From previous posts in this series, we have seen that the ultimate goal of our life is to attain eternal happiness. Pragmatically, in a smaller scale, the purpose of our day-to-day activities also is nothing else but to be happy by fulfilling our desires. At the same time, as we have discussed, happiness is not something to be "gained" from outside but it is the nature and ex-pression of our true being. Normally we are not aware of this happiness because our attention is caught up in the constant waves of desires and fears creating turbulences at the body/mind level propelled by the inherent tendencies.

Earlier we had taken the stand that spirituality is a shift in "self reference" from the body/mind complex to the inner being. Combining these two findings it is easy to establish the relevance of spirituality in practical life. To be more specific, we could say that applying spirituality in practical life is the proper way of finding real happiness which happens to be the innate nature of our own true self. By realizing and stabilizing oneself as that inner being - which is spirituality all about - one remains rooted in eternal happiness.

So where is the contradiction? Why people treat spirituality as an escape from practical life? Why there is a general aversion to spirituality? Even when one becomes aware of these facts why there is a lack of vigor to pursue it?

The main reason is that we are afraid! We are afraid to loose a way of living which is dear to us. We are afraid that we will be alienated from our vibrant and colorful life and had to live a gloomy and monotonous monastic life. We have to sacrifice our desires and desert our loved ones. We have to perform severe austerities and control our habitual tendencies.

But it is not so! These are all notions that were interposed into our belief systems by the vested religions interests. Actually you don't have to be religious at all to lead a spiritual life. Religion is a cover up, a methodology for like minded people to tread the spiritual path together. By mixing up religious practices and social regulations the basic principles are either forgotten or pushed aside. To attain spiritual heights it is not necessarily to belong to any particular religion. It may help. But it is not an absolute necessity.

Leave out all those notions for the time being and let's concentrate on where our practical life and spirituality differ though they both aim to attain happiness. Well, the answer is very simple. In our practical life we are looking for happiness outside us and in spirituality we have to look for the same within us.

What is this 'outside' and 'inside'? The 'in' and 'out' is differentiated based on our self reference point. In the mundane sense, our self reference point is the body/mind structure. Which means, we exist as independent entities confined to the body/mind structure. And the world out there is external to us. Naturally internal must mean 'within the body and mind'

But in spiritual context, it is viewed differently. In order to understand the spiritual view on self reference we have to dig a little deeper. The first and foremost step is to question your assumption on selfhood. Are you just the body/mind organism named so and so? Where does your "self" begin and where does it end? Are you limited to the periphery of your body? Your self is inclusive of your mind isn't it? Can you show the boundary where your mental sphere ends? Your consciousness is even subtler than the mind. Is there a limit for that? There are states of unconsciousness you go through. Don't you exist even then? So our existence include all these aspects - not just the physical body as commonly held. Now considering all these, can you really draw a circle around you to confine your 'self' and say "Yes, This am I"?

More over, your body has been constantly changing from your birth up till now. Same was the case with your mind - under perpetual change. Out of this, which body can claim your real identity? That of a baby? Youth? Or the old man? Which state of mind can reflect your true self? Is your self so flimsy and changeful? Is there anything absolutely changeless in your scheme of selfhood?

This should be the premises where practical spirituality should begin. An enquiry on the selfhood. Raise the most fundamental question - Who am I? Trace the sense of "I am" and go within with concentrated awareness. During this journey, what one would find is that the body/mind organism that one treat as "I" is only the tip of an iceberg infinitely extending into subtle realms of consciousness and beyond. Our aim must be to follow the path of this sense of I am and sink deeper and deeper with it until the source of this sense of I am is reached.

That source of sense of "I am" must be the most fundamental aspect of your selfhood. That must be the primary Self on which a body-mind-intellect-ego complex is constructed and evolved. It is like a tiny source from everything is projected into existence in varying levels of subtleties. That must be a constant factor which never changes with time like the body or mind. Being changeless, that must be without any attributes hence undifferentiable from one another( undifferentialbe AS one another - to be more accurate).

Now, if you have observed closely, you could have known that all your needs and desires are body/mind based. And the pleasure or pain you encounter is also totally depended on the body and mind. To demonstrate it let's take an example. Suppose your tongue has no taste buds. Will there be any difference between different foods? Will you crave for any particular food? You will eat whatever available to fill the tummy. Right? In that case all your desire for food and happiness derived by having tasty food is gone completely out of your system.

Take another example. You get first rank in university exams and your photo is all over the media. Same day your best friend dies in an accident. You were extremely happy for a moment and then you became sad. But later in the night when you were sleeping deeply, did any of these emotions touch you? When the mind is shutout do you feel any happiness? Do you feel the sorrow?

Is it something difficult to understand that all our pain and pleasure are totally depended on the awareness of the body and mind. Beyond the body/mind do we have any needs? Any desires? Any pain? Any fear?

So as long as we identify our selfhood with the body/mind structure, we will be swayed by the pain pleasure pair of opposites. From childhood, we are habituated to the idea that by indulging into pleasurable experiences with the body/mind we become more and more happy. This kind of seeking happiness indirectly from external sources (body and mind and world included) is called 'outward turned' which is the basic tendency of our practical life

Where as spirituality is an attempt to detach our focus of selfhood from the body/mind system and move towards the inner source. Thus instead of seeking pleasure at the body/mind level we gets rooted in the source of happiness itself. You become one with happiness rather than experiencing happiness reflected at the body mind level during fulfillment of desires. That's why the spiritual exploration is described as "inward turned".

Understand that even the greatest pleasure and happiness that you achieve in your life is time bound and will eventually subside or later may turn into pain and unhappiness. The body so dear to you and gave you so much pleasure and happiness will turn old and sick and will be the greatest source of pain and suffering. In our seeking happiness form the objective world pain and suffering is hidden and is unavoidable.

But the source of eternal happiness that lies within us is independent of anything else hence doesn't flutter in relation to anything else. It needs nothing to experience happiness. Nor can anything take that away. It is ever perfect and full. That is the true Self. And that, is what you are!

Tat Twam Asi..

Practical spirituality is aimed at living our life from the correct perspective of our selfhood. Nothing changes except the attitude. But that small change is the greatest revolution that can ever happen to you. From that perspective, all what happens at the body mind level is witnessed like a dream. The body mind will undergo all the activities and experiences which it is supposed to. They will produce all the corresponding feelings as well. But nothing will ever touch you, because you have dis-identified yourself from the body/mind structure and have stabilized into your true being as the illuminating and witnessing conscious centre. There you are blissful no matter what happens at the periphery. There you are beyond all needs.

Putting spirituality in practice by means of self enquiry one regains the apparently lost land of real selfhood. It is in the realization of the true Self the secret of eternal happiness lies. This is liberation. This is Kingdom of heaven. This is Nirvana. No other higher worlds can give you eternal and absolute happiness but this. And it is always there right within you! Right here. Right now.

