Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Wednesday, October 23, 2002

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    Issue #1236 - Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - Edited by Jerry __________________________________________________________________ Arunachala 2002 by Mark
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 24, 2002
      Issue #1236 - Wednesday, October 23, 2002 - Edited by Jerry
       
      __________________________________________________________________
       
      Arunachala 2002
      by Mark McCloskey
       
      Exclusive to the Nondual Highlights
       

      The Holy Mountain Arunachala
       
      When I had recently received an e-mail asking that I  come to India to visit suppliers
      who sell our company  shrimp (I am in the seafood importing business!) and  from whom
      I have been purchasing for a few years, I  hesitated. Having had already traveled much
      of the globe  in my younger years, I had developed a bit of disdain  for long trips
      and still prefer to hang around the home  turf. The very fact of going to India, with
      its  overpopulation, destitute poverty and recent proclivity  to inter-religious
      violence had not been a thrilling  prospect. But as I looked at a map to find my main 
      arrival point of the city of Madras, I suddenly began to  fill with excitement when I
      looked about a half an inch  southwest of Madras and gazed on a name of a town which 
      I knew very well, Tiruvannamalai: the home of Sri Ramana  Maharshi, one of the
      greatest teachers of spirituality  the world has known. I quickly replied to my
      suppliers  saying that I would be there to visit their factories  and shrimp farms. I
      also made arrangements to visit  Arunachala, the sacred mountain, and to stay at Sri 
      Ramanasramam, the place where Ramana Maharshi, the  magnificent sage of non-duality,
      had spent most of his  life and delivered his famous teaching of Self-Inquiry.  You
      see, it was Ramana's teaching which had finally and  gently coerced this fishmonger's
      own restless mind to be  still. This would be a neat trip indeed and one of  life's
      many unfolding paradoxes and touches of grace  itself.
       

      The shrine at Skandasram cave
       
      My first stop was Mumbai airport and soon after the wheels of my Lufthansa 747 touched
      down, after having spent a pleasant 18 hours in first class (upgraded by mileage
      points), the blatant reality and seeming paradoxical duality of life in India made
      itself known. For as the car which was taking me from the airport to my 5 star hotel
      moved slowly thru the darkness of the early morning Bombay streets there appeared a
      large number of bodies sleeping on the sidewalks, on the backs of cars on oxcarts,
      literally strewn all over the place: thousands of people, homeless, yet having claimed
      their own place in this cosmos on this planet called earth in the dirty, still streets
      of Bombay. No sooner had the surrealistic vision passed by, I found the car pulling
      into the hotel entrance and soon I was in my king-size bed, in my air conditioned
      room, and had finally allowed the gentleness of sleep to close my now tear-filled
      eyes.
       
      In the next few days I arrived in Madras and from there took a car to Arunachala, and
      from the crowed streets of Tiruvannamalai, its darshan of stillness manifested itself
      to me. From the old photos it looked a large looming mountain, whereas in reality I
      would consider it just a medium-sized brown, orange and green colored hill. Still it
      was exciting to approach this place that I had heard and read so much about. Our car
      negotiated the town streets carefully, as is the custom while driving in India, past
      motorized yellow rickshaws, swerving taxis, ruminating cows, cars, trucks, mopeds,
      bicycles and many many people, each carrying on their normal tasks as they have done
      all their lives. It really did not appear to be a place where one of the holiest of
      humans hailed from. But after all, Yeshua (Jesus of Nazareth) was supposed to have
      been born in a stable, so who can figure? As a matter of fact, the sense of the
      spiritual was the farthest from my mind at that point for here we were simply in
      another Indian village crowded with life and the mingling of technology and timeless
      history, of wealth and destitution, all people living together in the shadow of the
      orange granite hill Arunachala.
       

