Justice,

 

I’ve heard people say, that if you want peace, then work for justice, but where is that justice? When will it ever happen? It didn’t happen, it couldn’t happen and it isn’t going to happen, with our violent way of dealing with language. All the injustice was created and maintained by our Disembodied Language (DL) and as long as that doesn’t change, nothing is going to change, regardless of how many laws and treaties we make, to, supposedly, regulate human behavior and create a more just and a more peaceful world.

 

Only an idiot would say, that the wheels of justice  grind slow and fine. There is no justice, other than you talking out loud alone with yourself and hearing in your own voice, the immense difference between your own DL and EL. Everyone seems to want justice from others, but no one is giving it to him or herself. Presumably, peace and justice are two sides of the same coin and one can’t happen without the other. I hear nothing but unpeaceful, unhappy, unconscious people screaming for justice, everywhere, every day.

 

The fact that the word justice appears so often, in so many of the United States founding documents – including the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance – should be considered a failed attempt at addressing the need to switch from DL to EL. How can we be fair, with a way of talking in which we don’t even hear ourselves? Our way of dealing with our language is entirely dependent on the way in which we speak.

 

Anyone who knows about EL, understands that the people, who only have DL, who are hopelessly stuck with their insensitive language, can’t really feel anything. Whether you accept it or not, know it or not or are aware of it or not, with DL, you are not in touch with yourself, and, therefore, you will do all sorts of weird shit, to hopefully, still feel something.

 

The senseless violence – similarly to self-mutilation of some suicidal, attention-seeking person, who cuts him or herself; similarly to the longing for safety, protection and stability of someone, who covers his or her entire skin with tattoo symbols; similarly to the plastic surgeries, which are done in the name of beautification, feeling confident and being yourself; similarly to someone, who imagines to be in the wrong body and fanatically believes, a sex-change will make a big difference – is really a matter of selling and buying and people are sold, hook, line and sinker, on what others are saying or writing.

 

You have endlessly been reading about, watching and listening to violence as a form of entertainment, as a way to fill yourself, because your own language isn’t available to you. EL doesn’t depend on your skin color, gender or the clothes you are wearing. All these are important to you, because your DL keeps you busy with how you believe that others perceive you, but never with how you perceive yourself. In DL, you don’t listen to yourself, but you want others to listen to you. Certainly, in DL, listening to others is always more important than listening to ourselves.  

 

Presumably, justice delayed is justice denied. This means that if legal redress or equitable relief to an injured party is available, but it is not forthcoming in a timely fashion, it is effectively the same as having no remedy at all. People like justice to be swift and vigilante justice is when the law is enforced without legal authority. It can be done by individuals or groups, who take the law in their own hands, by punishing criminals to create order. Movies, books and social media echo-chambers are all forms of quick justice in which people supposedly right what was wrong, but nobody transitions from DL to EL.

 

Another often discussed aspect about justice, is the need for more outrage at injustice. Presumably, we need to speak out, stand up for ourselves and make our voices heard, speak truth to power or be a voice for the voiceless. All of these are effortful, forceful, domineering ways of speaking are examples of DL. In EL, we speak effortlessly and peacefully with ourselves and, then, only then, we hear ourselves, because our voice is natural and calm. Nobody can be this voice for us and we can only hear this voice if we ourselves produce it. If we don’t produce EL, we unknowingly do ourselves a great injustice.

 

Justice is blind, because it needs to be distributed in a neutral, fair and impartial manner, but how is that supposed to happen, if DL continues to be our way of talking? We should all close our eyes, to be able to really listen, to what we say, to ourselves. We can hear, if we are lying or speaking the truth and we can all agree, whether we listen to ourselves or not,  by the way in which we sound. Actually, this is such a wonderful experience, truly as if justice is done, because we are finally, verbally, on the same page.      

 

 

Oppenheimer,

 

I’ve seen the bombastic movie – pun intended –  Oppenheimer, which is based on the autobiography of this immensely complex physicist, who was considered the father of the atomic bomb. Funny, that he is called the father of this terrible child. He was the director of the Manhattan Project’s Los Alamos Laboratory in the 1940s. I want to contrast the work of this troubled man with my work. I am very happy with what I have done. I didn’t want to be a father, as I felt I had something more important to do. You could say – I hope you will – my discovery of Embodied Language (EL) is the exact opposite of this destructive force, which is still with us today and which may very well mean the end of mankind.