When do you say that you are happy?

Generally there are two scenarios in which one feels happy. A pleasurable incident or object will make you feel happy. Secondly an incident or object which will remove pain can also make you happy. Take any number of examples from your day-to-day life. They all can be classified into these two basic categories of happiness. Pleasure giving or pain relieving.

The terms pleasure and pain are used here in a very generic way. In fact, they cover a lot many aspects both physical as well as mental. And the idea of pain and pleasure can vary with person to person, place to place and time to time. We need not get into the variations and intricacies of them at this stage. It is sufficient to know how pain and pleasure are related to happiness. let us pick a few examples out of the innumerable objects and events which can make us happy for further analysis.

Don't you become ecstatic when at last you own your long cherished sports car? Similarly, your joy must be boundless when your dream girl announces her love to you. And when the doctor declares that the operation is successful, and your son's life is out of danger, a pleasant feeling replaces the tension and agony you carried for days.

What is happening in these situations? How do you become happy? What generates the happiness? Where was it before these incidents occurred?

In the first case, did the sports car deliver happiness to you? Was it hidden inside the car? Was your loved one happiness personified so that you can get it on contact? And after the operation, what made the agonizing state to turn into a pleasant one?

Or put it straightforward, what is the SOURCE of happiness? Is it those objects and events? Or is it something else?

If the 'object' itself is the real source of happiness, then why the same object does not give same amount of happiness always and to everyone? Do you now care for your favorite childhood toys which were the major source of your happiness once upon a time? Why an object appeasing to your wife is intolerable to you? How many fights you had with your wife on watching soap serials on TV? Why the happiness you get out of an object fade out and become misery over a period of time? Take your spouse for a perfect example! And why an object pleasurable in one place is just the opposite in another? Or why your joy doesn't increase proportionally with quantity? Is the 4^th cup of ice cream as enjoyable as the first one?

It is plainly visible that happiness we enjoy from an object is not the same at all times, in all places and all situations nor it is the same for everyone. And the amount of happiness does not increase proportionally as you gather more and more. Above all, there are situations where you really don't need the object as such but a recollection can also bring back the happiness. From all these, isn't it obvious that the objects by themselves are not the real source of happiness?

We have seen earlier that we derive happiness by submitting to pleasure and avoiding pain. It seemed that that's why we are running after these objects/events expecting them to give us pleasure or help us get rid off pain. But we have just concluded that the objects themselves are not the source of happiness! Then what the hell are we doing by pursuing them? How come we become happy by associating with them? If they are not the real source then what is?

Well, it seems we have to dig more into this to find out what is the driving force that makes us run around looking for happiness which actually is not there. And also how we can relate objects to pain and pleasure and in turn to happiness.

Let's take the aspect of pain first as it is easier to demonstrate. Assume that you have a splitting headache. It definitely is a painful physical condition which you want to get rid off as soon as possible in whatever way possible.

But why should a headache make you unhappy? Can't you take it as a normal phenomenon like the heart beat? Can't you accept it as a part of your own being and be relaxed? Of course not! Because, it is not an inborn aspect of your NATURAL STATE. Your natural state of being is devoid of headaches and it is a kind of disturbance to your system. So with a headache, your natural equilibrium gets disturbed and you strive to regain the state of no-headacheness at any cost to be happy again.

Suppose you are born with a headache. In that case, you will never identify it as a headache nor will feel it painful and something to be get rid off. Because, that headache is natural to you just the way the wetness in your eyes is. You feel irritated when your nose is wet but not with the eyes. You have never known a conscious state when this headache is not. More over, you will be worried if suddenly the headache disappears one fine day. You will feel there is some problem in your system and you may even consult a doctor! Now the absence of a headache becomes painful to you!

What we can deduce from this is that pain is a call for attention to the disturbances in your natural state. It is a mechanism by which you will be alerted and activated to remove such disturbances and there by gain back the natural state of perfection which seems to be a desirable one or in other words - a happy state.

Now, what is pleasure? Why do we crave for pleasurable objects and events? How do we become happy with them.

Pleasure is a feeling that arises when a situation/thing is achieved as desired. Pleasure is directly associated with desires. But, why do we have desires? Because, we are not contented with our present state of being. There is a feeling of lack of perfection. Every desire is aimed to fulfill these lacking and to be back in total contentment. So what happens is, desire causes a disturbance in our natural state of perfect poise and equilibrium. It creates a kind of vacuum which invites a fulfilling motion. And when that desire is satisfied, there is a moment of satisfaction, a moment of no more needs, and we are back to our natural state of perfection.

Since both pain and pleasure are intended to bring us back to our natural state where we feel happy, the fundamental characteristics of our natural state must be pure happiness. In that state we are perfect and full and need nothing else at all to be happy. But due to the inherent tendencies, waves of desires come up one after another tainting this sense of perfection. When a particular desire is satisfied, you fall back into that state again, at least for a moment, and enjoy the inherent happiness until another desire arises to disturb this stillness.

So it is not the objects of desire that is the source of happiness but we ourselves are. We are happiness personified. By our nature we are happy. In fact, we don't have to do anything at all to be happy! Just be. We don't realize this because of the constant turbulences and disturbances happening within and without. Where as the disturbances are caused either by desires for pleasure or by fear of pain which actually is another form of desire desire to avoid or get rid of.

Ultimately, it can be concluded that desire is the root cause of all your suffering(unhappiness). If you can be in a state of perfect desirelessness, you will stay grounded to your natural state of pure happiness and you will be happy no matter what happens internally or externally.

But how can we function meaningfully if we don't have desires? Desires are the prime force behind any actions and achievements. Does this mean that we live and die like animals or plants or rocks?

Of course not. No one is asking you to drop all your desires and go into a kind of oblivion. Just understand the facts. When this understanding seeps in and gets digested and absorbed, and when it becomes part of your 'operating system', a transformation begins to happen. What you call as "my" desire will become more and more impersonal and will take the shape of a "need" or a "necessity" of the prevailing situation. In a highly advanced state you might say "there is a need" instead of "I wish". The "me" who was associated with all your desires gets dropped off. So whatever needs to happen will happen without your interpretation as "your" desire, because the link associating the desire to "you" is no more operational. Thus all the necessary actions will go on superficially without disturbing your equilibrium at the centre. And as a sentient living being, you will function as intelligently and efficiently as anyone else.

Thus, what we have seen so far is that our primary goal of happiness is actually an inherent characteristic of our natural state and not something to be gained from outside. Any disturbances to that natural state will create unhappiness. The disturbances are caused by desires and by fulfilling them the natural happiness is felt until another desire comes up disturbing the equilibrium again. A state of total desirelessness is a state of perfect happiness. You don't need to do anything to be happy but just stay grounded to your natural state. That's all.

But, where does spirituality fit into this? We will discuss it in the next post.

