Circumstance and Words

[Within Silence]

Thank you all for your replies, I'm glad some of you enjoyed it. I find words fascinating, and my nature is such as to dive as deeply into a subject as possible to get to the bottom of it. So, I have spent a fair amount of time in the study of words and this writing was an expression of whats been revealed. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

Thank you all for your replies, I'm glad some of you enjoyed it. I find words fascinating, and my nature is such as to dive as deeply into a subject as possible to get to the bottom of it. So, I have spent a fair amount of time in the study of words and this writing was an expression of whats been revealed. Thank you for taking the time to read it.

It was awesome, and I would love to see more.

[iamjufa]

In my observation of issues as presented here, one must go even into the genetic code of the earth which flesh is formed of. to me, The genetic code of humanism is not a concept to me, it is a way I've found the universal human mind recycles and keeps itself alive. Mankind, also I've discovered, is the only privileged expression of Spirit's infinite eternal actions underlining sentient minds with the ability of seeing different alternative ways of demonstrating the activity of living by thought interpretation. To be sure, this statement does not include adaptation to survive which plants and animals demonstrate. Now the only way for any thought to come to life, in sentient beings, and invade individual worlds come down to one things, and one things only, whether the individual will allow dual spirits into their minds, and give them room and board. By giving dual spirits - [Dr. Jekyll and Mr.Hyde] - room and board, they then become permanent squatters feeding and finding longevity of life from the owner of earth's activated thinking mind.

Man's universal human mind needs a body to invade to intrude into an individuals consciousness. And when an individual lock these spirits into thinking process by taking them personally, such not only keeps them alive, but become man's true children.

Each day, moment and second man's mind birth children of thoughts from the womb of projection. Men then nurture them, and these thought children live and grow according to how the projecting thinker have reared them by continuous thinking and acceptance and demonstration them to the world of flesh.

When the Scriptures states "Bring up a child in the way he should go," they are telling mankind about its own thought children. This is why each and every individual must be careful what they think, say, act, and react according to their thought, for they represent the Principle 'everything after its kind, and this is representing the Principle of God, believe it or not.

We are expressing our God by demonstrating Him/Her/It in harmony with our human interpreted expressions of circumstance, situations, conditions and environs we believe to be unfitting or fitting our God's images and likeness. jufa

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[lancing]

I like simple observances.

1. A person's words, written or otherwise, can reveal their perceptions, their judgments, and their limitations.

2. Humans are complicated.

3. Silence is simple. The understanding is in the practice.

4. A human can only speak their own truth, so truth is rarely spoken and often misunderstood. A great argument for silence.

5. Judgment is often spoken and rarely understood. A great argument for silence.

6. A wise man who speaks may become famous. A wise man who does not speak may become invisible. Which is better? *shrugs*

7. The teaching is in the words. Understanding comes through living them, not through repeating them.

8. Why do we construct boxes then live within their confines? Is their not space outside of those boxes?

9. What is truly to be gained from the judgment of another's words or anything really?

10. Generalities will never explain individuals, and what is the purpose of such knowledge anyway?

11. For humans, knowledge is as much a burden as it is a gift.

If I said that those are all words from famous...thinkers what then would be their significance?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

Everything we say is a reflection of us, not that which we are pointing to with the words we use to describe it. If one says; “I hate this place” they are revealing that they hate. Their statement is not about “this place” but rather reveals the dislike they have about it. All circumstances are neutral, what’s positive or negative about the circumstance is only your perception of it, thus revealed by your description (the words you use) of it. Thus, the words you are using to describe the circumstance reveals how you are inside, not anything about the circumstance. In other words, you may label a circumstance as bad, and someone else may call it good, thus revealing that the circumstance itself is neither, hence its neutral, because if the circumstance itself held absolute power then both partakers in the circumstance would describe it the same way. Another principle I'd like to point out is that regardless of how you label a circumstance it cannot change what's taken place, or "what is." For example you're watching a sports event and a player does something in contrast to what you "thought" he should have done and so you express your discontent with many negatively charged expletives. What this is revealing is that you're suffering because of your own un-acceptance of "what is". Notice that the basis for your suffering is the result of an attempt to change the past, which cannot be done, the player did what he did and all your expletives and suffering in the world cannot cause it to be any other way than it actually is. These principles are what the Stoic Philosopher Epictetus was revealing in his statement; “Circumstances don't make the man, they only reveal him to himself” and others I would add, those of us silent observer types. And also his statement: “People are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them.” Hence, its your perception about the circumstance which causes you to feel the way you do, not the circumstance itself.

Going a step further, what about those things we use to describe circumstance, those things that have humanity so enchanted and spellbound, to use Alan Watts description? Let's have a look.

