Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
A source "unawarness" may have been realized within and it is worth listeing to; at least, by me.
Where we come from, influence comes in many guises. "Influence:"
We nominally attache the words "the gods" or the "goddesses," all the while realizing that they are but labels, in order to personify these influences that attribute specific elements that influence our instincts. It becomes clearer that these influences are either masculine or feminine in principal. How the dual polarity is determined depends upon an individual's sight, but, either feminine or masculine, none the less.
However, this form of practice wouldn't be that of "blind faith," per se. We call it "the art" while witnessing. It is a source, which provides understanding the influences by precluded faith. At once the understanding is met, these influences are named; thus, they are no longer gods and goddess, but named influences and the projected "I am" is reversed by means of a new awareness. It is much like reversing the habit of self and other, in fact it is. Influence is shown reverence by the art of nominalization and personification, but conscious labeling; consciously personified.
My point? Ugh.... "If words could only express."
The sanskrit is beginning to seem like a more useful language to me, now more than ever, at this point. This constant wordiness of the English language is beginning to feel like a waste of time. "Less talking, more being." If only my skills were more fluent in sanskrit. Expression would be simple. Sometimes, it seems that my mind contemplates with my mouth more than by being, these days.
My suffering is the craving to share a "phenomenalized" fulfillment. My being requires nothing; but, sangha would be nice, at this point in regards. Your insight is welcome?
Namaste
We nominally attache the words "the gods" or the "goddesses," all the while realizing that they are but labels, in order to personify these influences that attribute specific elements that influence our instincts. It becomes clearer that these influences are either masculine or feminine in principal. How the dual polarity is determined depends upon an individual's sight, but, either feminine or masculine, none the less.
However, this form of practice wouldn't be that of "blind faith," per se. We call it "the art" while witnessing. It is a source, which provides understanding the influences by precluded faith. At once the understanding is met, these influences are named; thus, they are no longer gods and goddess, but named influences and the projected "I am" is reversed by means of a new awareness. It is much like reversing the habit of self and other, in fact it is. Influence is shown reverence by the art of nominalization and personification, but conscious labeling; consciously personified.
My point? Ugh.... "If words could only express."
The sanskrit is beginning to seem like a more useful language to me, now more than ever, at this point. This constant wordiness of the English language is beginning to feel like a waste of time. "Less talking, more being." If only my skills were more fluent in sanskrit. Expression would be simple. Sometimes, it seems that my mind contemplates with my mouth more than by being, these days.
My suffering is the craving to share a "phenomenalized" fulfillment. My being requires nothing; but, sangha would be nice, at this point in regards. Your insight is welcome?
Namaste
0