Harbal wrote:Walker wrote:
Yes, as you cleverly suggest, as a principle, the key is to meet as equals, as through the concept that backs the single word of Namaste. This is how any word is formed by concepts of culture that must have been brought about by need, back when that word first took form. This is how folks in the know have 26 words for snow, or something like that.
And what need is more probable than the need for light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxeIvClLpKI
For example, if you’re playing catch with a girl it is not so important that you throw well. So, if you’re a righty and teaching a girl to throw like a boy, then to understand, try to throw like a boy yourself, but with your left hand. If this is not interpreted as sarcastic or ironic, as it might be depending upon the situation and the person involved, not to mention the attitudes brought to the table, then physical antics have a tendency to overcome a number of non-conceptual conditionings and the path finding fun. Thus, darkness in any form is a limitation to be transcended by the mirroring as a written form of physical antics, as any of the true English would surely know, so the time to stop feigning incomprehension is now, and can be no other time.
I don't know about any of this stuff. All I can say is that "hello" has always served me well enough.
Well, on behalf of Namaste sayers …
Engaging lack of interest with unwillingness to settle for explanation of what is erroneously claimed to not be understood, adds up to a gracious invitation for exposition. Obviously, this is found within the boundaries of an expanse of horizon that encompasses appropriate humour to deny dry discouragement.
Likewise, as pain serves many as a meaning for suffering, samsara and dukkha are un-English words with meanings found in life but codified for study into compounded concepts created by life, inspiring appearance of the next evening and maybe the next day (not that they require inspiration but sometimes they do). These meanings appear as inevitable implications.
There are pitfalls in tossing words around like they possess some kind of inherent meaning. However, Sanskrit is a language in which the word-form does mirror the life concept of the vibrational effect of the words upon the physicality of the organism.
In the other words, the physical vibration caused by vocalization, and the mind-frequency caused by mental hearing, mirrors the complex and often detailed conceptual implications to shape not only understanding, but perception itself.
For a sense of mind affecting literal perception, just remember the times when looking for car keys or anything, only to pass over them without seeing because of some mind preoccupation.
After all, the only inherent meaning of a word is its physicality when spoken, and the resonance in mind when thought of as sound. A word can only have inherent meaning through its physicality as vibration, either when spoken as voice or when resonating as mind sound.
Sanskrit is said to be a conscious language. That is, the meaning of the word is a description of what has the same impact upon the physical organism as the vibrational frequency of the word when spoken, or when thought of as sound.
Just jump in anywhere.
