Dec 10, 2011 -- 12:51AM, Aeolus wrote:

Sorry - my ignorance - could you please expand a little more, I am not as knowledgable as some and I am not sure what you are asking :-) 

The 'via positiva' is largely the approach of making positive statements, claims, and advancing beliefs such as one might hear from, say, a Christian. For instance, Christians are always talking about love, but they do not mean it. It is just a verbal expression.

In keeping with the above theme, the approach of the negative, or the 'via negativa', is to first identify what love is not, not just verbally, not just intellectually, but actually. Love, for instance, is  not anger, nor jealousy, or domination, etc. When one eliminates from one's life - again, not just verbally or intellectually, but actually, existentially - all what love is not, what then is left? Some might immediately be inclined to proclaim "Love", but that would again be simply a verbal expression of belief. The 'via negativa' would suggest 'wait and find out'.

I hope this clarifies my original question to some extent.

Dec 11, 2011 -- 5:14PM, Aeolus wrote:

Thanks Namchuck, yes I think I understand this now (though its seems there are always many levels of understanding to all things). Of course, right now my understanding is basic but I will do my best to answer from what I have learnt so far. David Samuel's teaching seems to be geared towards letting go of opinions/concepts that we have learnt to believe through our "eductation", and rather than asking who or what am I? asking more what am I not? What am I when everything I think I am is gone?

What I want to find cannot be defined by the intelect because the intellect is incapable of concieving it - it has to be experienced. Like you said, the "love" most people speak of would only be a finite, intellectual concept of something that is infinite. He has talked about the absolute reality and the relative reality (what is permanent and what is temporary) and within that context, what is true and what is false. 

I read his book on "Understadning Words" - very interesting and goes along with what you were saying about the word "love"  - how even our opinions on the meaning of words stand in our way of seeing the objective reality of things. 

You're welcome, Aeolus.

Good luck on your journey.

Dec 20, 2011 -- 12:47PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 5:14PM, Aeolus wrote:

Thanks Namchuck, yes I think I understand this now (though its seems there are always many levels of understanding to all things). Of course, right now my understanding is basic but I will do my best to answer from what I have learnt so far. David Samuel's teaching seems to be geared towards letting go of opinions/concepts that we have learnt to believe through our "eductation", and rather than asking who or what am I? asking more what am I not? What am I when everything I think I am is gone?

What I want to find cannot be defined by the intelect because the intellect is incapable of concieving it - it has to be experienced. Like you said, the "love" most people speak of would only be a finite, intellectual concept of something that is infinite. He has talked about the absolute reality and the relative reality (what is permanent and what is temporary) and within that context, what is true and what is false. 

I read his book on "Understadning Words" - very interesting and goes along with what you were saying about the word "love"  - how even our opinions on the meaning of words stand in our way of seeing the objective reality of things. 

The way to love, could be just seeing that everybody is just like you. 

I agree with you Willie but why not elaborate upon this theme for us since it may seem to some to go against the idea from nature that we are all unique and individual!  It might lead to a good discussion.  Or not .....

Dec 22, 2011 -- 10:51AM, williejhonlo wrote:

Dec 22, 2011 -- 10:33AM, Seefan wrote:

Dec 20, 2011 -- 12:47PM, williejhonlo wrote:

Dec 11, 2011 -- 5:14PM, Aeolus wrote:

Thanks Namchuck, yes I think I understand this now (though its seems there are always many levels of understanding to all things). Of course, right now my understanding is basic but I will do my best to answer from what I have learnt so far. David Samuel's teaching seems to be geared towards letting go of opinions/concepts that we have learnt to believe through our "eductation", and rather than asking who or what am I? asking more what am I not? What am I when everything I think I am is gone?

What I want to find cannot be defined by the intelect because the intellect is incapable of concieving it - it has to be experienced. Like you said, the "love" most people speak of would only be a finite, intellectual concept of something that is infinite. He has talked about the absolute reality and the relative reality (what is permanent and what is temporary) and within that context, what is true and what is false. 

I read his book on "Understadning Words" - very interesting and goes along with what you were saying about the word "love"  - how even our opinions on the meaning of words stand in our way of seeing the objective reality of things. 

The way to love, could be just seeing that everybody is just like you. 

I agree with you Willie but why not elaborate upon this theme for us since it may seem to some to go against the idea from nature that we are all unique and individual!  It might lead to a good discussion.  Or not .....

 

Yes, we are all unique and different, and in a sense that makes everybody just alike. When we appreciate everybodies uniqueness then maybe that will help us to transcend  petty prejudices. In a world of over 6 billion people it's only natural to expect differences of opinion and beliefs. I think that adds to the worlds richness.

Splendidly put, williejhonlo.