Language shapes us
Language shapes us. I came across this interesting article about the discovery of an Amazon tribe with almost entirely different way of constructing language that calls into question Noam Chomsky's theory about innate language.
One of the interesting things for me in this article (and there were many) was how hermetic this tribe is, to the point that anything that is outside their world view simply does not register as meaningful or interesting.
In a way it was almost like they were living a "be-here-now" philosophy taken to the extreme, where they are almost completely indifferent to past and future, or abstractions of any kind. It is not surprising that modern people have suspected them of some kind of debility! They who see day where others see night.
Although I don't think that it would be either possible nor even desirable to duplicate this particular community's way of dealing with reality, and it is surprising that the World has permitted them to do so, or that they will for much longer.
Would it be possible for any human community to isolate itself, and recreate itself within a hermetically sealed world view based on Divine Love? Such utopian experiments of alternative cultures have been conducted in the past without a great deal of success. The "world" always intervenes. And one of the reasons is our language itself.
The Indian (sāṅkhya-based) philosophies see the world as being in a cyclical process of "devolution" from simple and homogenous pristine truth and existence to variety and complexity. Perhaps this primitive tribe is an approximation of the Satya Yuga society!
They have indeed evolved as a group, but I don't know if they are in a superior position in relation to the rest of the world. Whatever, we will never know, as we can never be like them, because we are already polluted by our own common sense assumptions and conditioning, though we may be able to learn something from them.
Furthermore, we need to evolve quickly. Humanity is indeed short of time as a race, it would seem, and there are a lot more people to huddle into the confines of a spiritual world view. Even on a very limited basis, it has proven almost impossible.
Nandini Radhe Perhaps. The Number is Always 3. THREE is the number.
Jagadananda Das : So I cannot be number three since only you and I are here. So who is the third party?
Nandini Radhe : The third party is God.
Jagadananda Das : So who is that? Where is your God? And mine? Don't we have to agree? And then that brings it back to two. The three is the synthesis of the two. That is how community develops.
Nandini Radhe The Self, The Other and God. That is Reality.
One of the interesting things for me in this article (and there were many) was how hermetic this tribe is, to the point that anything that is outside their world view simply does not register as meaningful or interesting.
In a way it was almost like they were living a "be-here-now" philosophy taken to the extreme, where they are almost completely indifferent to past and future, or abstractions of any kind. It is not surprising that modern people have suspected them of some kind of debility! They who see day where others see night.
Although I don't think that it would be either possible nor even desirable to duplicate this particular community's way of dealing with reality, and it is surprising that the World has permitted them to do so, or that they will for much longer.
Would it be possible for any human community to isolate itself, and recreate itself within a hermetically sealed world view based on Divine Love? Such utopian experiments of alternative cultures have been conducted in the past without a great deal of success. The "world" always intervenes. And one of the reasons is our language itself.
The Indian (sāṅkhya-based) philosophies see the world as being in a cyclical process of "devolution" from simple and homogenous pristine truth and existence to variety and complexity. Perhaps this primitive tribe is an approximation of the Satya Yuga society!
Experiments are not exactly such if you consider the fact that events are never controlled by one single entity alone. It takes three at all times. This tribe is simply a piece of evidence of that fact (the three elements as a bridge between both worlds).
They are hermetic, and the word I would favor here is contained. They are contained by their own concerted, group will. They have evolved as a group. And as such they are now in a superior position in relation to the rest of the world.
They have indeed evolved as a group, but I don't know if they are in a superior position in relation to the rest of the world. Whatever, we will never know, as we can never be like them, because we are already polluted by our own common sense assumptions and conditioning, though we may be able to learn something from them.
Furthermore, we need to evolve quickly. Humanity is indeed short of time as a race, it would seem, and there are a lot more people to huddle into the confines of a spiritual world view. Even on a very limited basis, it has proven almost impossible.
