History of the world

[Guest guest]

First let me say that I have been following with great

interest some of the threads lately discussed here,

particularly "What's the point" and "Doing - me or

God". I must avow that I felt identified with Denis

Waite's questions. I too have been troubled by the

discrepancies between non-dual masters. Though I mostly

follow Nisargadatta and Ramesh Balsekar, I also read

other teachers and shruti. And their differences

sometimes baffle me and put me in a position of having

to choose, which I don't like. I still tend to think

that if a statemet is true (for example "there are no

real entities so there is no free will, no

cause-effect, no reincarnation"), the opposite can't

also be true even if stated by a great master. Maybe

I'm being naive, but I still believe in only one truth,

whatever it is. Otherwise I wouldn't be searching for

it. I know that all "truths" are only

conceptualizations, words spoken as pointers rather

than as perfect representations of reality. But I think

that if a pointer is reliable the opposite can't also

be. Either there is reincarnation or there isn't.

Either we have free will or we don't.

Either effort is necessary or it isn't. Either the

elements in phenomenality are determined or they

aren't. So when advaita teachers hold diverging

positions on these and other points some of them must

be wrong or misleading. How is that possible if they're

supposed to be realized and have shed all false ideas?

 

A particular point in which I have been finding some

doubts is the nature of the world's history. I know

that the whole of phenomenality is a projection, a

complex mental object projected on the screen of

Consciousness. But is it a fixed picture or a moving

picture?

Does the world really have a history? A past? Does it

evolve? Or does it start when it is projected by the

mind?

 

Ramesh Balsekar spoke about this in several occasions,

with different interpretations, I think.

 

As has been described here already, he compared

phenomenality with a 50-mile-long picture which we are

unable to watch as a whole and only scene by scene,

hence the feeling of the passing of time. Past, present

and future are equally contained in the picture. So a

fixed picture without even the appearance of movement

in it, but with a history.

 

Other times he compares the world with a personal

dream. As in a dream, people and objects appear before

us, of different ages. Some are already old, some are

young. But none of them has a past. Everything begins

as it appears the moment the dream (=each body-mind)

starts, suddenly, without history. And nothing ever

existed before the first observer appeared. So the

whole of history between the big bang and the

appearance of the first animals simply did not exist,

because there was no observer to watch it.

 

Still other times he (following Nisargadatta) compares

the universe with a film, a movie, which we are

watching as it is being projected. Here only the

present is being shown. The past has already

disappeared from the screen and the future is still to

appear. So a moving picture, with the appearance of

movement in it. Some watchers see a part of the

history, others see another part.

 

Which of these interpretations is the best?

Did any phenomenality exist (as projection) before the

first animals appeared, or not?

If not, then how could the the first animals appear,

if there was no world yet?

If yes, then whose projection was a world in which

there was no observer?

 

Miguel-Angel

[Guest guest]

Greetings Miguel:

 

Good to see you (after a long time interval!). As

always you have good insights and you have kindled the

silent observers.

 

I remember a Tamil Proverb which has the following

meaning:

 

"All that we see, hear, touch, feel and analyze are

false, the Truth is beyond what we see, hear, touch,

feel and conceptualize."

 

This proverb explains all the contradictions that we

can see, hear, touch, feel and discuss. Our problem

is that we try to conceptualize 'that' which is beyond

sight, sound, touch and thoughts. All 'that' we can

say is 'that' is 'it.' Here I have no contradiction,

but it is worthless for a limited mind. In other

words, these contradictions just confirm our

limitation in understanding. Back and back we want to

come back to our old habit of conceptualizing "Truth"

with no contradiction.

 

Then what is the solution for expelling

contradictions? In Bhagavad Gita, the Self (Lord

Krishna)descends and opens a dialog with the human

(Arjuna)to remove Arjuna's imaginative contradictions.

The entire Gita, SELF discusses all contradictions

that originate from the Jiva and prescribes how to

dispell them. Gita doesn't claim that this process

(sadhana) of removal of contradictions is easy.

