Post-112 : Dialogs with Bert (08-06-2012)

   Sensory Soul, Heart-Light and Oligarchic Thinking

BERT  (June 2, 2012 / forum “Wisdom-1”) : Hello to all involved in this discussion, Peter, as I recall you once brought up the significance of the lyrics to Where Or When, a song by Rogers and Hart.  That being so, you probably recall the song You Gotta Have Heart (miles and miles of heart) from the musical Damn Yankees (the baseball team not the Civil War ((which was not civil)) ). —- Enough of that!

I have been following your discussion re Anadi’s quote with interest.  For the last couple of weeks I’ve been rereading ALCHEMY by Titus Burckhardt in which he corresponds cosmology with the so called corporeal transmutation of base metals into gold – gold being a symbol for the Sun which even from the geocentric standpoint would be the link between the heavens and beyond and the earth below (As above so below – macrocosm and microcosm).  Here are some excerpts from Ch. 5, Planets and Metals, which may be of help to the discussion, or, at least, view it from a different perspective:

—-“The alchemists themselves often describe the goal of their work as a ‘volatilization  of the solid and a solidification of the volatile’ or as a ‘spiritualization of the body and an embodiment of the spirit.”  Burckhardt goes on to say that Gold for them is nothing else that this.

—-“In one way or another, even in the geocentric world-picture, the sun represents a center, quite apart from the fact that, as the source of light for all the planets, it is already their center.”

—-Burckhardt states further that – “According to Macrobius (who, in his commentary on Scipio’s dream, considers the hierarchy of the planets in connection with the Pythagorean-Orphic doctrine of the decent of the soul from outermost heaven to earth), the sun is analogous to the faculty which animates the five senses and synthesizes their impressions.  The sun is thus the prototype of the life of the ‘sensory soul’.”  — From Burckhardt’s perspective a more profound view of things would be that of Abd al-Karim al-Jili about Universal Man where he states that,—-  (NOW HERE’S THE KICKER, THE REASON FOR ME POSTING THIS)  “. . . . the sun is analogous to the heart, the organ of intuitive, unitive knowledge, which completely transcends all other faculties of the soul.  Just as the sun gives the planets their light, so the light of the heart (seat of the spirit or intellect) illumines all other faculties of the soul.”

He says that intelligence in the sense of the human intellect is related to the Divine Intellect (Nous), and that in the Divine Intellect Knowledge and Being are, so to speak, present to each other, whereas in the human intellect there is an aspect of knowledge alone, since there is, at least, an apparent distinction  between it and what it knows—“The utterance ‘I am’ is either the expression of a transcendent and ever present certitude infinitely above all thought, or merely of the common experience of individual corporeal existence . . . . swathed in a whole network of imaginings.  Knowledge and being are reflected separately in individual consciousness as mind and body.  To escape this duality, consciousness must return to the ‘SUN’ OF THE HEART.  AS THE ALCHEMISTS SAY, ‘BODY’ MUST AGAIN BECOME ‘SPIRIT’, AND ‘SPIRIT’ ‘BODY’.

I realize that I’ve extracted choice tidbits from just a few pages of one chapter from the book, but, it just seemed to me to be circling around the the “Idea” of the ongoing discussion.  Perhaps there are some worthwhile scholars of alchemy/cosmology on this list serve who would care to comment on Burckhardt’s presentation in more detail, – perhaps even in a comparative manner, i.e. with Plotinus, Damiani, Paul Brunton, in both the western and eastern traditions, or just in their own thoughts.  That would be really worthwhile and greatly appreciated.

FYI, I’m sure the book is in the library at Wisdom’s Goldenrod.

BHANU PADMO :  Sensory Soul, Heart-Light and Oligarchic Thinking.  Bert! The key task before us now (prior to pursuing your words and ideas over soul etc) is to comprehend the notion of *oligarchic thinking*. It is a strange type of sapient thinking that goes in a small circle repetitively at a high speed delivering the sapient thinker the conceited false experience of going round the cosmos! Another name for oligarchic thinking could be *academic specialization*. Yet another phrase that could be a close synonym is *fund-deep wisdom* in the domain of religious preaching or *salary-deep wisdom* in the precinct of salary-supported academe. Unless, we get out of the circles of specialization and move out to the field of unified/ unifying theory, we would go on talking sapiently about this small thing (viz. soul) futilely for ever.

Do we have to call for Plotinus or Plato for every little intellectual contingency we confront every now and then? Can*t we cast off this oligarchic alibi and engage ourselves independently to solve the easy things (that have been blown up unnecessarily into purportedly invincible mysteries)?

Take the case of the beautiful expression/ notion *sensory soul*. As we proceed to interpret it, we meet in this process the hitherto-unknown definition of soul. Soul is a sensation (feeling). It isn*t a thing. The body of the *sensing being* may be divided into three divisions in this perspective viz. the able body (the main body, the perceiving body), the knowing organs, the memories. If anybody is bent on mystifying *knowing* as if it is a magic, he/ she is wrong. It is a built-in innate automated capacity that the body (entity) has and will have for ever. Sensing own ability and its exercises and results (memories) may be deemed to be the primordial right. Thus ability and self-knowledge are inextricably connected. Since ability is the function of existence, the existent ought to experience self-knowledge spontaneously and perennially. And self-knowledge ought to corroborate *unity* (singular perimeter of the integral volume of feeling to be called *soul*) in the form of I-feeling and *magnitude* (evolutionary height of the existent) in the form of the voluminous soul. So there is nothing great about these two characteristics of soul. And what about the definition of soul? It may be as simple as this : Soul is the integral feeling of an entity about itself and its surrounding. As such, soul is intrinsic to and inseparable from body. So, where is the puzzle? No puzzle so far.

However, we do meet sporadic puzzles as we try to break new grounds. For example, the case of *heart-light*. Let*s try to solve the identity of heart-light. Is heart-light an experience of intuitive and unifying wisdom? Is heart-light an experience of stabilizing and unifying wisdom? Is heart-light evolution-effecting and happiness-yielding? Is heart-light stability-giving and peace-yielding? Is the heart the sun or the moon? Isn*t intellect the sun? How?

