On Jul 5, 2011 K P Umesh wrote:|
Frankly, I am literally challenged and find it difficult to catch a creative worker’s mind. However, following is my effort to decipher these stanzas. Excuse me for the naivety in understanding them.
When there is deep abundance there is nowhere to abide. There is nowhere to rest or grasp onto and yet there is rest the sky abides yet it never rests.
1. When there is a problem of abundance, I would choose the first opportunity that suits me. This may deny me the possibility of grasping even better opportunity and brand me a personality devoid of ambitions. I accept it and justify myself settling for concurrent safe and comfortable status rather than unknown and scary future glory.
The Pigeon Hole Principle is what I am indicating. A pigeon selects first available whole for itself among the abundant holes available. It positions its face towards the opening to observe where its fellow pigeons are settling. It makes sounds to alert and direct them to settle around the holes immediately available for them. Pigeon goes out of the hole only to get its livelihood and procreation. On return, if it does not find its original hole, it selects the next available hole. It is happy.
Neither can we say that the sky is not always at rest. We talk about the sky as if it were something as if it actually exists - and yet we cannot say that the sky does not exist. The sky is nothing but coming and going.
2. I recognise and distinguish between Absoluteness and Relativity and Permanency and Ad Hoc-ness of events, matter and feelings. I don’t look for permanency in something which are perceivable as ad hoc and absoluteness in something which are relative in nature. A relative entity like sky is conceptualised to be in certain way by observations made by humans since they have started observing around and has become universally understandable concept. Why one should attempt a new definition for them by attributing abstract properties to them which are not perceivable for the user of the original concept?
Everything is perfectly spontaneous. The coming and going arise mutually instantaneously. If the true I am asleep you will miss the point entirely and you will continue to dwell in the world of opposites.
3. I believe there are non-spontaneous states, events and feelings in life. There are also the events which start spontaneously but undergo conscious stages as the time progresses. Love towards any entity may start spontaneously but nurturing it (like say marriage or seeking salvation) is a conscious decision. Humans have the unique capability of denying spontaneity and make conscious decisions.
If I miss something at a specific instant because I was not aware of such an event happening, so be it! I am not out here to enjoy everything in the universe happening at every instant. I should be satisfied with what I get. I get as much water from a pond as is the capacity of my vessel (I agree the choice of the vessel is mine and negotiable).
So see the two as one and the one as empty and be liberated within the world of duality.
4. I am not convinced the world is just dual (binary) in nature. It is multifaceted. No one knows the opposite ends are just opposites as a concept; especially most of the perceived opposites in the world are highly subjective and relative.
Also, why should one try to convert opposites as one and live even more artificially? What are the philosophical or material benefits in simulating a new amalgamation just because one wants to be creatively experimental? I want to accept things as it is rather than convert the whole universe to my liking and requirements. However, scientific discoveries and inventions are not converting concepts arbitrarily but are the real way of finding more and more hitherto unknown truths and utilising them preferably for the benefits thereon.
At first it seems as if be going follows becoming. But look even closer and you will see that there are only flashes of lightning illuminating the empty sky.
5. Why not give equal importance to “be going” as well as “becoming” rather than crib and shun be going while hoping and waiting endlessly for becoming? Why don’t enjoy the lightning as well as the darkness that immediately follows rather than waiting for a longer duration lightning that may or may not occur at all in near future?
Life and death becoming and be going are only words. In order to save your life you must see that you die instantaneously moment to moment instant to instant.
6. If life and death are mere words and if one wants to lead the precious little life between them, I suggest the opposite of what is suggested– “you live instantaneously moment to moment instant to instant”. If the idea is to simulate death instantaneously to understand how death and post death feels like, it eliminates the possibility of living concurrent life meaningfully and comfortably.
Now where are you going to abide? And where are you not abiding already?