 

I am not exaggerating, by stating, our future is going to depend on whether we will finally be able to acknowledge the difference between Disembodied Language (DL) and EL. DL has given us the arms race and EL is our only way out. According to the critics, the movie was historically mostly accurate and only contained a few elements of fiction. However, in my opinion, the whole movie was based on fiction, as the intense conversation going on, from beginning till the end, was an example of DL. Actually, the movie was merely another failed attempt at EL.

 

Although, the relentless, forceful, predetermined, loaded, deceitful, so-called dialogue, which went on against the back-drop – another pun intended – of the big nuclear bang, that is, the big bang created by men, it wasn’t clear, that people, who engage in DL, will do horrible things and it makes absolutely no sense, to try to speak with DL about DL. Neither Oppenheimer nor Einstein remotely resembled EL.

 

While this noisy movie didn’t say so explicitly, its message was, of course, that regardless of our romantic relationships, science and politics, we have remained ignorant about our EL. Presumably, it is not our own way of dealing with language, which is    complicated and needing all our attention, but the scientist Oppenheimer, the American Prometheus.

 

What got Oppenheimer this title? In ancient Greek mythology Prometheus was referred to as the God of Fire. Interestingly, the name is also believed to refer to forethought. Prometheus is best know for defying the Olympian gods by stealing fire from them and giving it to humanity in the form of technology, knowledge and more generally, civilization. So, the fire, is just language and the so-called stealing of the fire, is reasoning with our own language (EL), but we are too hung up on and carried away by what we can do with language – physics, atomic bombs and movies – to pay attention to how we want to use it.

 

The question: are we going to use our language for good or for evil, depends on how we define good or  evil. Historically, good was defined in terms of what was beneficial to the group we belonged to, as our tribe helped us to survive. However, such a survival mechanism has brought about the nuclear doom. Moreover, our DL has created and maintained all divisiveness, as it deals with how we decide for each other how we deal with our language. First, parents decide for their children, then teachers decide for their students, preachers decide for their flock and, supposedly, politicians tell people what they want to hear. We have never decided, for ourselves, as individuals, how we want to use our language, as that would reveal the choice between DL and EL.

 

Actually, there is no choice to be made between DL or EL. Once it is clear what is DL and what is EL, we want EL. Yes, EL will be a tremendous explosion of intelligence, wellbeing and collaboration, as we will finally be able to deliberately, properly, skillfully use our own language. In other words, individualism, as expressed by our EL, benefits us as human beings and is not at odds with our history of conditioning, which, so to speak, gave birth to our individuality.

 

In Western civilization, in which individualism was eventually born, Prometheus became a figure, who represented human striving, particularly the quest for scientific knowledge and the risk of overreaching or unintended consequences. Only with our DL, in which speakers always dominate listeners, do we create an arms race. Surely, there is nothing wrong with nuclear science and its potential to benefit societies. It is not about the science, but about how we use the science, and, in the same way, EL is not about the language, but how we use our language.

 

The fact that Oppenheimer was concerned about the long-term implications of nuclear weapons runs parallel to my concern about the general ignorance of the destructiveness of DL, which is our common way of dealing with language. Oppenheimer was a lone wolf in the company of people, who couldn’t fathom, as he could, the consequences of what he had discovered. I know that to talk about EL is like dropping a bomb. It is surprising and alarming, that, without any warning, we suddenly become aware that our DL, which is – and, I can’t emphasize this often enough – our own habitual, unconscious way of dealing with language, is utterly devastating.

 

There was – in my opinion – reason for an F-bomb, because the movie contained a scene, in which a woman reads in Sanskrit from the Bhagavat Gita, the famous Hindu scripture, while she was wiggling on top of Oppenheimer and having casual sex with him. She made him read the sentence: I am become death, destroyer of worlds. Hollywood, of course, would never make such an offensive movie scene  about the Koran and Islam or about China, because they know very well, that then, all hell would really break loose. This is an example of how Western culture is okay with denigrating Hindu culture and that insidious DL is always about group dominance.     