The discovery of the fact that intuitive knowledge is indeed primary by way of being *causal* and *evolutionary* is most welcome. We have been calling it the Dream Theory of Creation and Evolution. By *dream*, we have been meaning the essence of intuitions or the apex-intuition. Indeed, without insertion of this constituent, a theory of evolution becomes truncated (headless). Thus Darwin*s is only a Theory of Adaptation. It is being wrongly seen as a Theory of evolution. So, appraisal of intuitive and unifying knowledge to make it the transcendental knowledge (that transcends all other faculties of knowledge) is just fine. But where could it be seated?

It isn*t very difficult to locate the seat of intuition. The objective of intuition is own focusing. The focus would generate a *goal* that would carry forward unification/ integration. The focusing mechanism would involve *reason* which is a configured set of seminal postulates. Thus intuition has to be *intellectual* (involving exercise of intellect) finally, though is only *spiritual* initially.

The seminal postulates are created in a rising neuronal knowledge-pyramid in the domain of brain, away from heart. Reason wouldn*t be possible if the knowledge-pyramid is left unstable at any level of intellectual exercise (and let it topple). Thus, though *construction* is the first and essential attribute of the knowledge-pyramid, its secondary but necessary attribute is *stability*. The first attribute is experienced as *intellectual happiness* and the second, as *psychological peace*.

The source of the first (intellectual) trait may be likened to sun and certainly, this sun lies in the neuronal domain of brain. The source of the second (psychological) trait may be deemed to lie in the neural domain of heart. This source may be likened to moon metaphorically. So heart-light is indeed the cool moon-light, not the scorching sun-light.

sister site / greenlogic

 

Post-110 : Dialogs with Pat Davies Louise / Anadi (07-06-2012)

    Reason, Logic, Intelligence, Enlightenment and ANADI (1323)

PAT LOUISE DAVIE  (June 4, 2012 / forum “Wisdom-1”) : “To awaken intelligence is many times more difficult than to awaken to enlightenment. To reach enlightenment you often need one lifetime. To become truly intelligent, one Kalpa is needed! Intelligence is something very subtle and very profound. It is not just to have a clever mind…Intelligence comes more from the heart. It is the deep intuitive wisdom of the soul which enables her to understand. It is the unity of the heart, intellect and imagination. Yes, to truly understand you must have imagination.” – Anadi

My read of the Anadi quote below is that Anadi is offering up confusion here to state one of his components of “intelligence” to be the intellect.  Please forgive me for overwriting someone else’s words, but possibly he is talking about wisdom, not intelligence.  If the words wisdom and wise are used instead of the word intelligence, the sentences work imo.

Maybe the word intelligence was used because of the very thing Mark was implying in his note:  The over-valuation in our culture of the logical intellect — as applied to the philosophical quest.  Maybe Anadi was trying to convey that, or was falling prey to it.  Who knows.  But it seems that when logical intellect overuse is taken to extremes in a philosophical quest context, it can evolve into a process that is no longer the quest for wisdom or enlightenment, but a maze of words that…well, frankly, may not accomplish more than the reeling of the head;  Well, often the process does not clarify, anyway.

I am being blunt because there may not be another way to convey the above point. No offense intended toward anyone, including Anadi, — just trying to speak to the age-old left-brained bias of our culture.

Intelligence is a very confusing term in our English language.  Howard Gardner tried to remedy the (historically) cultural bias of the word, and of IQ tests”: logical cognitive ability — by adding inter/intra-personal, kinesthetic, spacial IQs, etc.  As a developmentalist schooled in Piaget’s Cognitive Theories, etc, I found Gardner’s academic offering useful.

Those who check the wikipedia entry of “intelligence” may get a sense of the confusion this word can currently introduce into any English conversation.

Well, just wanted to submit some thoughts into the discourse.

 

BHANU PADMO : Reason, Logic, Intelligence, Enlightenment and Anadi.  Let me too submit some thoughts at the discussion table in your favor, Pat. Yes, too much of confusion all around. So, it is imperative upon us that we should try to unravel the knots one by one.

The key definitions need to be attended to and ameliorated continually and independently without waiting for some god-sent or history-sent or academy-sent authority. Take the case of *logic*. How do we go about to define logic? Is logic related to reason?

It seems, yes. So definition of reason is a prerequisite for defining logic. Prior to defining reason, we may have to outline the notion of reason. Is practical/ actual reason universal or personal? Is practical/ actual reason complete (eternal) or is of some degree that could be complemented? Is reason is mutable? Does reason mutate easily?

The answers aren*t difficult to fetch. Reason is personal.  A personal reason has a degree. A particular personal reason surely could mutate but not easily. So what is reason then? Reason may be defined as the set of highest personal truths that have the closest semblance with the deepest unifying principles.

Logic is thematic exercise of reason. Thus, quality of logic is directly dependent on the height of reason. A particular type of reason gets translated into various coplanar or horizontal instances of commensurable thematic logic. The wandering logic does provide expositions for various themes, but multiple visits of logic at the same theme may not actually upgrade the original reason. Reason is upgraded only as it moves upward. But that doesn*t happen quite frequently. Reason-indifferent logic becomes repetitive and superfluous soon.

With the identity of reason and logic conceived clearly in our mind, we may proceed to outline and define intelligence. Amelioration of reason is the work of *superior intelligence*. Exercise of existing reason across themes or finding thematic logic following the ruling reason is the *secondary intelligence*. Various forms of intelligence quotients that are perceived by some academicians would fall in the bottommost stratum of secondary intelligence.

Anadi could be pointing to the superior intelligence that ameliorates reason along a vertical intellectual ladder, only if he has in mind the noted criteria of practical reason (viz. being personal, having a degree, never being universal, being a set of highest personal truths, appearing as various instances of coplanar/ horizontal reason-level logic across various themes). As reason is secularized after being stripped of its purported universality, superior intelligence becomes more focused around the act of procuring a new unifying postulate to add to the existing set of high personal truths.

Superior intelligence is as secular as personal reason – its objective. Unprejudiced collection and versatile synthesis of ordinary/ secular/ profane information is the central process in making and working of superior intelligence. So mystification of superior intelligence is its undoing. Anadi needn*t go on mystifying superior intelligence that he wishes to secularize.