Is not the pen far mightier than the sword? For is it not only after the word is given that the war begins? Is it not only after the word is heard that our reaction happens? So then by this deduction words are a cause and we are their effect, which reveals the immense power mere words seem to hold, as, do not humans kill for them, do harm because of words? Take a moment if you will, and just imagine all the emotional and physical harm caused by the hand of words. Please reflect upon all the blood that’s been spilled by the hand of words, and realize that the words themselves have never said or done a thing! To recognize the truth in those statements may send shockwaves of alarm through its reader, and it should, as the realization sets in that it is you and I who are behind how we react to words, that it’s you and I who do the harming, not the words themselves, as we are the ones moved by and reacting to them. Thus, we, the entity that both speaks and hears the words, that which is moved to action by them, yes even the awareness which is ever prior to them and reading these words written here right now, this entity is truly that which holds the immense power behind words, not the words themselves. For it is you and I, all of humanity in fact that has the choice to choose what words we are going to speak and how we shall or shall not react to the words we hear. Hence, the only true power words have is that which you and I grant them, so let this revealing serve as a giant wake up call for all of us to see just how truly powerful we are, as the state of ourselves, how we shall feel as we go through life is the direct result of our own understanding of the words we use and hear in relation to how we identify ourselves with them, and how we choose to react to them. If one looks deep enough into them self, into the origination or words, it may see that no word has any power inherent within itself to cause one to be moved, for all words arise from silence and return to it, thus words are a temporary phenomenon which serve only to point to something, hence no word is the thing it points to and that which it points to is not the word used to describe it. Words are symbols, abstractions of reality used to help us through this world, yet we, you and I are the only power words have, for without our belief in their validity they hold no power of their own. This is easily seen when one asks itself; “from where do words come from?” Are there words growing out of the ground? Are their words swimming in the water? Are there words flying in the sky? Can we touch and hold them? Then from what magical source is their power derived? What is it that generates words and gives them their power? We do, the collective consciousness. Thus, we hold all the power for the type of world we shall create, for we create with words and thus we have no one else to blame for the present world we are living in. Now, going forward, how do you want to feel as you go through life, and what type of world do you want to create? The type of world we create resides in the words we choose to speak and how we respond/react to the words we hear. “For God spoke the world into existence,” this statement is pointing to something very profound! Wake up! This creative/destructive process is an ongoing one, for we are created in the image and likeness of God, thus we must possess this same awesome power to create or destroy with the words we choose to speak and also our reactions to them. As one so eloquently stated: “It is not what goes into your mouth that will defile you, but what comes out of it.” Choose your words carefully, once spoken they cannot be taken back. One who understands the purpose of words, which has moved beyond the limitations of words, who is no longer enchanted or spellbound by them, this one is truly free.

I start off with the opposite view that what a person says doesn't define them. As far as I can tell, words can be harmful, just as a baseball bat can be harmful, or harmless, depending on how it is used. In this sense I'd agree that words are mightier than the sword. The world itself is not created by words, but society is basically built on discourse. I understand language and it's uses, so the way I put it is, words don't merely say things; they also do things. Mainly, persuade people, and are tied into power through the expert the parent... Where some voices are more powerful than others. For example there are times I've said a thing and it's pooh poohed, but if I can find an authority, an expert, and quote them, then it's suddenly valid. I mean, isn't that why you quote notable sources? Because their social position lends credibility to what you say? Isn't the name of God called on for the same reason, the highest of authority, the doctrine of world religion as the artifact of knowledge which imbues your passage with power?

If I turned the things you said into a reflection of you, that would be the discourse creating the author, and not the author creating words. That how it works, say, if I wrote a book and it was acclaimed by literary peers, or even celebrities, the I am created as the author-ity, and could be requoted the Watts or Epictetus are, and exert a similar powerful affect.

[Shivani Devi]

It all depends on the old 'ad hominem' principle anyway. You may be a drunkard and people will say "oh, you can't believe anything that guy writes because he was probably smashed out of his mind when he wrote it"...like this:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.” - Omar Khayyam.

[Within Silence]

If a king and a beggar speak the same words, which words are the truth?

[Within Silence]

Originally Posted by Gem

I start off with the opposite view that what a person says doesn't define them. As far as I can tell, words can be harmful, just as a baseball bat can be harmful, or harmless, depending on how it is used. In this sense I'd agree that words are mightier than the sword. The world itself is not created by words, but society is basically built on discourse. I understand language and it's uses, so the way I put it is, words don't merely say things; they also do things. Mainly, persuade people, and are tied into power through the expert the parent... Where some voices are more powerful than others. For example there are times I've said a thing and it's pooh poohed, but if I can find an authority, an expert, and quote them, then it's suddenly valid. I mean, isn't that why you quote notable sources? Because their social position lends credibility to what you say? Isn't the name of God called on for the same reason, the highest of authority, the doctrine of world religion as the artifact of knowledge which imbues your passage with power?

