Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MikeS80
so why not use the common English language to describe what the underlining meaning/point of the analogy is, instead of using spiritual speak/language, that can create confusion?
|
I don't see a meaningful difference between common English and "spiritual speak/language descriptions. Any word based thing, descriptions, metaphors, analogies are mental representations for or of an actual experience. If such things are present, one has their attention on the conceptual, mental word based interpretations which means one is choosing such and not the actual experience.
To have a state of freedom from the conceptual, to experience that state, there can be no attention given to the word based description of such a thing. The state described is one free of mind, free of thought, free of the conceptual. There can never be a method or technique or description present or entertained of such a thing to live it, to experience it. A technique or method present again means the attention is on mind and thought.
In this experience, there is no self put together by thought or mind, no mental images of what we are or what the experience is. Some may use a word like "emptiness" but then this again shows one experiencing or perceiving though a mental image or concept. It is not "something" as the something is a concept and this is life experience free of concepts.