In almost every article that I read anywhere which has to do with philosophy, metaphysics or spirituality, I find some recurrent features:
1. Lack of originality: People will spout second-hand knowledge. They will speak of monism, karma, yoga, and similar subjects, of which they (on occasion) have deep intellectual knowledge but no understanding whatsoever.
2. They will preach / pontificate. They will liberally use words like "should" or "must". There is an old adage that says that you should not seek stock-market advice from your neighbour because if he was any good, he would not be your neighbour. Similarly, people who pontificate are arrogant at the extreme, and vulgar. None of us has a knowledge of these matters. Point me to the relevant verse of the Geeta or the Quran and be done with it.
3. When I point these problems out to people, they will invariably get annoyed because I am spoiling the spirit of the whole thing, which is best described as "timepass" or entertainment. I'm not. Listening to a Rafi song is better entertainment, and that's the point I wish to make. Don't you agree?
I want to state something that I did not pick up from a Chinmayananda lecture, or from the 12th chapter of the Geeta, or a cleverly worded phrase in a self-help book. I see it plainly as day, and will willingly discuss it with anyone who wishes to examine it thoroughly, clearly, logically, and above all, ORIGINALLY. Don't quote someone!! There's more than an even chance that I'm better read, and I hope I'm not sounding arrogant. I want to discuss it with people who have no memory of anything that they have heard or read. You have to discuss it from first principles, and I assure you that it is hard to write even one sentence if you accept these ground rules.
That said, I'll write my own sentence. It is simply this: "you (and I) don't choose to do anything". I don't mean that our choice is limited: it is non-existent. That is because you have not had one original thought in your entire life. You are a product of indoctrination, and therefore you don't even have an original favourite colour or ice-cream flavour, even if you are willing to swear that you do.
This is not a matter of agreement or disagreement; it is matter of truth or falsehood. I am either right or wrong. Your agreement will not make it right, and your disagreement will not make it false; so saying "I agree", or its contrary, is equally useless. How do you go about examining the truth of my statement? What kind of mind-set is required to even examine this statement? What tools will you use? How will you frame your study of this all-important question?
The question is undeniably important. If we don't have choice, then the foundation of almost every theological precept is just bunkum. The question of responsibility is moot. Yet, I believe that the understanding, a deep understanding of the lack of choice is the greatest truth, the greatest form of self-knowledge, and the foundation upon which love, purity and truth rests. Without an understanding of choicelessness (please don't quote Krishnamurti - your own original thought, remember!!!), it is impossible to live in the present; but eternity, happiness, salvation, freedom, truth, or whatever the hell you want to call it, is forever in the now.
Who'll take a crack at examining this?
Hi Gan, honest to God I do not understand what you are saying fully. I need to only learn what you are saying by interacting.
ReplyDeleteone question - by original thought, you mean a thought which has not occurred to anyone else in the last 50,000 years? For example, I met this boy who sleeps permanently for only 3 hours a day out of responsibility for his family - at an age when people have luxury to talk philosophy or sing Madonna. I feel for this guy and ask questions what is responsibilty, what drives him. May be I am starting to think. But my thought is something thought thro by millions; I can go to the net and see 10000 articles - that does not make my thought un-original?! I just want to have the pleasure of thinking and then listening to comments.
In this process i can write volumes on many things. How does this fit in with what you are saying?
love
An original thought, in my mind, needn't be one that hasn't occured to someone else, independently. I am saying that the examination of the truth of anything is only possible if we put aside what we already know; otherwise, our mind won't be open enough to examine it.
ReplyDeleteLet us consider an example. For nearly a hundred years after Michelson and Morley published the results of their famous experiment, scientists were convinced that there was something called "ether" - otherwise they could not reconcile the results of that experiment with Newton's laws. If they had the courage to set aside Newton's laws, and look at the results with a completely open mind, someone would have discovered Einstien's special theory of relativity much earlier than he did.
Being well-read is perfectly all right. But knowledge is a serious barrier to proper understanding, because our knowledge tends to promote conclusions in our head - this is right; that is wrong, etc. If we have conclusions in our mind, we cannot examine freely.
When I am asking for originality, I am not asking for anything "new". What I am saying is - how do you start examining the truth of the statement, "None of us have any choice". If this was a scientific hypothesis, how would you go about examining the truth (or the falsehood) of it? How would you set up the study?
