Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 22-04-2017, 05:48 PM
Bohdiyana Bohdiyana is offline
Suspended
Guide
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 406
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
That is a good example since it refers to visible objects. Empirically in the context of objects of the five senses linguistic agreements happen easily and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are rarely significant.

However considering that most of the objects discussed in forums like this one are merely objects of thought, not accessible to the five senses, linguistic agreements on words applied are more difficult to attain and misunderstandings due to different individual meanings are the rule.

Again: in the context of objects of the five senses it is quite simple. So if we both meet and see a car it is very likely we come to the lnguistic agreement that we both use the word 'car' when discussing the object's features.
But as soon as we e.g. discuss the conceptual object 'awareness' which is merely a mental concept and lacks a corresponding impression of the five senses we will be talking at cross purposes since such mere mental concepts are usually embedded - individually and consciously or subconsciously - in systems of views which are the individual conditionings for individual meanings to arise.

Well said. Really the conceptual world is a self enclosed system. Societies and cultures invent it and live within it. All experience is filtered through it. Spirituality to me is pointing to the unconditioned consciousness breaking free of this conceptual world and experiencing the world "as it is" which is only referring to living free from one's conditioning or in the symbol based world (language and words and thought) which falsely presents itself as the "real world." Any reference to the non-conceptual world by a person takes place within the conceptual. Any imagining of what it is or is like, any description of it, any reference to it, is not it. Spirituality merely points towards it and so an individual can then try to figure out what it is in actuality and not conceptually.

Most will never fully understand or experience what is being talked about because one always stays lost in some little corner of the conceptual world. To be free of all conditioning requires all of it to be seen for what it is, unreality and false truths, and this seeing is rare. Some arising things and "self" are accepted as "real" and not questioned and so the conceptual world continues.

It is commonly described in spirituality as "no self" not because some "self" disappears but because the conceptual world is seen for what it is and dropped. Once that happens, the world changes and one's experience of it changes and what one is changes. There is a strong resistance to the dropping of the conceptual in it's entirety as one wants to be something and somebody, both of which are creations that can only exist within the conceptual world.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 22-04-2017, 10:19 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
Exactly. The narrative produces meaning, and conveys it between people (narrators).
No.
Again: The narrative is one condition for meaning to arise in an individual. The other condition is the individual's capacity for individually conditioned processing of the linguistic code.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

If had no meaning it might look like this: jerfik morish umb bikkl't jor.
'jerfik morish umb bikkl't jor' is as meaningless inherently as is 'If had no meaning it might look like this'.
Obviously you are fixated on your mind inhereing in meaningless signs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem



You mean both communicators have to understand the language?
Language cannot be understood. Language can only be applied as a means of expression by one party. And the means of expression can be processed to synthesize meaning by the other party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

People often understands what other's mean by what they say.
People can only understand themselves and impute this understanding on 'what others mean'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

I'm aware so I know exactly what 'awareness' refers to.
Exactly. you know yourself through knowing what 'awareness' refers to. There is no awareness different from yourself that you could know. And what is 'yourself' in this context? It is your conditioning that causes your knowing the object 'awareness'.

Now check this:
Awareness is spontaneously present in the context of me not being aware of anything ... not even of [my]self. If I would be aware I would have missed it.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 22-04-2017, 11:18 PM
Gem Gem is online now
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,073
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
No.
Again: The narrative is one condition for meaning to arise in an individual. The other condition is the individual's capacity for individually conditioned processing of the linguistic code.

Yes of course they know the language.

Quote:
'jerfik morish umb bikkl't jor' is as meaningless inherently as is 'If had no meaning it might look like this'.

Right, as you know what the latter means and that the former is jibberish.

Quote:
Obviously you are fixated on your mind inhereing in meaningless signs.

That's the imaginary Gem in your mind.

Quote:
Language cannot be understood.

Hahahaha.

Quote:
Language can only be applied as a means of expression by one party. And the means of expression can be processed to synthesize meaning by the other party.

Zakly


Quote:
People can only understand themselves and impute this understanding on 'what others mean'.

Seems they get a good enough idea, generally.

Quote:
Exactly. you know yourself through knowing what 'awareness' refers to. There is no awareness different from yourself that you could know. And what is 'yourself' in this context? It is your conditioning that causes your knowing the object 'awareness'.
Now check this:
Awareness is spontaneously present in the context of me not being aware of anything ... not even of [my]self. If I would be aware I would have missed it.

I think It (I'll just call It "It") is aware without any object of awareness - like It never knows there's a universe - but both you and I and the rest of people are aware of sensed objects - that's very mysterious to me.
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 22-04-2017, 11:40 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem
Yes of course they know the language.
'Knowing language' means having learned to associate signs empty of meaning with an individual 'inner' world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

Right, as you know what the latter means and that the former is jibberish.
No. But my conditioning causes meanings to arise dependent on concatenation of signs empty of meaing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

Seems they get a good enough idea, generally.
I have no objective evidence to base my judgement on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gem

I think It (I'll just call It "It") is aware without any object of awareness - like It never knows there's a universe - but both you and I and the rest of people are aware of sensed objects - that's very mysterious to me.
That is not mysterious. Sense impressions are without objects. Objects arise only due to imputations.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums