A lot of serious posts, I have written..To change my blog mood, the time has come!!
Ok ok..I know I copied the 'Yoda' style but then the 'Force' has to be with someone while he is not around ;) He he..So the phenomena has started already..I am ON now with this kind of nonsense. What gave me inspiration for such perspiration was a very dangerous and an unlikely event - I read my own blog posts!!! :O
My ongoing blog series 'Phor the Phil of Sophos' was like so full of dry funda-baaji that I was like - 'Did I write all this crap?? From when did I become so wisdomous!!' I don't want to read back my own posts years after my last grey hairs fall off and wonder 'Was I such a boring geek at 23??' Well I am not...and I am gonna prove that to future old me that 'Oho..So I was also a childish freak' ;D
Today I checked out Twitter..some micro-blogging microsite which eating popularity charts like a parasite (notice my rhyming alankar ;P )..Bhuni my friend..also known by net alias samudranb (which may be his real name if I remember right) had been tweeting for some time now and I went to see what on earth is he upto after resigning from his job just bcoz his boss didn't give a damn about his leave request for a biking trip!! And I found what looked like more or less like orkut scraps or facebook wall crawls just with '@' symbols added in front...
I found his one tweet -
@gulpanag my 6 month old cocker spaniel pup Leo hides between my legs the moment he sees a stray... any advice from @super_milo ?
I got suspicious...Is he talking bullshit to the same Gul Panag that we feel wetty even if we talk to her only in dreams!! I clicked on it and got redirected to Gul Panag's tweeting home with her supersexy photo on left...I was like 'Wooooowwwww!'
But that was not just it!! I scrolled down on her page and found this -
@samudranb just be cool he says'
I was like 'What the ...!!!' Dude that Samudra is, I never expected he be asking Gul Panag about his cocker between his legs (yeah that sounds very un-innocent ;P) and she would be actually replying to that!!!
Well, a celebrity is what celebrity does...Way to go Bhuni!! :D
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Religion & Spirituality
I have listened to many understandings of 'religion' varying from 'praying to a personal God' to 'observing rituals'. Also I heard definitions of 'spirituality' from the common men. They range from 'doing meditation' to 'drinking spirit(alcohol)'!! Some people even consider 'religion' as theistic and 'spirituality' as atheistic. I find it a bit disappointing to find my fellow Indians so ignorant on this topic though they feel proud in hailing from this 'Ancient Land of Spirituality'. I do not claim to be a doctorate myself but at least I try my best to fan out my ignorance. And what follows is my current understanding on the subject.
I consider spirituality as the core of religion, any religion. In fact I would like to divide religion into 3 layers inside out -
1. Spiritual - Based on experience
2. Philosophical - Based on intellectual understanding of the 1st layer
3. Ritual/Cultural - Based on lifestyle created in harmony with the 1st & 2nd layer
Any religion begins with the actual experience. The seed of Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, etc was the experience of Siddharta, Mahavira, Jesus, Muhammad, etc respectively. Of course, Hinduism was based on the experience of not just any particular person, but on collective experiences of rishis,yogis and swamis. So we see that 'experience' is the foundation of religion.
Now the question comes what exactly this experience is. We say 'I myself experienced this or that' but have you heard anybody saying 'I experienced myself'? Self is consciousness. It is the awareness of the innate understanding that 'I' am. 'I' is the experiencer and everything else is being experienced. But when this 'experience-r' itself becomes the 'experience-d', then it is the 'experience' we are discussing here. So in simple words, it is the experience of pure consciousness. There are 4 states we can experience by the combination of the 2 states of mind & 2 states of consciousness -
1. Waking State - Thoughts with consciousness
2. Dream State - Thoughts without consciousness
3. Deep State - No thoughts and no consciousness
4. 4th State - No thoughts and just consciousness
We experience the first 3 states commonly. But its this 4th state of experience which proves elusive. This 4th state is the 'God','enlightenment','Self','superconsciousness','no-mind state','samadhi', etc etc. Whatever you may want to call it, but this experience is the ultimate bliss. And in this state also comes the awareness that the cosmos, you and I are not separate but manifestations of the same 'I'. The whole science of 'yoga' & 'tantra' deals only with how to get this experience and is a vast topic in itself. This experience is like the waking up from the dream world to reality. And here is where the seed of religion gets planted.
Of course, when you wake up from a nightmare and find others screaming in their sleeps, what will you do? You will try to wake up the other guy and show him that his misery is just caused by his own illusion. This process of 'waking-up' others to show them the truth where there is no misery is what starts the movement which becomes a religion over time.
The philosophical layer is also an important part of religion as it tries to answer the questions asked by the intellectual minds. The questions can be anything like - Who am I? Whats the purpose of existence? Is there a creator? Why should we do good to others? etc...More often than not these questions lead to more questions, and thus the quest continues till the answers are given not through books or lectures but through direct experience itself. And then again as one tries to explain the experiences, more philosophy gets created.
Based on the experience and the intellectual understanding of the experience comes the lifestyle - the way to live. This way of living is designed in such a way that people get happiness, peace, prosperity and evolve more rapidly towards the ultimate. Of course dry philosophical lectures cannot be enough to make the common man follow this lifestyle. For that, the philosophy get woven into stories, the spiritual practices get embedded into rituals and the formless God gets limited to some forms. This completes the religion.
It all sounds very logical and so where is the damn problem one might ask. The problem is that the people start idetifying only the 3rd layer as 'religion' and forget about the first two. Instead of maturing towards the inner layers they get stuck with the 3rd layer and stubbornly & fearfully refuse to move from there. Then you will see the mothers telling the same stories to their children but not teaching them their true meaning because they themselves do not know or even care to know. You will find men following rituals daily without knowing their purpose. People will be fighting over which 'God' is superior without the understanding that all are one and the same. In many cases people this ignorance becomes so rock solid that even when some enlightened masters with the 'experience' try to show them light, they attack the masters with the charge of 'blasphemy'. History has repeated itself again & again witnessing the fate of Jesus, Socrates, the Sufi masters and many others.
We need to move over from this kind of ignorance to omniscience. We need to first understand the truths and experience them. We need to loosen up the hold the 3rd layer has on us and be liquid enough to seep through the inner layers. We need to mature from rituality to spirituality.
And we will, eventually. After all that is the ultimate stage of evolution and we all are moving towards it with our own velocities. Its just that why keep riding on a bullock cart when aeroplanes are parked in front of us!
I consider spirituality as the core of religion, any religion. In fact I would like to divide religion into 3 layers inside out -
1. Spiritual - Based on experience
2. Philosophical - Based on intellectual understanding of the 1st layer
3. Ritual/Cultural - Based on lifestyle created in harmony with the 1st & 2nd layer
Any religion begins with the actual experience. The seed of Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam, etc was the experience of Siddharta, Mahavira, Jesus, Muhammad, etc respectively. Of course, Hinduism was based on the experience of not just any particular person, but on collective experiences of rishis,yogis and swamis. So we see that 'experience' is the foundation of religion.
Now the question comes what exactly this experience is. We say 'I myself experienced this or that' but have you heard anybody saying 'I experienced myself'? Self is consciousness. It is the awareness of the innate understanding that 'I' am. 'I' is the experiencer and everything else is being experienced. But when this 'experience-r' itself becomes the 'experience-d', then it is the 'experience' we are discussing here. So in simple words, it is the experience of pure consciousness. There are 4 states we can experience by the combination of the 2 states of mind & 2 states of consciousness -
1. Waking State - Thoughts with consciousness
2. Dream State - Thoughts without consciousness
3. Deep State - No thoughts and no consciousness
4. 4th State - No thoughts and just consciousness
We experience the first 3 states commonly. But its this 4th state of experience which proves elusive. This 4th state is the 'God','enlightenment','Self','superconsciousness','no-mind state','samadhi', etc etc. Whatever you may want to call it, but this experience is the ultimate bliss. And in this state also comes the awareness that the cosmos, you and I are not separate but manifestations of the same 'I'. The whole science of 'yoga' & 'tantra' deals only with how to get this experience and is a vast topic in itself. This experience is like the waking up from the dream world to reality. And here is where the seed of religion gets planted.
Of course, when you wake up from a nightmare and find others screaming in their sleeps, what will you do? You will try to wake up the other guy and show him that his misery is just caused by his own illusion. This process of 'waking-up' others to show them the truth where there is no misery is what starts the movement which becomes a religion over time.
The philosophical layer is also an important part of religion as it tries to answer the questions asked by the intellectual minds. The questions can be anything like - Who am I? Whats the purpose of existence? Is there a creator? Why should we do good to others? etc...More often than not these questions lead to more questions, and thus the quest continues till the answers are given not through books or lectures but through direct experience itself. And then again as one tries to explain the experiences, more philosophy gets created.
Based on the experience and the intellectual understanding of the experience comes the lifestyle - the way to live. This way of living is designed in such a way that people get happiness, peace, prosperity and evolve more rapidly towards the ultimate. Of course dry philosophical lectures cannot be enough to make the common man follow this lifestyle. For that, the philosophy get woven into stories, the spiritual practices get embedded into rituals and the formless God gets limited to some forms. This completes the religion.
It all sounds very logical and so where is the damn problem one might ask. The problem is that the people start idetifying only the 3rd layer as 'religion' and forget about the first two. Instead of maturing towards the inner layers they get stuck with the 3rd layer and stubbornly & fearfully refuse to move from there. Then you will see the mothers telling the same stories to their children but not teaching them their true meaning because they themselves do not know or even care to know. You will find men following rituals daily without knowing their purpose. People will be fighting over which 'God' is superior without the understanding that all are one and the same. In many cases people this ignorance becomes so rock solid that even when some enlightened masters with the 'experience' try to show them light, they attack the masters with the charge of 'blasphemy'. History has repeated itself again & again witnessing the fate of Jesus, Socrates, the Sufi masters and many others.
We need to move over from this kind of ignorance to omniscience. We need to first understand the truths and experience them. We need to loosen up the hold the 3rd layer has on us and be liquid enough to seep through the inner layers. We need to mature from rituality to spirituality.
And we will, eventually. After all that is the ultimate stage of evolution and we all are moving towards it with our own velocities. Its just that why keep riding on a bullock cart when aeroplanes are parked in front of us!
Monday, July 13, 2009
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Truth
Theorizing is fun, more so when its contradicting others. Here are some experiments with truth of a mind growing spiritually and intellectually, but which still has a long way to go...
I agree with the ancient Hindu sages with respect to Creation of universe, Brahman (highest reality) being the only Truth with an inherent consciousness which when merges with Maya (lower order of reality) forms Iswara and starts the leela of Creation & Dissolution. Maya provides the matter manifestations (naam-roopas) and the original consciousness provides a kind of designing life force, kind of creative energy which is present in every living or non living thing.
This original consciousness can be reflected/projected/manifested using an instrument to limit & focus its power on a particular space & time of Maya. This instrument is the mind and the reflection is the changing consciousness or ego. Since the ‘ego’ is the actual ‘doer’ & the ‘I’ is just a witness, human beings mistake ‘I’ as the ‘doer’ and being one and same with ’ego’. The cause of mind limiting the consciousness of the beings is to avoid the chaos of witnessing every event of the universe at all times.
Hereafter I differ from the sages who believe that the ego along with mind is the birthless & deathless soul. I would rather theorize that the mind is also a manifestation of Maya and cannot exist without a physical body.
Whenever a new & ready physical body and mind is created, the original consciousness starts getting reflected in it by itself. It is like a new bulb which starts glowing when fitted in a socket on a network of electric lines. When the bulb dies out or gets damaged, the glow stops. In the same way, when the mind & body wears out and the brain stops working, then the original consciousness stops reflecting in it. That’s just it; no transmigration of mind & ego; no karmas needed. There is of course an undying self within all of us and which is all of us - the original consciousness or Brahman, but it cannot be called as transmigrating from one body to another as it is truly one and same in all.
So, in a way all the beings attain Moksha on death (videha mukta) without realizing it as their individual consciousness dies, but lucky are those who attain Moksha at life and can be called jeevan mukta. Since they consciously look beyond the veil of Maya to the true reality, they live a life without any regrets and with sense of complete fulfillment.
The diversity of living beings is not because of any karmas of jeevatmas but it is an inherent nature of Iswara impelling Maya to diversify naam-roopas. So all the physical & mental setups have to be different and evolving according to the creative force of Iswara. This is similar to a conscious being dreaming various random dreams but not having any conscious control over them, as it is an embedded nature of dreams to diversify.
The social world is totally a result of superimposition of free wills of the so-called conscious beings and comes under the subjective order of reality ( ie. 3rd order of reality, lower than that of Maya ) and hence should be independent of laws of Maya. Even enjoyment and suffering are also matters of subjective perception and emotion, hence even they fall under subjective reality. If there is a sense of partiality involved between a child born in rich family and that in poor family, then the Creators of this subjective reality (Human beings) should be blamed and not the Creator of empirical reality (Iswara). Like a man woken up does not concern himself with the matters of his dreams (since they are at different orders of reality) similarly the Iswara does not concern itself with the matters of society. Human beings can always try to unite and exert their free will to change the society to make it look impartial (so to say).
Of course all the above stuffs are just my theories and I am ready to give them up if I get better ones in future...
I agree with the ancient Hindu sages with respect to Creation of universe, Brahman (highest reality) being the only Truth with an inherent consciousness which when merges with Maya (lower order of reality) forms Iswara and starts the leela of Creation & Dissolution. Maya provides the matter manifestations (naam-roopas) and the original consciousness provides a kind of designing life force, kind of creative energy which is present in every living or non living thing.
