"If you keep saying it the way it really is, eventually your word is
law in the universe."
...
"The
Vedic pundits
of
India
of five thousand years ago noted that when the naming word for an
object was uttered in the Sanskrit language by a saint, that object
would manifest and materialize out of nothing."
... Laurence Platt paraphrasing an ancient Hindu legend circa 3000
BC, shared by
Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi
This essay,
Law In The Universe II: An Inquiry Into Inquiring,
is the twenty sixth in an open group on
Language:
At first, flabbergasted and not fully convinced, I question "Says who?"
and "How does he know that?" which
lightens up
(somewhat) my erstwhile skeptical "Who does he think he is
to know that?" ... then (more inquiringly) "Ohmygod,
how did he find out?" ... then later
(once I get interested)
"What 'saying' is he really speaking about?" ... then
"What's
the connection
between the 'saying' he's really speaking about, and 'the way it really
is'?". And that's not the end of it: in
listening
/
re-listening
his
terse
eighteen word quote, I've yet to start looking into how and why it
makes your / my word "law in the universe".
What I want you to know, is: anything I say about
Werner's
speaking, is
only my take on it, not necessarily "the
truth" - even if
my opinions
and bravado try to make it sound as if it is "the truth". Indeed, time
has shown me ways of realizing the value inherent in
Werner's
speaking: one, I could simply listen his speaking; two, indeed I could
offer my take on it (my version of it); three, I could (arguably most
valuably) inquire into it until I
discovered it for
myself.
What's not
powerful
for me when I inquire into
Werner's
speaking, is asking the questions "What do I understand by
it?" and / or "What does he mean by it?" (and let's be
very clear: in
these Conversations For Transformation,
the power
/ leverage of the
interpretation
"mean" is up for grabs, yet in this context it's likely
good enough for
jazz).
What's
powerful
for me when I inquire into
Werner's
speaking, is asking the question "What would I mean if I
said that?".
So: what I may mean if I said "... saying it the way it
really is", is twofold. One, I may mean telling the truth - not
necessarily the big "THE TRUTH!" but rather just
simply telling the plain, good ol' honest, no-nonsense no-lies truth.
Two, I may mean speaking in that mysteriously
powerful
way that generates ie that creates rather than merely
describes (that's generative truth rather than
descriptive truth). Examples of this would be like in the
western biblical "logos" ie
"the word"
(as in "In the beginning was
the word"),
or like in the eastern biblical - like the
Vedic pundits
of
India
of five thousand years ago who noted that when the naming word for any
object was uttered in the Sanskrit language by a saint, that object
would manifest and materialize out of nothing.
All that said, it's possible that if you speak the truth in either of
those ways long enough, "eventually your word is ..." (and is congruent
with) "... law in the universe.". Now: do either of my descriptions fit
what
Werner
is speaking? Maybe. Maybe not. I just don't know. The truth is I
haven't asked him, and thus they're only my guesses as to what he's
actually distinguishing. But look: this essay isn't titled to come up
exactly with what he's distinguishing. So while it would be great if it
did (I grant you), it's
actual intention
and
purpose
is to showcase conducting an inquiry - and in particular, it's an
inquiry into inquiring.