If I turned the things you said into a reflection of you, that would be the discourse creating the author, and not the author creating words. That how it works, say, if I wrote a book and it was acclaimed by literary peers, or even celebrities, the I am created as the author-ity, and could be requoted the Watts or Epictetus are, and exert a similar powerful affect.

Your reply defines you, how can it not, you said it, no one else did.

Not the discourse creating the author, but the discourse revealing the author, as the discourse comes after the author not prior to it thus it cannot create the author but only be a reflection of it. We need to drop the container and focus on the contents coming out of the container, in other words, drop who is speaking the words and just listen to what the words themselves are pointing to. Too often we are swayed by our own prejudices and discrimination to hear the truth a beggar speaks and yet we believe everything the king says! Why? Do not words speak for themselves?



“When someone tells you, “I love you,” and then you feel, “Oh, I must be worthy after all,” that’s an illusion. That’s not true. Or someone says, “I hate you,” and you think, “Oh, God, I knew it; I’m not very worthy,” that’s not true either. Neither one of these thoughts hold any intrinsic reality. They are an overlay. When someone says, “I love you,” he is telling you about himself, not you. When someone says, “I hate you,” she is telling you about herself, not you. World views are self views—literally" ― Adyashanti

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Within Silence

Your reply defines you, how can it not, you said it, no one else did.

I don't know how it defines me because I think and say it, then its gone and I don't think it anymore.

Not the discourse creating the author, but the discourse revealing the author, as the discourse comes after the author not prior to it thus it cannot create the author but only be a reflection of it. We need to drop the container and focus on the contents coming out of the container, in other words, drop who is speaking the words and just listen to what the words themselves are pointing to. Too often we are swayed by our own prejudices and discrimination to hear the truth a beggar speaks and yet we believe everything the king says! Why? Do not words speak for themselves?

Yep, I just listen to understand what people mean by what they say, and have little to no concern with any underlying truth.

“When someone tells you, “I love you,” and then you feel, “Oh, I must be worthy after all,” that’s an illusion. That’s not true. Or someone says, “I hate you,” and you think, “Oh, God, I knew it; I’m not very worthy,” that’s not true either. Neither one of these thoughts hold any intrinsic reality. They are an overlay. When someone says, “I love you,” he is telling you about himself, not you. When someone says, “I hate you,” she is telling you about herself, not you. World views are self views—literally" ― Adyashanti

Quoting Adyashanti is like imbuing words with authority, because Adyashanti is supposedly a spiritual master or something, and that somehow makes what he says more believable (but it doesn't). The actual meaning is what you explain and Adyashanti is employed to give what you mean more gravity because he's supposedly and authoritative expert on everything, and somehow more credible than you are. I do it all the time: cite reputable people who do serious research and invent great theories because it's a way of influencing people to change their views. For example, the main research thrust in violence against women these days is aimed at getting the knowledge to convince men to change their attitudes toward women. We can't honestly say that we are not persuaded in our self impressions and points of view by others, particularly 'expert' and/or 'authority' figures.

For me, who's read a lot on human development and psychological therapy, what Adyashanti said seems a little shallow and ill considered. It like sounds a 'cute theory' (but presented as a golden truth), and it doesn't really apply to the dynamics of real life relationships. In my interactions with people I have no particular way of explaining shifting interpersonal dynamics in changing environments. Indeed we can take statistics and show that those who were constantly told 'I hate you', and similarly abused, internalise it within their psyche, while those treated more kindly fare much better with happiness and confidence and so forth. Yet taking a retrospective causal approach to individual outcomes doesn't always add up either. I had to study a lot of different life/mind theories to develop a well rounded framework in which to makes sense of the outcomes of a range of different individuals. I don't but any of it, but I understand a lot of it. I know what they mean, and I get their points, but none of the have come up with 'the answer'. The biggest delusion of them all is having the answer. The whole thing is always changing and no one can put their finger on it.

What is a person who says 'I hate you' actually saying about me? Nothing? I don't think so. I think the statement refers not to himself or me in particular, but to the dynamics of the interpersonal relationship that lies between us at a particular time in certain circumstaces. There's no particular fact about that person or myself contained in it, but a description of the whole interaction.

[Busby]

It's not words that create or destroy - it's thoughts.

Words are an expression of what we think. In Buddhism, as an example, you are told to get your thoughts under control and only speak when the words you utter will do no harm and add to life's purpose.

Thoughts, Words, Deeds.

The unhappiness and terror on this planet stems from thoughtless words.

Words turn into action.