7. If I resolve to live instantaneously rather than die (at every instant) I have effectively removed the scary insecurity of a need to be safely abided by. It confirms my objective of choosing first thing available for me to abide (Pigeon Hole). I don’t exist virtually. I am not already abided by anything else as I believe that there are non-spontaneous things in human life; I live with my consciousness and conscience.
Indeed there is nowhere to rest your head and there is nothing but rest. So let go of all ideas about permanence and impermanence about cause and effect and about no cause and no effect. All such notions are dualistic concepts.
8. The conclusion that nowhere to rest is unsubstantiated. Why any philosophical idea like “cause and effect” should be ignored unanalysed to find the truthfulness? Why one should assume advisory role and conclude (like “there is nowhere to rest your head”) one’s own perception is the actual reality?
If “All such notions are dualistic concepts”, so be it. So what? At the most, one should proceed to find whether it is actually so or not.
The earlier statement says “be liberated within the world of duality” suggesting acceptance of the concept that the world is dual (and with opposites) in nature and one should be liberated within it. Here the suggestion is that the “dual” as a concept is blasphemous!
My opinion is that the world is multi faceted, we don’t have generalised “liberated” or “abided” status for humans.
The Truth of what you are is completely beyond all duality and all notions of non-duality, and yet it includes duality and non-duality alike. Like an ocean that is both waves and stillness and yet un-definable as waves or stillness.
9. The ocean analogy to explain duality Vs Non duality is inappropriate! Waves and stillness are just two of its properties. The definition of a wave and stillness are independent of the definition of an ocean. An object can be conglomeration of many individual organic parts and may have even more attributes as a whole object. All the individual attributes are truths as well as the addition truth that the particular object is made of so many organic truths and has a true status of its own. Why should we assume that there is only one truth which is often said to be beyond other “worldly truths but actually myths” and spawn them? What is the logical contradiction in accepting multiple individual truths both absolute and relative, both elementary and molecular, both organic and composite. Why should we not accept things as it appears rather than attempting virtualisation of them in the quest of proving the “beyond the scene” truth?
More prudent would be to attempt defining ocean with more organic attributes and properties like it is a huge body of salty water, pulled towards earth by gravity and is a medium for marine life etc. etc. rather than declaring that because ocean is still and wavy at the same time it is not well defined.
The truth of being cannot be grasped by ideas or experiences. Both waves and stillness are the manifest activity of your own self. But self cannot be defined by its activity nor by its non-activity.
The truth is all-transcendent ungraspable, all-inclusive and closer than your own skin.
10. If truth is not graspable how one comes to know that it exists? How one understood that the “self” can not be defined by activity or its inactivity? How one realised that something called self existed without using logic or experience? If no logic and experience can reveal the truth then what compels one to believe in it? The statement that the “truth is not graspable” itself does become a truth – doesn’t it? Whatever events happening around and entities that appears to sensory organs are truths to that EXTANT and within its CONTEXT. Of course, if the extent and context of the truth is altered one would experience different truths. Therefore both are truths subject to their extent and context. Like any other concept, truth also can be relative and absolute, why can’t it be?
If some truth can not be experienced, can not be deduced, can not be perceived then with all the probability it does not exists. At the same time there are so many things which are perceivable, felt, enjoyable and above all, unavoidable, albeit within its extent and context, then go ahead, enjoy or endure it!
A single thought about it obscures its essence. The perfume of true life is right in your nose. There is nothing you can do to perceive it and yet you must do something. I say: Rest and be taken. Rest and be taken.
11. I don’t believe in some imaginary “true life” that I should seek to live disregarding everything happening all around me that I can perceive through my sensory organs and comprehend myself or with the help of existing scientific knowledge. Also, if, by chance, some “true life” that is not yet known to current science exists, I believe that the human sensory organs and science and technology could only detect them. Considering myself a rational thinker, I can NOT accept the contradictory suggestion like “Rest and be taken” simultaneously (assuming I understood the meaning of the phrase