Sleep, awareness, consciousness and body-intelligence

[Deleted]

Dec 26, 2022 9:55:50 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Dec 25, 2022 3:07:13 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Thank you so much! But there is no virgin birth even in the case of Jesus!

Well, I wrote 'virgin rebirth', but yeah, maybe that story is more about the Easter stuff, if ya know what I mean.

I getcha

[inavalan]

Dec 26, 2022 9:55:50 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Dec 25, 2022 3:07:13 GMT -5 Gopal said:

Thank you so much! But there is no virgin birth even in the case of Jesus!

Well, I wrote 'virgin rebirth', but yeah, maybe that story is more about the Easter stuff, if ya know what I mean.

I hope this doesn't offend any believer ...

The above exchange induced me to query for : "did they know jesus was christ from his birth?", and one of the first results was:

Why Didn't Mary Know Who Jesus Was from the Beginning?

From our perspective 2000 years after the events of the gospel accounts, we may find Mary's lack of understanding about Jesus to be puzzling. After all, she had been given an angelic announcement of His birth—not to mention the miraculous conception of a child to a virgin. Yet, when the shepherds told her what the angels said (Luke 2:8-20), she pondered this announcement as if not completely understanding.

Years later, Jesus stayed behind at the Temple in Jerusalem to listen to and speak with the teachers (Luke 2:41-52). His parents, however, did not understand His desire to be in His "Father's house." In fact, they chastised Him for causing them to worry.

Given the events surrounding His birth, shouldn't Mary have known of His divine nature as the Son of God? The answer lies within the question. Jesus's mission on earth required that all events be fulfilled exactly as we have them. This includes His submission to a fully human life.

Had Mary known the complete mission from the beginning—that He was fully God and fully man—the human side could never have been fulfilled. The thought of His divinity would have been too all-consuming. What bond could His family or disciples have shared with Him if they had known they spoke with God? Christ humbled Himself to live as we do (Hebrews 4:15), something that would have been impossible if all had been known from the beginning.

Beyond this, the gradual revelation of Jesus's mission also provided important instruction to those closest to Him. Just as the disciples came to understand whom they followed, Mary realized day by day, revelation by revelation, that she had indeed given birth to the Son of the living God. The lessons had all the greater impact being understood gradually than they would have if given all at once.

Surely, that is somebody's take. It may even be the official one, but bottom-line he grew into what he became, to some degree, "normally". It is as I heard about Ramana, for example. (I'm not versed in any of those stories, so ...)

[laughter]

Dec 25, 2022 14:30:46 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Dec 25, 2022 14:02:52 GMT -5 laughter said:

Well, similar to your opinions about SR, and resonant with what you've written about certainty, there's certainly a possibility that you're incorrect, and that both NS and a "realization which suffuses all future perception", are simply a color you've never seen, a melody you've never heard, and a flavor you've never tasted. Sorry if that sounds arrogant. I can understand how it comes off that way, fwiw, there's no such sentiment intended.

I agree. Thanks. This is why I believe that everybody should only follow their own inner-source of knowledge and guidance.

Thanks for the sane adult response to that, it's appreciated. I agree with you to the extent that everyone should look inward, and find out for themselves. But, noone lives their entire life free of the influences of other minds, other voices.

[laughter]

Dec 25, 2022 14:41:45 GMT -5 inavalan said:

This exchange about words and meanings shows that the words, and how we use them, reflect and affect our thoughts and understanding.

In a discussion with an acquaintance, it stroke me his use of the word "cattle", which made me think about how we use "cow", "cattle", "beef", function of our perception. Other languages don't make that distinction.

Were you aware that the root of the beef/cow, pork/pig etc. dichotomies is considered to be that the medieval Eglish aristocrats spoke French as thier first language? One word (beef/pork) is French, and refers to the food from the animal, because the aristicrats had that food butchered and prepared for them, while the other (cow/pig) refers to the animal, by the (olde) English speaking subjects who raised the animals and produced it.

