Tuesday, July 29, 2008

..'Nothing'

I was thinking about the "nothing", yes I was really thinking. And a small conversation happened between the two in me and here's how it went:

1st I : I have understood nothing.
2nd I : Good. You have understood something then!
1st I : (frustrated) What do you mean? I have understood nothing.
2nd I : Yes, I understand. Can you please teach me?
1st I : What can I teach? I say, I have understood nothing.
2nd I : Yes, I want you to teach that 'nothing'.
1st I : (now acting smart): I already taught you.
2nd I : (surprised) What did you teach?
1st I : The thing that you wanted me to teach.
2nd I : (confused) When?
1st I : Just now.
2nd I: But I didn't understand anything.
1st I : Yes, I taught you nothing, so you could never understand anything.
2nd I : Now, I know that you do not know anything.
1st I : That is the same as my first statement- "I have understood nothing"
2nd I : No, they are not the same.
1st I : How?
2nd I : When you say that you "have" understood nothing, you are asserting it positively. But when you say that you have not understood anything, you are negating it. Negation is the way to go. You can never say- 'you are that', you can only say- 'Not this, not this...', that is the famous: "Neti, neti thing.."!!
1st I : Whatever.. both of us know something now- "that we do not know anything"
2nd I : So, we are not two, we were really one always.

If you understood what I wrote, then you have understood 'nothing'.
If you did not understand, even then you have understood nothing! :)

Thursday, July 24, 2008

The race is not for the weak

Inaugural Speech for the new batch at the Symbiosis BBA program, Pune 23rd June, 2008, by Chetan Bhagat: (Click here for Original speech)
"You have to run with a marble in a spoon kept in your mouth. If the marble falls, there is no point coming first"
He meant to say something to the new college entries, but the statement means something more.
  1. Is it better to run the race with the marble, knowing that the marble might fall off somewhere?
  2. Or is it better to have the marble and not run the race?

I think case 1 makes sense: run the race, lose the marble, but it is important to figure out that your spoon is empty before you end the race. It might fall a hundred times, but everytime, if you realised that it fell, gain it back and re-run the race. I think you are then making a decent progress than running the race with an empty spoon and coming out first.

But that needs a lot of guts. The race is not to be run by the 'weak at heart'.

"Na Ayamaatma balaheenena labhyahah"

You alone are responsible for the loss of the marble, and you alone can gain it back. No one will run the race for you. You have to run it yourself.

"Uddhareth Aatmanaatmaanam Naatmaanam Avasaadhayet"

But irrespective of whether you lose the marble or not have it or have it, the nature of the marble remains the same all the time.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

X-Y-Z


Was browsing through a book and came across this diagram. Just a thought.. may be I dont understand it correctly, but thought I will put it down here.
If X-Y-Z relate to the so-called "Desha-Kaala-Nimittha" or the time-space-causation and if the circles represent the various so-called planes, then does it mean that if you are at the centre, you become conscious of all planes?
Or in other words, you perceive the oneness of all, so that means, there is really no 'all planes', but just the 'one'?




And this picture really looks more 3D-ish and probably conveys my idea better. (I am not really analysing the colors in the picture! It is just one of those nice 3D diagrams that the tool shows up..)

So, if you pick any point in the graph other than the centre, does it need to have a 'form'?

It will need to have all 3 components- X,Y and Z. Or.. can one of them have a value of 'zero'?

I think- if you pick a point on X(say,space) axis, y=0, z=0, so does it mean, space isn't caused(z=0) and it is beginningless (time=0)
Similarly, pick a point on time axis- so, time isn't 'caused' and isn't limited by space.
And on z-axis, causation is beginningless and not limited to space.

Any point anywhere else, will have to have all these 3 components. (I think..)

So, overall if you consider X-Y-Z as one unit, it is meaningless to ask a question like-'Who caused X,Y and Z'. Because any causation is within X-Y-Z and who caused X-Y-Z is a question that is being asked from within X-Y-Z and cannot be answered within this. Beyond X-Y-Z, the question doesnt arise. I guess it doesn't hurt to say that the X-Y-Z is the so-called 'mind', so why mind is a useless question and it's answer can be anything.. and need not be right or wrong.

Anything imagined by the mind calls for an idea, a form. (this is nothing new.. everyone knows it)

Also, the centre - is (0,0,0), so it is not caused, beginningless and not limited by space (or present everywhere) And it is 'ONE'... Hmm... so it cannot be defined, because any definition calls for an idea and any idea is within the network of X-Y-Z/mind. And this centre 'knows' everything else! That is why it is called the 'great one' (as it is only 'ONE') or the 'eternal' (time=0), or the 'omnipresent' (space=0), 'uncaused great cause' (causation=0 and everything looks like emerging from this), omniscient 'being' (knows everything else- being the centre) and so on..

Anyway, not sure what I was trying to make out of this, but I am not sure if an idea within X-Y-Z necessarily calls for a 'form' or an 'appearance'..