Moreover, exercise of a higher degree of superior intelligence and its psycho-intellectual consequence is experienced as *enlightenment*. Anadi*s mystifying track leads to another oblivion – segregation of superior intelligence and enlightenment. Why?

discussion / sister site

Post-109 : Dialogs with Dan Dogg (26-05-2012)

   Semantic Convolution about Universal Awareness (1318)

DAN  (May 24, 2012 / forum “openawareness”) : Awareness, the fact of what awareness is, is by its nature “universal,” so much so that the designation of “universal awareness” is superflous, as there is no non-universal awareness, no separately existing conditioned awareness, no awareness that is not the immediate fact of this being transcendent of time.

What seems to partialize awareness, in fact, never truly partializes it – once one sees clearly.

One sees clearly as one opens as and through being aware – now.

What seems to partition awareness are apparently separated thoughts that occur in one location and not in another, apparently separated memory chains that seem to belong to one being and not another, motivations and emotions that affect one body-mind and place that body-mind against another in various ways, and the sense of suffering or conflict of one body-mind that seems different in quality from the suffering or conflict involved with another body-mind.

How can it be the awareness is not divided by the experiences that appear to awareness – and all the above mentioned items, such as thoughts, emotions, motivations, conflicts?

Because awareness is always present.

The appearance of an apparent memory line only always appears now, and appears through awareness.

It’s easy to see how the assumption develops that awareness is partialized, and each memory chain has its own separately existing awareness to itself.

It’s kinda amazing that the illusion of separation can be seen through, when considering how involved the situations can get that place a body-mind against others, against environments, in need of things such as water, warmth, food, etc. …

Yet, the seeing through of the illusion is automatic and natural to awareness simply being itself, being present as is.

And, in this sense, it’s not amazing at all, just perfectly natural.

One seeing that awareness isn’t divided automatically sees that the various appearances discussed above are spontaneously not divided one from the other (as time and space seems to make divisions).

This is the “story of karma” in this sense :

There are no separately existing karmas that are housed in individuals or belonging to separately existing beings.

It is one unfolding karma story, and all the various beings, experiences, and millenia of relationship formation and dissolution are aspects of this one story.

And what is the point of the story?

Its beginning and its end are the same.

So, you can call that an infinite point, or no point at all – it doesn’t really matter.

There has been much talk on various lists about whether there really is any such quality as awareness, whether perhaps awareness isn’t, or possibly awareness is a transitory phenomenon being treated falsely as a universal or absolute – as well as the award-winning topic of whether awareness is another name for nothing …

None of these kinds of discussions matter in terms of the direct perception, the direct being-aware that isn’t provided in reference to thoughts about being-aware.

With no time to formulate a thought about it, one simply is being-aware, or if one prefers to say one is nothing, or one is all — it’s not a matter of the words and the thought references.

So, express it how you wish in words.

What i’ve expressed above is a way of giving language about a fact that is immediate and transcendent of language terms – however, there is no reason not to speak of this – speech happens freely as an aspect of being human and sharing …

Sharing on the internet across time and space, pixels that appear and are read – thus showing that awareness is nondivided and technologies appear to encourage such expressions …

(if that is what they are used for …)

BHANU PADMO :

Semantic Convolution about Awareness. Candle Analogy of Universal Awareness.  Dan! As a sapient top whirls around itself faster and faster thinking that it is going round the universe once in every rotation (though not seeing an iota more than its little surrounding even during the millionth rotation), your sapient protracted talk about *undivided awareness* isn’t taking us out of your confinement – we suppose.

Consider the Candle Analogy to understand what you call *undivided awareness*. But you mustn’t shift, every now and then, your own uttered stand that *one sees clearly … through being aware* (meaning : awareness is a personal/ subjective feeling).

An entity is like a candle and its subjective feeling in the form of *awareness* (about own integral ability) may be likened to the candle-light. Now take a myriad of equidistant lit candles and consider the integral light pattern thereof.

Please note the kink in this story. The whole light pattern isn*t really a configuration/ function of individual candle-lights. Each instance of candle-light is bound to its candle and is never separable from it. Thus candle-lights are not free to combine with one another to form a whole light.

The whole light is the function of the conglomerate of candles which may be taken as a mega-candle (mega-being) that has own feeling. The whole light is akin to awareness of the whole being constituted of candle-like individuals.

The whole awareness is undivided in the light of the fact that its origin, the conglomerate of candles, is undivided. If you take the conglomerate of myriad candles as the universe, the whole light would be the universal awareness, undivided but not unlimited. (Even universe is finite. We shall talk about it later.)

Let*s not resort to convoluted semantics to shift the meaning of universal awareness from *awareness of the mega-being in the form of universe* to *pervasive awareness with no source*. We are victims of semantic convolution in the matter of awareness since long.

The tricky revealing question hitherto is : Who feels the undivided (but not unlimited) awareness? Answer :The mega-being feels the undivided awareness. Does any constituent-being have the luck of experiencing the undivided awareness (the whole awareness)? Answer : Yes; That is possible when the mega-being resorts to *configuration* in its constitution and thus, when it is polarized towards its epistemic apex (head, brain). Then the apical constituent becomes the brain of the mega-being and thinks for it. This extrapolated thinking is experienced as undivided awareness, as universal awareness.

So it is quite likely that certain persons like Dan could enjoy thinking for the universe by way of acting as the virtual apex (virtual brain) of the universe. However, these persons shouldn*t be over-zealous to say that the universal awareness they experience has no material/ corporal source.

discussion / sister site

Post-108 : Dialogs with Abigail Michelle (24-05-2012)

    Theory of MAUNA (Constructive Silence)

ABIGAIL MICHELLE  (February 23, 2012 / forum “therampapath”) : One thing I have been pondering is the practice of mauna [silence] and how it unfolds in the mind and in the world, when it is descended from – that is, does the practice of mauna, create a more intense, vital impact of a person, when they do speak?
ABIGAIL MICHELLE  (February 23, 2012 / forum “therampapath”/ reply to BP’s article “SatChitAnanda and Critical Analysis) : The thing about sat-chit-ananda [turiya] the fourth state. Not consciousness, not unconsciousness of sleep, not dream, – but, beyond these three. It is the unknown, it is what constitutes the ‘quest’ it is what makes an adept. I have not achieved it, but I believe it to be found in silencing the conscious thinking mind, sitting detached, in meditation – the fire of awakening fueled by pranayama, which occurs spontaneously in meditation. In meditation sleep doesn’t occur, there is no sensual interaction in the world – the only thing preventing the attainment of pure consciousness, is the vagaries of memory which arise in the mind. These can be rose above, as in Plato’s dialogue.