The relevance of spirituality in practical life has always been a point of debate. There is a lot of confusion regarding this subject mainly due to a multitude of interpretations and lack of clarity. Even though most of us believe spirituality is inseparable from our day-to-day life, there are many who think it is concerned only about the life after death. And some are somewhat skeptical about the whole issue where as some others has no hesitation to declare that all this is sheer stupidity.

Obviously there is a lack of consensus in terms of concepts and practices in this subject. It is evident in the inconsistencies of spiritual practices even among followers of same religion. The confusion is caused apparently by mixing up spirituality with religious and social practices. There is no clear demarcation as such so as to make out what is what and what is meant for what.

More over, isn't it a fact that most of us never cared to know what spirituality is all about but blindly followed the faith which we are born into? Our spiritual practices most of the time end up in a few minutes of prayers to God requesting our well being or visiting the places of worship. Is that what spirituality is all about? Don't you feel there must be some deeper meaning to it? Let us explore together to look into it from a different angle which is more logical and rational.

In these murky waters of contradicting concepts, how can we bring out some clarity so that we can effectively discuss the relevance of spirituality in our practical life? For this, the first and foremost step is to set aside the contradictions and have a fresh understanding of various aspects involved. We have to clearly define the contextual meaning of the critical terms we are going to discuss so as to have a common base of understanding. Only then it will be a meaningful exercise. So let's first start with spirituality itself.

The word spirituality means different things to different people according to their adherence to various faiths and schools of thought. It is not necessary to discuss these heavily biased interpretations to arrive at some consensus. Leaving out all the sentiments, we can take the bare bone meaning of the word for our purpose. So how can we describe spirituality in its purest sense? Very basically it may be described as "turning towards spirit". It is more of a "shift in perspective" than anything else.

What is meant by this shift? Generally we function in this world by keeping the point of self reference as our body. In other words, the locus of our self existence is the body/mind complex. With respect to this reference our senses and mind are turned outward. All our interests are there in the external physical world in which we live and interact. Our goals, success and happiness depend on how well we play our role in the real life drama that goes on out there.

By being spiritual what is intended is to reverse the out going tendencies and to explore the world within. This world within is very subtle but more intense as far as our existential reality is concerned. For example, if you analyze properly, you will notice that your identity as "YOU" is emphasized more by your mental images (names, feelings, relationships etc.) than your physical form. Similarly, if you take a good step further in, you will come to know that your subtle inner being is the base on which your individuality with a name and form is erected. That inner being is the source of your individuality. There is a gradual growth of subtlety when you tread the path from physical body to the inner being. By shifting the point of self reference from the body/mind complex to that inner being, there will be a total transformation in your relating yourself with the world. We will discuss more about this relationship later as our intention right now is just to see what is meant by the "shift".

Thus, spirituality is essentially a journey towards the ultimate source of our beingness. That primordial source is called "Spirit", "Self", "Atman" etc. This definition may seem purely contextual and not tallying with some well known theories. But we will see, ultimately they all point to the same destination though differ in descriptions superficially.

Spirituality thus defined, we can take up the questions now.

If spirituality is "a journey towards the Self" in what way it can help me in my practical life? What will happen if I don't care for this spiritual business? Is it really necessary to be spiritual to live a successful and happy life?

Before answering these questions we have to have a clear idea as to what a successful life is. We have to understand the actual goal of our life so that we can relate how spirituality can help us achieve that.

So, what do you think, is the purpose of your activities in life as an individual? What are you striving to achieve in your day-to-day living? Why do you have to take all the troubles? Why do you undergo all the suffering? You will definitely have many good answers. The list will include the immediate responses like - to become rich, influential, powerful, famous, loved, respected, healthy, creative etc. etc.

But tell me, why do you want to become all these? Why can't you just be what you are right now? Why all the struggle to "become" something else? Have you ever thought about it?

The simple reason is that your present state of existence is not a state of perfect happiness and contentment. You feel a lack of fulfillment somewhere hence the urge to "become". And that's why you think if you become wealthy you will be fulfilled to some extent and be happy. If you become influential you will be happy. If you are loved by the people you care, you will be happy. It is not hard to see that any goal that you want to achieve in your life has a common primary target beneath it. Happiness!

Generalizing on this, we can observe that the fundamental yearning of any living being is for pure happiness unstained by sorrow. Anything and everything that you do in your life is just for this one purpose to be happy. Basically all your actions are intended to either give you happiness or to remove sorrow. And all your desires and fears are born and brought up to achieve this one and only goal fulfillment, another name for happiness.

Side by side, if you analyze the ultimate goals projected by various religions, you will invariably find that they all are pointing to nothing else but perfect and permanent happiness. That's how the concepts like heaven, paradise, nirvana, liberation come into picture. They all in one way or the other represent eternal happiness. Thus we can see that various spiritual paths promise us nothing else but a state of happiness untouched by any sort of suffering.

So in all respect - practically, theoretically or theologically we can say that our ultimate craving is to find perfect and permanent happiness. All our activities be it religious or mundane are aimed to achieve the same in one way or the other.

If that is the case, we have to introduce this finding into our original question on 'spirituality in practical life' to rephrase it more specific as "how can spirituality help me find happiness in my practical life?" This way, we must be hitting the target a little more closer.

Since we have taken up happiness as an important aspect in this discussion, it becomes necessary to describe it clearly to have a common understanding the same way we did for the term spirituality. So let us see what happiness is and what is its nature before proceeding further. (in the next post)

We have two entities to consider. The creator on one side and the entire creation - both material and non-material - on the other. From our basic observations we can very easily see that when we create something it stands apart from us. A shirt for example though cover my body, cannot be myself. It is made of threads of cotton or something and not of the same stuff that I am made of. It is true that I created it but the difference and separation from me is comprehensive and obvious. Then how can we prove the creation is the creator himself?

Since we have to begin somewhere, let's begin from the very beginning itself. The beginning of "All this", the cosmic creation. If you acknowledge that there is creation, naturally there must be a creator. (There are a few who uphold the non-creation theory - Ajaatavada). At this stage we don't know anything about the creator as such. But it is not really important. What we have to see is, is there a possibility that the creation can be the creator himself whoever he may be. That's all. Lets call the creator by the popular name "God" during this discussion.

So conceptually speaking, God is the one who created all these and controlled the evolution. He is potential enough to create, sustain and destroy all at his will. What caused the beginning of creation? How did he create it? What raw materials did he use? How long it took him to make it alive and kicking? Where is he now leaving his creation in turmoil? There are questions which perhaps God only can answer. One has to step into the creator's shoes to have a proper perspective before attempting to analyse them. Now the question is, "Do we have any right to do that?"