You see, when confronted with something like this, most of us would look at it from the point of view of our knowledge - of what we've read or heard. We'll say that the Gita says this or the Bible says that, or that my grandfather said this. We assume that if it is written in the New Testament or if our favourite teacher said it, it must be true.
What mind-set can set it all aside, and examine, truly examine, if we do have choice?
Can you, today, observe, closely observe, the process of selecting which shirt you intend to wear? Can you observe the process of selection? Can you see how your mind accepts this and rejects that; compares, thinks and concludes? If you can observe that process, and then write about it, I call that original.
You may notice, as I did, that you'll find that you really don't have any choice at all. The process is simply one of problem-solving of the mind, using old prejudices. When you clearly see it, you'll experience the timeless.
Or, you may find something that is truly different, which will conclusively show that I am wrong.
We want to be as original as Einstein was when he examined the data from the Michelson Morley experiment.
Can we?
And have I explained what I meant by originality?
well I suppose I have to experience it as I did the beer drinking. if you remember - my close examination of beer drinking screwed up my 35 year association my matey beery chum.
ReplyDeleteI need to travel with u and understand you better. I observed the beer drinking and realized it has no associated taste or high or happiness or loosening tongue etc. Realized it has no charm. Ok that was truth. But then it was dead end.
ReplyDeleteYou once said about my feeding the sea gulls - the activity of feeding gave me immense state of happiness, peace and being in the moment.
You said 'that is it'. Again I was short in getting what you meant.
I examine truth then what happens, I come to a dead end on that topic and move?
Guide me.
This is an interesting state - this "dead end" that you speak of. Very interesting. Let's go step by step.
ReplyDeleteWhen you discovered that there was zero benefit to drinking alcohol, did you quit drinking it? I hope so, because, if we truly understand that there is no benefit whatsoever to drinking alcohol, that it is only a bunch of toxins we are pouring into our bodies, we'd stop drinking. However, we may still be drinking. All that means is that we find some benefit in our minds to having a drink. When that happens, it affords us an opportunity to examine ourselves in the process of our relationship with alcoholic beverages. I still drink a glass of wine or two, "socially". It's bunkum. I think I derive some illusory benefit from drinking wine, and I have not observed enough to find out what it is. When I do, I'll quit alcohol completely.
Well, after 30+ years of smoking, I got it very clearly in my head that there was absolutely no benefit to smoking, and one day, I just quit. No pangs, no withdrawal, no overeating, no need for patches or gums or nonsense like that. I haven't got rid of all my beliefs about alcohol yet.
The bottom line is that the complete, dispassionate, empathetic observation of oneself in relationship will be very liberating, no matter what we examine. This is true freedom. Nothing else can emancipate us.
I raised this question of choice because if we find that I am right, then it will help create a very open mind that will accelerate the process of emancipation. It is somehting I've been working on for quite a while. For, you see, when you realize you don't have any choice, you'll strip away the illusion of ego. If I don't have choice, I don't exist, do I? For what am I, except an illusion of self-determination (oftentimes called EGO by those who've read a lot about it but have no idea what it means)? Once the complete realization comes about that I don't have any choice, how can the ego exist? (Incidentally, when I say this to people, they'll say something inane like "it comes with great difficulty"; "it requires practice"; etc etc etc). I ask them, these days, "how do you know?" For it drives me absolutely nuts when people spout knowledge like they are experts, Krishnan. You see, if I give you a lecture on partial differential equations and you know that I don't know any mathematics, won't you call me an idiot or crazy? The how come we accept as gospel truth people who talk to us about emanciaption and salvation, when it is obvious that they are just selling something? Like the sankaracharyas or all these swamis?
When you see reality, it is a dead-end. Dead-ends are good, bacause we are trained to hear a crash of cymbals and dramatic music whenever we discover something extraordinary - and life tells us there are no cymbals. Reality is very mundane; in that simplicity lies beauty. When we learn to understand that beauty, then the dead-end will become the infinite.
So, shall we examine if we have any choice? Are we interested enough to do it? How do we go about it? If we were scientists setting up a study of this very important question, how would we set it up? Why aren't the others in this blog responding?
What can I do to provoke a response?