BHANU PADMO :

Theory of MAUNA (Constructive Silence).  A sustaining personal truth is geneticized into corresponding instinctive genes. The sustaining personal truth needn’t be an instance of absolute truth. However, it become a *virtual truth* because of non-availability of a higher truth.

A set of instinctive genes supports and prompts commensurable and particular repetitive acts which are collectively known as a *habit*. Thus, we have now a *personal truth – instinctive genes (instinct) – habit* sequence in which personal truth ends up with corresponding instinctive habit. The instinctive habit is characterized with instinctive repetition of the same/ similar act. This instinctive repetitive habit isn’t yet to be classified as addiction even if the causal personal truth is quite deviated from absolute truth.

Think of a reverse process in which a non-instinctive habit is imputed to a person. This habit also constitutes of same/ similar repetitive acts, though the repetition hitherward isn’t instinctive initially. Initially, the repetition is deliberative. The imputed habit may be disciplinary or anarchic. The examples of disciplinary habits are those begotten of religious advices, political injunctions, cultural compulsions etc. The examples of anarchic habits are those begotten of bias, prejudice, infatuation etc.

Addiction is the name of deliberative anarchic habit that is non-instinctive initially. However, persistent pursuit of addiction does instill the corresponding instinctive genes into personal genetics and the corresponding borrowed personal truths into personal psyche as well.

Abstinence is the methodology to break the repetition of an addiction, of the deliberative anarchic/ distracting habit which could have been geneticized hitherto. Mauna (constructive silence) may be deemed to be a *symbolic* approach to mean integral abstinence.

Mauna (constructive silence) is a physical approach in the world of hard realities. Meditation deals with the causal/ psychological roots of behaviors and habits. An objective of meditation is to trigger the trait of abstinence.

Addiction may be of various types and degrees. Even unwanted repetitive pleasure-simulating experience could be part of the vicious circle of addiction. A pleasure-simulating addiction is no longer pleasure proper. The trait of abstinence helps one discern between pleasure-simulations and pleasure-proper.

However, we ought to be semantically careful while differentiating a pleasure-simulation from a pleasure-proper. Continuing to say that we must abstain from pleasure is a statement that may not invoke right perspective among the addicted lot in the long run because of the inherent semantic fault in this statement.

discussion / sister site

Post-107 : Dialogs with David Gallagher (24-05-2012)

   Interpretation of Plato’s Doctrine of Triplicity of Whole :

Extrinsicism and Intrinsicism  (1315)

DAVID GALLAGHER  (May 16, 2012 / forum “Wisdom-1”/  thread of reply to BP’s “Stages of Realization : Two Components of Beingness”) : Interesting, Bhanu, and resonates for me with Plato’s doctrine of the triplicity of wholes : one being prior to parts, another subsisting from parts, and another in each of the parts.  Your water-drop analogy seems to encompass all three.

BHANU PADMO :

Interpretation of Plato’s Doctrine of Triplicity of Whole : Extrinsicism and Intrinsicism.  Let’s expound and if necessary, reinterpret Plato’s doctrine of *triplicity of wholes*. The first component, as you have noted, of this triplicity that is deemed to be prior to the parts connotes *idea of the whole* or *the universal foreshadowing the whole*.

Time has advanced in the world of worldly knowledge and we now know a lot about the body-mechanism which Plato wasn’t probably aware of. Surely, he could also be aware of all these mundane knowledge through his keen philosophical vision provided he could further secularize his thinking. Whatever the case may be, our beloved Plato chose to propose and expound *extrinsicism* in the form of the *idea of universal* which is in a way similar to the idea of *separable soul*.

Concomitance of these two ideas (universal and separable soul) shouldn’t be taken as a coincidence right away given the close connection and eager adherence between Plato and the then India (which is different from modern India). Extrinsicism has become an anathema for India since long.

Coming back to body-mechanism, *neuronal existence* (superfine reality akin to photon-existence, much grosser than reality in the form of neutrino-existence) of information (perceptional memories) and ideas (conceptional memories begotten of conceptualization about existing conceptional memories) adds reality to Plato’s *universal*, provided universals are deemed to originate in the crevices of the mind-pyramid (knowledge-pyramid raised through conceptualization).

As we transform *Platonic universals* into *intellectual universals* or rather, as we interpret Platonic universals as intellectual universals, we face the problem of differentiating between universals and their classification. To make the job simpler, we may look at the mechanism of raising the knowledge-pyramid.

Firstly, perceptions are configured inductively to form isolated *inductive inferences* in a skeletal hierarchy. The skeletal pyramid is subsequently filled deductively by *deductive inferences*. The practical portion of the deductive inferences strike us as *predictions* (predictive inferences) that would metamorphose reality to deliver us utility, objective and goal.

Thus, it isn’t very difficult to imagine that every reality is preceded by a commensurable prediction in some mind seated at someone (an entity). It is useful here to take note of the *primordial right* that says that every existence is capable of feeling/ thinking about its own existence and surrounding. That is to say, stone also feels and thinks. That is how the Platonic universal would bear meaning.

So, the first component of Plato’s doctrine of triplicity of whole needs to be stripped of explicit extrinsicism and needs to be endowed with deliberative intrinsicism. Thereafter, this component could be described as *real and deliberative neuronal archetype of the whole*.

Duty, action, invention, evolution etc follow the *archetype* to materialize it by way of assembling apposite parts that are organized in a unique *configuration* consistent with archetypical deliberation.

When the *configuration* (structure) subscribes to *hierarchy*, the body begins to get polarized in order to raise its brain.

*Configured existence* is the second component of Plato’s idea of triplicity of wholes.

The third component of this triplicity is reiteration of intinsicism in the form of *individualism* that says that the initial/ causal deliberation of the individual constituent (part) must be respected throughout sustenance and persistence of the whole.

discussion / sister site

Post-106 : Dialogs with Philip Renard – Zen – Jelke Wispelway (18-05-2012)

   Unraveling of Neo-Indianism : Case of BRAHMAN  (1312)

The following appears to respond to recent Q’s about definitions of awareness and consciousness and something about 3 “I’s`’……..
I enjoyed reading it……criticism welcome……:-)

by Philip Renard

In the first part of “`I’ is a door” I described the striking phenomenon
that in Advaita Vedanta the term `I’ is maintained to indicate even the
higher levels of reality, the levels `beyond the person’. The help given in
doing so is that by maintaining the term it is indicated that the notion
`I’, so obvious for experiencing the person, in fact is deeper than the
person presenting itself temporarily, and that this notion is there
continuously, also now already. So in order to be able to get in contact
with That which you really are, nothing needs to be eliminated or excluded
first. In the first part I examined the approach of Shri Ramana Maharshi,
and this time I should like to pay attention to the way Shri Nisargadatta
Maharaj (1897-1981) articulated this matter.