 

And,

 

The difference between Disembodied Language (DL) and Embodied Language (EL) is like day and night. I’m not saying that DL compares to the day or that EL compares to the night. I’m also not saying that EL compares to the day or that DL compares to the night. I’m only using this metaphor to indicate a big difference. However, EL compares to DL, like heaven compares to hell. And, yes, I consider it to be a case of life and death, whether mankind is going to wake up to the big difference between DL and EL. I went through many twists and turns, before I acquired my clarity about all the ins and outs of these universal ways of dealing with language. Surely, these ups and downs were needed, to get where I am today. My Language Enlightenment (LE) has allowed me to compare and contrast my involvement in DL and EL.

 

We all know, but we never have any clear, prolonged and deliberate conversation about, the way in which DL and EL come and go. EL is only with us for a few moments and, most of the time, unknowingly, we are involved in DL. We huff and puff, we blame and complain, but the fact is that we don’t know how to have EL, that is why DL takes over, again and again. With DL, we simply cannot be in the here and now.

 

Nowadays, more and more people make a big deal about the environment, but, by and large, nobody really cares about the environment we create with our language, which sets the stage for how we deal with all our other behavior. We have dismally failed to have EL so often and so embarrassingly, that, by and by, we accepted DL as normal and we consider EL as unattainable. However, EL isn’t far and away, it’s possible for everyone and it’s nice and easy.

 

Every now and then, there is someone, who seems to be having a little bit more EL than others and he or she is getting some attention and recognition, but there is never any appreciation and validation of LE, so that our EL could continue through and through. As consequence of our ignorance about our LE, we have only been having EL with leaps and bounds.

 

It is, in DL, often repeated, that, supposedly, there are no absolutes, however, the difference between DL and EL is black and white. It is undeniable that EL only occurs if DL has stopped, therefore, it is always one or the other. Nobody has ever been down and out with EL, but everyone, in one way or another, always ends up black and blue, because of their DL.

 

With EL, we feel alive and well, pure and simple, as it will make us feel better and better and go above and beyond our superficial differences. Moreover, as we are going to discover and acknowledge our LE, our EL will become more and more important to us, while our DL will be basically dead and buried.  

 

Since we predominantly engage in DL, the so-called carrot and stick are not working, because without EL, there is no carrot. It is utterly useless and totally disgusting, that we keep trying to beat a dead horse. With DL, we are scattered all over the place, in bits and pieces and we don’t have the energy and the attention, needed to verbally describe to ourselves what is going on with us. During DL, there are no checks and balances, as listening to others is more important than listening to ourselves. There is no give and take in DL. We only reciprocate each other in EL, without which we continue to act out of fear. There is only wear and tear, but there are no pros and cons to DL, our usual way of dealing with language. Only in EL can we experience and express the natural law and order about our own behavior.                 

 

So, 

 

Fun depends on language. Without language, there is nothing to laugh about. Surely, it cannot be boring language, so it has to be funny language. Embodied Language (EL) is funny language, but Disembodied Language (DL) is boring and not funny. If you want to have fun, you must stop DL, so you can have EL.

 

I am so happy. I have so much fun, because I engage in EL so very much, as I don’t engage in DL so often anymore. EL is fascinating and enjoyable to me, but few people think so. They say so, not because they think so, but because they say so. In other words, it is their language, which is so meaningless and dull.

 

I wonder, what is taking you so long, to get to EL? When will you get so fed up with your DL, that you will stop it? So, I or someone else isn’t going to stop it for you, but you must do so yourself. Although you brag, I don’t hear you being so happy about DL. To me, you sound so depleted. I understand why this is so, because it is so energy-draining to have DL. Once you have EL, you will feel so grateful, you listened to me and you will laugh, because I’ve told you so.

 

So what, that you have achieved all sorts of things? It is so clearly audible, in the sound of your voice, that in spite of all your great accomplishments, you are so frustrated, irritated, stressed and dissatisfied. How come, this is so? You sound so mechanical, so phony and so carried away, with everything you say.

 

So expresses a consequence and means: therefore. I took my umbrella with me, so I didn’t get wet. So, if the consequence was experienced as desirable, the probability of a behavior, which, so to speak, made such a positive result possible, is likely to increase. The result of your actions are never great, magnificent, wonderful or fulfilling, but always only so so.