[someNOTHING!]

Dec 26, 2022 15:01:03 GMT -5 inavalan said:

Dec 26, 2022 9:55:50 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Well, I wrote 'virgin rebirth', but yeah, maybe that story is more about the Easter stuff, if ya know what I mean.

I hope this doesn't offend any believer ...

The above exchange induced me to query for : "did they know jesus was christ from his birth?", and one of the first results was:

Why Didn't Mary Know Who Jesus Was from the Beginning?

From our perspective 2000 years after the events of the gospel accounts, we may find Mary's lack of understanding about Jesus to be puzzling. After all, she had been given an angelic announcement of His birth—not to mention the miraculous conception of a child to a virgin. Yet, when the shepherds told her what the angels said (Luke 2:8-20), she pondered this announcement as if not completely understanding.

Years later, Jesus stayed behind at the Temple in Jerusalem to listen to and speak with the teachers (Luke 2:41-52). His parents, however, did not understand His desire to be in His "Father's house." In fact, they chastised Him for causing them to worry.

Given the events surrounding His birth, shouldn't Mary have known of His divine nature as the Son of God? The answer lies within the question. Jesus's mission on earth required that all events be fulfilled exactly as we have them. This includes His submission to a fully human life.

Had Mary known the complete mission from the beginning—that He was fully God and fully man—the human side could never have been fulfilled. The thought of His divinity would have been too all-consuming. What bond could His family or disciples have shared with Him if they had known they spoke with God? Christ humbled Himself to live as we do (Hebrews 4:15), something that would have been impossible if all had been known from the beginning.

Beyond this, the gradual revelation of Jesus's mission also provided important instruction to those closest to Him. Just as the disciples came to understand whom they followed, Mary realized day by day, revelation by revelation, that she had indeed given birth to the Son of the living God. The lessons had all the greater impact being understood gradually than they would have if given all at once.

Surely, that is somebody's take. It may even be the official one, but bottom-line he grew into what he became, to some degree, "normally". It is as I heard about Ramana, for example. (I'm not versed in any of those stories, so ...)

I've mentioned something along the lines that the whole Bible, while possibly containing elements historicity to it, has been filtered, revised, and translated through so many different lenses and agendas, it might be near-impossible to discern the actual characters' truer, inner dimensions. So, as you say, it is best to use one's deepening conscious awareness of what some of stories, allegories, metaphors, parables, etc may potentially be pointing to. After all, no one's journey is really about any other characters' story anyway, though there might be some resonance with what they did, said, or pointed towards. In actuality, I know nothing about most of them, never having met them and/or been able to poke at things they might have said.

If I do get into any discerning interest on such ancient books/stories, I typically take a comparative analytical approach, looking for where similarities might overlap, where misunderstandings might occur in cross-culturalinguistic themes, and/or possibly where seeds of thought might have overlapped. It's mostly in a somewhat detached way, I suppose, because such knowledge, while interesting, helpful in discussion, or even potentially insightful, is still mind-based and subject to such limitations.

I reject a lot of my missionary friends'/family members' beliefs, while still sometimes appreciating and respecting some of the work that they do. I do sense that some of them are authentically 'trying to do good', but perhaps are missing some of the more profound potential insights that might disarm their judgmental attitudes and rigid beliefs of being right in the eyes of their god. In their minds, many of them are 'progressing' towards being accepted by their heavenly poppa; whereas, I tend to sometimes see them talking to themselves in/into finite and more finite circles. I always wonder what might happen when the circles get really really really small. Do they implode or act out? I'm pretty sure that sounds judgmental, but I've taken my licks from more than a few of them, while turning the other cheek and still content in unspeakable Truth. It is to or of such characters that I speak here, while sensing a larger story potentially unfolding. Dunno, let's see what happens.

[someNOTHING!]

Dec 26, 2022 16:30:37 GMT -5 laughter said:

Dec 25, 2022 14:41:45 GMT -5 inavalan said:

This exchange about words and meanings shows that the words, and how we use them, reflect and affect our thoughts and understanding.

