“Loving” is the “process” coming from “wanting to become conscious…” of something/someone.
“Hating” is the “process” coming from “wanting to become unconscious…” of something/someone.
Mistaken essence is the cause of sorrow
Mistaken essence is the cause of sorrow/suffering.
There is only God/Brahman/Field/Consciousness.
That is the only essence.
All else that is experienced is the play of this singular essence.
So no part of what is seen is essence.
The mistake is to mistake any part of this play to be essence.
It is like gold that is continuously being remodeled and smelted.
Here gold is the essence, and all of the ornaments made with it are subject to change.
So no ornament-form is essence.
Similarly no form in existence is essence.
Essence is formless and quality-less,
And it is not graspable as an object.
One can only be it and experience it directly.
Another analogy would be a VR game,
Where only the “hardware/software/power” are real.
The rest of experience is just the play-out of those 3 as the flow of time.
This is analogous to our essence play as the BME (Body, Mind, Energy) process in time.
No thing is real, and no thing exists.
Only god/brahman/field/consciousness exists.
The evolution process is the play/dream of this field,
And our individual experience is like a figment of this evolution process.
The science of attitude and perception
Every aspect of existence that we see outside,
Has a corresponding component of that within ourselves too.
Perception is from resonance/recognition/alignment.
That is why it is said “You only experience the self, not the world”,
OR “You experience the world only as reflected in your self”.
All perception is a kind of resonance between the outer and the inner.
It is not that the outer and inner are separated in time by a linear process.
They simultaneous spawn,
Like how the dreamer character and the dream environment spawn together simultaneously.
Like for example, if you start to hate some aspect of yourself,
At that very instant, you also simultaneously prime yourself into hating all other potential reminders/representations/symbols/patterns of that aspect from the outside.
This is because, reality is ‘experience’,
And experience is fractal in nature.
What you hold in mind, you see outside.
And what you see outside, you hold in mind.
You see similar motifs/patterns/symbols/representations,
i.e. all that reflect the idea that you are holding.
The outer-inner appear to be in a constant state of transaction.
Sometimes an inner change alters the outer perception.
Sometimes an outer change alters the perception of the inner.
So from this level of perspective,
There is not even a you vs an other or inner vs outer.
It is a single swath that instantly manifests together.
The attitudes I hold towards every aspect of existence,
Multiply themselves infinitely and instantly throughout the entire scape of existence.
When saying ‘The attitudes I hold…’, I was implying that I am the determiner.
But actually, when delving deeper, I see that even these attitudes,
Also seem to be ‘appearances’.
Rather then being something I determine,
They seem to be flowing through and expressing through me.
My ability to alter them or control them,
Seems to be determined by how much energy/power I have,
And my level of perception and dis-identification i.e. whether I can even perceive those attitudes as objects in my awareness.
This energy level is again conditional of sort, again the effect of many other cyclic processes.
To dis-identify from anything, you must first have the power/energy to separate yourself from it and see it as an object.
When enmeshed and identified into something,
Even if you can see this enmeshment,
You need enough power/freq/energy to extricate yourself out of that.
It is similar to how we need enough external force to overcome newton’s first law of inertia.
Generally, you function from a certain station of freq,
While accessing all kinds of states from there.
This I call the LOC (level of consciousness) of the subtle body.
I could say, ‘What you are is where you are seeing from’.
What you do not see, will be something you are subject to, and it will rule you from within.
What you do see, is something subject to you, and can be ruled.
For many people, what I see is that, their life-fires/soul are enmeshed and identified with their genetics (to varying degrees/levels).
It is like they are embedded inside those grids, and therefore all of their life fires only serve the demands of those structures.
They are completely unaware of this, because they identify totally with the feelings/perceptions arising from these grids.
It reminds me of animals, how they function only within 2 lines, only within a certain set pattern.
For human beings, it seems,
The bottom line is similar to reptiles/mammals,
But the top line is super high.
The spectrum is vast and there is enormous potential to rise up in awareness.
