One method of transcending limitation in language is to determine whether it is possible to have or to own something. If it is determined that there is something to have then it is interesting to attempt to let that thing go. How could this be done? Realizing that in nature all things are transitional helps us let go of them to be able to transcend materialism.

But before we go down that road, let's have a look at language for a second. There exists so much judgment in language that at this point I feel as though we might as well not have it. There is so much critique of certain texts that their meaning is annihilated and replaced with some false twisted notion of understanding. Certain words are becoming more censored and inappropriate to use. Some words might have ten meanings but a person limits their understanding to one meaning and in the process closes themselves off from the true meaning. This provides even greater support for the notion that the surface value of words has no meaning but it does point to a deeper meaning below that surface; one that is not often found or even sought.

Ok - back to the nature of ownership and this obsession we have with holding onto things. That which can be owned is temporal. Considering the roots of ownership and how it can be true at all can lead to a dilemma indeed.

Holding on to something does not prevent it from moving to a new state of being. It still happens but a person still often continues to believe their own illusion that some things can be owned forever. Once something that was held onto is liberated it will still be present and real but no longer attached. This places things in context rather than being attached to them which causes the self to perceive just one possible version of existence through that attachment.

Now - if that has not put you into deep thought, consider that the dualistic nature of language traps certain words into a ghost or illusion of false emotion or conceptualization. Take saying "my love" or "my dear" for example. This can sometimes offend people because it might be seen to have the connotation of ownership. But true communication connotes unlimited meanings and denotes infinite perspectives. Hence using language IS the limitation. If you make a statement as above out of care for a person - should it ever be perceived in a negative light?

Using communication allows meaning to be formed in the mind to serve the intent of the person. Using communication does not cause x to mean just x (whatever x is) - language becomes whatever a person takes it to mean. Attempt to listen for new meanings to find new realities. Stating "my dear" for example could connote "my experience of you as being dear to me". I think that clear communication is pure in nature, but its formulation in language often gives rise to invalid connotations.

In language words are often used for the sake of using them rather than to establish and maintain meaning. Listening to the meaning in the words someone is using; and not thoughts and expectations about the words someone is using. can often provide a more accurate meaning in communication. Doing this opens new lateral methods of perception. Lateral methods of perception lead to completeness as a person who is able to empathize on more levels - this is a glimpse of individuation (in my view, at least).

Once the true nature of communication is realized then it can be noted that this is a process that occurs all the time from moment to moment. Even the worst written article in the world provides insights into just how it failed and this in essence communicates to us what we perceive as a good article. Communication invokes self-knowledge no matter what source it is from as long as a person is listening from moment to moment. The sum of all knowledge exists within and effective communication brings us closer to drawing that knowledge out rather than further concealing it.

In the end, all ideas and concepts must be liberated for their realization to be complete. The alternative is a fixation on one aspect of real; a fixation that leads to a person building a prison wall around themselves. The real that is said to be becomes the base limitation. But if nothing real is held on to as an absolute truth then what one thing can remain limited?