In my opinion Nisargadatta was one of the greatest teachers of the twentieth
century. What makes him so great is particularly his fabulous ability to
show that everything that was asked him is made up of concepts, and to
annihilate these concepts by exposing their uselessness. Whatever question
or response the visitor or disciple came up with, Nisargadatta pointed out
that it boiled down to clinging to patterns of thought or concepts and he
referred to its origin, its seed. Everything, everything really was
undermined as being a concept and consequently not true, and that included
also something he had himself just said. As he emphasized, the only thing
true is the conceptless.
Since he is not alive anymore, the only way to learn from him is by reading
his books (apart from a few moments of darshan through some video
fragments). And whilst reading, it becomes evident that in fact it can be
called humorous, that he himself, the great underminer of concepts, is
continuously offering concepts. He jumped from level to level, used numerous
Sanskrit terms for a certain level, used the same or closely related terms
for another level, and then had the whole matter dissolved in what he called
`the deep dark blue state of non-experience’.
Unfortunately this resulted in a lot of seekers that have caught a glimpse
already of who they really are, to continue their search, because of the
message `you are only the Absolute’. They assiduously claim that they `know
consciousness already’ but they also express frustration that they have
failed to take `the next step’.

I dare to say here: there is no next step.
It is all about going to the limit of what can be experienced, and to remain
still there. One should not be led astray by any comment on the Absolute and
be lured to go in search of it.
But, as can be argued, Nisargadatta is making comments exactly on the
Absolute all the time, and shows again and again that everything else is
unreal! This surely is the impasse: to hear that we are That, and not be
able to experience it, let alone search for it. That is the paradox: Maharaj
is presenting us with all the time. How are we supposed to deal with this
paradox?
Maharaj himself is answering this question – and that by offering a concept.
One specific concept, which he indicated by using the term `the knowledge I
Am’, or `I Am-ness’. Earlier in this article Nisargadatta Maharaj was called
`great’ especially because he fearlessly undermined each and every concept.
Burt really he can be called so just as well because in turn he presented
this one concept. He considered this concept, `I Am-ness’, as something to
be digested, swallowed, dissolved. And so he described it as `the ultimate
medicine’. It’s true he called it `the disease itself’ at least as often, or
even `itself a misery’, but in the same respect he indicated in many places
the very same concept is exactly the medicine, and is the indicator to
freedom. So again we are facing here with a paradox: something being a
disease yet in its essential nature is the medicine itself.
There is a quote that holds the key to the entrance of this paradox. In my
opinion it is the most beautiful quote there is, because the whole mystery
of existence is described in a few sentences, including the handle to enter
the mystery. Everything is in it, and all further texts of Maharaj can be
interpreted from this perspective.
“This touch of `I Amness’ is in each being; this beingness has that touch of
love for the Absolute, and it is a representation of the Absolute. (…)
Only the Absolute prevails. The truth is total Brahman (Para Brahman) only,
nothing else but Brahman. In a total Brahman state the touch of beingness,
`I Am’ started, and with that, separation started, otherness has come. But
this `I Amness’ is not just a small principle; that itself is the Mula-Maya,
the primary illusion. (…) The great Maya principle is making you do all
her tricks, and you are also abiding in what she says, and finally, that
light of yours, that beingness, gets extinguished. (…) That Maya is so
powerful that it gets you completely wrapped up in it. Maya means `I Am’, `I
love to be’. It has no identity except love.
That knowledge of `I Am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend.
Although it might be your greatest enemy, if you propitiate it properly, it
will turn around and lead you to the highest state.”1

The sense of `I Am’ is a universal principle, in exactly the same way
present in each being, prior to the interpretation `I am John’ or `I am
Ann’; in other words, `I am this person’. Nisargadatta (that is, his
translators) used to indicate this sense of `I Am’ with the term
`consciousness’ (chetana). It makes sense to linger over the meaning
Nisargadatta ascribed to this term, just because he often called this
consciousness illusory and because the term `consciousness’ has been used by
other teachers to indicate exactly the Ultimate (indeed as the translation
of the term chit in stead of chetana; see for instance “`I’ is a door, Part
1″). He supplied numerous synonyms for it like `knowingness’, `Krishna
state’, `child consciousness’, `seed’, `witness’, `God’, `being’,
`beingness’, `sattva’, `the chemical’, `Saguna Brahman’, `the manifest’,
`the supreme principle’: they all come down to the same. It is about a
touch. Without any reason, something arises spontaneously, within something
that is no experience, no knowledge, no form, not `a thing’ whatsoever. Only
when you notice it, you can say `something arises’, not before. So
manifestation and the noticing of it are one and the same. This is called
the `touch’. It is this very first vibration, this most subtle form of touch
which Nisargadatta called `consciousness’, the principle `I Am’.
The crucial element of this quote is to be found in the last paragraph: The
knowledge of `I Am’ is the greatest foe and the greatest friend. It includes
everything – and consequently you can be left here with an overwhelming
feeling of disorientation. Very often this disorientation is only reinforced
in other passages, by the emphasis on the illusory element (`the greatest
enemy’), because that which indeed is real, the Absolute, is described as
`something that can not be experienced’. However here it is most strongly
said that indeed, although it might be your greatest enemy, you would do
well to fully worship it. So whether illusion or not, at this moment it does
not matter at all, because ultimately it is only God, the ever creating
principle that brings about everything. It is true this means that you can
be seduced to cling to a form, but also by the same token you can be
liberated from this clinging by the same principle.