      Busy streets of Tiruvannamalai
       
      We soon arrived at the Ashram gate. It would have been difficult to find this place
      had it not been for the lovely green color of the archway sign. I know we would have
      driven right past. You see, nothing distinguished this place from the surrounding
      houses, stores and driveways. Beggars sat outside with outstretched hands, cows laid
      quietly near; people walked in and out, back and forth. No, I did not get any sense of
      any specialness about this place - perhaps this would be the true meaning of this trip
      for me.
       
      To be continued
       
      _________________________________________________________________________________
       
      MANNU
       
      Exclusive to the Highlights
       
      This version is free to copy for everyone. (nannumannu@...)
      This translation I made of my own. I don´t know if I translated all correct. For other wording you can email me. The basic german
      text is possible to get over this email adress to.
      Für die deutsche Ausgabe fragen Sie unter oben angegebener email Adresse nach.
       
      Tell me the name of the game!
      Awakening / Illuminating or/and Enlightenment
      Does it mean anything to you?
       
      Because there is no I/me/you/self to awake, to
      illuminate, to enlighten, to transform Or what ever to
      be called or to be named.
       
      Do you really think, that: you are?
      Why do you think so?
      You think indeed that the you / I exists?
      Why do you think in such a way?
       
      I am, or?
      Or, are there any other possibly questions?
      Nevertheless there I am, or - or not, or anyway, or how?
      Yes, what is now going on?
       
      Hi, who is there?
      Ist me!
      What- who- where- me? Cannot be!
      Because I am me and I am here and you are you and you are there!
      No, I am also a me and also here!
      Hey!?
       
      There was once a man, who stated always that there is
      nothing to understand. He talked and talked, day and
      night, at working-days and at holidays, like a
      waterfall. He inundated everything and everyone with his
      gossip everytime. There were also some I, listeners
      mentioned, but they did not understand, that there is
      nothing to understand, because there is no thing to
      understand. Thus they sit still around him today and
      listen themselves to the sound of words in hope, he will
      err and it would give still something possibly to
      understand for them some day. Boey! Now and then it
      occurs however that one goes dead in the river of the
      words. What is and isn't also, if the word ends?
       

      Table of contents
       
      01. Preface
      02. The question and answer play
      03. The word of the words: I
      04. The search for the "who am I?"
      05. I and boredom or: The emperor new dresses
      06. I and action and/or free will
      07. I: Subject and/or object?
      08. Time and space
      09. The search to the world formula and the origin of the universe
      10. Now or never!
      11. The borders of the logic
      12. I speak the whole time and state: I do not speak!
      13. I see something, what you do not see!
      14. A ghost goes around: the fear
      15. Ugly dugly and the beautiful swan
      16. Karma: ideas to the breakfast and roses to evening bread
      17. Is sin the handicraft of God or the devil?
      18. Life, dying and death
      19. I and my body
      20. Illness, age and suffer
      21. Pain and the demand for permanent luck
      22. The daily fight of the I/ Self around its existence
      23. The last battle. The warrior cannot fight any longer
      24. Violence, aggression, war, terror and the motivation mechanism
      25. At the beginning was the word - the idea of the all knowledgeness.
      26. The worm in the apple: Religions and the business with the faith and hope
      27. Sympathy, compassion and suffering: Can I feel compassion with other organisms and/or suffer with them?
      28. Illuminating/enlightenment or awaking: What would you like to prefer?
      29. Discrimination: Women, gays, lesbians, criminals and "other social outsiders"
      and illuminating - can that be done?
      30. The fable of humans placed over all other species more highly: The chosen one
      31. There is nothing to understand: The fallacy of thinking
      32. Knowledge, wisdom, ignorance and knowing no thing - the world of thinking
      33. I and consciousness
      34. I and the other
      35. The intellect that wants to stop smoking by itself
      36. The evolution and the genes
      37. Touchdown
      38. Epilog & email & homepage
       