Isn't it a fact though we fall into the category of creation we are also endowed with some creative powers? We do create various things. We use our intelligence, creative power and materials to produce a lot many things. It is said that the macrocosm and microcosm differ only in magnitude but are similar in essence. So there is justification for our attempt to peep into the intricacies of creation as we are creators as well. Let's investigate the observable facts in order to gain some insight into the possibilities and impossibilities involved in this great mystery of creation. We can use logical reasoning on one side to arrive at conclusions and make a comparison of our own creativity on the other to validate the possibility of the same in a miniature scale.

By definition, God is the ever existing reality beyond space and time and is uncaused and uncreated. In the beginning God alone existed. And then all on a sudden (yet another popular assumption) the process of creation began to unfold. We don't know whether it all happened in a flash or it took eons but what we know is that any creation requires many ingredients apart from the creator. Factually speaking, something cannot come out of nothing. So there must be some raw materials to start with. Also needed are some tools and instruments as well as the technical know-how. What are the raw materials used by God? What tools did he use? Mind you, at the time of creation there was nothing existing other than God. Then where did the raw materials come from? Probably God must have created these things first. If that's the case, where from the raw materials for those things came to begin with? Do you see the impossibility of such a situation? There cannot be any raw material available other than the only existing thing which is God himself prior to the commencement of creation.

So the only logical conclusion is that whatever came out as creation must have originated from God and given expression by God. The raw material must be God himself, the tools must be God himself and the knowledge must be God himself and the creative power must be God himself. There is no other possibility! So whatever exists as creation must be God himself through and through.

One may argue that God need not create the world the same way a potter creates the pots. Digging out clay, mixing it with water, loading it on the wheel and shaping it into pots and finally cooking it out to get the finished pot. God is all powerful and can create anything out of his own "WILL" in no time without the need of any raw material.

Well, it is a possibility. Let's see what happens in such a situation in our own life. I want to build a house. I have the desire, the plan and will to do but have absolutely no money with me and there is no chance that I will ever have any. Take it further that even if I have money, there is no building materials available anywhere ever. Then how will I fulfill my desire? Is there a way I can make a house without bricks and concrete. Can I fix doors without using wood? Can I color it up without paint and brushes? Well, there is one way! Just go to bed and close your eyes. You may have a dream and construct a house exactly as you want it without carrying bricks or concrete or wood or paint there. That too in no time! It will be a dream house...

Don't you think it must be same case with God as well? If he creates something out of his will, without using any substance, it must be of the nature of the 'will' which is mind stuff - same stuff that dreams are made of. God will have a dream and in his dream creations will emerge and events will happen one after another as he willed(so to say). No need of any material at all.

In that case the creations cannot be real. Isn't it? But the world what we see and interact looks so real and materialistic. How can that be justified? Just the way our own dreams looked real while it happened, the creations of God's dream will find it real and materialistic as long as looked from within the dream. Once "awakened out of this sleep" one will see the dream as a dream and know the real nature of existence.

Now, what would be the relation of such a dream creation to the creator? Does the dream exist apart from the dreamer? Is not my dream a projection of my own consciousness and confined to my own consciousness? And made of my own mental imagery? Anything and everything in a dream is just mind stuff. Same way the cosmic dream creations are permeated with and sustained by God consciousness and cannot exists apart from God consciousness.

On the other hand if you hold on to a materialistic creation as analysed earlier, you have to account for the pre-existing substance to mould things into. Since the only substance that existed was God, it was God who must have moulded himself into the creations.

So in either case the proclamation of the Vedas hold some waters. As a matter of fact this is the only way possible. If at all there is creation it must be the creator himself expressed explicitly as a concrete materialist world or implicitly as movements of consciousness - like a dream. So in reality God alone is and whatever is seen as creations are just his expressions upon or within himself. Thus the Vedantic proclamation has to be true.

We have equated our capacity to dream with that of God's creative technique for creating a dreamy world. But what if the world is really materialistic and substantial? Is there any creative activity in our life that resembles the same scenario where the creation is the same as the creator?

Looking into our own creations we see that our creations range from mathematical equations to magnificent monuments. Poetry and paintings to rockets and robots. Concepts of communism to super computers. And the list goes on. Is there anything particular where the creation turns out to be the creator himself?

YES! The act of dancing, which is one of the finest form of creative expressions!

Here the creation is nothing but various gestures, postures and expressions sprouted from and upon the dancer himself. A series of self expressions. Nothing external is required. The raw material is the dancer himself and the creation is the dance which is nothing other than the dancer himself. The dance is the dancer and the dancer is the dance. Every moment is a moment of creativity. The next moment it is gone and gives way to another creation. And it goes on. Birth and death in every moment. Moment to moment to moment...

No wonder the cosmic creation is symbolized by the cosmic dance of Shiva, the Nataraja. "Taandav" as it is called depicts the creation and immediate destruction - birth and death - as an eternal process. Shiva, the supreme dancer is blissfully engrossed in his own creativity. If he stops even for a moment, the cosmos disappears. Leaving the absolute consciousness in deep sleep, without dreams. This is "Pralaya" - The great dissolution until the dance resumes.

So it is Shiva all along. Whether dancing or at pause. All this is Shiva. Whether expressed or suppressed. There is nothing else but Shiva. The creator and the creation in one. The only one...

Shivoham! Shivoham!!

U. G. Krishnamurti passed away in Vallecrossia, Italy on 22nd March. He was 89.

Whenever you feel high of your spiritual progress, when you begin to think you know it all, when you believe you are almost there, just read a couple of pages from UG. All these great feelings will be smashed into pieces, pulverized and powdered, burned into ashes and blown away. UG had this exceptional talent to shock you from the core and make you stand naked with no hands to cover up. Most of them just ran away from him. Those who hung on had burns and bruises all along. Wonder how many must have come back really dead!

He detested any conceptualizations, especially that of spiritual matters. Plain simple physical functioning without the intervention of the discriminating thinking process is the natural state. According to UG, falling into that natural rhythm is all that is needed. That is freedom. But that fall is uncaused and can not be produced by will or effort. If enlightenment is nonvolitional and acausal, then all the beliefs and efforts are futile. Nothing can bring it about and nothing can stop it either. Thus, in one stroke UG wipes off all the belief systems, spiritual practices, gurus and prophets who sells enlightenment for a price.

Some of his thoughts about thoughts follow.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My interest is to emphasize that [thought] is not the instrument, and there is no other instrument. And when once this hits you, dawns upon you that thought is not the instrument, and that there is no other instrument, then there is no need for you to find out if any other instrument is necessary. No need for any other instrument. This very same structure that we are using, the instrument which we are using, has in a very ingenious way invented all kinds of things like intuition, right insight, right this, that, and the other. And to say that through this very insight we have come to understand something is the stumbling block. All insights, however extraordinary they may be, are worthless, because it is thought that has created what we call insight, and through that it is maintaining its continuity and status quo

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Questioner : "How are we different from you, U.G.?"