In one of the Purana’s, the `old books’ of Hinduism, we find a passage that
bears resemblance to the quote. “She, when pleased, becomes propitious and
the cause of the freedom of man.”2 It is all about worshipping this
principle as totally as possible, to pay attention to it, to please it. The
sense of `you are’ is so common, so ordinary, that you overlook it easily
and hence Nisargadatta is strongly emphasises not to do so, but on the
contrary to fully honour precisely this, to worship it as the highest God.
He keeps hammering at it uninterruptedly to keep quiet here and to devote
yourself fully to this consciousness, to this touch.
“Worship atman (`you are’) as the God; there is nothing else. You worship
that principle only; nothing else needs to be done. This very knowledge `you
are’ will lead to the highest, to the Ultimate. This `you are’ is there so
long as the vital breath is present. And when you worship that `you are’ as
the manifest Brahman (Saguna Brahman) only, you reach immortality. (…) You
must continually remember, `chew the cud’. (…) You must continually think
about it.”3
We wonder what exactly is `worship’, because the rise of a verbal prayer is
associated with this word. In fact worship is `paying attention continuously
to something with your whole heart’. The best example of this in the world
is being in love. If you are in love, your attention is totally going
towards your beloved, whether you `want’ to do so or not. You are full of it
and everything that is going in the direction of the beloved occurs
effortlessly. This you may call worship. So now we are invited to practice
this worship, this being in love in regard to our ordinary consciousness
itself, to formless experience as such, `the touch of beingness’, `the
feeling of beingness’. How are we supposed to put this worship into
practice?
It means that you totally merge with this beingness, with this primal
vibration. Take all of your passion to this unlocatable `place’, cheer this
vibration, and do not be worried about the fact that this is still a form of
duality, a form of energy or `corporality’. Worship Her, cheer Her, do not
hold back anything, give yourself totally to Her, so that you may melt with
Her. Then She shows you, within the merging, that `two’ ceases to exist. She
being an enemy can only be the case if you let yourself be carried along by
Her temptation. “The very source of all happiness is your beingness; be
there. If you get involved with the flow of Maya there will be misery. (…)
Be still in your beingness.”4

It is here Nisargadatta points out how in the `supreme principle’, the `I
am’ principle, the liberating element can be distinguished from the
seducing, binding element. Sometimes I compare this with a fountain in a
pond. The `I Am’ principle is the mouth of the fountain. At that point the
water is powerfully spouting up high, causing thousands of drops being
shaped to form together what is called `fountain’. The fountain’s mouth has
hardly taken form yet; there is only the experience of the propelling-force
to be, the drive towards form. Then the advice is: stay at the fountain’s
mouth, abide there, and surrender to its formless vibration. Do not try in
any way to manipulate the force itself. “What natural processes can you
stop? Everything is spontaneous. Presently you are in the consciousness,
which is stirring, vibrant. Don’t think you are something separate from this
stirring, vibrant consciousness.”5 By staying at the fountain’s mouth,
worshipping That which is giving all this, unfoldment, you are set free.
“The devotee with his firm determination and God by his fascination for
devotion are attracted towards each other, and the moment they come face to
face they merge, the one into the other. The devotee loses his phenomenal
consciousness automatically, and when it returns, he finds that he has lost
his identity – lost into that of God which cannot be separated again;”6 and
“I am the God, I am the devotee, and I am worshipping; all the same, one
common principle.”7

God’s character of Maya, Seducer, is fading away as soon as you understand
that you need not let yourself be carried away by Her to Her forms of
creation. You just have to notice What is seeing Her. “Meditate on that
which knows you are sitting here. Your feeling that your body is here is
identification with the body, but that which knows that this body is sitting
here is the expression of the Absolute.”8
The liberating character of the `I Am’ principle is present as much in the
knowing aspect as in the aspect of surrender. At this point the approaches
of jñana (knowingness, understanding) and bhakti (devotion) are blending
totally into one another. Sometimes this means that surrender shows
discrimination is no longer necessary, and sometimes this means that
understanding prevents you from making the error that your surrender is
submission to manifestation itself, to the transient forms themselves.
Surrender is right only when it is surrender to That which is permanent.
“First, I have seduced Maya, and once the Maya surrendered to me, I had no
other use for Maya so I threw her out.”9

Notice, for instance, the body sitting here could be called `knowingness’.
This knowingness is in fact Knowing as such, and this is the liberating
element, because knowingness is literally the expression of the Absolute, as
said before in a quote (see note 8). Absolute Consciousness or Knowing10
expresses itself as `knowing something’. So `consciousness’ and `the
Absolute’ are not two different things, just as is often imagined on the
basis of much of Nisargadatta’s statements. There is only one Consciousness
(or Awareness; it depends on the language-framework of the speaker or
translator which term is considered `right’). It has an Absolute aspect and
a dynamic, living, experiencing aspect, the `touch’. The only thing needed
to see is that a certain vibration is always the knowing of that vibration,
and that the knowing itself is Absolute Knowing. That there is not any
separation in there. Within the Absolute there is just nothing to Know,
hence Nisargadatta is calling this the `state of no-knowingness’, or
`no-mind’, the state in which attention is dissolved in itself.
“There is only one state, not two. When the `I Amness’ is there, in that
consciousness you will have many experiences, but the `I Am’ and the
Absolute are not two. In the Absolute the `I Amness’ comes, and then the
experience takes place.”11

One could say that `letting you be carried away by the Seducer’ comes down
to giving credence to the power of your past, to the power of the
tendencies, the vasana’s, instead of enduring that you don’t go beyond the
`present touch’, the `present form’. The binding aspect of the `I Am’
principle consists in the creation of a personal history, the creation of a
`subtle body’, an `I’ figure, a form that has to persist. The binding force
itself could be called the `causal body’, the storehouse of the latent
tendencies and the primordial beginning of individuality, of a jiva.12 The
`causal body’ is a definition for the principle in us which causes now the
creation of a form, and which seduces us to maintain and consolidate this
form. It seduces us into not recognizing this form as `mere present form of
Consciousness’, as something which dies immediately afterwards and is
replaced again by another form. So this is what is meant by the term
`causal’. The causal body brings about your losing sight of the fact that
you are always new, unborn, now, now, now. And this `bringing about’ is
occurring through the latent tendencies, which make you cling to the
manifestations as soon as they are there, so that the form can continue to
exist. Owing to its veiling and binding character, the causal body has in
the Advaita tradition been equated with `ignorance’ (ajñana; also avidya).

