Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 There was once a mad cartographer who had the the crazy goal to make the ultimate map, a full scale map of the planet in which every mountain and pebble would be its actual size. He thought this was the only way to avoid topological ambiguity, and to realize total geographical knowledge. A crazy idea indeed! But are not we just as crazy when we try to make our mental map fit reality. We strive in vain to achieve absolute correspondence between 'what is' and our ideas, failing to see the simple fact that, any explanation gives birth to separation. Any attempt to explain creates the observer and the observed, and adding distance to this division, in the middle, between the two stands the explanation. How could this tasteless mental sandwich ever satisfy our appetite for unity? Let's take a look at the explanation below: " There is no object external to the self. What you call the object is self itself. Let us take the example of a dream in which a tiger chases a man. He runs in fear and finally climbs up a tree. The tree, the tiger, the chase, etc., are all a projection of his own mind and his dream-personality also is a process of his mind. So the one mind becomes everyone of these in the dream. It is subjective as well as objective. This is what is happening in the waking condition also; and, even as the one single mind became all objects in the dream, the universal mind has become all these external objects around here even in waking life. They are nothing but the universal mind ultimately. " >- Swami Krishnananda A beautiful and strangely satisfying explanation. Why is it so reassuring? Well, for one, it assures us there is something called " universal mind " and it's implied this mind is eternal and real, while our minds being mortal live in fear of being not. It further assures us that in some vague way our minds are this universal mind. Our mortal minds would love to survive, so they like this explanation. Besides, it's a beautiful analogy, but do similarities prove anything? No, they don't, specially when one of the things compared is an abstract construction that has been posited a priori. But the important thing to understand is that even if it were true, this explanation as long as you hold on to it as a belief, is creating the separation that was discussed above. So what other role it serves, but to reassure the separation that it is not separate. Crazy, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > There was once a mad cartographer who had the > the crazy goal to make the ultimate map, a > full scale map of the planet in which every > mountain and pebble would be its actual size. > He thought this was the only way to avoid > topological ambiguity, and to realize total > geographical knowledge. A crazy idea indeed! > > But are not we just as crazy when we try to > make our mental map fit reality. We strive in vain > to achieve absolute correspondence between 'what is' > and our ideas, failing to see the simple fact that, > any explanation gives birth to separation. > > Any attempt to explain creates the observer and the > observed, and adding distance to this division, in > the middle, between the two stands the explanation. > How could this tasteless mental sandwich ever > satisfy our appetite for unity? > > Let's take a look at the explanation below: > > " There is no object external to the self. What you > call the object is self itself. Let us take the example > of a dream in which a tiger chases a man. He runs in > fear and finally climbs up a tree. The tree, the tiger, > the chase, etc., are all a projection of his own mind and > his dream-personality also is a process of his mind. > So the one mind becomes everyone of these in the dream. > It is subjective as well as objective. This is what is > happening in the waking condition also; and, even as the > one single mind became all objects in the dream, the > universal mind has become all these external objects > around here even in waking life. They are nothing but > the universal mind ultimately. " > >- Swami Krishnananda > > A beautiful and strangely satisfying explanation. Why is it so > reassuring? Well, for one, it assures us there is something called > " universal mind " and it's implied this mind is eternal and real, while > our minds being mortal live in fear of being not. It further assures > us that in some vague way our minds are this universal mind. > Our mortal minds would love to survive, so they like this explanation. > Besides, it's a beautiful analogy, but do similarities prove anything? > No, they don't, specially when one of the things compared is an > abstract construction that has been posited a priori. > > But the important thing to understand is that even if it were true, > this explanation as long as you hold on to it as a belief, is creating > the separation that was discussed above. So what other role it serves, > but to reassure the separation that it is not separate. Crazy, no? > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.