U.G. : "It is the same for you, Sir. You are in no way different from me. It is only because you have created a thought barrier around your fictitious self that nothing physical takes place there."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Any action that takes place at the conscious level of your thinking existence is a reaction. Pure, spontaneous action free of all previous actions is meaningless. The one and only action is the response of this living organism to the stimuli around it. That stimulus-response process is a unitary phenomenon. There is no division between action and reaction except when thought interferes and artificially separates them. Otherwise it is an automatic, unitary process, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. There is no need to stop it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

You can't experience anything except through thought. You can't experience your own body except through the help of thought. The sensory perceptions are there. Your thoughts give form and definition to the body, otherwise you have no way of experiencing it. The body does not exist except as a thought. There is one thought. Everything exists in relationship to that one thought. That thought is "me". Anything you experience based on thought is an illusion.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

What is this silence you are talking about? The silence operates there in the city market. When I am talking, it is the ex-pression of the silence. You think there is no silence, when I am talking? You think there is silence when you close your eyes, sit in one corner and try to stop the flow of thoughts? You are just choked--that is not silence. Go to the forest--that roar is the silence. Go to a sea--that is silence. Go right into the center of the desert--that is silence. A volcano erupting--that is silence. Not the silent mind trying to experience "silence." Silence is energy bursting.

What is the `silence' that you are after? Do you hear those trucks passing by on the road and the flushing of the toilet? Do you want to escape from all this and go and sit in the caves? There is noise inside you wherever you go.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

It is just not possible for us to produce enlightened people on an assembly line. You know, if you look at history, even a country like India, which prides itself as a land of spirituality, has produced only a very few enlightened people. You can count them on your fingers. But unfortunately, in the market place, we have many claimants who say that they are enlightened, and they are in turn out to enlighten everybody. There is a market for that kind of thing. The demand and supply principle is responsible for that. But actually an enlightened man or a free man, if there is one, is not interested in freeing or enlightening anybody. This is because he has no way of knowing that he is a free man, that he is an enlightened man. It is not something that can be shared with somebody, because it is not in the area of experience at all.

"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya" is one the most famous and often quoted aphorisms of Adi Shankaracharya, the exponent of Advaita (nondual) philosophy. It appears in the introductory part of his exposition (Bhashya) on Brahma Sutra of Ved Vyasa, a fundamental text in Vedantic philosophy. Actually the statement does not end there but goes on to proclaim that "Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah". The purport will be incomplete without the second part. These 3 short clauses together sums up the advaitic principles as taught by Shankara.

The simple meaning of these Sanskrit words are thus : The absolute alone is real; the world is non-real; the individual being is not different from the absolute being.

Meaning and context of these cryptic words are very important to understand the great ideas expressed here. We need to know the correct perspective of the terms real, unreal and non-real. What is the absolute being and what is the individual being?

First of all, let's analyse what reality is. In our day to day life, cognition is considered the proof of reality. If we can perceive or sense something it is treated as real (of course exceptions are there). Where as in spiritual terminology a thing is real which exist by itself(independent), always, in all conditions, never undergoing a constitutional change.

If you consider a table, it is real from our ordinary sense. But from philosophical view, table is a modification of wood and cannot exist not being wood. Where as wood can exist not being a table. Table is a superimposition of a form on top of wood. The wood is re-formed into a table. Thus table has no existence apart from the fundamental reality called wood.

But is the table unreal? Obviously not. We can see it and feel it and utilize it. Calling it unreal would be outrageous. If it is neither real and nor unreal what is it then? That's where a new term come into play . Non-Real! Non-real is something which appears to exist but does not exist independently. You may call it a kind of illusion (Mithya). It is there, but it is not there. The table is there by virtue of wood and it is not there without being wood.

So the statement "Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya" actually indicate that what is really real is the Absolute alone and the world is just a superimposition of names and forms on that.

That's better now. At least it is not as bad as it looked in the beginning. But how can we relate the Absolute to the world as we did wood to the table? It is pretty clear that the table is wood. How can we say that the world is the Absolute?

Reviewing the characteristics of reality we can see that the real must not undergo any constitutional change. Which means that what we call as the Absolute must be existing naturally in it's most fundamental indivisible elementary state which acts as the basic building blocks for the entire creation to come into existence in various forms and names. The absolute in it's pristine pure state (before constructed into names and forms) must be a homogenous substance and indivisible further in to finer constituent elements. Looking from the other end, what it imply is that the entire creation of names and forms are subjected to be reduced in succession to this fundamental single element at the end. Which we call the absolute.

Let's take the wooden table again for further analysis. We had concluded that the wood is relatively real compared to the form of the table. Now, is wood really real? It can not be. Because, it doesn't stay as wood forever and in all conditions. Burn it - it turns to ashes. The wood is gone! What remains now is carbon. So, wood which was basically Hydrocarbon, loses it's form and name when disintegrated into constituent elements. And wood goes out of the good books of reality.

Now, are the elements like Carbon, Hydrogen etc. ultimately real? The scientists say they can be further divided into electrons, protons, neutrons and sub-nuclear particles. These particles themselves are same in all atoms of elements recorded and not recorded in the periodic table, the combinations will vary though.

For a long long time the scientists believed that these particles are the fundamental building blocks of the entire universe. Later on their views began to change when more and more secrets were revealed. Now they have conceded, in theory at least, that there could be a subtle, homogenous, fundamental substance which may be the basic essence of everything. Many concepts are evolving in this regard like quantum, strings, quarks and more. But one thing is certain. The deeper one goes, the subtler it gets. And sooner or later they have to give up their external research and turn inward, towards one's own self. The great seers had done the same thing eons back and revealed some great secrets which in scientists view are gross imagination.

While the scientists struggle with their research let's come back to our investigation. What we have seen so far is that according to the Vedantic theory, if we dig deep enough we will hit the rock bottom reality, the Absolute, as the underlying final constituent aspect of all that exists. The world that we see is merely formation and naming of this fundamental reality. With respect to the reality of the Absolute, the observable world is an illusion - a named appearance.

What is the nature of this absolute reality? How does the world of such diversity emerge from this homogenous absolute principle? Who is the carpenter who chisels out such a marvelous world out from this vast wood of reality? Questions are many. Need more space and time to get deep into these queries. We will conclude for the time being after probing on the second part of the aphorism that "the individual being is not different from the absolute being"

The essence of this statement is that the microcosm is just as the macrocosm is. An individual is a part and parcel of the absolute being and has no separate existence. As an extension it can be said that "I am That". But the true sense of "I" and "That" must be realized before announcing so.

In Vedantic parlance an individual is a constricted sense of self bound by limiting adjuncts (Upaadhi). The Upadhi is the body(gross-subtle-causal). To explain it more, let's take the common example of a pot dipped in the ocean. There is water inside and there is water out side. The water inside is never separate or different from the ocean. But has been limited by the shape of the pot and can be named pot-water. When the limiting factor of the pot is broken, the pot-water merges back to the ocean-water. The naming and apparent separation was just a convention. There was no time when pot-water was not ocean-water.