Being strongly influenced in his linguistic usage by the Samkhya tradition,
an old Indian school of Dualism, Nisargadatta sometimes explained this
process of becoming bound by means of the terms sattva, rajas and tamas,
borrowed from Samkhya. These are the three guna’s, the qualities determining
and colouring all our actions (rajas is the exciting, the restless, that
which incites to activity; tamas the inert, the solidifying, obscuring; and
sattva the quality keeping the balance, the quality of beingness,
knowingness, and lucidity).
Nisargadatta described the transition proceeding from sattva as follows:
“During the waking state, to know that you are (sattva) is itself a misery;
but since you are preoccupied with so many other things, you are able to
sustain that waking state. This quality of beingness (sattva), the knowledge
`I Am’, cannot tolerate itself. It cannot stand itself, alone, just knowing
itself. Therefore, that rajas-guna is there. It takes the beingness for a
ride in various activities, so that it does not dwell only in itself; it is
very difficult to sustain that state. And tamas-guna is the basest quality.
What it is doing is that it provides one with the facility to claim
authorship for all the activities – the feeling `I am the doer’. Rajas-guna
takes one into all the activities, and tamas-guna claims authorship or
doership for those activities.”13
One could say that in fact the power of rajas originally is a rather free
power, which in itself does not necessarily need to hook on to something. It
is the effect of tamas only that makes things glue together. This quality
causes us to be fixated, that we are attached to something, that we isolate
ourselves, that we worry, etcetera. Because of tamas we come to stick a
personal story, a history onto a spontaneous activity.
One could interpret Nisargadatta’s advice as follows: you can not but allow
rajas to arise, because that is inherent to the spontaneous creative power;
but welcome her and keep on recognizing its starting point, the very first
`touch’. Nisargadatta called this touch also the `pinprick’. That is sattva.
That is also the term `consciousness’ as is used by Nisargadatta, the
pinprick, `the experiencing the touch’. That is what I called `the mouth of
the fountain’: here you are witnessing as it were the marriage of sattva and
rajas.Remain in stillness (sattva) in the splashing power (rajas).

By dedicating yourself to this, by honouring this pinprick, this
`consciousness’, your search ceases to exist. Here you can let go of the
`doing’, of the attempt to let yourself pass beyond this consciousness,
because really that won’t help. “You can never isolate yourself from the
consciousness unless consciousness is pleased with you and gets rid of you.
Consciousness opens the gate for you to transcend consciousness. There are
two aspects: one is conceptual, dynamic consciousness which is full of
concepts, and the other is transcendent consciousness. Even the concept `I
Am’ is not there. Conceptual, qualitative Brahman (Saguna Brahman), the one
that is full of concepts and is qualitative, is the outcome of the
[reflection of Awareness (Nirguna Brahman) in the] functioning body.”14

So although it originally is important and correct to distinguish between
consciousness (chetana) and Consciousness (or Awareness; Chit), it makes
sense at a certain moment just to embrace consciousness in its being `the
touch’, so that all resistance melts away, and with it all duality. The
touch is the Helper which anoints you in your and Her surrender; it shows
you that you have always been unaffected and unimpaired, free and
unseparated, without the need to strive for it. So on the one hand Maharaj
emphasizes: “I, the Absolute, am not this `I Amness’,”15 but on the other
hand: “Understand that this `I’ is not different at different levels. As the
Absolute it is the `I’ which in manifesting needs a form. The same Absolute
`I’ becomes the manifested `I’, and in the manifested `I’ it is the
consciousness, which is the source of everything. In the manifested state it
is the Absolute-with-consciousness.”16
It is striking that here, as in many other places, Maharaj keeps on using
the word `I’ as a word for the Ultimate. Apart from calling himself very
often “I, the Absolute”, he says for instance: “Nothing exists except me.
Only I exist”,17 and “When the state of beingness is totally swallowed,
whatever remains is that eternal `I’.”18
So `I’ appears to be the term for us on all three levels: the person thinks
and feels `I’, the touch of beingness is the experience of `I’ without
thinking (without `mine’), and the Ultimate is `I’, without experiencing it.
This means that the Real which we are is always so already, and now already.
Also in the midst of identification with a certain form there is the
invitation to recognize the most nearby, namely `I’, in its essential
nature.
Is `I’ a door? The Teacher answers: “There are no doors to Parabrahman, dear
son.”19

(English translation from Dutch: Johan Veldman)

JELKE WISPELWAY  (May 16, 2012 / forum “openawareness”/  thread of reply to BP’s “Confluence of Indus and Mississippi”) : Lots of words!! Are you trying to say that Shankara was a fake?? Just because he wrote something you do not like or don’t understand?

BHANU PADMO :

Unravelling Neo-Indianism : Case of BHAHMAN.  We can*t come out of the infatuating grip of innumerable honey-sweet antithetic inconsistencies in guru-quotes as narrated/ acknowledged by Phillip Renard in his essay unless we pick up the individual notions (often expressed as Sanskrit terms) and unravel them ourselves with our own sovereign intelligence.

Take the case of BHAHMAN. This is the most fundamental elementary reality (most fundamental particle) of this real universe. Based upon this fundamentality, the universe rises as a hierarchy through expanding organization of constituencies into more and more complex conjugated constituents until all existences are absorbed into an all-inclusive universal hierarchy.

The *brick-house*-analogy of an entity would explain its hierarchical construction and its merger/ integration with the universal hierarchy. Also this analogy would help us look in the direction of BHAHMAN and to conceive its outline.

What is the cause of this house? It is made from brick. So, brick is the more elementary constituent occurring at a more fundamental level of construction (of house). Brick’s level of fundamentality with respect to house is the *next lower level* of universal hierarchy. The next higher level of fundamentality with respect to house is the township that may be deemed to constitute of many brick-houses. Pursuing the bottom-to-top constructional causality, we can safely say that brick is the *immediate cause* of house.

Assuming that a brick constitutes of sands and extending the above argument to the next lower level of fundamentality of the universal hierarchy, we come to a conclusion that sand is the second-step remote cause of house when brick is the immediate cause and that sand is the immediate cause of brick.

As our inspection transcends deeper and deeper levels (viz. molecular, atomic, sub-atomic levels etc) of fundamentality of the universal hierarchy, we head for the most fundamental level, the level of BHAHMAN, the level at which BHAHMAN would be the most fundamental (smallest of all) particle.