 

When person A says: Mr. Smith is the nicest teacher I’ve ever had, but person B says: if you say so, this indicates that person B doesn’t quite agree with person A. However, if person B would have said: I don’t think so, he or she would still have said, what he or she had said, but it would be a stronger disagreement. My point is so very apparent, but also so easily dismissed. When you say: I don’t think so, you say it.

 

So that you understand this, I’m making this as clear as possible. In this sentence, so expresses purpose. It is so interesting, that it can also be turned around in: I’m making this as clear as possible, so that you understand this. In this instruction or explanation, it is so, that the purpose (understanding), precedes the behavior (making it clear), which predicts or results in the consequence (more understanding). Thus, the consequence becomes the stimulus, which sets the stage for the desirable behavior.

 

In the sentence: this battery is empty and so is this one, the word so adds a second clause. With DL, we are all like empty batteries. I was conditioned with DL and so were you. So, we can charge our batteries with EL, which only stimulates energizing behaviors. EL is so good, because it motivates, it intensifies and it enhances our positive emotions. EL is so ancient,  it was always there, waiting for us to be discovered. So, down the ages human beings have attempted to acquire EL, but so far, they haven’t succeeded.

 

In EL, we agree with each other, so confirmation is the essence of language, as without it, what we say is meaningless. The difference between DL and EL is the quintessential issue of our time. As long as you haven’t stopped your DL, your way of dealing with language stops you from laughing and being happy, I told you so. So, are you going to try it? It is quite so, your DL has created all your misery and so, stopping it, is of utmost importance. You can do so today and you will not regret it. EL is so different from DL. It is  not so and so, some unspecified, authority figure who said this to you, but Maximus Peperkamp, who knows it is so, because he has realized his Language Enlightenment (LE). Your tedious DL is more of the same destructive, distracting nonsense and so on. So, this is funny, although you can’t laugh about it.      

 

Realization,

 

From our current dealings with language, it is almost inconceivable, that our true happiness lies in speaking while listening - in talking to ourselves and listening to our own voice, which leads to writing with and to ourselves - because in this way we finally begin to have our own language. In other words, talking to others has never made us happy as it kept us from discovering our own language. Only if we can be alone with ourselves are we able to appreciate our own Embodied Language (EL).

 

Our EL can only be shared with him or her, who, like us, can be alone and who is allowed to be, who wants to be alone, with himself or herself, in his or her own language. This realization is inevitable and necessary, because every human being creates and lives, as an individual – whether we recognize it with our language or not – in his or her own world. Of course, for anyone who can have EL, there is the understanding, that it really is true, that everyone lives in the self-created reality with their language. So, there is no conflict in EL, because we know and we fully recognize, that everyone has his or her own language. Our appreciation for someone's language can only be genuine, when we have come to have our own language. As long as this is not the case, the language of others is always in conflict with our own language, because our own language has never actually come to fruition.

 

Due to our Disembodied Language (DL), we live under the assumption, that what others have said or written is more important than what we could have said or written ourselves. This creates a distortion of language, in which one person, supposedly, is more intelligent than the other. Furthermore, our concept of rationality is, inadvertently, based on what is demanded from us and forced on us. For example, it is said, one has the right to have one's own opinion, but one does not have the right, to determine one’s own facts (according to others, who, presumably, know better and always seem to be in charge). We firmly believe that scientific facts represent an objective and, therefore, disembodied, external reality, outside ourselves and our opinions are always subjective, internal, preventing us from sticking to those important facts. To be factual, scientific or rational, we throw our own experience overboard, because – so the DL reasoning goes – our subjectivity prevents us from observing objectively. Thus, our science supports our DL.

 

Be it math, physics or chemistry, it doesn't matter, learning something is always difficult, because what we are naturally inclined to do should be ignored. In order to learn, it is said with DL, it is of the utmost importance, to unlearn what stands in the way of our so-called learning. There is no getting around the fact, that having our own language stands in the way of the learning process, in which we are driven into the straitjacket of the language of others.

