Faith or Will

[Steppingfeet]

The human vernacular is one that is particularly loquacious. This distinct bombastic grandiloquence, though arguably "rich," "articulate" and "poetic," is something I could very well live without (then again, this may be something that has to do with where I come from, my own experience, and my preference for other more efficient/clearer/simpler mediums of communication).

By and large I think that "sound vibration complexes" produced by the vocal chords, the pen, & the keyboard, along with thought-forms of the mind shaped in the mold of words, serve as a handicap to those portions of the Creator unconscious of their true nature as one being.

For reasons you describe well below, language divides that which, in essence, is indivisible. Language-based thinking and communication superimposes separate faces over top of that which can never be separated. Language is inextricably interwoven into, and made possible because of, and further perpetuates the illusory systems of both space and time. It is in the main a device of illusion, an illusion creator.

Yet at the same time I would posit that language, just like everything else in the creation, is not inherently limiting.

Ultimately I don't think the argument stands which contends that, because I speak language/think in the terms of language, I cannot radiate/become truth.

It's akin to saying:

Because I am in a yellow-ray physical complex, I cannot know the self as the Creator.

Because there is a veil creating the illusion that I am separate from all that there is, I cannot see the truth.

Because I live on one of the most jacked-up planets in all of the cosmos, I am locked into an illusory identity.

All things, language included, can be rendered transparent to the Creator, the Creator out of which all things spring and are not independent of.

Human beings have this particular tendency/need to label and categorize and sub-categorize and sub-sub-categorize practically everything they come across with. This gives them the (false) sense or notion that they got things "under control," dissected and comparmentalized for seemingly "better" understanding. However, I think the greater the verbosity, the greater (probability of) misunderstanding/confusion.

Truth is, this verbal means of communication, is of a transient nature. The Universe, the One Infinite Creator/Creation, Infinity Itself, is not describable by words (I'm sure you are aware that past mid-4D verbal language becomes increasingly useless).

Agreed. Every mystic the world over, everyone who has tasted firsthand experience of unity, will describe the absolute and total futility of words and description in the face of the infinite mystery. That the experience is ineffable is a key quality of the unitive merging of self into self.

I think this is where one of the most mystically oriented of excerpts from the Law of One material comes into play:

84.7 Ra: I am Ra. We may ... suggest that it is a grand choice that each may make to, by desire, collect the details of the day or, by desire, seek the keys to unknowing.

Language is built on the premise of subject and object, two things which, ultimately and in reality, do not exist. Or, better, are transient and illusory.

To "know" implies this relationship of subject to object. The subject doing the knowing. The object being known. And the activity of knowing.

Whereas in unity, in the transcendence of all manifested forms, in the embrace of the formless - (and in the final recognition that the formless and form are one) - there is no dichotomy of subject/object, thus no "knowing". Thus no language.

Thus, humor is in order.

Oftentimes, when I hear/read "men of intellect" speak/write/argue about scholarly/scientific matters, I stand aghast, because at a certain point it all has turned into a battle of words that is fought with the knowledge of dictionaries and lexicons and encyclopedias—and the true essence of the message is lost beneath the superfluous amount of verbal logorrhea that is being uttered. So I naturally find this babbling gibberish and jabbering gobbledygock to be extremely unnecessary (but again, that's just me).

Indeed. Most peoples, myself include, are lost examining all things under the sun *except for* the one doing the examining, i.e., the self. Most are having conversations without asking who is having the conversation, without investigated the real seer, the real questioner.

Such a high dependance on a verbal language beffudles the mind from reaching deeper, clearer, simpler understandings (particuarly when it comes to "higher" philosophies or universal/spiritual principles).

Agreed. When we lose our, as you say, dependence on language, we begin to realize the inescapable fact of our consciousness, that being that naked, unqualifiable, infinite awareness needs no language. At the same time we can recognize language's utility within the illusory world of name and form.

Thus, most times I refrain from engaging in verbal communications (this is ironical, however, since communication itself is one of my primary needs, gifts and "virtues"—I am not of Libra and the Air sign by random chance of luck, after all.)

The artist bemoans the limitations of his canvas and palette. : )

I do apologize for the lenghtiness of my response—and for somewhat diverging from your original question (I am still working on synthesizing my writings in a more concise manner). But I did feel I could use this opportunity to express my viewpoint on the subject of "language" itself.

This conversation doesn't tackle the "faith or will" question directly, but it does touch on it indirectly by having the larger conversation of the role of language, in my opinion. Thank you for your post.