Language and development

thumbnail
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

Language and development

Posts: 22924 Join Date: 8/6/09 Recent Posts
Author: garyrh
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

This thread continues from a blocked thread.
Adam said from http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/thread/2704822/Responses+to+Realization+and+Development?offset=280

Hi Jackson,

Good points! You hit it on the head with your final comment. Even in the lens of non-duality, language and discrimination continues to function. Hence the lens of non-duality is not dependent on the presence or absence of language. That is my only point. :-) Which is what I was pointing to when I said even the enlightened woman can pick out and name the cup.

In kind regards,

Adam.
thumbnail
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

RE: Language and development

Posts: 22924 Join Date: 8/6/09 Recent Posts
Author: garyrh

I just want to clarify what I understand Adam is saying.
Yes the world is being experienced, and experience can move upstream of experience but never outside experience. The source is not experience and as such cannot know the source. With respect to the source; experience, langauge and thought are synomous. And yes phenomena is always interpreted but being able to move upstream to the source is not about a state without phenomena, rather knowing the source is realising the manner in which phenomena is conditioning the experience.
In summary there can be no ultimate knowing of how phenomena is conditioning the experience with the tools of language, thought or experience. This is the non dual lens, so whether or not language is a first or second order overlay is something for the yogi to discover but to debate it, is a red herring when considering non dual practice.
thumbnail
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

RE: Language and development

Posts: 658 Join Date: 5/14/09 Recent Posts
or it (language) is not an overlay at all (for 'onto what' would it overlay?), which means that we cannot separate language from formations, nor from perception; as such, phenomena is not 'conditioning experience' but is itself creating it.
thumbnail
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

RE: Language and development

Posts: 22924 Join Date: 8/6/09 Recent Posts
Author: garyrh

A simple example just to illustrate, if the construct of numbers is extended whereby there is significance in the number itself, for example the number 13 is unlucky so seeing 13 cows or 13 cats is unlucky. Of course the construct was created in phenomena (the idea the number 13 is unlucky is created in phenomena). But the application of a construct conditions the experience ( I am unlucky because I saw 13 cows, conditions the experience of seeing the cows).

One could also add Karma to this mix ...

In summary phenomena both conditions and creates the experience. In fact, for that which phenomena creates in the experience it is able to move upstream. (Experience can recognise the belief in number 13 being unlucky is empty).

[Edit] In considering how is language is conditioning the experience one potentially moves upstream
thumbnail
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

RE: Language and development

Posts: 22924 Join Date: 8/6/09 Recent Posts
Author: garyrh

It overlays on phenomena. Phenomena is compounded, the concept of moving upstream is to move to "simpler" ( I cannot think of a better word) phenomena. The moving upstream stops at the source, the simplist thing. I am putting the case that the source cannot be phenomena and therefore cannot be realised with the tools of phenomena. However as others have said, one can get very close to the source with the tools of phenomena so I am not putting one practice over another, except to say whatever works best in moving upstream.

[edit] I have assumed no one is considering language to be the source. ( Did I need to even mention this!)
Wet Paint, modified 11 Years ago.

RE: Language and development

Posts: 0 Join Date: 8/22/09 Recent Posts
This is simply where some of us would disagree. But it really does not matter. If it creates a mess in your mind or if you disagree, then it is not a useful tool for investigation nor for helping you understand anything. If you see it from the other perspective, then it is a good and useful tool in nearly every part of investigation. That's what it boils down to. We need not resurrect an age old debate. If there's still a nagging in the back of your head, read the popular subject matter on the issue.

Breadcrumb