 

Since we do not yet recognize the big difference between DL and EL, there is no clarity whatsoever about what has always prevented or impaired the learning process for having desirable – instead of undesirable – behavior. All of our problems are really behavioral problems and come down to our inability to control undesirable, reactive, impulsive, unconscious behavior, so that we can finally get to conscious, free, intelligent and civilized behavior.

 

It is always said – with our common DL – someone is unintelligent, if he or she resists, doesn’t want to be forced, doesn’t accept, what is pushed down his or her throat and doesn’t agree, learning always has to be uncomfortable. We are being told that feeling uncomfortable and finding something difficult, are challenges we must accept, otherwise we cannot  progress and will not grow or develop in this brutal so-called intellectual process. Intelligence, we are strictly told, requires effort, but not our relaxation. In EL, however, we are completely relaxed and so, we don't make any effort, while our own language flows, naturally, like a clear, splashing stream.

 

We always know exactly, with our own language, with EL, what is going on with us and we see no need to be forced by anyone or by anything, to gain knowledge or to learn anything that alienates us from ourselves. From EL's point of view, most of the knowledge – which we, unconsciously, have carried around with us for years, with great pain and effort, and about which we, in the vain hope of convincing ourselves of its so-called value, have continued to brag – is a headache-inducing, weighty, exhausting burden. And, this is not Eastern wisdom, but a fact.

 

As soon as we take our first steps

 in EL – in talking to and listening

to ourselves – it becomes clear, 

that we don't know what we 

believe we know, from our 

grandiose, DL-imagined ability

 to supposedly think. The 

so-called mind is a huge 

problem for everyone, because

apparently everyone is trapped 

by what we call our mind, which 

perpetuates the belief that our

 language is something external 

as well as internal. With EL, 

however, we know – at once – and 

without any effort, that our language

 is, always, exclusively, only spoken, 

heard, written or read. The duality 

of what is presumably outer or 

inner dissolves in EL. Certainly, 

there is absolutely no language 

within us – as there are no words

 anywhere in our brain – and 

therefore, there is no such a thing, 

as the mind, our covert, private 

speech or so-called silent thinking. 

It is our unnatural, forced way of 

speaking – DL – that perpetuates

 this auditory illusion. We believe

 that something is there, which 

isn’t really there. Surely, DL sets 

the stage for our mental health problems. 

 

We may have heard about visual illusions. For example, a painting on the ground can create the illusion of an abyss, one fears falling into. Because of our DL, we have, since time immemorial, remained bewildered, overwhelmed and mesmerized by the sound of speakers, who – even though they did not know anything about the difference between DL and EL – pretended to have EL. Our intelligence, in EL, comes to mean and function very differently from DL, because we have come to realize that our language, consisting only of words, has to be heard or seen and any reference to language as an inner process, known as thinking, is confusing nonsense. If someone says something and the other does not understand it, it is always, yes, always, because of the sound of the speaker's voice was not adapted to the listener. And, if the speaker would start to listen to himself or herself - which never happens in DL - he or she would come to the astonishing realization, that he or she, as a speaker, wasn’t even listening to himself or herself and therefore is experiencing body-dysphoria.

 

Realization of the undeniable fact, that we, in our  normal, everyday way of speaking, do not listen to ourselves, means our language prevents us from realizing the far-reaching negative consequences of the lie, we have called our thinking. Simply put, it is our belief in our thinking, which has caused us to stop talking to each other. Above all, of course, we don't talk to each other, because we don't talk to ourselves. However, in EL, we talk to ourselves in the exact same way as we talk to each other, but in DL, we experience the eternal conflict between how we talk to others or to ourselves. Even though we never talk to ourselves, out loud, as we would in EL, even though we don't yet know the huge difference between DL and EL, the difference is already there. The conflict between how we talk to ourselves or others, like our thinking, is an illusion. In DL, talking to ourselves is merely the fantasy of having an inner conversation with ourselves, which is always at odds with and distracting from what is actually being said by us or by others.

 

Realizatie,

 

Vanuit onze huidige omgang met taal, is het bijna onvoorstelbaar, dat ons ware geluk zich bevindt in het luisterend spreken – in het praten met onszelf en het luisteren naar onze eigen stem, dat uitmondt in het schrijven met en naar onszelf – omdat wij op deze manier eindelijk onze eigen taal gaan hebben. Anders gezegd, het praten met anderen, maakt ons nooit gelukkig, omdat het ons ervan weerhield, om onze eigen taal te ontdekken. Enkel wanneer wij dus alleen kunnen zijn met onszelf, dan zijn wij in staat om onze eigen Belichaamde Taal (BT) te waarderen.