      01. Preface
       
      Even if all words failed to express the reality, which
      is through what we call thinking or the world of
      thoughts, of speak, then nevertheless the concept of the
      thoughts, anti-thoughts included, seemed as a
      thinked-up, devised concept of the so-called possible
      word combinations, where, one site is agreeing: it is,
      and the other site, the no, answering in the negative;
      it is not, and the neither-nor statements, what definite
      the unit functioning of the thought-constructes, so
      there is no other instrument however, than the
      instrument of speak, of words, of writing, of sign
      language, which could express itself over it. Because it
      has even set this whole non stop asking question in
      scene, which turns in each case in the circle and comes
      to no satisfying conclusion. The sound or the movement
      in form of the functionmechanism of the word, which is
      finally only empty conversation without any meaning or
      sustance: coming from that nothing, nothing being, in
      nothing to be infinitesimal seems. What the word, the
      thought, the sound is always, is not to experience over
      the word, only as name communicable. To have to be given
      what can be communicated about the word, became from
      total its ripped out and isolated regards, with other
      isolated terms formulas, conclusions to sentences, which
      are not that, which realy is. What is, can get a name
      but this says nothing about it, it is not over the word
      experienceable, untouchably by the word, indestructibly,
      never born, never died, it is false interpreted by the
      world of the thoughts, because the interpretation, the
      word picture network is not the thing itself. It does
      not require masking by words, thougt constructes,
      singing etc. Neither it borders the word, the thought,
      the sound, the sign language still out nor in. It is:
      with and without the whole bla bla bla and tirili. 
       
      In this book here no holy man, no buddha, like Jesus,
      Shakyamuni, Padmasambhava, Avolekiteshvara, Shiva,
      Krishna, Mohamed,... or someone else, like philosophers,
      therapeutes,... will speak. The most of them are realy
      dead and turned to dust and the rest is only dancing on
      their ashes. What they should said, cannot be find out
      clearly, because thinking like to falsify, to disfigure
      custom and tradiotions, and all interpretations by
      thoughts are only misinterpretations of reality.
      Thoughts are only usefull for communication, for naming,
      labeling things. In other way thinking creates lies,
      because it isn´t shure of its existence and so it invent
      the ideas about Godness, awakening, illumination,
      enlightenment, instead of accepting reality like it is:
      no thinking = no thinker, no doer, no I, no self, no
      world of thinking. Thinking is included in reality, but
      thinking is not the reality itself, because reality (so
      I named here) is more than words, more than sound. 
       

      Don´t ask the awakened, because the so-called awakened
      is this one, who is not different from the so-called I
      or me. There is no other I "under the sky" as the first
      singular pronoun. And is it this what you want to
      change? So, what will you change then? Is there realy a
      need for changing? Or is it the demand, the wish for
      changing some-one, some-thing, that creates all the
      so-called suffer in this world? All the people, who
      pointing out, that you are suffer, that there is
      something to be transformed, that there is somebody to
      be changed, all of them failed! They fool you! And
      that´s the way you fool yourself, because you interpret
      it, translate it into your system of thoughts, and so
      you accept suffering. Stop believing this nonsense and
      all fooling and suffering will stop. Only the so-called
      thought, the thinking, what is nothing else than naming
      of things and making so-called conclusions (this
      conclusions are not reality, they are only made up by
      thoughts, empty words, so it is possible to change
      conclusions in the way of: it is, it is not, maybe,...)
      that is nothing separated from you. So were the ideas
      think out of : that you are, that you are not, you have
      to be saved, changed, transformed and so on. That´s the
      way thinking, the you/I functioned. You believe it,
      because you are this, your are that thoughts, this empty
      words. But for this you is no need to be changed, saved,
      transformed. It comes and goes, "it burns and dies in
      the same breath", so it seems to you, so it is the
      interpretation of thinking. But what is the meaning of
      words? Naming, labelling things. The reality of
      thoughts, of words is, that they can get closed by
      so-called conclusions in different ways, for example: it
      is so, itisn´t, perhaps, I don´t know... So there are
      many questions and answers in the jackpot. You can take
      questions and assign various answers to them. But it
      can´t help you to find the realy/truth answer on what
      you are, if there is no thinking, because there is no
      point of measurement, so there doesn´t exist any longer
      you, the I, self. The question and answer game around
      you (I, self) is not needed to be answered. It´s a dirty
      joke/game, for that you pay a heavy price. So now it is
      on you: how long do you want to play this role, the role
      of a prisoner, of a sufferer? Do you like this
      sado-masochistical game? First you create this game. As
      long as it works good for you, you agree to it. You
      believe it is reality. One day it doesn´t work in the
      way you want, you begin to think that you are suffer,
      that you live in misery, and then you create the demand,
      the wish for coming out of this game, with an other
      question, resulted out from the other questions around
      you/I, like: who am I, why am I, what the sense of
      life..., and now you ask: how can I stop this? You
      create thoughts like changing, transforming you. But
      here is only the game, created through thinking, words,
      sound, noise, ... Created by the ilussionary thoughts
      you are and the following made up rules. So you are the
      thoughts. No thoughts about you = no you. What is,
      independent from thoughts, sound and/or stillness can be
      named, but itsin´t say anything about it, because there
      is no need, no demand.  Feel free to express yourself
      and be carefully of using thinking. Thinking is only
      like a tool, like a hammer for nailing. You can use it
      for reality, for allday living, or for dreaming to built
      your own world. It is "yours" to find out, to learn if
      or when or how to use it. Realize that there is no
      you/I/self/me, what could need a change, a
      transformation, to be rescue from something, what could
      be born or will die, and so on. These are only empty
      words. Words cannot be changed, develop higher or better
      or bader ... You have no chance, use it!
       