They are in a superior position in that they are free of dependence genes. We need to evolve quickly but more quickly we need to stop repeating the obvious.Well I suppose some individuals will evolve more quickly than others. Some will be advance specimens freed of dependence and obviousness genes. Others, like myself obviously, will be dependent and obvious. Perhaps someone needs to state what is NOT obvious.
Nandini Radhe Perhaps. The Number is Always 3. THREE is the number.
Jagadananda Das : So I cannot be number three since only you and I are here. So who is the third party?
Nandini Radhe : The third party is God.
Jagadananda Das : So who is that? Where is your God? And mine? Don't we have to agree? And then that brings it back to two. The three is the synthesis of the two. That is how community develops.
Nandini Radhe The Self, The Other and God. That is Reality.
Jagadananda Das Hm. I have been thinking that the Other is God. All focused in one spot and then expanding outward into multiplicity. So I got singular, dual and plural. The dual [in one manifestation] can thus be said to be disciple and guru. Then the plural (i.e., everything) is God. Something like that.
Nandini Radhe : One who thinks the life of One alone is more balanced and beautiful, is mistaken. The Other is God in the context of plurality. And in each case as well. The dual can be many things. Its not the form it manifests but its essence that needs focus. Now, essence is also fluid. But when it is CONTAINED by agreement, that is when there is evolution in intent. Or evolution AS intent.
Jagadananda Das (1) I don't think the One is the end of it all, but the beginning, and then it continues to develop throughout in the phases of the dual and the plural. You cannot divorce yourself from the primordial nature of subjective consciousness. That will always be the Alpha and Omega of spiritual life.
(2) The dual is indeed many things, but its primordial importance is that it is an opening into the Other, which is experienced through love. Love is the only way one can really know the other. And that love is five-dimensional, with the sentiment of romantic love being the fullest. Therefore the divine has to be most fully manifest in that Other. If Heaven is only accessible through the Eye of a Needle, then God is only accessible through the Other in Love.
(3) The universal, or community, the world, is not only a confirmation of the singular and the dual, but is to be known through the sum total of dual experiences in love.
Nandini Radhe One is not the beginning. Zero is. Words and numbers are only meaningful if agreed upon.
(3) The universal, or community, the world, is not only a confirmation of the singular and the dual, but is to be known through the sum total of dual experiences in love.
Nandini Radhe One is not the beginning. Zero is. Words and numbers are only meaningful if agreed upon.
Jagadananda Das "The Other is God in the context of plurality. And in each case as well. The dual can be many things. Its not the form it manifests but its essence that needs focus. Now, essence is also fluid. But when it is CONTAINED by agreement, that is when there is evolution in intent. Or evolution AS intent."
I agree that the essence is more important than the form, but relations do take form. That is why I say five kinds or forms in a hierarchy. In each of these, a different aspect of the essence is revealed. But the highest is still takes the form of madhura. That is where the essence is most completely revealed.
As to your emphasis on "containment by agreement" you may have to explain that a little more. Because I am interpreting it in accordance with my previous paragraphs, along the lines of "you can only agree or contain the forms, not the essences."
As to whether zero is the beginning, I would say maybe, maybe not. I would say it is rather an absence rather than a beginning. It is a negation rather than a positive.
Nandini Radhe Well, there is your problem, right there: The essence or essences are indeed contained even as they are not static. There are not "maybes" in mathematics. Zero is the beginning.
Jagadananda Das To me, the essence is infinite and cannot be contained. Only when we contain them in form can we access them. That is the whole point of bhakti, personalism, etc.
Nandini Radhe It is both. Priorities are essential. Jai Sri Radhe.
Jagadananda Das Yes. So containment and agreement are elements of sadhana, i.e., method for accessing the essence through the formal approach.
But I would have to say that where the Dual Sadhana is concerned, agreement has to be between the two entities involved, and not a third party. The "third" element, or God, can only be theoretical, i.e., agreed upon. So in my case, I conceive of that third element as being Radha and Krishna. And I would think that in a dual sadhana, this would be agreed upon by the partner with whom I was thrust together by Divine Grace.