This original consciousness can be reflected/projected/manifested using an instrument to limit & focus its power on a particular space & time of Maya. This instrument is the mind and the reflection is the changing consciousness or ego. Since the ‘ego’ is the actual ‘doer’ & the ‘I’ is just a witness, human beings mistake ‘I’ as the ‘doer’ and being one and same with ’ego’. The cause of mind limiting the consciousness of the beings is to avoid the chaos of witnessing every event of the universe at all times.
Hereafter I differ from the sages who believe that the ego along with mind is the birthless & deathless soul. I would rather theorize that the mind is also a manifestation of Maya and cannot exist without a physical body.
Whenever a new & ready physical body and mind is created, the original consciousness starts getting reflected in it by itself. It is like a new bulb which starts glowing when fitted in a socket on a network of electric lines. When the bulb dies out or gets damaged, the glow stops. In the same way, when the mind & body wears out and the brain stops working, then the original consciousness stops reflecting in it. That’s just it; no transmigration of mind & ego; no karmas needed. There is of course an undying self within all of us and which is all of us - the original consciousness or Brahman, but it cannot be called as transmigrating from one body to another as it is truly one and same in all.
So, in a way all the beings attain Moksha on death (videha mukta) without realizing it as their individual consciousness dies, but lucky are those who attain Moksha at life and can be called jeevan mukta. Since they consciously look beyond the veil of Maya to the true reality, they live a life without any regrets and with sense of complete fulfillment.
The diversity of living beings is not because of any karmas of jeevatmas but it is an inherent nature of Iswara impelling Maya to diversify naam-roopas. So all the physical & mental setups have to be different and evolving according to the creative force of Iswara. This is similar to a conscious being dreaming various random dreams but not having any conscious control over them, as it is an embedded nature of dreams to diversify.
The social world is totally a result of superimposition of free wills of the so-called conscious beings and comes under the subjective order of reality ( ie. 3rd order of reality, lower than that of Maya ) and hence should be independent of laws of Maya. Even enjoyment and suffering are also matters of subjective perception and emotion, hence even they fall under subjective reality. If there is a sense of partiality involved between a child born in rich family and that in poor family, then the Creators of this subjective reality (Human beings) should be blamed and not the Creator of empirical reality (Iswara). Like a man woken up does not concern himself with the matters of his dreams (since they are at different orders of reality) similarly the Iswara does not concern itself with the matters of society. Human beings can always try to unite and exert their free will to change the society to make it look impartial (so to say).
Of course all the above stuffs are just my theories and I am ready to give them up if I get better ones in future...
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Karma
It has become a fashion to use the word 'Karma', specially in West. I also got interested in it and at first glance 'Karma', the law of cause and effect sounded scientific enough for a logical mind to grasp, but more I dwelved in details the more I got confused.
Here's my 11 point confusion list on Theory of Karma as forwarded by the Advaitis -
1. The major argument raised in support of karma is the diversities of the living beings and their comparative advantages/disadvantages over one another with respect to the environment & the uncontrollable situations they get into. Without karma, it would seem as if the Creator is partial. But this can be negated saying that it is not partialness but randomness inherent to the Creator.
2. Partiality can come into play only when there is a goal & a winner. But neither are there for jeevatmas. Moksha cannot be considered as a goal as it is not a state or destination to be achieved but just a self-realization of true nature. So its not a race against others that partiality will play any role.
3. There is lot of diversity & randomness in the non-living material part of universe too. None of the galaxies or stars are same whether they affect jeevatmas or not. The fate of stars maybe black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, etc. Should that be also called as partiality towards the original consciousness inherent in these stars? This shows that randomness is an aspect of the universe and only its governing principles are constant (or impartial so to speak). This should apply in case of jeevatmas too.
4. Karmas are said to be without beginning so as to avoid the question of how the first jeevas were formed without any karmas. Now, that which has no beginning cannot have an neither have an end nor have any change as a whole. It can neither be created nor be destroyed. So how can any being increase or decrease its karma? Is it that he is just transferring his karma to other beings? In that case the liberation of one enlightened being should be adding load to thousands of others through no fault of theirs!
5. Karmas are referred as direct result of cause & effect cycle. But cause & effect can only exist when a concept of time exists. So when a creation gets dissolved, even the karmas should get dissolved as time itself becomes non-existent until the creation starts all over again.
6. The poonya paap aspects of karma sound a bit lame as good or bad, enjoyment or suffering is a matter of judgment & emotion and is extremely subjective. Also, what about the actions which are neither considered neither good nor bad or the results of which are neither enjoyed nor suffered? What about microbes which feel neither suffering nor enjoyment and can do neither good nor bad but only what it is supposed to do – will there be any addition to its karma?