 

Onze BT is alleen te delen met hem of haar, die, net als wij, ook alleen kan zijn, mag zijn en wil zijn, met zichzelf of met haarzelf, in zijn of in haar eigen taal. Deze realizatie is onvermijdelijk en noodzakelijk, want ieder mens, creert en leeft, als individu – of wij het nou met onze taal erkennen of niet – in zijn of in haar eigen wereld. Uiteraard is er voor iedereen die BT kan hebben, het begrip, dat het echt zo is, dat iedereen in de door-zichzelf-met-taal-gecreerde realiteit leeft. Er is dus geen conflict in BT, omdat we weten en erkennen, dat ieder zijn of haar eigen taal heeft. Onze waardering voor iemand’s taal, kan alleen echt zijn, indien wij onze eigen taal zijn gaan hebben. Zolang als dat dit niet het geval is, is de taal van anderen altijd in conflict met onze eigen taal, omdat die eigen taal eigenlijk nooit aan bot komt.

 

Vanwege onze Ontlichaamde Taal (OT), leven wij vanuit de veronderstelling, dat wat anderen hebben gezegd of geschreven, belangrijker zou zijn, dan wat wij zelf zouden hebben kunnen zeggen of schrijven. Er vindt een vervorming van taal plaats, waarin de een zogenaamd intelligenter zou zijn dan de ander en ons concept van rationaliteit wordt gebaseerd op wat er van ons wordt vereist en afgedwongen. Men zegt bijvoorbeeld, dat men wel het recht heeft op het hebben van een eigen mening, maar men heeft niet het recht (volgens anderen, die het zogenaamd beter weten en het daardoor voor het zeggen lijken te hebben) op door onszelf-bepaalde feiten. Wij geloven er heilig in, dat wetenschappelijke feiten een objectieve en dus, ontlichaamde, werkelijkheid, buiten onszelf, vertegenwoordigen en dat al onze meningen altijd subjectief zijn en ons belemmeren om bij die belangrijke feiten te blijven. Om feitelijk,  wetenschappelijk of rationeel te kunnen zijn en te blijven, zetten wij onze eigen ervaring overboord, want – zo gaat de OT–redenatie – onze subjectiviteit weerhoudt ons van het objectieve waarnemen.  

 

Of het nou wiskunde, natuurkunde of scheikunde is, doet er niet toe, iets leren is altijd moeilijk, omdat wat wij van nature geneigd zijn om te doen moet worden genegeerd. Om te leren, zo zegt men in OT, is het van het grootste belang, af te leren wat dat zogenaamde leren in de weg staat. Er valt niet om heen te gaan, dat het hebben van een eigen taal, het leerproces in de weg staat, waarin wij in het keurslijf van de taal van anderen worden gedreven.

 

Omdat wij het grote verschil tussen OT en BT nog niet erkennen, is er geen enkele duidelijkheid over wat toch elke keer het leer-proces voor het hebben van wenselijk – in plaats van onwenselijk – gedrag verhinderd. Al onze problemen zijn in feite gedrags problemen en komen neer op ons onvermogen, om  onwenselijk, reaktief, impulsief, onbewust gedrag te beheersen, zodat wij daadwerkelijk aan bewust, vrij, intelligent, beschaafd gedrag kunnen toekomen.

 

Men zegt, in OT, dat iemand onintelligent is, omdat hij of zij niet gedwongen wil worden, iets vreemds en geforceerds toe te laten en om wat comfortabel is te ontkennen. Er wordt ons voorgehouden, dat  je ongemakkelijk voelen en iets moeilijk vinden, juist  uitdagingen zijn, die we moeten aanvaarden, want anders komen wij niet verder, anders maken wij geen vorderingen, in het zogenaamde intellectuele process. Intelligentie, zo wordt ons verteld, vraagt inspanning, maar geen ontspanning. In BT, echter, zijn wij volledig ontspannen en doen wij dus geen enkele moeite, terwijl onze eigen taal natuurlijk stroomt, als een heldere, klaterende beek.  