And then outward from there into the Plural, or community. That again is my theory.
Nandini Radhe "But I would have to say that where the Dual Sadhana is concerned, agreement has to be between the two entities involved, and not a third party."
That would be the kingdom of God without God. Its an error. Sadhana is not independent of sadhya.
Jagadananda Das Yes, exactly. God represents the common Other in the Dual. We seem to agree here in principle. What I am trying to say here, is that every individual has his or her own God.
In a sense, the first manifestation of the Dual in terms of the individual psychological development, is the internalized concept of "the ideal other", or what we can call God. One may be conscious to a degree of this internalized Other, to the extent that we have defined ourselves. In other words we realize ourselves in the encounter with this internalized Other.
In actual fact it can never be fully conscious, it is only conscious to the degree that it has been revealed. But at any rate, it is an individual thing.
God is thus too vague an entity to be defined easily, too confined to the individual, even within a very narrow tradition.
On the other hand, where God is not defined at all, things are more or less hopeless for the Dual, because the Dual requires a common ground. Essences can only be encountered where there is common ground.
Though moderate success can be achieved in unstated or unconscious commonalities (of which the grossest is the sex act), that is not sadhana, at least not in the spiritual sense of the word.
So in the Dual stage of sadhana, just like in the Singular, God is experienced first of all as a theory, i.e., something that is agreed upon as an object of attainment (sadhya) along with its symbolic and ritualistic formalism.
I propose in my method Radha and Krishna and all that they imply as that sadhya.
The important point is that it is "what is agreed upon." God, the essence, or goal, is agreed upon, but the sadhana must also be agreed upon. In a sense, agreeing on the sadhana and sadhya is the essence of sadhu-sanga, and the Dual sadhana is the quintessence of sadhu-sanga, the best of all sadhanas.
Nandini Radhe " So who is that? Where is your God? And mine? Don't we have to agree? And then that brings it back to two. The three is the synthesis of the two. That is how community develops."
No, that is not how community develops. That is how community devolves, as per history of Humanity.
"What I am trying to say here, Nandini Radhe, is that every individual has his or her own God."
God is one, what is individual is the relationship with God.
Jagadananda Das Community devolves through individuals being alienated from it. Therefore syntheses, i.e., individual bonds, are the way that they evolve. The process of alienation and bonding goes on constantly. One who is alienated due to not finding common ground or purpose with others senses a lack of community.
God is one, and that is a theoretical principle that most religious people adhere to. But culturally speaking and community wise, where Ultimate Concerns and symbols and rituals are concerned, communities differentiate themselves as much as individuals.
Communities -- and now we cannot talk about mega-societies or meta-communities, but only of manageable communities -- are ones to which one can belong because of common concerns, and individuals communicate with one another through symbols and rituals that are mutually meaningful.
God is experienced subjectively according to our individual psychology and various factors that are related to it. So we are basically the same thing. We are not disagreeing.
When discussing individual one on one relations (the "dual") or community (the "plural") then we have to start by understanding the individual. And this is especially important since the individual, i.e., the subjective consciousness, is the Alpha and Omega of spirituality.
No one wants to be submerged, at least not in modern society. At least, not for long.
I agree that the essence is more important than the form, but relations do take form. That is why I say five kinds or forms in a hierarchy. In each of these, a different aspect of the essence is revealed. But the highest is still takes the form of madhura. That is where the essence is most completely revealed.
As to your emphasis on "containment by agreement" you may have to explain that a little more. Because I am interpreting it in accordance with my previous paragraphs, along the lines of "you can only agree or contain the forms, not the essences."
As to whether zero is the beginning, I would say maybe, maybe not. I would say it is rather an absence rather than a beginning. It is a negation rather than a positive.
Nandini Radhe Well, there is your problem, right there: The essence or essences are indeed contained even as they are not static. There are not "maybes" in mathematics. Zero is the beginning.