      No you, but here is the chance to realize it!
       
      02. The question and answer play 
       
      Without knowledge about this world we come into this
      world. One says to it: we were born. We explore by
      ourselves this world and our senses (smell, tasting,
      feeling, hearing, seeing) began to develop. We try to
      copy, which others around us do: movements, sounds,
      speaking, singing. Things and persons will become
      assigned terms and/or words (sounds), connections will
      be learned. The first question develops: Why? To
      everything and everyone we react at a certain age with
      the question why ...? We learned it of our parents,
      educator, surrounding field. We require now to every why
      an answer. As an adult, who reacts to these questions,
      one, as well as possible tries to give answers. But one
      becomes conscious sometime that there is not an answer
      to every why, because not every why-question is to be
      asked.  We can ask all possible questions, which we
      want, because they consist of words and the connection
      between the words is regulated (rules) and/or devised
      through thoughts. It is possible to change these
      connections: e.g. to set up different rules. If one does
      not have rules, then one can ask blindly, loosely on and
      on, like a small child: why, why, why?  The question
      results from the answer. 
       
      Example: Question: Who am I? 
       
      Answer: I am who = e.g. job title: Cutter, or sex:
      womanlike, or organisms: Humans, etc. As we see, we can
      permit several answers on this question. We can answer
      this question only, because thereafter, where we ask
      for, after the who, is fixed that there is an answer to
      it. From the social surrounding field the rule developed
      for asking someone about: who am I, where I come from,
      where he lives... it serves the information. If I want
      to adjust e.g. someone, then I must find out whether he
      is suitable for the job concerned and ask him some
      questions, which I consider as important. Due to the
      answers I make a picture of the person and its abilities
      and weigh by myself, whether it covers itself with my
      conceptions, to find out via thinking, if the person
      consider suitable or not. This weighing can entail
      however that I decide, despite wrongly infront of this
      rite, thus a person, whom I consider as suitable, I
      adjusts and he malfunctioned. He does not work
      accordingly to my conceptions. The word did not mediate
      somewhere, which one expected. 
       
      If I want something, something to reach, to get an
      information, to buy or to sell something, something
      wants to avoid, then I use a thinking. Every now and
      then I must ask for it: 
       
      Can I have (e.g. : a pencil for drawing)?
      How can I get (e.g.: Money)?
      How can´t I get (e.g.: Illness)?
      How can I reach that as fast as possible (e.g.: a place by car, model, will become famous, be illuminated)?
      According to which I ask, am well-known. The answer is to be found also within the range of the acquaintance. E.g.:
      Question: Answer position:
      How can I reach/get that? By doing this or that one or not doing.
      Why I must go to the school; die; learn? Because... 
      Who am I /not? I am not this however that.
      When...? At 12 o´clock....
      Does exists this this or that? Yes. / No. / I don´t know.
       