7. How can the karmas result into being born in wealthy or poor families? Wealth is again a subjective term and the currency notes one have cannot be anyway get counted by the soul trying to find a family according to its karma. If any affluent family just after giving birth to a child (with good karmas) loses all its money (say because of the free will applied by the father incorrectly in business) and becomes poor, then how was the karmic calculation done? The soul of new baby found a rich house according to its punyas but got poor through no fault of his own. Either we have to say that this is partiality (which negates the argument for Karma) or we have to say that the soul with good karmas cannot be born in such a family which is going to be poor soon (this can only prove a fixed destiny which again negates the theory of karma & free will)
8. What exactly happens to the karma of the jnani at videha mukti? The karma is neither bears fruit (this will be negation of cause effect cycle) nor can it die away (since karmas are birthless).
9. Cause & effect are a continuous process without any break. For every action, reaction starts almost simultaneously. But for karmas to happen, the actions are hanging in for intervals of several lifetimes before getting a reaction.
10. If a person does minimal action and only enjoys or suffers all the situations of life, then his karma quota for this life (prarabdha) will get exhausted pretty soon and he will die soon. So, does action extend lifetime & enjoyment decreases lifetime?
11. Another argument for karma is said to be that the mind though conscious of consequences wills evil and though dissuaded continues to commit sinful deeds. This to me sounds more like an argument for free will rather than karma. Maya’s veiling power makes all beings unaware of their united true nature and they consider themselves only as limited individual consciousness. This is bound to create selfishness which is the root cause of all evils. A truly selfless man can never harm anyone. So, this argument can be negated as its more of misuse of free will owing to impulsion of Maya, than the compulsion of karma.
Here's my 11 point confusion list on Theory of Karma as forwarded by the Advaitis -
1. The major argument raised in support of karma is the diversities of the living beings and their comparative advantages/disadvantages over one another with respect to the environment & the uncontrollable situations they get into. Without karma, it would seem as if the Creator is partial. But this can be negated saying that it is not partialness but randomness inherent to the Creator.
2. Partiality can come into play only when there is a goal & a winner. But neither are there for jeevatmas. Moksha cannot be considered as a goal as it is not a state or destination to be achieved but just a self-realization of true nature. So its not a race against others that partiality will play any role.
3. There is lot of diversity & randomness in the non-living material part of universe too. None of the galaxies or stars are same whether they affect jeevatmas or not. The fate of stars maybe black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, etc. Should that be also called as partiality towards the original consciousness inherent in these stars? This shows that randomness is an aspect of the universe and only its governing principles are constant (or impartial so to speak). This should apply in case of jeevatmas too.
4. Karmas are said to be without beginning so as to avoid the question of how the first jeevas were formed without any karmas. Now, that which has no beginning cannot have an neither have an end nor have any change as a whole. It can neither be created nor be destroyed. So how can any being increase or decrease its karma? Is it that he is just transferring his karma to other beings? In that case the liberation of one enlightened being should be adding load to thousands of others through no fault of theirs!
5. Karmas are referred as direct result of cause & effect cycle. But cause & effect can only exist when a concept of time exists. So when a creation gets dissolved, even the karmas should get dissolved as time itself becomes non-existent until the creation starts all over again.
6. The poonya paap aspects of karma sound a bit lame as good or bad, enjoyment or suffering is a matter of judgment & emotion and is extremely subjective. Also, what about the actions which are neither considered neither good nor bad or the results of which are neither enjoyed nor suffered? What about microbes which feel neither suffering nor enjoyment and can do neither good nor bad but only what it is supposed to do – will there be any addition to its karma?
7. How can the karmas result into being born in wealthy or poor families? Wealth is again a subjective term and the currency notes one have cannot be anyway get counted by the soul trying to find a family according to its karma. If any affluent family just after giving birth to a child (with good karmas) loses all its money (say because of the free will applied by the father incorrectly in business) and becomes poor, then how was the karmic calculation done? The soul of new baby found a rich house according to its punyas but got poor through no fault of his own. Either we have to say that this is partiality (which negates the argument for Karma) or we have to say that the soul with good karmas cannot be born in such a family which is going to be poor soon (this can only prove a fixed destiny which again negates the theory of karma & free will)
8. What exactly happens to the karma of the jnani at videha mukti? The karma is neither bears fruit (this will be negation of cause effect cycle) nor can it die away (since karmas are birthless).
9. Cause & effect are a continuous process without any break. For every action, reaction starts almost simultaneously. But for karmas to happen, the actions are hanging in for intervals of several lifetimes before getting a reaction.