Fundamentally, we need Shraddha (Belief with

conviction and devotion) for removing all

contradictions. Everything that you have discussed

can be conveniently implanted inside the Gita

framework and with contemplative thoughts within, we

can resolve those contradictions. It is impossible

for the seers of Upanishads or Shankara or

Nisargadatta Maharaj or Balasekar or anyone else

remove the contradictions that we created in our body,

mind and intellect. These contradictions will always

stay as we perceive them through body, mind and

intellect. Atman is not body, mind and intellect and

consequently these contradictions have no binding on

the Atman. Body, mind and intellect will perish along

with the contradictions that are associated with them.

The imperishable Atman is always free from all

contradictions and is beyond body, mind and intellect.

 

In reality "Truth" and illusionary contradictions

simultaneously exist and those who dwell in illusion

can't see the Truth and vice versa. We always start

with the right question, who am I? and it seems always

proceed in the wrong direction. This is our fate!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Miguel, great to hear from you! You were one of the few remaining writers I

was missing from the old Advaita-L list. I recall feeling a sympathy with

many of your posts in the past and, now that my inclinations have moved even

further in the direction of Nisargadatta and his followers, it seems

inevitable that we have like thoughts on this subject.

 

However, reading your comments, I felt moved to try to respond. You say

that, if a pointer is true, the opposite cannot also be. Obviously this

sounds reaonable. But, accepting that reality is beyond the intellect, it

must presumably also be beyond simple logic. Perhaps it is equivalent to

thinking of a literal pointer in a two-dimensional world. If it is pointing

North, we clearly cannot get to the desired destination by travelling South.

But, if the space is three-dimensional and the surface is spherical...

 

There is also the problem of language not always necessarily referring to

what we think it is. I watched the programme on TV last night about the

brain and consciousness (mentioned a couple of times already). It referred

to Benjamin Libet's experiments about intentionality and motor action. Most

people are probably familiar with these - they were done quite a long time

ago. Basically, he monitors the subject's brain in that region responsible

for initiating action (pressing a button). The subject is watching a clock

on a computer screen. He is asked to press either button A or button B

whenever he is ready and to note the time on the clock when he makes the

conscious decision. The computer then records the time of the decision and

the time when the brain starts to trigger the movement in the hand to press

the button. The interesting thing is that the claimed decision to press a

button always takes place after the brain starts to move the hand. This is

supposed to prove that there is no such thing as free will.

 

This is fine, of course, from an advaita point of view. But is it fine from

the man-in-the-street's viewpoint? Well, it makes no difference of course to

his life, which will almost certainly carry on as before. It is regarded as

an interesting curiosity and forgotten. Whether the experiment is actually

telling what it appears to be is another matter. I know there have been

several papers refuting the results and I did download something a few years

back but I can't remember what they said - clearly I am not too bothered

either! But the point I was getting around to making is that, even if this

is actually what happens, it is still what we mean by the term free will

really. i.e. the 'feeling' of having free will is that feeling that arises

as a side effect in the brain from it initiating some action in (automatic)

response to a combination of stimuli. Perhaps.

 

So we do have free will in one sense and do not have it in another. They can

both be true. It merely depends upon the context in which it is being

discussed. Exactly equivalent to talking about vyavahaara or paramaarthika.

 

On the subject of images on screens and so on, I too have noticed that there

are contradictions in their use by different teachers, and sometimes by the

same teacher on different occasions. I decided that I probably was happy

with this because they were using a similar metaphor for slightly different

purposes and/or trying to explain something to different listeners. The

trouble with metaphors is that they are only trying to trigger an intuitive

understanding based upon a very crude analogy, since the actual subject is

beyond simple description. As soon as we try to take the analogy too far or

use it in a slightly different way, it is in great danger of breaking down

or, worse still, confusing or misleading. I think that, once the intuition

has been gained, the metaphor should be discarded before this happens.

 

I say nothing about your fascinating question about whether animals appeared

before humans etc. and await the comments of others with great interest.

 

Dennis