      Also the answer: I don´t know, does come from the
      acquaintance, since the answerer draws the answer from
      the knowledge. The knowledge is always acquaintance.
      Acquaintance meant that persons, things, processes, etc.
      are mental seized, are labeled, are designated.
       
      Example:  Someone asks me whether there is a poppy
      flower. Me well-known that so a plant with name poppy
      flower exists, one is it to me told, taught,
      communicated or however, and I answer corresponding with
      yes, whereby itself the answer results in from the
      acquaintance, from the knowledge. 
       
      Someone asks me whether there is a zeder. Me is not
      common this term. I do not know it. In addition, I know
      not whether there is a thing named zeder or not,
      although I do not know the term. Thus I answer with: I
      do not know it. I draw this answer again from the
      well-known knowledge. For someone, which is common the
      term zeder, the answer rises again from the well-known
      knowledge and it answers with yes.
       
      The answer comes thus always from the well-known
      knowledge, as the question also. The question consists
      generally of a well-known question word (who, when,
      which, why...) to a well-known verb and an admitted
      person/thing, around which the question turns. While the
      answer to which the question refers, is built up through
      person/thing, a well-known verb and well-known
      correspondence on the well-known question word. 
       
      We come now to the question: Who real am I? This
      question means, that it dosn´t accept the well-known
      answers, for example: Job title: Teacher, name: Hugo,
      nature: Humans etc., thus the terms, which rise from the
      well-known from knowledge, which refer to it. We have
      the idea that we are neither the name nor the job title
      still otherwise possibly somewhat mental, conceptual
      designation. We want to know, what is still there, if we
      do not permit for this answer all devised and assigned
      terms, the negative (anti) included. What is then with
      the I/Self/person/organism/maker/etc.? First we stumblet
      then over the term nothing. We are not anything. But
      which should be? Somehow that does not fit us also to be
      a nothing. No, no, thus really, that cannot be
      nevertheless. Thus we invent something else: the neither
      nor answer. Still I am neither (all well-known terms)
      nor am I this (nothing). As idea of an answer comes us:
      I am the unnameable, the unknown, the quantity, that not
      is to designate. Unfortunately we will see, only if one
      looks exactly, that we are to be labeled again thereby,
      to designate. We move still on the field of thinking, of
      the nameable. And how should it be also different? Thus
      now times thinking functions. You can make, what you
      want, but always the answer to this question drawn from
      the designateable, the acquaintance. In the moment where
      you create for a thing or circumstances a name and/or a
      label, so you are moving in this moment yourself again
      on the field of the acquaintance, thinking. Thinking can
      be occupied only with person/things, which it be known
      in particular, speak of the designation. Since questions
      and answers rise from thinking, designated
      word/circumstances can come into the field as answers to
      questions also only admitted. On the other hand thinking
      does not leave an answer not too, which is not, to a
      question thus finally than answer at all existed.
      Thinking continues to continue so long, until it found
      again an answer in a possibly statement form. Because
      the questioner/the thinker and the question and the
      answer are one. If no answer exists, then also no
      question is to be asked, since a question always refers
      to an answer. And no question is to be asked, then also
      no no philosopher, no thinker, no questioner is present.
       