Also, assume the pot is dipped up to the brim and the sun is reflected within the pot-water. Now we have a small sun shining out of the limited pot water. This can be equated with the reflected consciousness operating in a body/mind organism giving it a limited sense of "self" shining as the ego. Break the pot and the sun is gone. Where did the sun in the pot go? There never was sun in the pot in the first place. Just an illusory phenomenon of reflection appeared as long as the limiting adjuncts were appearing. That's all. Really speaking, the actual self is the absolute itself and the fake self(ego) never exists.

Let's sum up what we have analysed so far. According to Vedanta, the world that we cognize is nothing but superimpositions of names and forms on a homogenous, indivisible absolute principle. The individual being is nothing but the absolute being apparently limited by some Upadhis and mistakenly identified as a separate entity.

One day all the Pumpkins started fighting among themselves. So great was the quarrel that nearly the stage was reached where blood would flow, Pumpkin blood!

Hearing all the commotion the Master came out, saw the situation and said "You must stop fighting and love each other".

"How is it possible?" asked one of the Pumpkins pointing to another. "When he is trying to strangle me how can I love him?"

"He threw a hard fist on my right eye first" complained the other.

"That's because you stole my place."

"Quiet. Quiet. please" Pleaded the master. "This way it will never end. You are fighting because you don't understand that you are one"

"How can it be so" Asked a fat one who has grown a bit out of shape. "I can very well see all these idiots are separate from me."

"Hey you, you call us idiots?" Another fat Pumpkin stood up with a folded fist ready to hit.

The master realized the fragility of the situation.

"Come on children. Calm down. You will not be able to know your oneness with all these agitations. Relax. Keep your mind quiet. Then search for your source and you will know for yourself that you all are one and fighting is self destructive"

"How can I keep my mind quiet?" Enquired a tender one.

Master said "Try to meditate".

Puzzled, the Pumpkins had never meditated, they asked how that was to be done.

"No problem" said the Master "See those Buddhist monks, meditating. Observe them and do exactly as them".

The Pumpkins looked and saw the shaved heads of the Buddhist monks, they in fact looked like Pumpkins themselves. Not knowing what to do, they decided to follow suit. After all the Master had never asked them to do anything as such. The Pumpkins got into the Buddha pose, closed their eyes and being innocent pumpkins, no dialectic thoughts running through them as disturbances, in no time were lost in themselves.

Soon there was such peace, such tranquility, such depth of silence, that the Pumpkins were astonished at what had happened.

The Master came out, looked at the sea of tranquil Pumpkins. Happy with the situation he said "Very well children, you have done sufficient penance and are matured enough to penetrate the inner depths of your beingness. Now put your hands on your 7th chakra, the crown chakra".

The Pumpkins obediently raised their hands and touched right on top of their head. All they could feel was the horn like extension which always was there which they never used to bother.

"Follow it further with one pointed concentration and see where it begins", instructed the Master.

They did so and for the first time in their life they came to know that it was connecting them to the branch.

"Investigate further to see where it goes from the branch"

Following the gaze further, they saw it was connected to a huge plant spread all over. They all were connected to the same plant.
They were in fact One Pumpkin. Never separate from each other.

"Stay on with that oneness", said the Master

In silence and stillness they listened to the subtle song of truth. They realized that it was a single heart beating and what they thought as theirs was just echoes. They knew it was a single brain operating
and their thoughts were just reflections. The body & mind they proudly thought as their own were just expressions of the mighty existence.

"Now" said the Master "tell me what you all see?".

Amidst innocent serene faces, one voice was heard to murmur.

"No master, there are no WE. Only the mother plant is. It is her love of being expressed as us, Pumpkins. Actually, she alone is. Love alone is.

"So it is." nodded the Master.

Satisfied in their realization, the Master closed his eyes and merged.

_____________________________________________________
(Expanded on a theme heard once upon time in a far away webland.)

As you know, the abstract world is so charged up that no logic can reach there directly. They will get electrocuted. We have to use indirect or inferential logic in our approach to God who is languishing in the unknown territories. Despite the innumerable point of views and paths, let's take up this issue from an unbiased perspective not allying to any particular belief and see any logic can be built into this age old problem, acceptable to all. (what a wishful dream!). With this premises let's take up the challenge : Does God Exist? If yes, what is it's/his/her relation to us.

To answer the first question, "Is there God?", one must first have a clear notion as to what God is. What is the definition of God? Upon inspection, one would be awed with the plethora of concepts available in this regard. They vary from the seen to unseen, imagined to unimaginable, miniscule to magnanimous, embodied to formless, insentient to super sentient, personal to impersonal, single to many - the concepts of God consumes all possible definitions. Some even totally in contradiction with some other and the followers of such beliefs will vehemently try to protect theirs as the only truth and will be ready to die for it since there is much at stake in the "belief" itself. No wonder so much of blood has been shed just because of contradicting "concepts" of the same principle in question.

From this jungle of confusion where do we begin? It will be impossible to analyse each one of these beliefs or even the popular ones. Instead let's try to pickup the most commonly attributed and fundamental features of God to construct our own prototype and see how that will fit into a rational frame work.

Most of the faiths will adhere to the belief that God is the creator of the universe which is fairly acceptable as a concept to all categories the theists, atheists and agnostics. This statement does not conclude that God exists and he is the creator. What is implied is that by the definition of God -whether such an entity exists or not- he (let's use "he" for convenience) is the creator of all these and himself not created by anybody. Some would say that he is the sustainer of all the creation and the destroyer too. Since the creation cannot be an end in itself, this makes sense and can be included in the definition of God without much resistance. For those who resist, it may be pointed out that along with the creation, it's time bound existence is implied as an intrinsic nature hence it must be propagated by the creation it self. So it is reasonable to state that God is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all these.

Secondly, most of the faiths would agree on the infinite nature of attributes of God. That is, God is omnipotent the all powerful, omnipresent permeates entire realm of space and time, omniscience all knowing. Some may question the other attributes like supreme intelligence and compassion observing the present day scenario prevailing in India(lol). The skeptics do have some point, so let's keep those aside for the time being.

So we have made a fundamental definition of God as the creator-sustainer-destructor and omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. All other aspects attributed by the believers add on to this fundamental definition. Such a bare bone definition must be acceptable to almost all believers and agnostics. (Some may disagree on the aspect of omnipresence so as to comply to their view that creation and creator are totally separate, but miserably fail to accommodate their own other accepted aspects of God which inherently indicate omnipresence).

What about the atheists? They don't believe in a God at all. Then how can we define something that which doesn't exist to get their consent as well. As mentioned earlier, by defining God, we are not concluding his existence. Even to prove non-existence we have to define that which is taken to be non-existent. So for the sake of discussion, let the rationalists and atheists agree in this DEFINITION of God which they must be sure doesn't exist.

