Every human being is god himself, but it does not understand its true self, and it is constantly engulfed by the influence of its mind, its intellect, which you call as a great illusion, says Vamsi Krishna.
David Icke says, all people are as droplets in an ocean.
And all it is, as everything else is, a choice. A choice between fear and love, says Mr. Icke.
He might be the first in history Briton to claim that Shakespeare would not make it for a fish pond.
We can view
“The Awakening of a New Wave of Consciousness” on YouTube.
■This text is also available in Polish.
The sense of Mr. Vamsi’s words in English is that everybody is god, but nobody knows own true self or god part, because every person lives under own mind or brains, and these are illusions.
If the mind is an illusion, then any opinion is an illusion as well, inclusive of opinions that minds are illusions. There is no other body part that a worded idea might come from, only the head.
Let me yet explain here already, I do not intend a religious contestation. My lifetime’s philosophy is my Fable of Philosopher Honeybee, emphatically not a doctrine.
ADVERTISEMENT
About love he said,
If there is love universal, that is, love you can find anywhere there are people, it is the love that everyone has by nature for oneself. Any condemnation of this natural affect may come only with an erroneous attitude to the Great Design. If his act is guilty, condemn the man, but do not accuse the feeling that gives to live a good life to so many other people.
The linguist I have been by profession, I would also like to make the reservation that I may read words a bit different, like with association with dictionaries and resources. In Mr. Vamsi’s words, I sense some Latin. ■Divinus got to be interpreted into things godly after it was used for alternates with ■dividuus, partible. Emily Dickinson would have had an excellent memory as well, for the ■Exclusion.
The world may never have seen her original handwriting, if her skill was taken for supernatural. Feel welcome to Poems by Emily Dickinson prepared for print by Teresa Pelka: thematic stanzas, notes on the Greek and Latin inspiration, the correlative with Webster 1828, and the Aristotelian motif, Things perpetual — these are not in time, but in eternity.
Honeybee would agree there is strong probability of the soul indivisible in everyone, each having own such soul within, or being own soul in a mortal body. God would be yet a Creator of a Living Day. There are no beings on Earth known for such skill, as it takes making cosmoses and free will in a bud, for every human being.
“To children, a rainbow is something vivid and real; but the grown-ups know that it is merely an illusion caused by certain rays of light and drops of water” — is a quote from a Buddhist teaching to deny people have souls.[1]
Rainbows are physical phenomena and thus they are absolutely real, only not easy to touch. To say a rainbow is real does not prove the human soul — the spiritual dimension would not belong to the physical world — yet in the first place, it is the Buddhist who should not contend rainbows: no kid is going to believe rainbows do not exist.
There is an interesting thing about the rainbow shape historically, Honeybee would observe. If man wanted to run a river, siphoning would be the natural gravitational resolve, and there is an ancient picture where a river runs from the sea, and to the sea. More, there is a rainbow, 虹 hóng, in the olden Chinese siphon, 虹吸管, hóng xī guǎn. Honeybee gave an exercise with a picture for that raibow-shaped river, where Knowledge of the Yans as above is recommended, before the Akroteri.
Some Buddhist belief would say there is the soul. It is not much of a fancy prospect, as souls would be recycled — amnesic and also against will. To escape the recycling, you have to be your “own monarch” and of proper escape velocity. Admittedly, it is a term of physics.
Honeybee would say, the word “king” has come with the Greek kine as in kinesthesia, for doing things, that is, moving about too. Ability precedes the office, and the original idea as represented in the first trigram, sovereignty, is the kine of independent movement in man.
The indivisible has to leave the world of partible physics after the body dies, and the reasons would be physical, namely, the indivisible cannot stay in the divisible directly. Soul recycling would be yet unlikely. All souls become on Earth, and there is only one eternal fiber in everyone. Honeybee never considered it reasonable to think about more. To recycle a soul you would need like a “blank body”, without own fiber or soul, and such cannot live.
Those oldest as of now Greek scripts were possibly not the earliest, and this would be the southern, “green” Greek along with Phoenician, to explain on word origins as kw(e)n, for as able a queen, originally a ■girl. The letter symbol Y could make quite a story alone, see ■Wikipedia. Again, Emily Dickinson made interesting patterns herself.
My favorite poems by E. Dickinson
Moje ulubione wiersze, ■free PDF
There is yet also Buddhism that rejects the soul. My favorite poems as above would have been written by “a collection of processes, not an entity”. The movie below explains, five aggregates together create an “illusion of a self”. The name of the self was Emily Dickinson, in the case here.
Honeybee would say, a linden tree may live a thousand years and blossom. Change or variance does not deny identity. It is yet in reflection to human everyday life and longevity that he says,
If I denied my own self in my everyday living, it would be a mediocre lie, such as to verge on indignity. I am my own mind, soul, and self. Death of my physical body would not change this state of my being; my existence would only take on another form — and I am a standard human person. It is improbable that such a state would be without own feelings in other people.
