Over on Daily Cup of Tao I made much more effort to keep posts short and to skip the explanations. Often with that method I leave gaping holes in explanation and posts can be seen as riddles, meaningless or open to interpretation.
It seemed to me that the more words used then the further the mind was from the truth, that famously "can not be told". It now takes a reader who is in the correct mind-set to read the posts who will gain from them. The number of words required to pull the reader into the place they need to be to "get it" plus the number of words needed to explain what the words mean in that particular case, would defeat the nature of the blog.
I still feel that Daily Cup of Tao did work, say once a week on average, there'd be a post that captured the essence in a few words.
Here are some examples of difficult concepts:
I - We are so used to I being I that when we are reading a post that is using I for the undivided totality, then the meaning is blurred or lost.
i-ego - For many people this is precisely the same as I and not a laughable construct of the mind.
Myself and my self. Powerful difference, not know by many. There are billions of myself's, constructed I's but only one self.
Nothing and no thing. "In awe of no thing", "in awe of nothing".
Awareness as different to consciousness, as different to being ... With so few words at our disposal that all have different meanings to different readers. Many words that have dual nature implied within them. Who is aware, conscious, being? and I'm talking from a state where there is no who.
It really takes a reader who has already done a lot of their own ground work to truly get posts that are written in just a few words and carry subtle messages. Luckily in the time the blog has been alive several of those readers have found their way to it and I'm sure more will given time.
Just as often, long posts (comments too!) with a preponderance of verbiage are still difficult to understand in their fullest sense. We need words to communicate with each other, yet they limit the very essence of what we're trying to communicate.
ReplyDeleteAah! The irony. :-)