10. If a person does minimal action and only enjoys or suffers all the situations of life, then his karma quota for this life (prarabdha) will get exhausted pretty soon and he will die soon. So, does action extend lifetime & enjoyment decreases lifetime?
11. Another argument for karma is said to be that the mind though conscious of consequences wills evil and though dissuaded continues to commit sinful deeds. This to me sounds more like an argument for free will rather than karma. Maya’s veiling power makes all beings unaware of their united true nature and they consider themselves only as limited individual consciousness. This is bound to create selfishness which is the root cause of all evils. A truly selfless man can never harm anyone. So, this argument can be negated as its more of misuse of free will owing to impulsion of Maya, than the compulsion of karma.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Phor the Phil of Sophos - Transmigration of Soul
I read the Advaita Vedanta authored by D Krishna Ayyar and found it quite enlightening. However I found that some of the stuffs weren't completely explained which planted seeds of doubts in my mind on even some of the very basic theories. One such topics is the transmigration of soul. I do not believe in outright denial of any theory just because my mind is not mature enough to grasp the truth but I do believe that questioning will lead to decrease the dark fog. So, here are my points on the theory of transmigration of soul which require clarifications -
- The Sukshma Sarira is said to contain the individual consciousness of the being along with the prana, indriyas, karmas and vasnas. But the individual consciousness is like a reflection/projection of the original Brahman consciousness which occurs when the original consciousness gets a suitable instrument for this projection (eg. mind). Now, when a person dies, we know that the original consciousness did not leave it since that is all pervading but the reflected consciousness is not present. So, cant we just say that since the mind has stopped functioning due to physical causes, so the instrument is dysfunctional & hence the reflected consciousness no more exists.(non-existence)
- If the reflected consciousness requires an instrument of reflection then how can it be said to leave the body.(non-migration)
A possible explanation for both the points can be that the whole ‘consciousness & reflection’ apparatus (karana & sukshma sarira) is totally devoid of physicality and can exist without a medium like a ghost consciousness which brings us to the other points -
- The concept of a constant conscious ‘I’ (original consciousness) which exists in the background whereas in the foreground is the changing ‘I’ (reflected consciousness or ego) is theorized by saying that though a person grows young to old or goes through the sleeping states, his sense of ‘I’ does not change (pratyabhinja). The same concept when extrapolated to the jeevatma changing bodies does not hold true as the sense of ‘I’ gets restarted. If the sukshma and karana sarira (deep sleep state or causal body) which are the changing & unchanging ‘I’ consciousness gets transferred in a new body then why doesn’t the new being have any perception of this changing state? Since the sthoola sarira ( Physical body) is not supposed to affect either the original or the reflected consciousness, & the karana sarira is basically same in all beings hence there is a possibility that the sukshma sarira has been changed/ reborn.
- At the time of videha mukti, both the sukshma & karana sarira of the jnani is said to disintegrate. But these sariras are said to be birthless (only physical body is subjected to birth & death cycle), so that which has no beginning cannot have an end. It follows that either there is no moksha for jnani (only good that will happen to him is the sense of fulfillment on jeevan mukti) or there is a birth-death cycle of the sukshma sarira ie. Moksha for all because of no transmigration.
- What is problem with the logic of simultaneous birth and death of sukshma & sthoola sarira considering that there is an undying constant consciousness in us anyway which can be considered as the soul. Also, why cant we consider only the karana sarira transmigrating?
- Isnt it a little absurd logic that in the sleep (deep) we are devoid of the ‘changing I’ whereas after death it continues to exist?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Love Dismantled...
Sometimes a question leads to quest. And this is exactly what happens to those who question love. Not one human on earth exists who has not dealt in some way or another with this topic. So have I. And this blog is an intentional attempt to arrange my thoughts on the question before I undertake the quest myself. This will include breaking a semi-structured mindset already present in my mind regarding the subject and building a more structured concept which will be clear enough for me to understand and stable enough for my pursuit of happiness. The only big problem is - logic is responsible for construction of structure and love is responsible for destruction of logic :)
But let me give it a try anyway...
Let me start with one thing I am sure about 'love', and that is - its a word, a phonetic. Now the next question which naturally arises is 'what does it mean?' To this I can definitely say for sure that its meaning changes with the context. The 'love' used in 'I love You', 'making love', 'love thy neighbour', etc are all different. I am narrowing down the scope of this blog to 'romantic love' and hereforth all my references to 'love' would denote that unless stated otherwise.
