63. I will not come Alive, for I will Die!

When a situation makes you laugh your head off, or cry your heart out, or burn in rage, or sink in fear you will try to walk out of the situation saying "I cannot take this anymore". And if you do not or cannot avoid the situation, you will either faint, or lose mental balance, or perhaps even die. The system will break in some way.

When life intensity, whatever its form, crosses a certain limit, you can no more bear it, even if it is in a desirable form (as in joy and laughter). That means presently, you cannot experience life beyond a certain level of intensity; if you try to go beyond it, if you get too overwhelmed, things get dangerous.

When more aliveness, even through pleasant means, is thus perceived as danger or death, what will the human mind unconsciously do? It will make sure that you will live in low voltage, in the safe zone content with tidbits ("choti choti khushiyaan"). Although we claim to want to 'live life fully', all our attempts will be to somehow manage to live without becoming too alive; to live avoiding life. Until one is truly conscious of this irony, it continues no matter which area of life one is in, including Yoga. Life within will temporarily and apparently settle.

But when you become conscious of this limitation upon you, factually and not just as an idea, can you still accept this and settle for it? Does not your innate nature say "I want more" as it has been doing all along with everything? When they said 'seek God', 'seek Enlightenment' etc. what was it they were referring to? Some esoteric entity other than life? Could it be this very thing we are avoiding all the time — to be blazingly Alive, but still be Stable?; to be blissfully intense just by ourselves without any external stimulus?; to be an explosion within, and still not break physically or mentally? Could it be that when deluged by aliveness, we die not physically, but absolutely, and thus really live life totally?

Robert Ingersoll (an American agnostic): "We have an orange here, and we want to squeeze all the juice out of it" [indicating that a worldly man lives life fully, and there is no need of any spiritual pursuit]

Swami Vivekananda: "I have some fruit, and I too want to squeeze out the juice. Our difference lies in the choice of the fruit. You want an orange, and I prefer a mango [indicating that no pulp is wasted]... Your study is the manifestation of life, mine is the life itself"

50. The Imaginary Plight of Light

<< Previous - I am Miserable Because...

Light energy comes through a bulb. Due to witnessing the bulb as an individual entity (which is also a form of energy), the light-energy also gets identified as "light from this bulb". Else there is no identity to it - there is one ocean of energy. You cannot point at the light and say "this light" or "that light". There is really no division in energy (strictly speaking there is - there are packets/quanta of energy - but let us not be so rigorous - this is for the sake of an analogy). The division created in energy by saying "light from this/that bulb" is only apparent and not real. The division is due to witnessing only a part of the ocean at a time, and not recognizing that it is one whole - universe.

Similarly, the identification of consciousness as "mind from this/that body" is apparent and not real. There aren't different consciousnesses just as there aren't different energy. It is one continuum, one existence.

Therefore we have to get out of this ignorance of "this individual light" - because there is no such thing. "Light from the bulb" is not an individual; similarly "me from this brain" is not an individual - it is an unceasing flow of consciousness. It can never be pinpointed as "this". All such pinpointing is wrong (avidya - ignorance). If you say "I am the body" it is as good as the light from the bulb saying "I am this bulb" and creating an imaginary plight. Light can witness the bulb from which it is coming, but it is never the bulb. Furthermore, energy does not go out of existence, it always is; similarly, consciousness never goes out of existence, it always is. Sorry... I always am.

Therefore keenly and diligently focus on this light - the sense of 'me' - and know yourself as the undivided ocean of light, rather than as a petty bulb. And roar, 'I am That'

"I am waiting peace that passeth understanding, which is neither joy nor sorrow, but something above them both…. Now I am nearing that peace, the eternal silence. I preached the theory (of Vedanta) so long but Oh joy! I am realizing it now. Yes, I am. ‘I am free.’ Alone, alone, I am the one without a second.’" (Swami Vivekananda - 1902 May 15 - few days prior to Mahasamadhi)

33. Vivekananda's Involution Theory

<< Previous - Why So Serious?

More than a year ago, we were given an assignment in my M.Sc. class to prepare a presentation on Vivekananda’s Jnana Yoga. The presentation never happened. So I am putting it into some use here J

Modern Science – Statements

States laws of conservation – energy, momentum etc

For e.g. energy is dormant in A and B as potential energy, all of which is manifested as Kinetic energy when it comes to M. So, energy only transforms from one form to another – even a high-school kid knows this. So, changes occur from one form to another. Nothing can either be created or destroyed. Something cannot come out of nothing. (I was surprised to hear Stephen Hawking say “Universe created itself out of nothing”!)

The same modern science also declares that human beings have evolved from single cell organisms.

Objection

How can a highly developed intellect evolve from nothing?

How can a man like Buddha be a result of evolution from a snail?

Where has the law of conservation gone now? Is modern science contradicting itself? It may say that ego and intellect are not quantifiable entities, but it only means that we don’t know how to quantify them. Also, what is the need to quantify? What is sensible? Quantifying it or accepting our own common experience?

Answer – An Alternate Theory

The motion is in cycles. Every evolution presupposes an involution. The perfect man was involved in the snail.

- As per Hindu mythology and Spiritual texts

I could be Intellect in specific or Ego in general

Objection 1

How can both the extremes have I = 0? Then what is the point of growth and evolution?

Answer

Extremes have the same characteristics but they are NOT the same.

E.g. Light spectrum, Sound intensity

In point A, Ego and Intellect are absent (almost). In point C, Ego and Intellect are transcended. In the intermediate point B, ego and intellect manifest with full speed and is visible.

Objection 2

After reaching the final stage of Buddha (Nirvana) do we have to again start a fresh journey? What is the point of Moksha (Nirvana) then?

Answer

No, it is not a fresh journey. In one cycle that particular ‘I’ is dissolved. ‘You’ no more have an existence. What comes up again is a new bubble in the ocean of consciousness. Once a bubble has escaped, its journey is over, it feels one with the whole ocean. Another bubble, even if formed from the same molecules, is not the same bubble anymore. Following analogy of boiling-cooling water depicts this.

Water is constantly heated and cooled – a continuous process. So can we say that the bubbles formed are the same when the same water gets cooled and comes back to the jar? Water is same, jar is same, same heating, but the bubble is different. This is only an analogy – it cannot explain the whole universe! It is only to get an idea.

Objection 3

Does this mean that the cycle repeats in exactly the same way? For e.g. do we have the same Buddha in every cycle?

Answer

Consecutive cycles need not be identical. However, every type of cycle must repeat itself at some point or the other.

Thus, a particular combination must repeat itself at some point or the other. Similarly, the universe is a scatter of particles. Each possible arrangement of particles must repeat at some point or the other. So,

Infinite combinations – Infinite chances (cycles) – Infinite repetitions.

As Vivekananda puts it in his lecture "We must have had this same lecture before, in an earlier cycle"! Remember that it was 1893 and not sure how many in the hall understood what he was saying!