Wednesday, November 03, 2010
sad to know that I have again gone away to look at other new patterns! but remembered not to forget to look at all possibilities, or else, incompleteness may be projected upon the completeness and patterns that never existed invoked with the help of biased and incomplete perceptions, only to keep the ever existing harmony at the bay and never existing opposites persisting. The paradox of paradox remains not just a paradox, but paradox of paradox.
The programmer's version 1.0:
if(paradox of patterns == TRUE)
if(ever existing harmony == TRUE)
Do I still see a pattern?... not when I'm out of the infinite loop of paradox.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Entire existence signifies objectivity, to whom? Now here is the subject. Apparently, though it seems that objective presence is always dominating subjective presence, it is only the subjective presence that dominates the objective existence. And pure subjective presence is complete objective absence!
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
What is creation?
Can you create something, without destroying anything? If you say yes, be aware, first thing you destroy is the space! Ok leave space for now. If you are going to use some resources for creation, you sure are going to destroy that, though you can claim that you are giving it a new shape, position or attribute. So we can never create anything without destroying.
What is destruction?
Can you destroy something, without creating anything? If you say yes, be aware, first thing you create is space! Ok leave space for now. If you are going to use some resources for destruction, you sure are going to create that, though you can claim that you are giving it a new shape, position or attribute. So we can never destroy anything without creating.
The above paradox is born with our very definition of creation and destruction. Something new, favourable, useful, benefitable and which adds to what we are, we call it creation. Something that is not favourable, not useful, not benefitable and which subtracts from what we are, we call it destruction.
The insights are:
The very definition of creation or destruction is relative.
Creation to some; is destruction to others
Destruction to some; is creation to others.
Our own idea of what we are, defines it.
We can call it creative destruction or destructive creation, but both will mean same.
From the point of infinity and absolute, what would creation or destruction mean?
Sunday, July 19, 2009
all that were born will die
all that die will be born
all that appeared will disappear
all that disappeared will appear
all that expanded will contract
all that contracted will expand
all that is perceived will be forgotten
all that is forgotten will be perceived
all that came together will separate
all that separated will come together
all that was delighted will turn disgusting
all that was disgusting will turn delightful
all these you know, still you are born birth after birth
you killed all and all that killed you
you ate all, and all that ate you
you bore all and all that bore you
you cherished all and all that cherished you
you exalted in prosperity, wept in poverty
you rejoiced in pleasure, suffered in pain
you experienced all impermanence and still consider this body bubble as your permanent abode
all that is, will not be
all that is not, will be
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Oneness is born when the divisions subside may be the saying... but are the divisions true? Do they exist in reality? you will know better when your perception is free from divisions and inhibitions, filters, assumptions so on.
I know this is tricky, ‘cuz I can simply get lost in this!
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The way mind communicates and expresses is bound to be misinterpreted. To the mind the rivers and ocean are separate as the frame of reference is within time and at that place rivers are far away from the ocean. If they are not two, can Ganges flow up stream?:-)
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Human intellect is helpless when it tries to perceive absolute self through vibrations of mind, body and actions. Through mind, the intellect is powerful to discriminate and create a complex world for itself, and the same intellect can work through towards the absolute self by the same forces of discrimination if applied beyond mind. But this is where there seems to be a catch:
When intellect is applied through mind, the objects of knowledge come and go. The mind can entertain objects that come within the scope of limited time, space and ego. But when the intellect is surrendered to the ideation of the absolute self, it takes you beyond the triple states of physical, psychical and spiritual realms and then the divine merger happens.