To take one abstract definition of love - 'love usually refers to a deep, affectionate, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person'. The verb here is 'caring'. So when I say that my mom loves my dad, its naturally understood that she cares a lot about him, and in his interests would lie hers. Though this appeals well to our common sense, most of the times we do not use it understand whether a person is truly in love. What we look for are the symptoms - increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. This would fall under the scientific definition of love which treats it like a long process with 3 different phases in order- lust, attraction and attachment.
Lust is what happens at first glances - a sudden desire jumps out within; blame it to the increased release of testosterone and estrogen, so its kinda temporary and can even be sub-conscious. Attraction is the transition from this temporary to the permanent phase usually propelled by repeated stimulation of senses in the person. ie. seeing, hearing & touching will actually increase the chances of attraction manifolds. This is the phase in which the symptoms which I mentioned earlier usually exist and is said to last from 1 to 3 years. Finally comes attachment, a kind of emotionally symbiotic bonding which is long term and permanent.
So, now I have given an abstract as well as a scientific definition, and they sound reasonable enough, so whats the problem? Actually there is no problem in the cases when both the ideas about love are seemingly in agreement. To give an example, a boy and a girl have all the symptoms and deeply care about each other so much so that they put the other's interest and happiness above the self no matter what; then this can be without doubt termed as 'love'. But the confusion which actually adds to the complexity of the subject is what happens when one of the definitions doesn't hold good. For example, if the boy cares a lot about the girl but doesn't feel it and doesn't have any symptoms or the girl has got all the symptoms but doesn't care much about the life, interests, ambitions and emotions of the boy as long these doesn't concern her. Can this case be also termed as 'love'? This is something which requires deep thought. My own answer to the question is - if it is love then given the time, the two different ideas of love will actually merge into one. So the case I mentioned above can be considered as a pre-requisite of true love, a base on which later on with enough commitment, adjustment, understanding and conscience, will lead to a merging of all definitions. But of course it should not be inferred from this that the 'pre-requisite' state will always inevitably lead to the final destination. In fact from my experience I can say that, more often than not it does not! But of course, you can never know until you proceed...
Pretty much related to what I just said is the concept of 'falling in love'. I mentioned that if there a base to build on, then there is a good chance of falling in love. But now the question is what about a case where there is no base? Can then a person still fall in love? Is it actually possible for a person to start feeling something from nothing? There is a theory regarding proper theory regarding 'falling in love' known as Alberoni Theory which states that 'Falling in love is a process of the same nature as religious or political conversion. People fall in love when they are ready to change, or to start a new life. According to Alberoni, falling in love is a rapid process of destructuration-reorganization called the the nascent state, the individual becomes capable of merging with another person and creating a new collectivity with a very high degree of social solidarity. Hence the definition: falling in love is the nascent state of a collective movement formed of two people only.'
Now another thing comes to mind, and that is - how does this destructuration-reorganization work out to love? Even this is answered by Alberoni - 'In order to understand if someone is truly in love, the individual must be put to truth tests and, in order to find out if he or she is loved in return, the beloved is also put to reciprocal tests. The incandescent process of the nascent state through these tests gives way to certainty and produces a stable love relationship. The phenomenology of falling in love is the same for young people and adults, for men and women and for homosexuals and heterosexuals: this is because the structure of the nascent state is always the same.'
So, by all means it is possible to fall in love if the person truly wants to. It is based on this idea that the so called 'Arrange Marriages' have withstood the tests of time for centuries. The 'arrangement' gradually rolls down to 'love' and that's the way it is. Also, even in 'Love Marriages' since it is very rare that both the partners develop affectionate feelings at the same time, so most of the times it happens that one of them shares his/her feelings and starts a chain reaction in the mind of other who if interested even at subconscious level will start falling in love.
Well, writing down all this stuff is giving me a clarity a clear picture of where I stand myself. But all my ideas boil down to one thing..the final question still remains...Is it possible for stoic guys like me who are high on IQ and low on EQ to actually develop deep feelings? Can we make enough room for another person to enter in our personal space? Can we be selfless enough to care put other's interests before us? Can we be compromising enough to correct ourselves and ignore the wrongs of others? In short, can people like us ever be in love? In its answer, I would have to emphatically quote the ever-optimistic Mr. Obama's words 'Yes, We can!!!' :)
Thanks,
Swarnadeep Banerjee (aka Swarno)
NIT Durgapur
But let me give it a try anyway...
Let me start with one thing I am sure about 'love', and that is - its a word, a phonetic. Now the next question which naturally arises is 'what does it mean?' To this I can definitely say for sure that its meaning changes with the context. The 'love' used in 'I love You', 'making love', 'love thy neighbour', etc are all different. I am narrowing down the scope of this blog to 'romantic love' and hereforth all my references to 'love' would denote that unless stated otherwise.
