
Stickman2:
Many spiritual teachers say that, even though they have no sense of self any more, they still use language with personal pronouns simply to communicate with the unenlightened masses.

Let's say the new age dawns, and nobody has a sense of self anymore.

Is language still necessary - that is, the language that revolves around a sense of self ?

Does language as we know it disappear ?

How, practically, does this work ? You go into a coffee shop and say - "there is a feeling of wanting coffee, yet I could not say who wants it." and wait for the barrista to figure out that the body in front of her wants coffee ?

Isn't it the case that society needs language of the self in order to function ? Which, to all intents and purposes, and despite the agency less perception of the newly enlightened masses, means that selves still exist ?

I think there have been cases of arahant's talking to each other, which would suggest that language as we know it would remain.

To use your example, I would imagine that the words "can I have a coffee?" could arise causally as a result of myriad conditions – sensations, feelings, memories – none of which would be part of any selfing processes.

aloha junglist,

   I agree. I think words arise and are spoken without any self being involved in any way, ever.

terry

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:47 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
But honestly, do they really say that they do it only to communicate with the unenlightened masses? That sounds like rubbish to me.
Many do. I've been hearing it for decades. As an example of the most blatant kind, let's try page 33 of I Hope You Die Soon by Richard Sylvester
.
Words can only describe phenomena. Liberation is neither a phenomena nor a collection of phenomena.

Nevertheless if there is to be a discourse about anything, including liberation, it can only be carried on in words.

All language is suspect. But in this book the following words should be regarded with especial suspicion and always be read as if in quotation marks because the assumptio contained in each of them is false:

mind person past future now then time place here there I you me choice freedom

The word "I" in the sentence "I am happy" has exactly the same force as the word "It" in the sentence "It is raininng." There is no "It". There is no "I". Rain simply falls. Happiness simply arises.
Most writing that purports to be about non-duality is absolutely dualistic. As soon as a writer suggests that there is someone who can do something to bring about liberation, you are reading nonsense. Often it will be highly articulate, fluent, complex and persuasive nonsense."
Not the only one who says things like this by a long chalk, and I'm sure many buddhists say things like that too. Indeed, they should.

   The word "arahant" is itself "dualistic nonsense." To say, "I am an arahant" is a contradiction in terms. Sufis never say they are sufis.

   The only enlightened one is the buddha, the christ, the lord of light, the unique; that One whom we all are. This "lone brightness here listening to the dharma."

   I agree with sylvester, but might say that "highly articulate, fluent, complex and persuasive nonsense" is not as dangerous as actual insights expressed articulately but without any practical application. 

   Anyone can speak truth, babes and drunks can be articulate and apposite: what does truth mean, what is its value? Words express what is within the speaker. Insight is more than restating the obvious, it is about opening up to new ideas, a higher order of integration. Achieving a new balance in the present moment. Waking up.

terry

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 9:56 PM as a reply to S..
S.:
I
That said, in your thought experiment I do wonder what kind of world or language enlightened people would build. Perhaps concepts connected to enlightenment or the experience of enlightenment or meditation might be expanded, used more commonly, and many sub-terms would be developed? Twenty flavors of impermanence. I am not sure how different the world be, but hopefully at least a little better. Perhaps people would be less reactive, and would process mammal bodies and sensory information differently? Perhaps the world would be better at Dharma diagnosis.

Language is probably also affected by the environment and environmental needs around it (such as having more words for snow in wintry countries, or more words for technology and logical concepts in certain languages). I suspect there could be structural connections in your scenario between enlightened masses, landscape, technology, and the word. It wouldn't just be language that might change.


tao te ching, trans witter bynner:


80.

If a land is small and its people are few,
With tenfold enough to have and to do,
And if no one has schooled them to waste supply
In the country for which they live and would die,
Then not a boat, not a cart
Tempts this people to depart,
Not a dagger, not a bow
Has to be drawn or bent for show,
People reckon by knots in a cord,
Relish plain food on the board,
Simple clothing suits them well,
And they remain content to dwell
In homes their customs can afford.
Though so close to their own town another town grow
They can hear its dogs bark and its roosters crow,
Yet glad of life in the village they know,
Where else in the world shall they need to go?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 10:07 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Yeah I hadn't thought of it that way - change happens to a thing but what happens when there's no thing ?

