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!
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Does subject and object continue to coexist?
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
Creation & Destruction
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.
Paradox?
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
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
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.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
What moves?
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
The path of intellect
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.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Cause and Effect
Can there be an effect without a cause?
Monday, March 30, 2009
Beginning of Timelessness...
Absurd?
How the hell can there be a beginning to timelessness?
What’s the message?
That question is raised in time, but the statement does not anticipate this question, because it’s timelessness J Since it’s got a beginning its not timelessness and tendency is to get trapped in time with anticipation and get out of timelessness! This signifies beginning of time. If there is just timelessness where is the question of anticipation etc, it is just what it is now. So there is no beginning then why the statement "beginning of timelessness"?
But when did I know that there is no beginning? Yes timelessness cannot have a question, when? But when did I know that? Simple ... as soon as I’m in time I should have 'known' timelessness, of course I can I’m in time when I perceive change I don’t need any proof.
But to perceive time I have to be out of time.
I’m perceiving time and I’m out of it and so is that the beginning of timelessness then, I can’t say perceiving of timelessness is its beginning because timelessness seems to be there always! If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If I perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist! That’s not beginning for timelessness... in time?
Perceiving timelessness in time?
Do I want to prove there is no beginning?! “when I perceive" is itself in time as WHEN signifies time. Yes as long as I perceive it is in time and then it will have a beginning...and not until I come out of timelessness J If perceiving of time can begin time why not perceiving of timelessness begin timelessness. If me perceiving has got nothing to do with beginning... then time and timelessness should coexist!
So both time and timelessness are coexisting same time and I can perceive anything anytime!
And hence it’s beginning of timelessness ... 'cuz its time already. So time is just a speck of timelessness, it’s like a small unit of infinity. Well logically it seems to make sense, but again timelessness can also go the other side negative infinity which seems it’s in time when this happens its beginning of timelessness, ... back to square one!, yeah tough to comprehend!
But then if there could be beginning of timelessness there should be end of timelessness which is beginning of time itself... besides did time give birth to timelessness or timelessness give birth to time?.....Or do both coexist all time, if they coexist then nothing gave birth to anything, if nothing gave birth to anything, there is no beginning. But end of timelessness is beginning of time and end of time is beginning of timelessness
There can be no end as they coexist? If there is no end to time then there is timelessness and as the same time, there is no time. Again, if there is no end to timelessness then there is time then there is no timelessness. And that’s why they coexist!
Both cannot be different when they coexist same time in timelessness Also, without time there can be no timelessness and vice versa. But then how did perception fail to perceive timelessness? And when it does, is it not beginning of timelessness? By which “PERCEPTION IS TIMELESS” and hence the absurd statement "beginning of timelessness" triumphs
And both time and timelessness are absurd, they have no meaning.
In the statement, “beginning” signifies time and timelessness is opposite of time.... how can this begin that, this cannot begin that and that cannot begin this and both have no relation?This is why the dispute was raised in the first place. But end of this is beginning of that.
So both have relation and also have no relation, both are interdependent and independent, both are mutually exclusive and inclusive
And so IT’S TIME FOR TIMELESSNESS?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
contemplating on what I am...
Logically simple? Ok lets try complicating... Lets consider the intermediate states:
Pure Consciousness(PC), Collective Consciousness(CC), Collective semi or Sub consciousness(CS), Collective Unconsciousness(CU), Deeper collective Unconsciousness.(DU)
Now when you are in PC state u don’t see anything and when you are in DU state you don’t see anything as well.
When you are in CC you are awake to see the physical beings and the world, you perceive CS, CU and DU and that becomes mental body, physical body and rest of the solid matter in this world.
When you are in CS you are half awake and half sleep to see the mental less solid beings, astral and dream beings, you perceive CU and DU
When you are in CU you are fully asleep and you perceive only DU
When you are in DU you are un-manifest so you don’t see anything but its unstable, now we are left with PC, though even in this state you don’t see anything but you are fully manifest(though you can choose to continue seeing other objects that belong to all other states). There is no unstable unconsciousness that bothers you, so you become eternal, imperishable, without any quality. You become one, the only I’ am.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Boredom
It was a good time and perfect and nothing wrong or unpleasant about it. I learned to enjoy monotony and boredom. I saw it was too SIMPLE without any exicitement.
