What I've concluded was meant in the context of philosophical/religious/free time discussion, like this forum, like satsangs... Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone
-----Original Message----- From: Rodger <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:24:13 To: Advaita-Zen<[email protected]> Subject: Re: why we conceptualize the unconceptualizable If I have understood your starter post,communication is a natural urge.If that is correct,no excuse is needed. Early on,prior to written communication,when we were out hunting something to eat, certain signals were used to communicate the presence/location of whatever it was we were hunting...or whatever might turn and hunt us.To possibly save you from being eaten I might signal you to go left rather than right.Without that excuse(as you call it)you might end up as food for a saber tooth.But,I signaled you...with intent/purpose...for a reason.Which could've been...if we didn't bring home some bacon,I would still have to put on in the pot. :) On Jul 29, 4:58 am, [email protected] wrote: > to communicate a meaning is an excuse to communicate > You need something to throw if you have the urge to throw. I think the > searching for meaning comes from the need to communicate. If you communicate > meaningful shit it is like throwing to a bigger distance. > Sent via BlackBerry from Vodafone > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rodger <[email protected]> > > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:53:15 > To: Advaita-Zen<[email protected]> > Subject: Re: why we conceptualize the unconceptualizable > > About your conclusion,Marko... > > Through the written you have intended to communicate a > meaning,haven't you? > > On Jul 28, 11:27 pm, Marko Gregoric <[email protected]> wrote: > > Words again, ooh fuck! I am boring > > > I found my self generating the bullshit I am going to write now and most of > > all I found "the source" of talking and creating all this shit. > > The source is as I said a million times is the urge of communication. I > > think that's almost an instinct of men being social animals. > > Did you ever notice that the world, all concepts, ideas... are in fact there > > just for the pure communication between people? > > I think the very existence of words comes out of that. > > I need to talk with you so I have to "word" it. > > Let's take the example of awareness. Where and what is awareness when there > > is no need to rationalize, put in words, explain. > > Here the point is not what is awareness or if it exists or not. I am not > > interested in that. What I am interested is: > > Why am I writing this post? > > Because I need to communicate with you. > > My conclusion is that the meaning of the written is not really important as > > much as is the fact the we need to talk. > > > ps Would there be any "Parabrahman" if gurus had not have the urge to speak > > to people? > > > So I think the source of the universe is that very social urge to talk about > > it.