      Differently: If I ask in this case, the question about
      the so-called subject, the I-person, exclude all answers
      from the range of thinking, do not permit them, do not
      accept them, then the I must come to an and , like this
      asking. The question placed about that who-am-I-really
      -?, is rejected all answers, no answer becomes
      certified. It is accepted in such a way, then the
      question goes, expires. End. Otherwise the question and
      answer play continues to go always and further.  Are you
      ready to let the interrogator come to the end to let the
      question go unanswered?  Or doesn't it go, because you
      are uncertain whether there could not be perhaps
      nevertheless still another answer to it, which could
      satisfy you? Why do you want absolutely one absolutely
      perfect answer, an answer, which is irrefutable, which
      is safe, because it is certain, is unchangeable? Who
      told you, which is to give it so an answer to this
      question and/or must? Thinking cannot supply so an
      answer to you, because it functions in devised
      connections, which can be dissolved and/or new connected
      again depending upon the actualy situation of
      circumstances. Questions and answers are ideas, which
      turn around the wanting to get something: information,
      love, money, luck, illuminating, peace, etc. and/or they
      are ideas, to avoid "to get something": frustration,
      war, fear, poor, etc. 
       
      If you want something, then develops the non-wanting
      also at the same time. For example, you want a lovely
      relationship after the conceptions, what you think so.
      That means you must exclude already times all humans,
      who do not fit into your conception sample of a perfect
      relationship. You look for a completely determined
      human/partner, who will come next to your conceptions or
      will completely fulfilled your conception, in order to
      love him/she, making a partnership, completely like you
      dream/phantasies it. Your conception is culturally
      determined, i.e., the live social surrounding field in
      that you live in, your thinking is decided on it and
      your acting also. You act, like the society required it
      and/or wanted of you. If you do not do it, because you
      do not want to act in such a way, then you touched only
      again at non-wanting. But which way means correct or
      wrong? Already again a devised question due to a
      well-known answer. 
       
      Someone told you, that correct and wrong actions exist.
      Now you want to weigh up the doing in order to find out,
      what in the case should be correct or wrong. However you
      need a measurement system, concepts, tables or the like.
      So you can study, go into therapy, ask people according
      to their opinion, but in the final result, you know not
      yet, what exactly you should to do.  Then you hear, that
      a middle way shell exist. Your interpretation: the
      search for the middle way, the way between wanting and
      non-wanting, the way between correct and wrong, etc. But
      where does it works? Does anything like that realy
      exists at all? What shell lies between wanting and
      non-wanting, between correct/right and wrong? Well, do
      you want create a new word creation pleasently, in order
      to invent once again an answer, which could fit into the
      structure of the interrogator/questioner, for a certain
      time, until thinking structures itself again new and
      rejects the answer again, in order to search again and
      again? Why do you do this to you? Why don´t you come to
      an end with that: the middle way is exactly the same
      word creation, like the right way, like the wrong way -
      only ideas, unsubstantial, connectionless word networks,
      which can actually never touch life. But you cannot want
      the stop, what also is called, you cannot stop with the
      question answer disaster, because you are this disaster.
      When it will stop, you - the I, the self, the
      identification or what ever you want call it - will
      stop, end, go dead. Then you hear, that the truth is a
      pathless territory. How does it should works a territory
      without ways? No middle way and no other ways? You err
      still around, because you do not want to come simply to
      the end: Where do you want actually to go to and why? If
      you cannot crystallize neither the correct nor the wrong
      way out, neither the middle nor the no way by thinking,
      you cannot let go it, how do you want then to act? You
      feel blocked, frustrated, or however you want to call
      it, because you mean no answer is stable enough to the
      question, in order to be the appropriate always during
      valid answer. Actually all questions are only variations
      of one question, about the question:  What does it mean:
      Luck/illuminating/enlightenment/I/self/person/liberty/etc.?
       
      Answer: I really do not know it!  Others told me that
      this all would exist. But why I must find out then, what
      does it really is? How can the word arrange to make
      clear what really exists and/or runs off in this world,
      when the word is not the thing itself for what it stands
      for? It can only designate things. The word over the
      voice as sound for the designation of a person/thing
      (what that may be real always?) for communication is
      acceptable. But the unsubstantial word, which is not the
      thing, to which it refers, can never find out and/or
      make experience able the reality of the person/thing, of
      the actually situation. Which a so-called person or
      thing is in truth, can never be understood. It does not
      lie in the nature of the thing to be understood. No
      necessity for understanding, no understanding to must or
      to can is possible and/or necessary. 
       