The 2 kinds of relationships I’ve experienced
I’ve seen 2 kinds of relationships in my life:
# Connections through resonance
# Connections through projection/role-play
Connecting through resonance:
Two minds understand each other when they are attuned/honed to each other,
That is, when both the minds are operating at a similar frequency, they see similar views.
For instance, say you are floating on a hot air balloon.
If you spoke to someone on the ground, his view would be entirely different from yours.
You may be able to talk a little about his surroundings, because you know where he is standing,
Similarly, he might see your balloon and ask you a few questions about that.
But overall, there would not be much to share or connect about.
But suppose you spoke to another person in another hot air balloon at the same height,
Then so much of the view is shared, and thereby you both can easily connect, right?
Two minds can connect if they share the same level of subtleness of perception.
I call this the “LOC” – The level of consciousness of the subtle body.
Generally, things like world view, concerns, ideas, perceptions, thoughts, feelings can be easily shared with another being at the same LOC level.
There is ‘what you are seeing’, and ‘from where you are seeing’.
The LOC is about ‘from where you are seeing’.
If the ‘from where you are seeing’ is common,
Then understanding each other would be very effortless.
Connecting to another being who shares your LOC level,
I call ‘connecting via. resonance’.
Whatever you say to them will be understood fairly easily.
Actually you both already see from the same place.
The talking is more a celebration of the connection already active.
It is a sort of mutual enrichment.
Often there is instant recognition here.
This kind of relationship does not need much time,
And feels comfortable and deep at the start itself.
The other kind of relationship I have had is via. projection/role-play.
These kinds of relationships are mostly from external situations (sharing the same environment, context etc.)
What are called ‘situational relationships’ would come under this.
# Like the roles of being a colleague/coworker/college lab partner/project partner/college friend in the same class, neighbor next door etc.
# I would also include specific interest group connections under here.
Because interest group connections are also somewhat goal based – Check this out, What do you think of this? etc.
They are fairly circumscribed and specific to a certain frame and scope.
# Also, any work related relationships would come in this category.
Like even the relationship you may have with people standing in the same queue as you to buy movie tickets.
# Even healing group members are not necessarily at the same LOC level.
For instance, Two people might connect with each other from their unresolved anger issues, or through their common addiction to something, but their LOCs could be vastly different.
# Even relations with family members, relatives etc. could fall here.
Because they too are certain frames of role-play.
# Even romantic relations are often projection/fantasy/role-play based.
If it does not have enough of resonance elements, then the relationship would fizzle out quickly, i.e. after the ‘enjoyment of the novelty/projection/role-play/fantasy/specific-quality-admiration based interaction’ is completed.
The absurdity of the ‘love yourself’ mantra
This is something that has perplexed me since childhood.
I’d keep hearing slogans like ‘be yourself’, ‘love yourself, ‘believe in yourself’, and so on.
I used to wonder, what is this self that they are referring to, while pointing at me.
Where is this self? What is it?
Is it my image of their idea of what I am, what I should be, or what I think they want me to be?
Is it my own image of what I am independent of them being around me?
But generally my own image of what I am, is heavily and actively conditioned/influenced by who is around me (in silent or talking level interaction with me) and the larger surroundings in that place.
Even if nobody is around me, my self is some sort of a more diffused response to the environment around me.
My general personality/disposition/investments/ways of thinking-perceiving-feeling etc. are part nature and part nurture.
I can recall an active self forming at the age of 6, then a more developed one at 11, and I think after the age of 28 it seems to have stabilized itself.
But what was that active self that first formed? What existed before the age 6?
It feels like I just emerged from a bunch of situations throughout early childhood.
Ok, then was I born a clean slate? – I don’t relate with that too.
I have no continuous memories of anything below the age 4-5, but I intuit I could have already had a seed with its potentials/proclivities/tendencies/patterns (what they call samkharas and vasanas in vedic literature).
So maybe the selves that formed through 6, 11, 20, 24, 28 etc. were different milestones where a distinctive evolving pattern emerged in my vibrating sands (like the sand patterns in Cymatics as the frequency is raised).
So my deeper self then could be my bio-memory embedded in the whole body (in its trillions of cells)? – Coming from my forefathers, ancestry, genetics, lineage.