People wrote ages ago, everyone loves oneself, se quisque amat. Just as we cannot stop breathing to die, because the body is going to force a breath, a human being cannot stop feeling for oneself. For the Great After possibly to become the home of the soul when the physical body has died, it is important to understand this.
The Latin demeanor kviskve (quisque): why say circles, if we say cats? ■Read more.
To consider the ■Anatta, let us mind, entire collections of teachings were attributed to Siddhartha from reportedly a tradition that was ■spoken, and ■first committed to writing about 400 years after the Buddha’s death. The copies people have today are still younger and by no means ■autographs by the Buddha or his disciples.
Even the Buddha’s language is uncertain, speculation pointing to Middle Indo-Aryan dialects and particularly ■Pali. The time the writings emerged is not known. It might have been late Middle Ages: the ■Middle Indo-Aryan period ended around 1500 after Christ.
It is possible that the early learner got hold of Grecian writings that have been also misunderstood, on being.
A Shapely and Handsome Fable, chapter 5
True Being is not a person.
To reckon on teachings, Honeybee would think about a garden. It agrees with the Great Design to have good horticulture and beautiful orchards. Let us examine the Buddhist teaching with ideas as for orchards. If they do not meet the expectation with regard to horticulture, all the more, they would not be fitting to express lore about human beings.
■Upanishadic concepts are worded today as,
□ All psycho-physical processes (skandhas) are impermanent;
Should all life in a garden be evergreen?
□ If there were a self, it would be permanent;
Should all fruit always be on trees?
□ If the self existed it would be the part of the person that performs the executive function, the “controller”;
Should we decide the size of the fruit or not have it all?
□ The self could never desire that it be changed (“anti-reflexivity principle”);
Should we never plant new trees?
□ Each of the five kinds of psycho-physical elements is such that one can desire that it be changed.
Should we plant new trees every year?
The Upanishadic conclusion is ― There is no self.
Honeybee conclusion is, if you can, you’d better have a beautiful orchard.
A skandha means a heap, aggregate, collection, or grouping. In Buddhism, the word heap refers to five aggregates, says ■Wikipedia, that “constitute and completely explain mental and physical existence of sentient beings”.
You add up or merge the five and you get a human being you totally understand, they say, without any such claim about horticulture.
The five Buddhist aggregates or heaps would be: (1) rupa, the form, matter, or body; (2) vedana, sensations or feelings; (3) samjna, perceptions; (4) sankhara mental activity or formations; (5) vijnana, consciousness.
The verb to be is a wonderful test on existence of things.
(1) The first skandha brings form, matter, and body under one term, rupa. If I carved a word in wood, and then wrote it in ink or printed it out, it would be the same bodily representation in form, and different material realizations.
Form is not the same as matter, and thus the skandha does not truly exist. We cannot use the verb to be for it.
(2) The second skandha generalizes feeling and emotion into “sensations received from form”, vedana. Since the Buddhist form would belong under the same term with body and matter (rupa), a prod would be the same as a sentiment. We cannot have the verb to be with the second skandha either. It is not objectively real.
(3) The third skandha separates perception, samjna, from (4) activity of own mind, sankhara, and (5) consciousness, vijnana. Since there would be no point discussing perception in a properly anesthetized human being, the verb to be does not apply as well.
The word ■gautama also means poison, and so the vocabulary generally brings juxtaposition; we may compare the Spoken Sanskrit for ■skandha, ■rupa, ■vedana, ■samjna, sankhara, ■vijnana.
The word form “skandha” alone may bring meanings as a branch, a war, or evil — and religion. Skandhā-pasmāra may mean a demon causing a particular disease, and skandha-şaşthīvrata may indicate a particular religious observance. …
There is nothing more to us than just those skandhas, Wikipedia quotes Mark Siderits.[2]
Buddha starved to meditate, and the spoken tradition tells he even fainted during the practice. His observations might have been early reasoning on stochastic and deterministic modes of brain neural networks. The modes are recognized today for standard human neurophysiology, because it is enough to focus to perceive them, without hunger or stress. Feel welcome to try:
■Grammar Weblog, Mind practice.
And the human ego or self? A starving person may lose his or her somesthesia. Dependent on translation, if you say there is no self anymore, you could be telling you cannot feel your body anymore, as when fainting. What is certain, you need own soul, own spiritual self that is, to have afterlife at all.
Endnotes
[1] What Buddhists Believe: Is There Eternal Soul? Screenshot | live page.
[2] Buddhist philosophy, Mark Siderits: “What the Buddhist has in mind is that on one occasion one part of the person might perform the executive function, on another occasion another part might do so. This would make it possible for every part to be subject to control without there being any part that always fills the role of controller (and so is the self). This would explain how it’s possible for us to seek to change any of the skandhas while there is nothing more to us than just those skandhas.” Screenshot | live page.