      An example, as it seems for someone turned into the
      circle of questioning by oneselfs, without coming to the
      core of the thing, what realy is,: 
       
      F = question A = answer
      F What is that? A This is an apple.
      F What is an apple? A It´s a fruit.
      F What is a fruit and to which she serves? A It belonged to the food and serves food intake.
      F What is food? A You make me creazy!
      F I wants nevertheless only to know it! A Although you
      talk the whole time, ask questions,  want to know, what
      it is realy, what we call apple, to invent a conception
      over the apple, but you haven´t got a glow, which this
      thing the so-called apple realy is. Thus deliver you
      only with the substantial terms about apple, which you
      need for the everyday life. Otherwise there is a
      question chain without end, because terms are many there
      and they can be invented at any time, for so a long time
      as the thinking goes on and on. Each quantity of sounds,
      of names, of labels are able to get connected by the so
      called thinking to each quantity terms. 
       
      And if you further-ask now, then it´s better for you to
      search for a few suitable answers, which assure to you
      or also not. I go rather eating an apple now. 
       
      F What do you mean by eating an apple? Smile. J 
       
      03. The word of the words: I  My word, your word, our
      all word, or what? 
       
      Words are sounds and/or their lining up, which brings
      the so-called voice out. They stand for
      labelling/designation/names of persons, organism,
      articles, events and so on. All words and their
      connections are devised. Whereby the thinking itself
      uses the voice expenditure of the words and their
      combinations with sensory impressions (like: seeing -
      pictures, hearing - tones, touching - environment, etc.)
      to try to touch, to explore, to interpret the reality.
       
      Example: I discover a thing or an animal which isn´t to
      be known, to be named until this date yet. Thus one
      considers a term/name for it and makes it publicly
      together with the picture or the description of that one
      discovered. For communication about it, one must
      communicate it to other humans. It is considered as rule
      that for which what is to built up structure forms
      conceptually and pictorially, which belongs together. So
      everyone knows, which hears e.g. the word book or
      flower, what one generally has to imaging under these
      words, whereby it is unrelevant here, which book or
      which flower I concretely image by myself in this
      connection. If someone talk about a sunflower, then the
      picture is already more clearly outlined over the
      flower, which I image to myself, presupposed I know
      these word picture structure. 
       
      Important is now that we have to make ourselves clear
      that the word picture structure sunflower is not the
      thing, the flower itself, but only a thought construct,
      somewhat devise/mentally presenting. Possibly someone
      has invented itself this names for it. Thus it comes
      now, that one can give also different names and/or
      designations to this sunflower, presupposed, the culture
      of the respective society accepts it. 
       
      Or: we take a table. We imagine a table. We hear or read
      the word table and know due to our cultural background,
      which we have to associate with a table. For the German
      it is not a table, but a "Tisch". For the Russian area
      it is a "stol". Many words world-wide for the same
      conception thing, which we call table. But the thing,
      which we call table or however, the word itself is not
      the thing table itself. Differently expressed: we know
      from the designation, how a person, an article or an
      event mean, how it is designated and/or called. But we
      do not know, what the thing actually, e.g. the table is
      real.  Or: We can touch, feel, smell, taste, hear, to
      designate an animal. But those are only individual
      fragments of a manifestation, which we call animal. We
      can divide the animal into single components, imagining
      as that. Suddenly we have many further terms for these
      single components, where we say now, which they
      constitute the animal. But does we really came thereby
      the thing more near? Don't we lie always still within
      the conceptual range? Also which we smell, pack we into
      terms, in order to communicate it to the environment.
      But all these fragments, these sensory perceptions,
      which obtain designation of the organism or
      thing/article, do those answer to me the truth about it,
      what does the thing and/or organism is actually real? 
      To be continued
       
       

      ---
      Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
      Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
      Version: 6.0.401 / Virus Database: 226 - Release Date: 10/10/2002
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.