That genetics could have passed on its own fantasies, ideals, projects, works, characteristics, goals, preoccupations etc. that I identify with or dis-identify with depending on my own past lives?
In my own past lives, again the same situation might have been there, of genetics, upbringing, conditioning, social environment (the yuga at that time) and its influence etc.
So it sort of loops on itself. When did it all start?
The dilemma is like, when you are a tree, you search for your source.
You find out, you grew from a seed.
But a seed cannot grow without the fertile ground.
So the ground is also responsible for the tree.
But that seed itself has come from a previous full grown tree (the past life), and so on.
It goes into an infinite regress loop.
My whole quest to find an independent self eludes me.
I just cannot grasp a ‘me’ that exists independently.
From my contemplation, I see none of any of this is me.
Because if I can perceive it as an object,
Then the me must be separate from the object right?!
The deeper I contemplate this, I realize that what I am is transcendent of language itself.
It is a transcendent dimension, what they call consciousness.
There is no real “reason” for anything
There is no real “reason” for anything,
The reason for anything is everything (everything, the way it is).
How can an “infinite multi-dimensional inter-connected oceanic happening” fit into a “single thread of reasoning”?Â
The reasoning is just that, one thread of logic.
It is one among billions of threads, and threads of all sizes.
So the mind is more of an elucidator, expounder, expresser, and reflector.
There is only commentary/expression/reflection/study/understanding.
So there isn’t any clear ‘why’, ‘reason’, ’cause’ for anything.
There are no hard conclusions, only soft ones,
And no absolute causality because causality comes from threads of reason, and there are infinite such threads running forwards and backwards and criss-cross.
The whole moves the whole.
It is all one gigantic absurdity or wonder.
The dream is simply dreamed as an expression of infinite-possibility.
All is but an appearance in consciousness/field.
My musings on death
Death fills me with a sense of deep awe, respect, wonder, and a sacred silence.
I bow down to its power.
Death fills me with a kind of gratitude.
That I have had the privilege of having this stream of experience,Â
And to be a witness of this body’s inner life process.
Every death is liberation from the form.
Seen from a higher perspective, death isn’t a separate unconnected event.
Birth and Death are part of a singular continuum.
They are different parts of the same process, the same thread,
That continues on inexorably.
We have all done this countless times before,
Living from different points of view.
When moving from form to form, it is the point of attention that shifts.
All forms are temporal in nature.
Every form that is born also dies.
We descend into form and ascend back into the formless.
Birth and death are the grandest events that can happen to anyone.
Birth and Death happen to us as ‘consciousness’.
We are not born and we do not die.
We are the eternal substance (consciousness),
Witnessing the plays of both birth and death,
And all that happens in the middle we call our lives.
All real knowledge is from ‘Samyama’
This post will require some familiarity with ‘Patanjali’s yoga sutras’.
Referring to the terminology from the eight-fold path,
I’ve understood that all real knowledge is from ‘Samyama’,
Which is a combination of ‘Pratyahara + Dharana + Dhyana + Samadhi (union)’.
It is ‘Knowing by Being’ or ‘Knowing by Union-ing’ vs. ‘Knowing by Doing’.
You know everything through ‘direct absorption’ with the object.
In Vedanta, all knowledge is from:
‘Phala vyakti’ shining on ‘Vritti vyakti’.
That is ‘Reflected consciousness’ shining on ‘Modification of the mind stuff’.
We think objects exist external to us,
But in reality, everything that we know appears within us as a modification of our mind stuff.
So union-ing with the object is to union with the Vritti (mind-modification) of your own mind substance.
There is tons and tons more to say on this topic,
But I’ll leave this here as an introduction or segway.
Infinity is not a quantity but a quality
There is a dimensional gap between quantity and quality.
Because quality is immeasurable, analog, and infinite.
Any amount of quantity will still be “infinitely less” than infinity.
Experience by nature is qualitative.
Like consider a dream.
What is the nature of it? Is is measurable in any sense in space or time?
How large was it? How much time did it contain?