Now the question can be taken up for diagnosing. Does God who is the creator-sustainer-destroyer with infinite power, presence and knowledge exist? The moment you ask this question swords are raised and blood is ready to be shed. Hold on. We have seen this many times over. This is precisely why we had decided to approach this problem from a different perspective. What is that perspective? A logical platform based on our present knowledge, reasoning and inferential abilities and not based on any ancient scriptures or fairy tales.

As you are aware, pure reasoning based only on cognitive perceptions is not the way in dealing spiritual matters. It involves a little more of inference and intuition on top of observable facts. For example we can very easily infer that "sky" is limitless even though the sky which we actually observe is very much limited. If someone asks to prove the limitlessness of sky, he is not worthy to take part in this discussion. That's all. We have to accept a certain level of intuitive reasoning which doesn't fall out of logical frame work.

Now, from the new perspective, let's approach NOT God, but the aspects which define God.

It is a known fact that based on our point of reference, Time and Space are infinite. It is like the horizon. You try to reach there, it recedes further in to distance. We cannot imagine a place where space ends. Even if you somehow reach there, and encounters a great wall, the wall must be existing in space extending from the place where you are standing. Similar is the case of Time. You may reach end of YOUR time but not Time per se. We cannot imagine a spaceless-timeless scenario from the point of view of creation. To those who hold on to the idea that time and space originated along with creation, it may be pointed out that prior to creation, time and space must exist in a seed form or potent form so as to manifest and accommodate the creation. So without much argument it can be easily postulated that Time and Space are potentially infinite.

Now let's take the case of the evolution. Evolution is the trade mark of our existence. The whole universe is changing every second. What kind of a change is it? There is perpetual motion of bodies from atomic to stellar. There is birth growth procreation-death and decaying of sentient and insentient objects. And there is constant movements in the subtle realm of mind. In short, everything is in a kind of flux.

Change and motion is an indication of power or energy in operation. When we take the universe as a single evolutionary process one wonders where does all the energy come from? Is there a permanent source like an electric power grid, which continuously gives away energy for the evolving universe? Or is it inherent in the objects themselves that undergo evolution? Even if we accept the much appreciated theory of Big-Bang, the picture what we get is of a highly concentrated matter/energy exploding and evolving in time utilizing the energy released along with the explosion. Now where was this energy prior to the explosion? It must be in a potent form within the object exploded. What is the limit of this energy? From our inferential reference points, it must be infinite. Because the universe is evolving in time and space both of which we have taken as infinite.

More over, the scientists had declared and that neither matter nor energy can completely be destroyed. They are just recycled. Matter can be converted into energy and energy into matter. In other words even matter follows the same infinite nature of energy in whichever form it exists.

What about knowledge? Is there a limit to it? Even if you live for a million years there must be something new to be known the next moment. Imagine all those sentient beings from time immemorial who had gathered and processed the knowledge through their intellectual system during their conscious existence. Did the knowledge ever exhaust? Every second, our collective knowledge is increasing when we try to study the smallest of the small and largest of the large. Knowledge is expanding both ways. As the evolution proceeds, more and more knowledge will be revealed. Since evolution has no end as such, knowledge also can have no end. Which means. Knowledge is limitless.

We have now the fundamental aspects declared as infinite. Time, Space, Energy (potency), knowledge (element of consciousness). Now, can these aspects stand apart from each other? Time is a measurement of the effect of energy(change or motion) in space which is known by a conscious observer. Wow! That's something! With a little analysis we can see that all these factors are interdependent. In fact there cannot be many infinities co-existing. One infinity permeate other infinities totally and fully and inseparably. In other words infinity is single and all inclusive. Thus, what we have established now is that there must be an infinite something that exist everywhere and all time, is all-powerful and has infinite knowledge. Do you receive a faint smell now?

Coming down to a smaller scale let's make some observations. What would you call an entity that has a shape in the form of a body, occupies limited space, exists for a definite length of time? Which has the limited potential to move and act? Which is conscious of itself and it's surrounding(knowledgeable)? The simple and general term is "a being". When that is in the form of a human, it is called a human being. A being limited in all respects.

Now, what would you call a being which has an infinite body(whole universe), permeates the entire realms of time and space, infinitely potent and knowledgeable? Is it not appropriate to call it The Absolute? Which is plenum, totality, all inclusive, eternal. Can anything exist apart from it? If something exist it must be a part of that totality of existence. If there is a manifestation of power it must be a part of that infinite power. If there is a conscious ex-pression of knowing it must be embedded in that infinite ocean of knowledge.

All power is his. All knowledge is his. Anything that exist is his. Any creation is by him. So is sustenance. So is destruction. He is the material, he is the cause, he is the effect. From him everything originate. To him everything dissolve. He is the ruler, he is the kingdom, he is the ruled. He is the subject, he is the object, he is all relations. He is the seer, he is the seen, he is seeing. He alone is. He alone is.. He alone is...

Now take a deep breath and smell the facts with full gusto. And, tell me, is this not the definition of God that you have accepted few moments ago?

If you still have any hesitation to announce that "God exists" you may say "WHAT EXISTS IS GOD" if you prefer. And most importantly, be aware that your existence itself is at stake if you do not acknowledge the existence of God as nothing exists apart from this absolute being. By every assertion or denial you are reconfirming existence of God. Because to affirm or deny YOU must exist; therefore God must exist.

Trapped. Isn't it?

The term "being" denotes both pure existence per se as well as existence as an entity. In both cases existence is validated by the associated consciousness. The famous axiomatic statement "I think; Therefore I am" points to this fact that a conscious state is a clear proof of the existence as an entity or otherwise. Total unconsciousness is a state where existence can neither be asserted nor denied. It should be understood that apart from the pedestrian meaning of consciousness as a state which gets turned on and off, consciousness in spiritual circle has another connotation as the underlying absolute principle in relation to which an individualized consciousness may be in a state of off or on. The absolute aspect of existence/consciousness transcends our intellectual and cognitive faculties, so the only analysis one can do is on the relative conscious existence in order to see whether being is equivalent to knowing.

Consciousness is the substratum of all cognitions. Any perceptual or conceptual activity is rooted in consciousness. Without being conscious cognition is impossible. But the other way round is very much possible. One can be conscious of the absence of any cognitive processes as well.

Our individualized existence is an add-on to the pure existence-consciousness scenario. Name, form, vitality, senses, intellect, ego etc. are added on to produce "ME" the individual. The individual becomes the focal point of cognitive processes to identify and interact with a world existing around and within him. Looking from the individual perspective, he is born into this world and evolved with it. It may be said that he inherited this pure existence-consciousness along with the birth of the body/mind organism. But the fact remains that pure existence-consciousness is fundamental, eternal and non-evolving and is shared by each and everyone. What evolve is only the add-ons packaged in to objects sentient or insentient. Why this is mentioned here is to emphasis dependency of the individual entity on pure existence-consciousness.