 

Wij weten met onze eigen taal, met BT, altijd wat er met ons aan de hand is en zien geen noodzaak, om door wat of wie dan ook gedwongen te worden, om  kennis te vergaren of om iets te leren, dat ons van onszelf vervreemd. Vanuit BT geredeneerd, is de meeste kennis – die we, ongemerkt, jarenlang, met veel pijn en moeite, overal met ons mee hebben gezeuld en waarover we, in de ijdele hoop, om onszelf te overtuigen van de zogenaamde waarde, hoog van de toren zijn blijven blazen – een hoofd-pijn-veroorzakende, gewichtige, uitputtende ballast. En, dit is geen Oosterse wijsheid, maar een feit.

 

Zodra wij onze eerste stappen in BT nemen – in het praten met en het luisteren naar onszelf –  wordt het duidelijk, dat wij niet weten, wat wij denken te weten, vanuit ons grandioze, in OT–gefantaseerde, vermogen, om zogenaamd te kunnen denken. Het zogenaamde denken is voor iedereen een gigantisch probleem, omdat ogenschijnlijk iedereen gevangen zit, in wat we onze mind noemen, die het geloof in  stand houdt, dat onze taal zowel iets uiterlijks, als iets innerlijks is. Met BT weten we echter in een klap en zonder enige moeite, dat taal, altijd, uitsluitend en alleen, gesproken, gehoord, geschreven of gelezen wordt. De dualiteit van uiterlijk en innerlijk lost op in BT. Er bestaat evenwel absoluut geen taal binnenin ons – in onze hersenen zijn geen woorden te bekennen – en er is dus ook niet zoiets als een mind of dat zogenaamde stilletjes denken. Het is onze onnatuurlijke, gedwongen wijze van spreken – OT – die deze auditieve illusie in stand houdt. Wij geloven dat iets er is, wat er in werkelijkheid niet is.

 

Wellicht hebben wij eens iets vernomen van visuele illusies. Zo kan een schilderij op de grond, de illusie van een afgrond creeren. Wij zijn vanwege OT, sinds mensen-heugenis, allen begoocheld gebleven door de klank van sprekers, die – ook al kenden zij het verschil niet tussen OT en BT – pretendeerden dat zij BT hadden. Onze intelligentie gaat met BT iets heel anders betekenen en gaat dus ook heel anders functioneren dan in OT, omdat wij tot de realizatie zijn gekomen, dat taal, enkel bestaat uit woorden, die gehoord of gezien kunnen worden en dat iedere referentie aan taal als een innerlijk process – beter bekend als het denken – verwarrende onzin is. Als iemand iets zegt en de ander begrijpt het niet, dan is dat, omdat de klank van de stem van de spreker niet was aangepast aan de luisteraar. En, als de spreker naar zichzelf zou gaan luisteren – wat dus in OT nooit of te nimmer gebeurd – dan kwam hij of zij tot de verbazingwekkende realizatie, dat hij of zij, als spreker, niet eens naar zichzelf luisterde.

 

De realizatie van het onomstotelijke feit, dat wij, in onze, als normaal beschouwde, alledaagse, normale wijze van spreken, niet naar onszelf luisteren, heeft tot gevolg gehad, dat onze taal ons weerhoudt, om de verstrekkende negatieve gevolgen te beseffen van de gigantische leugen, die wij ons denken zijn blijven noemen. Simpel gezegd, is het ons geloof in ons denken, dat tot gevolg heeft gehad, dat wij niet meer met elkaar praten. Bovenal is het natuurlijk zo, dat wij niet met elkaar praten, omdat wij niet met onszelf praten. In BT, praten wij echter op dezelfde wijze met onszelf als met elkaar, maar in OT ervaren we het conflict tussen hoe we met anderen of met onszelf praten. Ook al praten we nooit hardop met onszelf, zoals wij dat zouden doen in BT en ook al kennen wij het enorme verschil nog niet tussen OT en BT, toch is dat verschil er al. Het voorgenoemde conflict, tussen hoe wij met onszelf of met anderen praten, is dus, net als ons denken, een illusie. In OT, is het praten met onszelf de fantasie van het hebben van een innerlijk-prive gesprek, dat altijd haaks staat op wat er in werkelijkheid door ons wordt gezegd.                  