In a discussion with an acquaintance, it stroke me his use of the word "cattle", which made me think about how we use "cow", "cattle", "beef", function of our perception. Other languages don't make that distinction.

Were you aware that the root of the beef/cow, pork/pig etc. dichotomies is considered to be that the medieval Eglish aristocrats spoke French as thier first language? One word (beef/pork) is French, and refers to the food from the animal, because the aristicrats had that food butchered and prepared for them, while the other (cow/pig) refers to the animal, by the (olde) English speaking subjects who raised the animals and produced it.

The other curiosity in English is the use of count/non-count nouns when speaking of the animals before/after they have been processed or cooked. It's such a pain-in-the-ass language with so many exceptions due to its historical evolution, but yeah, it can handle a lot of detail with precision, and even some elegance.

In the spiritual realm, it's just that strictish, pesky S-V-O dealio that can cause such a mess.

[Reefs]

Dec 26, 2022 9:35:38 GMT -5 ouroboros said:

Dec 24, 2022 22:25:41 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Yeah, we went far into the weeds. This was actually about having to be God in order to realize God. But in that context humility as well as pride are the wrong words and just two side of the same coin. Those are SVP/ego categories. That was my original point.

Okay, thanks for clarifying about the beginning of the discussion. I can see what you're saying about the context and I've been thinking about humility in relation to those categories as well. It's hard to put your finger on because of the nature of those, but I was thinking along the lines that the notion of humility still works fine enough from a third mountain perspective. It's hard to qualify that, other than to say it would be verb-like and a movement 'within', and ultimately, in no way separate from 'the greater movement'. But I still say, a quality not without value. For example, I might align it with becoming/being conscious as well as coming empty, (which is perhaps how it connects with a measure of seflessness).

The other point was about precision of language. Which I think is very important. A lot of misunderstandings and food fights here are due to significant and sometimes just slight variations in word usage and definitions. So it's worth working out those differences.

I do work a lot with dictionaries every day. And I am sometimes surprised at how much definitions in various dictionaries of one and the same word can differ. As you pointed out, words sometimes have different flavors and connotations. And not all dictionaries list all of those. I sometimes have to browse thru at least a dozen dictionaries to find the meaning that I am looking for, the one meaning or context that suits my purpose.

Very often you will see a word defined by just referring to it as a synonym for another well-defined and more common word, like humility defined as a synonym for humbleness or meekness. The low quality dictionaries do this a lot. And for everyday usage that is usually enough and works just fine. But if you really need precision in terms of meaning and context, that doesn't work. 

It also helps to look at etymology. Because words can change significantly in meaning over time. If you look at the original meanings of humility, then you will always see it associated with lowliness in various contexts. And that hasn't really changed to this day, even though its meaning has become broader and less negative.

I work a lot with synonyms and that's absolutely fascinating, the different associations you can find and the different directions and especially connections you can make. It takes some skill though and some really good dictionaries because you sometimes can make a turn into a direction that the original definitions don't actually support and then you are in fantasy land.

Another interesting thing that can happen when you work a lot with dictionaries is that sometimes you'll notice that you have been using some words or phrases the wrong way. And that can be a humbling, even humiliating experience.

Agreed.

I've been considering too about those who compile the definitions and how most of them are likely marred in consensus trance perspective. To be fair the definitions are probably only ever a cross section of the nuances of usage in gen pop anyway, a best concise representation if you like. But moreover that the dictionary definitions are perhaps restricted by the limits of insight of the specific lexicographer's themselves, and as such it may be that they don't quite capture the nuances of phrases as they are utilised specifically in a spiritual sense. Which I suppose is a flip of saying that we do tend to stretch some definitions when talking/pointing quite esoterically, and perhaps necessarily so because of the insights behind that.

