Tagged: analysis

Being and Non-being: The never ending circular path

nonbeing

The paradoxical aspects of reality are finally starting to be grasped by “quantum physics.” There is a possibility, a chance a “hidden card,” which cannot be known by traditional physics and science.

Realizing not knowing is progress leading into knowing.

When we translate that “finding,” in our reality as human beings; we realize that we are not only “humans,” but “beings.” We realize that to be only in the consciousness of a “human,” is not allowing us to see the other half. At the same time, discovering “being” means to realize that we live in the world of humans. That is the balance.

Gyan is very paradoxical; that is why it is very difficult to be understood by “normal” people who have been indoctrinated in analysis, logic and reason alone. The truth is more than that, and I cannot define it or cage it in words.

In Gyan we have the paradox of “free will and predestination.” We have the paradox of “our future is your past and your past is your future.” We have the paradox of the “unique moment,” which will always come back. We have the paradox of being multidimensional beings according to our consciousness: physical, subtle or the soul.

In spirituality and the knowledge of the self; all of that will take us into the paradox of “knowing or perceiving,” the paradox of ego and egoless-ness, the paradox of being trapped in physical consciousness with emotions and dual thoughts; then to move into a subtle consciousness through feelings, to realize the being, the naked self… however, that is not it… then comes “non-being.”

In Gyan those words are represented through the experience of the physical reality which transforms into a more subtle reality to then be aware of the soul which eventually will “return home,” that is to a world of “non- being-ness.” Once there is that “experience” (There is no “experiencer” at that point) then the cycle will repeat, through the experience of the physical realm again. It is a cycle.

The above knowledge is not a “trademark” of Gyan alone. It is “universal knowledge” of the self. The issue is that it has been “interpreted” in different ways by different people who have not had the experience themselves and then used words “literally” not realizing that spirituality cannot be conveyed literally in words. That experience escapes words.

Christianity is a good example of the above. The teachings that we know about Christianity at this point in time being taught, are not really from Christ. Those teachings have been interpreted by the main “disciple,” that is Paul. That is what we usually know.

St. Paul was a roman citizen. He had more education than any other disciple. He was part of the “in” group of the time. He was part of the “higher-ups” at that time.
To make the point, the verse in Matthew 5:39 (TRANSLATED BY THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION) mentions: “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.”

The above is a profound teaching. Here are some interpretations:
http://www.publicchristian.com/?p=39
http://provocativechristian.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/provocative-bible-verses-turn-the-other-cheek/
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer’s%20Corner/why_turn_the_other_cheek.htm
and some quotes from Nietzsche, (whose writings I used to enjoy in my teenager days.)
http://www.theperspectivesofnietzsche.com/nietzsche/nchrist.html

As we can see, everyone has its own interpretation; everyone who does not have an experience on ego, duality, karma and the roles of the soul. An interpretation without Spirituality.

The path of non-resistance has been practiced by many. Gandhi had his own version. At the spiritual level it could mean to “accept” and to strip down that ego who believes in “possessing things.” – “My cheek.” Then, here is everything else for you… 🙂 Buddha also taught something similar when someone spitted on his face. He thanked that person for the opportunity he had to find if there was any anger in him. He told that person that he didn’t have anger. Then when that person came back the next day to ask for forgiveness; Buddha told him that there was nothing to forgive, for that was “yesterday,” and he wasn’t angry. However, if that sense of guilt was so great in him, he could ask for forgiveness to his disciple Ananda, who in fact; became angry by the action of this person.

Different “interpretations” according to our state of consciousness. Many let themselves be taken literally by what the words mean, when the spiritual meaning could be behind those words and could be understood by those who have experienced the experience. Those teachings cannot be understood by the “normal” people who only have analysis, logic and reason in their heads; for spirituality is paradoxical; in the realm of “being and non-being.”

Analysis, devotion and Oneness in Spiritual teachings

Any spiritual scripture or teaching has a particular type of language that is preferred. That language becomes the form of expression.
If the followers of a particular religion interpret those teachings under the appropriate language, then the teachings will make sense. However, it is a mistake to maintain that this type of interpretation is the only one which is valid.

That same teaching could be “translated” into other ways of understanding so the teachings could be understood.

This is why we say that “all paths lead to the truth,” but if we listen to the substance behind the explanation of those paths, they will sound different in many ways. Even contradictory.
That is why, understanding is beyond the literal definition of a word when we are dealing with spiritual matters.

To illustrate this, I will describe the word “Rose,” which is just a word for some, a relationship for others and an experience for some other individuals.
Same word. Different meanings.

We could look at a Rose and describe that rose as a dictionary or encyclopedia would such as: “A rose is a woody perennial of the genus Rosa, within the family Rosaceae. There are over 100 species. They form a group of erect shrubs, and climbing or trailing plants, with stems that are often armed with sharp prickles. Flowers are large and showy, in colours ranging from white through yellows and reds…”

That is the typical “western” style of knowing. It is a description based on a ‘catalog’ of words.

I know God, because I can describe Him in a detached manner. We are separated beings.

I could describe the same Rose with a story as in the book “The little Prince.”

“..You’re beautiful, but you’re empty,” he went on. “One could not die for you.
To be sure, an ordinary passerby would think that my rose looked just like you
–the rose that belongs to me. But in herself alone she’s more important
than all the hundreds of you other roses:
because it is she that I have watered;
because it is she that I have put under the glass globe;
because it is for her that I’ve killed the caterpillars
(except the two or three we saved to become butterflies);
because it is she that I have listened to, when she grumbled,
or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing.
Because she is MY rose.”

By Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

That is the “Eastern” typical style of knowing. There is a relationship in everything. A “human like” relationship with God.
God is an experience based on a relationship. Even though we are separate, we have a common link, something which ties everything together. This is the typical devotional story.