A human, awakened or not, has a personality, thinks, speaks, uses ordinary dualistic language, etc. You can call that a self.

When one digs deep into practice, one may see the sense of agency lessen. What is realized is that this self is simply a complex system of inputs and outputs. More importantly, the mind realizes that the sense of a "self" being in control is illusory. The part of mind that has been playing this role of agent then relaxes its attempts to control or change what unfolds.

Obviously, hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain and emotions still occur within the mind of the organism and it makes the necessary adjustments, but the sense that some self-referencing mechanism is controlling it fades. There's just awareness and happening. Everything and nothing. No "self". 

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/26/19 10:34 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
[quote=Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö

]
And what if they were to fall in love with each other? Wouldn’t they want to enjoy being embedded in that experience of meeting each other as individuals on a more mammalian level? They are not all monastics, after all. And if they would not have any such interest, there would be no point to asking the question since that society would only last for one generation anyway.
   
aloha linda,

   Arahants in love brings to mind the idea of eros, god of love. Do arahants have erotic impulses? Humans do, certainly. 

   Freud understood the idea of sublimation, the elevation of instinctive impulses to higher functionality, but felt it was his job to deal with abnormal psychology and not with healthy functioning. "Sublimation" actually refers to the transition of a solid directly to a vapor, skipping the liquid phase, as with dry ice.
  
   When does love of "other" become love of god? When arahant loves arahant? Two lovers try to crawl inside each other, try to become one; are not arahants already one? Is this felt as erotic?

   All love songs are actually about god, the only real subject/object of love. We fall in love with a projection of the god(dess). How could an arahant not fall in love with an arahant? Inner and outer become one.

terry



Suzanne
(leonard cohen)


Suzanne takes you down
To her place by the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China
And just when you mean to tell her
That you have no love to give her
Then she gets you on her wavelength
And she lets the river answer
That you've always been her lover

And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind

And Jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
He said "All men will be sailors then
Until the sea shall free them"
But he himself was broken
Long before the sky would open
Forsaken, almost human
He sank beneath your wisdom like a stone

And you want to travel with him,
And you want to travel blind
And you think you maybe you'll trust him
For he's touched your perfect body with her mind

Now, Suzanne takes your hand
and she leads you to the river
She's wearing rags and feathers
From Salvation Army counters
And the sun pours down like honey
On our lady of the harbor
And she shows you where to look
Among the garbage and the flowers
There are heroes in the seaweed, 
There are children in the morning
They are leaning out for love
And they wil lean that way forever
While Suzanne holds her mirror

And you want to travel with her,
And you want to travel blind
And you know that you can trust her
For she's touched your perfect body with her mind


 

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 12:35 AM as a reply to terry.
They certainly do seem to have erotic impulses.

I have always felt that love is seeing the divine in somebody. That feeling can have a hook in it, too, though. After the assumed stream entry, I feel that something has changed in how I love people, so I guess it might be even more different for arahants in some way, but I have no doubts that love remains - including romantic love. I do doubt - highly doubt - that they would all automatically fall in love with each other or even like each other.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 12:58 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
No I do it for real.

Stickman2, I don't think you actually meditate. If you did, even with a little bit of sincerity, you wouldn't be asking the questions you ask and making the arguments you make. So I think you ask your questions and make your arguments for your own entertainment. Most of your comments and questions are rejections of what folks here experience, or of Buddhism in general. And you ask them over and over again even though various people here answer them honestly and to the best of their ability. You're acting like a troll. Are you a troll?

I'd appreciate an honest answer and not a deflection like the one above.





   How cynical, how suspicious, of chris to think some nefarious individuals would sneak onto this forum and post about enlightenment, even initiate interesting and popular threads, when they may not even currently meditate. Or perhaps don't meditate regularly. Or formally. Such people should be shot...I mean, called names and put on the spot, no deflections allowed. Confess, troll: do you now or have you ever meditated? Be honest, troll: are you now or have you ever been a troll?

   And, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

emoticon

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 2:02 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
They certainly do seem to have erotic impulses.

I have always felt that love is seeing the divine in somebody. That feeling can have a hook in it, too, though. After the assumed stream entry, I feel that something has changed in how I love people, so I guess it might be even more different for arahants in some way, but I have no doubts that love remains - including romantic love. I do doubt - highly doubt - that they would all automatically fall in love with each other or even like each other.