Another example of what I'm getting at there is that, when I was talking about the 'low' in many of the definitions of humility as being relative to 'unnecessarily high, or inflated', I was considering that might even apply as relative to a consensus trance level perspective, of oneself, i.e. the lexicographer. To a full on SVP in particular, there are nuances of humility that may be misinterpreted as somenoe merely having a low opinion of themselves, but I say there's more to it.

Of course, the definitions can apply specifically to the implication you put forward as well, which compounds the situation. In fact, especially the variation of 'meek' will most often refer to, or be intended to signify someone who is timid and unsure of themselves.

For those interested, here's a website that lists some really good online dictionaries. Just type in the word you want to look up in the search field and then click on the dictionaries of your choice, open it in a new tab and then compare the various definitions:

www.lexilogos.com/english/dictionary.htm

I always get a good cross section of definitions and always look at the etymology too. That last one is a particularly good tip, I find it's useful to look at the evolution of the usage. Thanks, that's a handy tool.

Bottom line, you can use whatever word with whatever definition you want as long as it suits your purpose, you can even make up new definitions for commonly used words or make up your own words as we sometimes do here, creating our own specialized vocabulary. That's how language evolves and how slang works. But if you do, you have to be aware that when people encounter these words for the first time, they will go with the common dictionary definitions and likely won't understand what you are saying. So giving humility that kind of selfless flavor as people here are suggesting is possible, but don't expect everyone to go along with it, especially when the dictionaries don't really agree with that definition and/or when there are other words in the dictionary already that express the meaning you want to convey equally well. 

So if you guys want humility to be understood in the sense of selflessness, that's fine. I'll keep that in mind next time I see you using that word. But if the goal is clear communication, then using selflessness would be the better choice than reinventing and redefining the word humility. Just saying.

Well, I've elaborated a little here about what's behind my usage, and as I say, for me humility and selflessness are connected. ZD seems to feel similarly.

So yes, keep it in mind and I will too, and what's behind it may become more evident as we go along. I still don't really see it as reinventing or redefining, or particularly contorting for that matter, but we can agree to disagree about that. As I say, for me it's different flavours.

I think we are not actually so far apart in our understanding. If you want better definitions, then you have to look up such terms in specialized dictionaries, like a Buddhist dictionary. There you can get definition that are more useful for our purposes.

To argue on your behalf, in the Daodejing humility, humbleness, even lowliness is a big theme. However, this is in the context of nature as the one mysterious force behind everything, the ground of being. It refers to some kind of unadornedness, featurelessness, that is unfathomable, impossible to turn into an object and measure or categorize and therefore to the mind's eye coming across as lowly, insignificant or even dull and useless while in reality it is the Source of everything and in that sense the Highest, the Ultimate, the Supreme. And that's the man of the Dao, which Zhuangzi describes as "... a spirit-like man with skin like icy snow, lovely and chaste as a virgin. He eats no grain, but sucks the wind and drinks the dew. He mounts the qi of the clouds and wanders beyond the four seas riding a flying dragon. By concentrating his spirit he protects things from illness and damage, and ripens the fall harvest." 

So, humility in the sense of religiousness (see Abdrushin), no. Humility in the sense of the Daodejing, yes.  

[laughter]

Dec 27, 2022 8:59:12 GMT -5 someNOTHING! said:

Dec 26, 2022 16:30:37 GMT -5 laughter said:

Were you aware that the root of the beef/cow, pork/pig etc. dichotomies is considered to be that the medieval Eglish aristocrats spoke French as thier first language? One word (beef/pork) is French, and refers to the food from the animal, because the aristicrats had that food butchered and prepared for them, while the other (cow/pig) refers to the animal, by the (olde) English speaking subjects who raised the animals and produced it.

The other curiosity in English is the use of count/non-count nouns when speaking of the animals before/after they have been processed or cooked. It's such a pain-in-the-ass language with so many exceptions due to its historical evolution, but yeah, it can handle a lot of detail with precision, and even some elegance.

In the spiritual realm, it's just that strictish, pesky S-V-O dealio that can cause such a mess.

Lean somethin' new every day!