I can also explain that Rose as One with me with poetry:

“The beauty of your ever red face
shines in the aroma of your skin
that is your everlasting grace
which makes us lovers akin

You exist because I see you
your scent is my inner aura
your thorns are my mistakes
but your heart,
is what keep us alive.”

In this description of the Rose, elements which bring liveliness, a song, a melody is brought about. The message is meant to “move” someone rather than just inform, describe analyze.
However, it is the same word, “Rose.”

These 3 main types of “understanding” need to be considered when a spiritual teaching is being taught. This is why religious scriptures will appeal to different individuals according to their way of looking at the world. Nothing wrong, nor right. Just different.

Like in poetry, there are no standards here. Just acceptance of those differences.

Why the Drama was created ? Follow up by readers with questions.

The following and questions from readers pertaining this article about the existence of the Drama.

Reader 1:”Thank u for answering my question.
It does provide a better perspective but still rotates around “what” drama is n perhaps also how one should look at it from a gyani / intellectual angle or perspective.
However that big WHY still remains unanswered or are we saying it that we should simply understand it as a fact n not question facts or it’s reason of existence as in why it exists, repeats, was created or recreated? Hoping u can throw some more light 🙂 thanks n blessings ”

Reader2:“If it is within Drama to “express” and “experience”, and by process generate some knowledge of the ages as we go along, then how come knowledge accumulated within the cycle is created and destroyed, leaving everything lost? Should we think scientifically about how Man started his journey into 5000 yrs? And the only lesson we learn is at the end of the Confluence age that we are actually Souls?

If we lived 5000 yrs in a body that we chose/ attracted, then what is the length of time for being in essence who we trully are, the Soul? Reason being, I know it took one soul to want to be born in this world at Satyug, but did we all need to go through this as well? Why did we not rather remain in the soul world as souls, if that is our true nature? Feels rather monotonous to go through a repeated Cycle.
Regards, ”

Avyakt7 responds:

Great questions! See if your logical, scientific minded, analytical questions could understand this paradox:
“WHen you cease to try to understand; you will understand… without understanding.” 🙂
Have you experienced that? Probably not, that is “why” you are looking for “why’s.”
Spirituality does not have “facts.” That is science. Spirituality has experiences.
Spirituality does not have analysis. That is science. Spirituality has synthesis. (The view of how everything is a unity- Science on the other hand seeks to understand by dividing pieces.)

Let me ask you this: If I give you a “reason” as to why there is a Drama, how would that change anything ? I mean , you could believe me or not. You would like for me to get some “proof” and once I got the proof for you..what else? Is your intellectual mind satisfied? So what? You will be still the same. There will not be no inner transformation/experience and this intellectual information does not have the power to bring that in you.

Spirituality is not concerned about theories and ideas. The proof of the truth of this knowledge is your own transformation and experience of you the soul.

I am not going around your valid questions. I am just observing the validity of those.
Why do you exist? Why God exists? Why , why, why…. I exist because I am here. God exists, because He has always existed… Are any of these answers “good for you”? How about if I say, ” Dr. Brainy Ann von Lisys has discovered that God exists through a process of extrapolation of order of magnitudes considering the value of the Doppler effect in the context of general relativity.”

So now, you should believe that God exists. No doubt. Right?
What that actually means to you the soul? (Not the scientific Ph.D mind) NOTHING AT ALL. 🙂 See?

Now on the other questions:
1) ” how come knowledge accumulated within the cycle is created and destroyed, leaving everything lost? ”

Answer:Gyan clearly states that NOTHING is perishable. Everything is eternal. Nothing is lost, it just emerges at the right time. We always have knowledge within us, but that knowledge emerges at the right time. We do not learn, we remember.

2) “And the only lesson we learn is at the end of the Confluence age that we are actually Souls?”

Answer: You are thinking in your “traditional scientific minded, analytical way.” As mentioned that “thinking” does not fit “spiritual reality.” We do not learn any lesson at all. We are not here to “learn,” that is a word that we have learned when we go to school for “acceptable brainwashing.” We are in this to experience , meaning to live life. Proof? whatever “you” do it doesn’t matter in the unlimited, “you” will be “YOU” again in due time. See that? However, the paradox is that what you do is important for the whole Drama, because you are part of it.
As long as our thinking is only looking to please the “I” we will not understand the Drama. Kill the “I.” Liberate “yourself” from that tyranny.

3) “If we lived 5000 yrs in a body that we chose/ attracted, then what is the length of time for being in essence who we truly are, the Soul?

Answer: We didn’t choose. We didn’t attract. It is part of the roles according to our capacity. “You” were given a body/intelligence etc, which is needed in the Drama for “you” are capable of performing that role. No one is better than anyone else. We have ALWAYS been who we truly are. The issue is that we didn’t realize that.. 😉

4) “Reason being, I know it took one soul to want to be born in this world at Satyug, but did we all need to go through this as well? Why did we not rather remain in the soul world as souls, if that is our true nature? Feels rather monotonous to go through a repeated Cycle.”

Answer: It feel like it because you know how everything works mentally, intellectually and EGO wants to continue “improving” becoming something greater every time.. right? We must continue “Upgrading,” we must continue achieving, getting a degree, obtaining knowledge, becoming powerful, etc, etc… See that you are asking based on your own traditions and “school like mentality.” Life does not follow your traditions nor your understanding. Please see this.
In the soul world you are not able to express nor experience, meaning, you do not live. Do you rather have that? If your answer is YES… It will not happen… 😉 There is nothing “you” can do about it…except get rid of that “YOU.” (actually “I” not you) 🙂
When we cease to try to understand, we will understand without understanding.

I appreciate both your questions. Thanks again!