Even now, every scene you see is infinite,
But you can snap a 12MP digital photo of that using your camera.
The sound that you hear from your guitar is infinite,
But you can record a 128kbps Mp3 using a sound recorder.
The digitization process converts the pure infinite analog into bits to approximate the quality of it.
But the resolution of this captured information can never equal the infinite resolution/information present in the actual reality of creation.
Similarly our minds are like the digitized versions of what reality actually is.
The real “terrain” though is infinite.
Our minds are like captured maps from this terrain,
Like a combination of photos and illustrations.
The real nature of existence is unfathomable and beyond all logic.
Resonance, Attraction, the time-shaft dimension of a person
Every person we meet has a past, present, and future.
“…Past self —— Present self ——- Future self…”
People are like flowing rivers.
And when you meet them, you are meeting their river at that time and place.
All interaction is only possible only because of resonance.
Without resonance, the others would not even appear in your experience.
You mingle/jibe/sync with the person only through the resonance you both share.
In other words, you see them within you, through how they appear/form within your space and its filtering structures.
Understanding this resonance can be a very subtle job.
It could be a positive or negative kind of ‘energy investment’ resonance.
For example: Both liking or hating the same thing.
Another possibility is, it could be resonance with the thing but not with the relationship to that thing.
For instance: Say both are obsessed with the idea of beauty.
One of them trying to become beautiful with the other actively rebelling against the idea of beauty and doing the opposite.
The commonality here is, both are focused/fixated/locked onto, and have their cathexis/emotional investment set on the same theme/field/topic/idea, although with differing/opposing relationship.
So there is the resonance from:
# What idea you focus on
# Relationship towards that idea
The first bullet point creates the “shared reality/shared frame of reference”, which is the primary resonance.
The second bullet point, that is, the relationship towards that shared frame is the secondary resonance.
This is because if the 2 do not see/share the reality/frame as the first step, then no interaction is possible at all.
Another element of this is consciousness.
# 2 people could come from the same cultural background and share that deep resonance,
But they could be completely unconscious of it.
They both may not see that shared resonance as an object at all in their experience.
# On the other hand, if there is consciousness of the resonance, then there is also consciousness of the object that is resonated with. And this implies that the person is seeing from a point of view that is transcendent of the object.
This is actually a necessary precondition for all consciousness of any object.
All consciousness requires transcendence, that is to see something clearly as an object in your experience, requires ‘you’ to see from an ‘identity space’ that is transcendent of that object.
All consciousness needs contrast.
The ‘transcendent reality’ provides a contrast to everything we experience here.
Union-ing with that, allows for the greatest clarity and unifying vision of everything here.
Let’s now look into the time dimension:
What the other values/cherishes/desires/longs/strives for, represents their future self.
That is what they will become, or that is the direction of their movement.
They are drawn towards certain possibilities, and if you are also attracted towards a similar direction/possibility, then that also is a resonance shared.
In a way, seen from a 5-D perspective, every person is tracing a time mandala.
From the 5-D perspective, the entire mandala is already there, it is only a matter of time.
Like how a cassette or DVD already has the entire recording, but it is played out in time.
So there could be a 5-D resonance too. Some kind of complementary time mandalas in deep relationship with each other.
This is what is called soul connection I believe.
Basically a referent used to point to a much deeper higher dimensional resonance/relationship/attraction/complement-ality.
Sometimes the attraction to the other is because they represent a possibility/potential that we desire, but we are unable to be/become or own that due to various reasons.
This could be 5-D or even 6-D based.
# 5-D based attraction would be something you could potentially become, but you may be having many other preoccupations and constraints, it may involve too many sacrifices, compromises, guilts, fears, restructuring, and so on.
# 6-D based would be something that is impossible for you to become in this birth given your conditions. For instance, if I wanted to be a billionaire’s child, that is a 6-D possibility because it is impossible in this current birth no matter what choices/decisions/investments I make. It is then more like a parallel universe, that can only be lived in the imagination.
Imagination is the Ultimate Bridger of all worlds and possibilities.
Journey to the Abstract 