Jagadananda Das To me, the essence is infinite and cannot be contained. Only when we contain them in form can we access them. That is the whole point of bhakti, personalism, etc.
Nandini Radhe It is both. Priorities are essential. Jai Sri Radhe.
Jagadananda Das Yes. So containment and agreement are elements of sadhana, i.e., method for accessing the essence through the formal approach.
But I would have to say that where the Dual Sadhana is concerned, agreement has to be between the two entities involved, and not a third party. The "third" element, or God, can only be theoretical, i.e., agreed upon. So in my case, I conceive of that third element as being Radha and Krishna. And I would think that in a dual sadhana, this would be agreed upon by the partner with whom I was thrust together by Divine Grace.
And then outward from there into the Plural, or community. That again is my theory.
Nandini Radhe "But I would have to say that where the Dual Sadhana is concerned, agreement has to be between the two entities involved, and not a third party."
That would be the kingdom of God without God. Its an error. Sadhana is not independent of sadhya.
Jagadananda Das Yes, exactly. God represents the common Other in the Dual. We seem to agree here in principle. What I am trying to say here, is that every individual has his or her own God.
In a sense, the first manifestation of the Dual in terms of the individual psychological development, is the internalized concept of "the ideal other", or what we can call God. One may be conscious to a degree of this internalized Other, to the extent that we have defined ourselves. In other words we realize ourselves in the encounter with this internalized Other.
In actual fact it can never be fully conscious, it is only conscious to the degree that it has been revealed. But at any rate, it is an individual thing.
God is thus too vague an entity to be defined easily, too confined to the individual, even within a very narrow tradition.
On the other hand, where God is not defined at all, things are more or less hopeless for the Dual, because the Dual requires a common ground. Essences can only be encountered where there is common ground.
Though moderate success can be achieved in unstated or unconscious commonalities (of which the grossest is the sex act), that is not sadhana, at least not in the spiritual sense of the word.
So in the Dual stage of sadhana, just like in the Singular, God is experienced first of all as a theory, i.e., something that is agreed upon as an object of attainment (sadhya) along with its symbolic and ritualistic formalism.
I propose in my method Radha and Krishna and all that they imply as that sadhya.
The important point is that it is "what is agreed upon." God, the essence, or goal, is agreed upon, but the sadhana must also be agreed upon. In a sense, agreeing on the sadhana and sadhya is the essence of sadhu-sanga, and the Dual sadhana is the quintessence of sadhu-sanga, the best of all sadhanas.
Nandini Radhe " So who is that? Where is your God? And mine? Don't we have to agree? And then that brings it back to two. The three is the synthesis of the two. That is how community develops."
No, that is not how community develops. That is how community devolves, as per history of Humanity.
"What I am trying to say here, Nandini Radhe, is that every individual has his or her own God."
God is one, what is individual is the relationship with God.
Jagadananda Das Community devolves through individuals being alienated from it. Therefore syntheses, i.e., individual bonds, are the way that they evolve. The process of alienation and bonding goes on constantly. One who is alienated due to not finding common ground or purpose with others senses a lack of community.
God is one, and that is a theoretical principle that most religious people adhere to. But culturally speaking and community wise, where Ultimate Concerns and symbols and rituals are concerned, communities differentiate themselves as much as individuals.
Communities -- and now we cannot talk about mega-societies or meta-communities, but only of manageable communities -- are ones to which one can belong because of common concerns, and individuals communicate with one another through symbols and rituals that are mutually meaningful.
God is experienced subjectively according to our individual psychology and various factors that are related to it. So we are basically the same thing. We are not disagreeing.
When discussing individual one on one relations (the "dual") or community (the "plural") then we have to start by understanding the individual. And this is especially important since the individual, i.e., the subjective consciousness, is the Alpha and Omega of spirituality.
No one wants to be submerged, at least not in modern society. At least, not for long.
Comments