When I started watching myself, the exernal situations and people started to fade out. This brought back my energies to me, it sure was integrating me compared to any other situation that pulled out my energies. It centered me and i started accepting and enjoying boredom! It made me complete and at peace.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
flashes!
Pain would last until you merge with the source!
You are held 'together' and 'seperate' only by ur desires!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
im stuck, i want freedom
its all to help u to the right path
how long i will mull in all this shit?
till you exhaust ur life force which seem to be limited only by ur limited conception of your mind... simply start with small actions that dont leave even slightest stain on your mind that will connect you to inexhaustible life force
how is that?
any action performed with limited desires(material, emotional, spiritual etc) will be only backed by exhaustible lifeforce, any action performed without any desire will be backed by inexhaustible lifeforce
yaa, I need to meditate and internalize.... to do actions with out desire ...
man desires to create footprints... later he desires to delete his footprints... only to create again!
:-)
Friday, May 11, 2007
Trying to find something that is everywhere, right through your deepest core?!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
perception
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Friday, December 15, 2006
Desire and Austerity
Going through the same experience again and again and again is indulgence; austerity is not going through the same experience again. Austerity helps you to check your indulgence, and make way for better and new desires to grow in knowledge and experience. We continuously deceive ourselves by imagining small things like food, sex, power and fame will give happiness. Only something infinitely vast and deep such as your real self can make you truly and permanently happy.
So live your life with awareness of your deepest self always. To put it simple and straight, all that you seek is to express in action what you are. For this purpose you have your toolkit :-) your body and your mind, see how they can help you in fulfilling your purpose.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Desire the Unlimited
This shift will not be due normal boredom feeling of "I’m not interested anymore, I don’t belong here anymore, I don’t feel like doing anything... I should be doing something else". The next situation or the next new experience will pull you instead of just wishing for a change or escape out or boredom of routine mundane activities. All you can do is keep responding to situations wherever you find yourself. Over a period of time spontaneous actions would arise, this is totally different from minds impulsive action. A chain of events would lead you to what is destined for you... intact you would not even bother about all this when you are in that mode. But on a normal day to day scenario whenever we analyze ourselves we find ourselves with either too many desires or no desire standing out and therefore no clarity of purpose. It cannot stand out...'cause it’s all interconnected any desire starts from you "limited separate entity".... ends with the union with unlimited-ness where time is said to stop 'cause there is no movement in any direction and hence no desire! Until then....keep meditating!
Suddenly you may find one desire standing out strongly among many others, later it may be substituted with another and it goes on. The mind tends to react to that desire with some impulsive reaction. So it’s better to take cumulative aggregation of our desires to decide, if at all the decision has to be taken. But I would suggest allowing the chain of events to take care; of course you will have to respond. Reacting to spike waves of the mind is not a wise thing to do, because if you continue to react it is difficult to know if the desire is still alive or not, as the desire starts working from the unconsciousness and also it keeps multiplying! 'cause waves in the mind give rise to reactions and reactions will maintain the waves of the mind....vicious circle? Mentally accepting that the desire being present is also minds reaction, instead try simply seeing the desire arising and falling, if you feel any response is need allow it, without any thinking and intellectualizing. Reaction of acceptance only reinforces the turbulences of the mind, though it is suggested as the solution it is just the first step. So if you respond with an action which is free from minds reactions it will be spontaneous, true and straightforward. Like having food when hungry, this may seem as a reaction to hunger as long as mind is involved... but spontaneously eating food is pure action if it’s got nothing to do with the exaggerations of the mind. Seems difficult to understand but its simple once the mind gets hold of this truth... and this truth will work against the mind when you intellectually get it right :-) One thing to remember is that objective accomplishments have got nothing to do with feeling accomplished (but mind connects these both) and hence the confusion... mind puts a rule that only if so and so objectives are accomplished there will be happiness, like “only if I go to the mountains I will become peaceful”. Here, is not feeling peaceful more important and going to the mountains? Coming back to hunger example, its like saying only if I eat pizza my hunger will cease, this is the mind, intuitively eating the best among anything available around you to satisfy hunger is your natural response. I will leave you to see the truth as it is for yourself.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Uselessness?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
blissful sleep
Monday, October 09, 2006
Hunting for the truth?
-Teachings of Tao