To take one abstract definition of love - 'love usually refers to a deep, affectionate, ineffable feeling of tenderly caring for another person'. The verb here is 'caring'. So when I say that my mom loves my dad, its naturally understood that she cares a lot about him, and in his interests would lie hers. Though this appeals well to our common sense, most of the times we do not use it understand whether a person is truly in love. What we look for are the symptoms - increased heart rate, loss of appetite and sleep, and an intense feeling of excitement. This would fall under the scientific definition of love which treats it like a long process with 3 different phases in order- lust, attraction and attachment.
Lust is what happens at first glances - a sudden desire jumps out within; blame it to the increased release of testosterone and estrogen, so its kinda temporary and can even be sub-conscious. Attraction is the transition from this temporary to the permanent phase usually propelled by repeated stimulation of senses in the person. ie. seeing, hearing & touching will actually increase the chances of attraction manifolds. This is the phase in which the symptoms which I mentioned earlier usually exist and is said to last from 1 to 3 years. Finally comes attachment, a kind of emotionally symbiotic bonding which is long term and permanent.
So, now I have given an abstract as well as a scientific definition, and they sound reasonable enough, so whats the problem? Actually there is no problem in the cases when both the ideas about love are seemingly in agreement. To give an example, a boy and a girl have all the symptoms and deeply care about each other so much so that they put the other's interest and happiness above the self no matter what; then this can be without doubt termed as 'love'. But the confusion which actually adds to the complexity of the subject is what happens when one of the definitions doesn't hold good. For example, if the boy cares a lot about the girl but doesn't feel it and doesn't have any symptoms or the girl has got all the symptoms but doesn't care much about the life, interests, ambitions and emotions of the boy as long these doesn't concern her. Can this case be also termed as 'love'? This is something which requires deep thought. My own answer to the question is - if it is love then given the time, the two different ideas of love will actually merge into one. So the case I mentioned above can be considered as a pre-requisite of true love, a base on which later on with enough commitment, adjustment, understanding and conscience, will lead to a merging of all definitions. But of course it should not be inferred from this that the 'pre-requisite' state will always inevitably lead to the final destination. In fact from my experience I can say that, more often than not it does not! But of course, you can never know until you proceed...
Pretty much related to what I just said is the concept of 'falling in love'. I mentioned that if there a base to build on, then there is a good chance of falling in love. But now the question is what about a case where there is no base? Can then a person still fall in love? Is it actually possible for a person to start feeling something from nothing? There is a theory regarding proper theory regarding 'falling in love' known as Alberoni Theory which states that 'Falling in love is a process of the same nature as religious or political conversion. People fall in love when they are ready to change, or to start a new life. According to Alberoni, falling in love is a rapid process of destructuration-reorganization called the the nascent state, the individual becomes capable of merging with another person and creating a new collectivity with a very high degree of social solidarity. Hence the definition: falling in love is the nascent state of a collective movement formed of two people only.'
Now another thing comes to mind, and that is - how does this destructuration-reorganization work out to love? Even this is answered by Alberoni - 'In order to understand if someone is truly in love, the individual must be put to truth tests and, in order to find out if he or she is loved in return, the beloved is also put to reciprocal tests. The incandescent process of the nascent state through these tests gives way to certainty and produces a stable love relationship. The phenomenology of falling in love is the same for young people and adults, for men and women and for homosexuals and heterosexuals: this is because the structure of the nascent state is always the same.'
So, by all means it is possible to fall in love if the person truly wants to. It is based on this idea that the so called 'Arrange Marriages' have withstood the tests of time for centuries. The 'arrangement' gradually rolls down to 'love' and that's the way it is. Also, even in 'Love Marriages' since it is very rare that both the partners develop affectionate feelings at the same time, so most of the times it happens that one of them shares his/her feelings and starts a chain reaction in the mind of other who if interested even at subconscious level will start falling in love.
Well, writing down all this stuff is giving me a clarity a clear picture of where I stand myself. But all my ideas boil down to one thing..the final question still remains...Is it possible for stoic guys like me who are high on IQ and low on EQ to actually develop deep feelings? Can we make enough room for another person to enter in our personal space? Can we be selfless enough to care put other's interests before us? Can we be compromising enough to correct ourselves and ignore the wrongs of others? In short, can people like us ever be in love? In its answer, I would have to emphatically quote the ever-optimistic Mr. Obama's words 'Yes, We can!!!' :)
Thanks,
Swarnadeep Banerjee (aka Swarno)
NIT Durgapur
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)