 

Same,

 

Your life is never, one moment, the same, but, due to Disembodied Language (DL), it seems as if you are repeating yourself. It is only your way of dealing with language, which makes you believe, your life is dreadful and repetitive. DL can never make you pay attention, closely enough, to your voice, to how you sound, while you speak. DL makes you give up so easily, on what is important to you and it gets you carried away, by what has nothing to do with you.

 

With DL, you never really say: enough is enough. Instead, you keep trying harder, struggling some more, getting deeper in trouble and feeling more miserable.  Only with Embodied Language (EL), do you notice, that every moment is new. Even if your conditioning history with automatic DL overtakes you a million of times, you can always still go back again to EL, effortlessly, immediately and more skillfully.  

 

Here is a little experiment. Let’s assume, you are unhappy. It is not a big stretch to do that, since you engage in DL, in which you don’t listen to yourself. This fact of how you speak is unexplored by you. If you would simply begin to notice, that it is true, that when you speak, you don’t listen to your voice and therefore, you engage in DL, you begin to listen to yourself and have EL. It is amazing, to find, what are the consequences of EL. The moment you have EL, you instantly feel good or better again than before.

 

This switch from DL to EL is miraculous. How is this possible? It happens, because you made it happen. It happens, because you didn’t do, what you used to do and so, you experience the new, because you’ve stopped repeating the old. However, as you have EL a little longer, you realize, you really are never the same. This is not, as many people would say, wishful thinking, because you are truly talking and listening.

 

Due to DL, people, unknowingly, talk about thinking all the time, without ever realizing, they are talking. In EL, on the other hand, you recognize, to your big surprise, you are no longer the same, because it is not your thinking, which changes, but your way of talking. If you would write, for yourself, about what it is like, to dissolve this notion of thinking – while talking out loud and listening to yourself, while you speak – you would notice the same phenomenon, that is, you would begin to write, without thinking. How is that possible? How is it even possible, to speak or to write without thinking? It is because this so-called thinking was invented by your DL, by how you have been used to dealing with your language.

 

Due to your unconscious participation in DL, you not only believe, you think the same or you think very different from what others are supposedly thinking, but you also believe and, supposedly, have faith in, having the same, presumably, obsessive thoughts and feelings, over and over again. Since, other than switching from DL to EL, there is no way out of this belief – which is the self-imposed perception of your DL – you become depressed and frustrated, because somewhere, you know, you are always repeating the same old common tragedy. Strikingly, the moment you listen again, to how you sound while you speak, your DL changes promptly in EL and your so-called mind totally disappears. Yes, if you continue to explore your EL, you can’t help but notice, you don’t have a mind, you don’t have any thoughts, because you are consciously, joyfully, effectively, intelligently expressing and experiencing your own language.

 

Whatever you believe to be thinking, when you say it and listen to the sound of it, it dissolves. In other words, whatever you bring your total attention to disappears. This is not some trick or technique, but this is how truthful language works and how we get things done. In DL, we perform below our capacity, as our language prevents us from taking action. We say, there is a difference between talking and acting because we engage in DL. In EL, by contrast, talking is action as well as motivation for that which works.

 

When you say something to yourself and you hear yourself saying it, you hear your own sound and you realize, the speaker is, obviously, the same person as the listener. In other words, there is no conflict, because this crazy fantasy, that you think, doesn’t occur. Of course, in DL, you merely imagine, there is a speaker inside of you and a listener and these two fabricated entities are, supposedly, having an inner conversation with each other. This is total nonsense.

 

You are not the same, you are always new. You can say it and you can hear it, when you get really in touch with yourself, by talking out loud and by listening to yourself. Of course, there is no you, who talks with him or herself, there is merely talking and listening going on, which happen simultaneously. So, you are not speaking and listening disjointedly, as that is an example of DL. This brings us to the boring, stupid way, everyone, everywhere, talks, every day. DL is more of the same unintelligent, reactive, coercive bullshit and it is about time, we get to the real deal. When you engage in EL, you will never be the same again, because, with hundred percent certainty, you will know your own Language Enlightenment (LE).