"I never met a man I didn't like."
(will rogers)



   You miss my point, dear.

   Consider plato's erotic affair with the young dion. The (greek) philosopher's erotic impulse is to engage young men in the (mutual) lifelong love of wisdom. The classic reference is to the night the most beautiful young man of his generation, alcibiades, managed to get socrates into bed. Despite all alcibiades could do to seduce him, socrates would talk philosophy all night but that was all. Plato took great risks and traveled from greece to italy to try to aid dion to govern syracuse wisely. These relationships were erotic but not sexual. Sublimated. Socrates saw himself as a spiritual "midwife" helping young men bring their innate ideas to birth. Sufis see themselves as nursing mothers. Zen masters are grandmothers.

   Love is indeed seeing the divine in someone, but not necessarily wanting to have sex with it. There imay be a powerful, passionate, erotic urge to join souls. Sexuality sublimated to spiritual congress. The vast bulk of persian poetry, most of it spiritual, uses erotic symbolism.

terry





SOME KISS WE WANT
(rumi/barks)

There is some kiss we want with our whole lives,
the touch of spirit on the body.
Seawater begs the pearl to break its shell.
And the lily, how passionately
it needs some wild darling!

At night, I open the window and ask
the moon to come and press its
face against mine.
Breathe into me. Close
the language-door and open the love-window.
The moon won’t use the door,
only the window.


the (too long to post) story of sheikh san'an from attar's classic "the conference of the birds" is the completest story, and can be found here, with a little digging:

http://thekingdomwithin.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/The_Conference_of_the_Birds_Fardiuddin_Attar.pdf
 

 
 
 

 

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 2:32 AM as a reply to terry.
Yeah, well, I just felt the need to balance it up a bit, as there are other connotations as well.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 5:01 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
I see nothing in that quote that indicates that he would only use pronouns to communicate with unenlightened people. He is merely pointing out the limitations of language. Of course language is limited. It is like a map. Its purpose is to simplify reality to make it easier to deal with. A map that was as nuanced as reality would be useless. It would be like bringing another earth in order to find your way on this planet. It wouldn’t help one bit.


Using the language of the self when there isn't such a thing is more than just a lack of nuance. You're mapping a terrain with no actual features, and maybe not even any land.


   Right. To think, "I am hungry" or "I am tired"- and to believe that these things are true -  is identification, attachment. To see insightfully that these are simply fleeting thoughts and to let them go without further comment or attention is non-attachment, non-identification.

   Awareness - that is, manifestation, existence - is "a shoreless sea" (ibn arabi). Dogen likens awareness to a man on a raft in the middle of the ocean. An amoeba perceives a chemical gradient and interprets it as its world, a world of food and sex much like our own, with hills and valleys, beaches and rough places. Reality - as opposed to manifestation -  is beyond imagining. Everywhere we look we create existence, as though spraying a multisensory coat of world onto a (putative) ground of unworld (voidness). 

   All our science, all our technology, is really no more remarkable than an anthill. What nature does elegantly at room temperature with proteins, science takes great temperatures and pressures to accomplish crudely. We stitch where nature knits.

   There is a story in the mahabharata where draupadi, wife of the five pandava brothers, is lost to evil king duryodhana in a crooked dice game. The king orders his henchman to strip off her sari as she was now a slave. The salient passage goes:

“40. Then Duhsasana, O king, forcibly pulled off Draupadi’s garment in the middle of the assembly, and began to strip her. 
41. But whenever one of Draupadi’s garments was removed, O king, another similar garment repeatedly appeared. 
42. Then there rose a mighty roar of approval—a terrible roar from all the kings watching the greatest wonder in the world.”

   The five pandava brothers represent the senses, their common wife draupadi, the mind. No matter how you strip away your conception of reality, another conception, another hallucination, immediately appears to replace the old. The illusion of becoming, of impermanence, never stops.

   Whether we encounter individual existence or collective existence, there is more to reality than meets the eye.

terry

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 4:24 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
Well, please read the guidelines for yourself: https://www.dharmaoverground.org/faqs

What is inappropriate?

