1. Denoted by the Sanskrit word " Para " , probably meaning transfer or rise of Vision within , Sankalpa, The Divine Will, The Grand Picture deep within of the Past, Present and Future integrated into One, probably something called Omnipresent ..
2. " Pasyanthi ", probably transfer or rise of thoughts based on Vision within most probably ..
3. " Madhyama ", probably the utterings and mutterings .. mostly based on thoughts ..
4. " Vaikhari ", probably the beautiful flow of words and actions of individual seen outwardly..
Which form of communication do you think most effective .. imparting " Vision " or " Words "...?or All the four forms put together (the vision, thought, word and action put together in Line and in Unison) ..? Do you think while we listen to somebody we shall be addressing more of his thoughts and vision rather than the spoken words...?jk does that way..do everybody do like that ..? Please feel free to answer not restricting urself to the framework of this Q.
2006-08-26 18:26:39 · 7 answers · asked by jayakrishnamenon 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
" It is your duty to ask God, words must be said and words must correspond to thought. The thought must be put into true word. It is true that the Divinity knows all, but HE requires the true word is said. The Mother may know that to maintain life the child requires food, but the milk is given when the child asks for it. "
2006-08-29 21:37:46 · answer #1 · answered by jayakrishnaathmavidya 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hear and listen, see and look. Hmmm, yes I see. More effective though, to what end. All will filter thoughts of another threw the experiences and vanities of their own mind. Subjective interpretations, each individual will envision from their own frame of reference. Yet the commonalities remain almost universal. So then, this could be a way of transferring the vision. A look into the content of the soul as apposed to the spoken word. I have approached this before upon occasions, I usually can't be bothered though. The mundane and self interest is also almost universal, as it should be; after all it's what keeps the species going. The extraordinary is the font here, and the truth does shine out when it's there; that clear ring it has. That's were this is best applied, rare yes; but with real benefits to be gained; diamonds; not more sand. See what could be within another rather than what is at the moment, and see threw time. Project vision while speaking, always truthfully; enhanced by this truth; if only you see it; it's enough. It is then. It therefore must have been. It will be forever. It is a mystery no more. Still, to what end. Beyond the moment, after it's gone; into nothing; into consciousness. To the end of time all grand plans and dramas mean nothing at all. Each moment has the meaning, life; the only value that's real. Life in the moments, the vision revealed. Each life, every moment; all connected by the vision. The vision described by the word. The word listened to that stirs the vision. The circle completed, the wheel turns. Life, the continuance cycles onward and produces hope. Hope is for the future, with occasions for the past. Hope makes that wheel spin even faster. Oh to live long enough for but one cycle! To know, and not just surmise. Better to not know, we should be humble before the One.
2006-08-26 19:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There is common experience where words aren't necessary,e.g.
If I'm hiking with a friend and suddenly a large mountain comes into view it isn't necessary to use words or gestures to know we have both seen the same mountain.
Words also deal with transfer of common experience, but in a way that allows for more detailed communications.
Empathy is based on an assumption of common internal experience.- A feeling can be communicated from one person to another by a look.
Any pre-understood signal can communicate a specific thing.
Telepathy is a way of communicating something between two people without a physical link.
2006-08-26 19:07:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Interesting! Well, if I'm getting this, I think it really depends on your mode of learning, doesn't it, as to what style of communication you prefer, I would think. Some are visual learners, some audio, etc. I have friends who say they think in terms of pictures, and others through words, some by sound. But the way these are patterned, it looks like they culminate in #4.
2006-08-26 18:33:29 · answer #4 · answered by diasporas 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Those aren't the 4 forms of communication I thought you were looking for. I only know Telegraph, Telephone, Television, and Tell-A-Woman.
2006-08-26 18:42:51 · answer #5 · answered by Dr. Dave 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is quite ironic that this is virtually incommunicable to someone unfamiliar with their philosophy. If you don't understand the fundamentals might as well read gibberish.
2006-08-26 19:36:00 · answer #6 · answered by happyman 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Your question was rhetorical – therefore not communicative.
Implicit meaning is common for languages like English.
2006-08-26 18:36:55 · answer #7 · answered by ★Greed★ 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