With the entitification (individualization) there is a tendency to entitify the existence and consciousness as "MY" existence and "MY" consciousness there by limiting and binding the unlimited and unbound to the body/mind organism as a distinct entity. Everything is seen through "MY" eyes and everything becomes "MY" experience and "MY" concepts. The cognized becomes more real than the cogniser. Perceptions through extroverted sense organs are taken as the proof of reality. Whatever cognized is taken as really existing. In other words, existence or beingness is considered identical to the totality of all cognitive processes.

Let us analyse the individualized process of cognition to see how existential reality is asserted by cognition. Since the visible forms add maximum reality to our perceived world, let's consider the process of seeing as an example. The complex process of seeing, as described by the scientific world, involves multiple stages. First, an inverted image of the object is fallen on the retina of the eyes. Then the optic nerves carry the visual impulses to the optic center in the brain. The optic center processes the impulses and translates them as "visual information" regarding the object. Then the subtle intellect assimilates them as knowledge and now the object is known to be existing. (In this context, a distinction is to be noted on "information" and "knowledge". Information is ideation conceptual. Knowledge is the "isness" of the concept.)

This is the case with all other sense perceptions as well. Through multiple stages, the perceptions are assimilated into subtler and subtler aspects and finally are "known" to be existing. As a matter of fact, even the thought process follow the same pattern bereft of the initial sensory activity. An objective existence is thus pulverized to knowledge by step by step reduction in grossness. What one can conclude from this is that the totality of all cognitive processes is ultimately reducible to knowledge. Since we have already defined existence as the totality of cognitive processes, it amounts to say that the ultimate nature of beingness is knowingness.

If being is knowing, then can knowing be being?

This is one of the most fundamental questions in spirituality. What is the truth of the world? Is it real? Is it non-substantial like a dream? Just an illusion? Maya?

Let's analyse the same example of seeing further. The entire process can be seen as a sequence of observations. The tree was an object for the eye. The image in retina was an object for the optic center. The impulses at the optic center was an object for the intellect. The information was an object for the consciousness. Even though seeing is a unitary process, the object was converted from gross to subtle then to subtler and to subtlest in stages.

During the process, one will see that the heterogeneous world with a wide variety of attributes when perceived will be first converted to image, then to impulses, then to information, and to knowledge. From the second stage onwards, the heterogeneous nature of the objects is lost. An image is an image. An image of a rose is same in essence to an image of a bull. Then the images are converted into neural impulses which are uniform in essence though carrying variety of information. In other words, at this stage the essence of a tree or water or light or color or sweetness or pain or concept- they all become similar in constitution. Just neuro-electric signals. The varied experiences and objects take the form of a unified substance. Going further on, finally they all take the form of simple, subtle knowledge with only the feel of "isness" of the impulses. If we can go a step further, it can be very easily inferred how inseparable consciousness and knowledge are and knowing is just a subtle movement of "isness" within consciousness.

Now take a U turn and begin where the cognitive process begins. Suppose you are observing a tree. The image of the tree falls on the retina of the eye through the lens which in turn proceeds further to have the vision of the object the tree. Assume that you have developed a technique by which you can project an image directly on the retina using a miniature projector implanted inside the eye ball. If this projector can project the exact image of the tree, as it looked when the tree was being observed, will it not produce the vision of the tree? The brain will process the image and impulses and there after translate the information into the knowledge of a "tree out there". Is it not as good as observing the real tree even though actually there is no tree?

Assume that technology improves further to be able to simulate impulses directly on the brain centers so as to produce same neuro-electric impulses generated while observing the tree. This will again be experienced as real tree by the further assimilations by brain-intellect. By the same token, it is not very hard to conclude that if the knowledge of a tree arises in consciousness it can be experienced by the organism as a real tree out in the real world.

What is attempted here is to reason out the possibility by a sort of reverse engineering that the whole objective world can be equated to knowledge arising in pure consciousness being projected as information then to impulses then to images and at last as a physical existence. When this projection happens through a subtle body, a dream world is cognized. When the projection happens through a physical body, a physical world appears. In this scenario, the only self-existing reality is the consciousness and everything else is just appearance (movement) of knowledge within it which gets projected in stages of grossness. Any objective existence is directly related to objective knowledge operating in relation to self knowledge. When no knowledge operates, pure consciousness is pure existence. So conditioned existence is knowingness in motion and pure existence is knowingness at rest.

Simply put Knowing is Being.

The Blessed One replied: The five sense-functions and their discriminating and thinking function have their risings and complete ending from moment to moment. They are born with discrimination as cause, with form and appearance and objectivity closely linked together as condition. The will-to-live is the mother, ignorance is the father. By setting up names and forms greed is multiplied and thus the mind goes on mutually conditioning and being conditioned. By becoming attached to names and forms, not realizing that they have no more basis than the activities of the mind itself, error rises, false-imagination as to pleasure and pain rises, and the way to emancipation is blocked. The lower system of sense-minds and the discriminating-mind do not really suffer pleasure and pain - they only imagine they do. Pleasure and pain are the deceptive reactions of mortal-mind as it grasps an imaginary objective world.

There are two ways in which the ceasing of the mind-system may take place: as regards form, and as regards continuation. The sense-organs function as regards form by the interaction of form, contact and grasping; and they cease to function when this contact is broken. As regards continuation,- when these interactions of form, contact and grasping cease, there is no more continuation of the seeing, hearing and other sense functions; with the ceasing of these sense functions, the discriminations, graspings and attachments of the discriminating-mind cease; and with their ceasing act and deed and the habit-energy cease, and there is no more accumulation of karma-defilement on the face of Universal Mind.

If the evolving mortal-mind were of the same nature as Universal Mind the cessation of the lower mind-system would mean the cessation of Universal Mind, but they are different for Universal Mind is not the cause of mortal-mind. There is no cessation of Universal Mind in its pure and essence-nature. What ceases to function is not Universal Mind in its essence-nature, but is the cessation of the effect-producing defilements upon its face that have been caused by the accumulation of the habit-energy of the activities of the discriminating and thinking mortal-mind. There is no cessation of Divine Mind which, in itself, is the abode of Reality and the Womb of Truth.

By the cessation of the sense-minds is meant, not the cessation of their perceiving functions, but the cessation of their discriminating and naming activities which are centralized in the discriminating mortal-mind. By the cessation of the mind-system as a whole is meant, the cessation of discrimination, the clearing away of the various attachments, and, therefore, the clearing away of the defilements of habit-energy in the face of Universal Mind which have been accumulating since beginningless time by reason of these discriminations, attachments, erroneous reasonings, and following acts. The cessation of the continuation aspect of the mind-system, namely, the discriminating mortal-mind the entire world of maya and desire disappears. Getting rid of the discriminating mortal-mind is Nirvana.