Seeking attention in a personal manner, speculating about half-understood concepts, guessing instead of finding out, and being dogmatic and closed-minded.



Chris Marti
DhO Moderator



lol...

heheheheh

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 4:35 AM as a reply to terry.
terry:
Chris Marti:
Well, please read the guidelines for yourself: https://www.dharmaoverground.org/faqs

What is inappropriate?

Seeking attention in a personal manner, speculating about half-understood concepts, guessing instead of finding out, and being dogmatic and closed-minded.



Chris Marti
DhO Moderator



lol...

heheheheh

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


tao te ching, trans witter bynner:


27.

One may move so well that a foot-print never shows,
Speak so well that the tongue never slips,
Reckon so well that no counter is needed,
Seal an entrance so tight, though using no lock,
That it cannot be opened,
Bind a hold so firm, though using no cord,
That it cannot be untied.
And these are traits not only of a sound man
But of many a man thought to be unsound.
A sound man is good at salvage,
At seeing that nothing is lost.
Having what is called insight,
A good man, before he can help a bad man,
Finds in himself the matter with the bad man.
And whichever teacher
Discounts the lesson
Is as far off the road as the other,
Whatever else he may know.
That is the heart of it.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 5:15 AM as a reply to S..
S.:
When you do kasina practice, like with looking at a candle flame and then looking at the after-image with your eyes closed, you will see a dot appear and disappear. It will move around sometimes the way you want and sometimes out of your control like a floater in your eye. At some point it starts flashing, or twinkling like a star.

If that happens the 'twinkling' you are seeing is the better definition of impermanence. Moment-to-moment change that can be perceived. It can be found in all the senses.

More things in your vision can look like pixels or TV snow.

   I used to entertain myself during long stretches of meditation by watching the "floaters" go by on my eyeballs, stuff I actually had to learn to see. It's was like watching clouds. Since I would rather not be bothered with floaters when not sitting, I stopped watching them. First you don't see floaters, then you see them, and then you don't.

t

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 5:33 AM as a reply to terry.
Hmm... I have floaters all the time, while sitting, while not sitting. Must be a function of my age   emoticon

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/27/19 6:17 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
I don't know what exactly floaters mean in this conversations, but I often see tiny little dark dots moving around, and since doing meditation in these two years, I often see the light in front of me flickering, sometimes very rapidly. And sometimes these cloud like visuals appear in front of me, mostly white, moving and flickering.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/28/19 6:31 AM as a reply to Siavash.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/28/19 8:09 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:


Thanks. I have had them since childhood then, though they are not always present, and since starting meditation, they appear more if I practice on the murk and the nimita.

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/29/19 5:52 AM as a reply to Nick O.
Nick O:
Stickman2:
Yeah I hadn't thought of it that way - change happens to a thing but what happens when there's no thing ?

A human, awakened or not, has a personality, thinks, speaks, uses ordinary dualistic language, etc. You can call that a self.

When one digs deep into practice, one may see the sense of agency lessen. What is realized is that this self is simply a complex system of inputs and outputs. More importantly, the mind realizes that the sense of a "self" being in control is illusory. The part of mind that has been playing this role of agent then relaxes its attempts to control or change what unfolds.

Obviously, hunger, thirst, fatigue, pain and emotions still occur within the mind of the organism and it makes the necessary adjustments, but the sense that some self-referencing mechanism is controlling it fades. There's just awareness and happening. Everything and nothing. No "self". 

Ah that puts the finger on something. Does that sense of self-referencing fade to nothing ? Wouldn't that be no self ?

RE: What would language be like in an enlightened world ?
Answer
8/29/19 9:49 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
It's not assumption it's a response to what enlightened people say. If they didn't say there was no self, then I wouldn't say those things.

Lets take the buddha as some authority on "being heaps enlightened". Well, he went silent on this. He didn't say "there is no self" or "no self exists". This is a subtle but important teaching. That all arisen phenomena have characteristics: anicca, dukkha, anatta is different to existential/ontological statements. He was all about de-coupling from becoming emoticon 

Ananda Sutta, SN44:10

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html 

Also, there's a sutta (I can't find it but I spent a good 20 minutes searching) where the buddha is directly asked why does he still use the word "I" or refer to himself & then answers. IF anyone can remember the name of it, please let me know, emoticon