A word is a breath around which we wrap our mouths to speak symbolically of an existential sensation. A word is not the sensation itself. A written word is twice removed from it's source, a symbol of a symbol. Words of themselves mean nothing to salvation at large because to do so would mean that the word spoken is interpreted the same way by all people all the time, and we know this does not happen. It is the sponsoring spirit that holds the key to meaning and it is the extension of spirit that leads to salvation. Belief of itself cannot lead to salvation for everyone as there are many beliefs. But there is one thing we can surely be in concurrence with, that we may find the truth, our salvation, by keeping the sayings of christ. God's word became flesh when he breathed life into man.
Well this term, "the word of God," pertains to the sense that 'word' is identical to the term 'logos.' Or the mold. The mold by which the whole sense of a thing is given. In other words, the very plan from the outset. In Sanskrit the similar meaning is given in the use of the word 'vach.' Vach means word. But in Sanskrit teachings of the Sanatana Dharma vach has many levels. Including where the word is first considered as in the mind as a thought.
Symbols of sensational awareness. You may be incrementally aware which would affect your interpretation. The word spoken is not the thing itself. Can you provide examples of words that do not have an experiential conjugation?
Okay, though I'm not sure what 'experential conjugation' is supposed to mean. Suppose I say "I am in pain". Couldn't that have a multitude of meanings depending on the circumstances surrounding my saying it? I could be: -expressing my feeling of pain; -faking an expression of pain; -saying it as an actor on a stage; -mocking my friend's use of those words; -repeating the words after my teacher says them (eg a student in school) I certainly wouldn't say the words in each of those circumstances correspond to a symbol representing a 'sensational awareness', though one could say that they are accompanied by awareness of something. But let's say I go to a remote tribe that doesn't know english. I teach them a number of words, but not their meaning. So I teach them to vocalize "I", "am", "in" and "pain", and ask them to say them in that order. What exactly are they expressing that is internal when they say those words?
Words are symbols. you are correct the words we use to tell the truth look exactly like the words we use to tell a lie, however that a word has meaning at all, has it's inception in experience. You are taught to associate a particular sound pattern or symbol to a particular experience. Through association with the definition of a word symbol in all of it's conjugations, or potential meanings, we may access levels of experience without having undertaken the trip ourselves. For example, I could tell you that zebras live in africa. We have to have a common meaning for the symbols for them to work as communication. How the word form takes it shape is incremental, that is language has developed over time to account for new understanding. We have words now like computer that did exist at another time. A way that a word develops incrementally is that it begins with a whole tone, an emission from the gut so to speak, a vowel, which is then given taste or interpretation by the facility of the tongue, creating consonants. If you open your mouth and let out a primal expression of being, it might sound like ahhhhhh, and if you were to close you mouth during that expression without the inflection of the tongue and put the resultant vibrations together, you get the word aum or om. Our first word, an expression of supreme being. I am not saying that this is exactly our first word, but it was something like it. As we become more functionally aware our language becomes richer and we begin to venture into the world of metaphor and abstraction, however all still relevant to experience.
Am I really? Someone pokes me with a stick and I say "ouch". Have I been taught to do this? What am I expressing here, and is it designed for communication? Suppose instead of "ouch" I say "mandragora", what function and meaning does that word have now? Where do you, standing next to me, fit into the picture? I think for words to evolve, they must first be useful for something. If they are to have 'expression of being' as their fundamental basis, that must have had a function when speech originated. I don't say this is not possible, but that we must take into account more than the communicator to understand what words are.
In spanish they might say aye to express that pain or surprise. You notice that it has that guttural vowel heavy tone. That you say ouch instead of aye is a matter of cultural example which is initially determined by local conditions, predominant food sources, prevailing whether etc.. As for the function of language, it is obviously for communication. What is communicated are existential conditions. The word condition comes from syllables meaning to speak with. it always takes two or more to communicate a condition. The, "more than just the communicator" stems from the fact that the i am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself. I don't mean the descriptions that you use to describe who you are, but those mammalian brain chemicals that represent the organization of experience in you and in me, are identical.
The meaning of levels of words is that they are secret, inner, outer and gross. The finer and more interior the word the closer it is to the original impulse. The original impulse is to communicate or create. That is the secret. By secret, it doesn't mean secret like mystery, but hidden within the word. This level is merely in the spirit. Then the inner is the idea, the outer is the speaking, the gross is the written. The point of this teaching is to be thorough, as the Vedas are. The source of this teaching is the Vyakarana.
I see so words begin unbounded and are progressively quantified. Absolute, apprehension of the impulse, articulation, writing. I have thought to unbind myself from symbols, and in that process, I have not found the necessity to differentiate the impulse. Language exists for the sake of communication in a world of symbols. Bodies representing the spirit that endows them animation. As you say, there is a point to teaching, and that is, to no longer be needed.
The salvation of the great androgynous body of mankind, of male and female cells, which is the expanding and pregnant body of Eve, in which the heir to the throne of Godhead is developing, lays in the birth of the perfected child of God, The "Son of Man," who Justifies the body in which he was conceived and from which He is born with the death of the mother body, when the umbilical cord that binds our invisible Son to this visible three dimensional body, is severed. For the woman is saved through childbirth. Which birth will occur at the close of the great Sabbath, when Satan is released and fire will descend from heaven and incinerate all physical life forms on this planet,. When Adam died in the first day, at the age of 930, Eve asked him, when she would follow him and was told that she would die in six days time, that is, at the close of the Sabbath, "The Day of the Lord," the seventh period of one thousand years from the first day in which Adam died. When Michael had prepared the body of Adam and placed his sarcophagus in the mountain where the door opens to receive the body of Adam and the four sacred tokens, where it was sealed, in order that no one could do anything to the body of Adam until his rib will have returned to him; Michael turned to Eve and her son Seth, and said, "Weep not beyond six day, but then sing Hallaluyah, and rejoice for the righteous soul that this day has been taken from you.
You tell nice stories, but your premises are garbled even though it appears to you a magnificent and tidy "model of things". Our creator did not not create our body, we are created, male and female creative principle, not born body of body, man and lesser man, wo-man. We made the body. It is a communication device not the container of soul, and this mis-identification is the sum total of shame.
Yea, when you can speak in a language that can be underrstood by we, who are the minds/spirits that have developed within these created bodies, from the information that is taken in through the senses of these bodies, which were created from the information/spirit that was gathered through all our ancestors, human and prehuman, then come back, and perhaps you may be able to debate intelligently. If that body in which "YOU" the personality was conceived and is continuing to evolve, were born without the sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, then "YOU" would never have come into existence. Within that lump of squirming unconsciounce meat, would exist, that which was in the beginning and had evolved to become the body in which you could have been conceived as a potential Son of God, but the inner ancestral being, can only experience this three dimensional world though the mind/spirit that develops within, from all the infomation that is taken in through the senses of his Tabernacle. As the greatest Bard, who has ever walked this earth once said: Then of the Thee in Me who works behind The Veil, I lifted up my hands to find A lamp amid the Darkness; and I heard, As from Without---The Me in Thee is Blind....By Omar Khayyam.
Is there some point that you do not comprehend? You seem to want to pussy out when something substantial pushes back at your bombastic diatribe. I am here, now.
If God has a voice, it is the one in the back of your head that you ignore, then curse yourself for later. You probably have no idea how effective it can be to just listen and stop letting external voices tell you what to do and what to believe. Going with my inner, primal flow has gotten me to some amazing places.