This discussion thus discovers a structural/ configurational identity creation in which hierarchical configuration (PRAKARANA) of BHAHMANs gives rise to various types (PRAKAARA) of entities that constitute the Universe (PRAKRITI). This is the earliest notion of evolution (ontological evolution) that the sages conceived.

As we check the lexical meanings of BHAHMAN, our observation about identity of BHAHMAN is vindicated. BHAHMAN = Ultimate Reality, the Ultimate that grows into many. Let*s now proceed to the possible deductions of this notion of BHAHMAN.

The common connotation of the prefixes viz. PARA, PARAM, PARAMA is *final* and thus the meaning of any of PARABRAHMAN, PARAMBRAHMAN, PARAMABRAHMAN is Great Brahman or the Whole Brahman Hierarchy or the Universe.

The two other phrases that multiply confusion when used indiscriminately to paraphrase BHAHMAN are *ultimate reality* and *absolute reality*. *Ultimate reality* may be interpreted as the most fundamental form of reality (BHAHMAN) or the highest/ greatest form of reality (PARABRAHMAN, the Universe). Its unqualified use is philosophically fatal, as cat is then mistaken for tiger and tiger for cat, thereby increasing fatal contingencies indefinitely. So is the case with the description *absolute reality*. It may be interpreted as stark reality and in this situation, both PARABRAHMAN and BHAHMAN would qualify for absoluteness.

Neo-Indianism (philosophy/ theology) is a non-intellectual or rather, anti-intellectual phenomenon in which fundamental definitions are skipped to abate reason and multiply confusion. A look out is always necessary against this phenomenon as it threatens to inundate the world especially when neo-Americanism is readily available as a void space.

Philip Renard should proceed to unravel neo-Indianism first before prescribing the same as a panacea.

discussion / sister site

Post-105 : Dialogs with Abigail Michelle (17-05-2012)

   Ethereal Heaven versus Body-Heaven (Brain-Heaven)  (1311a)

ABIGAIL MICHELLE  (May 17, 2012 / forum “therampapath”/  thread of reply to BP’s “Detecting Universal Sentience : The Exponential Principle of Nature”) : But the question is, what are you? Is thought merely a brain function? When body dies, does thinking cease?
It seems perfectly logical that the quest of meditation is to come to know that is not the case – to detach from physical world and experience life removed from physicality. It is very easy for a world asleep to deny the higher existence, and it is surely a disgrace to squelch the pursuit of such.

BHANU PADMO :

Ethereal Heaven versus Body-Heaven (Brain-Heaven).  We ask the happy-go-lucky passenger girl on our ship to hold on to the railings firmly as we are encountering a bad storm raising mountainous swells, never mind even if an ignorant seagull tugs her bikini fastenings with its beak purposelessly but prompting the girl again and again to loose hold of the railings.

The autopilot has been set on *heaven* which the girl asked for. But then, the girl is asking for *her* heaven when *brain-heaven* or *body-heaven* is the only heaven that ship’s radars have detected.

We can be wishful about something that crops up in the radar screen. Can the ship’s course be altered to satisfy oblivious wistfulness? Isn’t following the identified and proven target a part of persevering grace? Shouldn*t an oblivious/ fatal (spiritually fatal) wistfulness to be squelched even if the girl dubs this act as disgrace?

After all, meditation is meant to lead us to the body-heaven / brain-heaven. Ethereal heaven/ astral world is just an image, a reflection of body-heaven/ brain-heaven upon the concave organ (concave mirror-like epistemic organ that portrays self).

How do you make the child understand that the image upon the mirror isn’t real? The child surely would like to glean the *object* from within the mirror!!

discussion / sister site

Post-104 : Dialogs with David Gallagher (17-05-2012)

   Materialism, Idealism, Ontological Structural-Functionalism

and Omnilogical Civil Research

DAVID GALLAGHER  (May 16, 2012 / forum “Wisdom-1”) : Quite illuminating if I accurately get your drift.  Would you agree that you are arguing a purely materialist position?  That question settled, we can then proceed further.

BHANU PADMO :

Materialism, Idealism, Ontological Structural-Functionalism and Omnilogical Civil Research.  Can we settle this matter (whether Bhanu Padmo is a materialist) decisively and so easily?

Don’t you think these hackneyed terms viz. idealism, materialism etc are no longer accurately applicable to us because of our new paradigms? Research methodology we have adopted is very different from the past ones.

For example, we wouldn’t appreciate forced/ traditional addition of bibliography at the end of our essays, because being infatuatedly referential is a syndrome of reduced self-confidence and is the precursor of imprisonment of truth in circulatory arguments that echoes between and circulates about the references.

Grateful reference is entirely a different thing that doesn’t subvert sovereignty of the individual researcher who is required to assert and undersign the new inferences as his/ hers. Upholding the sovereignty of individual/ personal wisdom is an important part of the notion of *civil research* which is different from *academic research* or *salaried research* in spirit and so, in content.

When I don’t refer my essays to any denomination of materialism or any known materialist, to any denomination of idealism or any known idealist, it won*t be easy for you to get me classified as a materialist or an idealist. The faculty that is becoming popular with us for obvious reasons is *omnilogy* (study of all relevant issues) that hopes to include in its domain philosophies of all relevant problems (integrally to be called the *multi-tentacle protean problem*).

As I say this, I am preparing to disclose my intellectual identity with respect to membership of traditional philosophical/ metaphysical denominations.

In linguistics, the meaning of language is explained through structures and systems (structuralism) and in sociology and anthropology, the meaning of society and culture is explained through structures and functions (structural-functionalism). Similarly in ontology, we could insinuate *ontological structural-functionalism* to explain the meaning of entity/ existence.

Before we proceed further to delineate this new denomination of ontology, we shall have an overview of Chomsy’s notions of *surface structure* and *deep structure*.

Take the instance of human being. The human countenance is a form of neural surface structure which reflects the corresponding neuronal/ psychological deeper structure and the respective genetic deepest structure. The first one is palpable (perceivable) when the other two aren*t.

There is a locus of delivery of structure that stretches from the genes to the skin and the structure is transformed progressively along its locus. We have to keep in mind these facts about structure as we proceed to understand ontological structural-functionalism that would transcend materialism on one side and idealism on the other.

Let the metaphor *sweetness* represent collectively the physical and chemical properties of the substance called *sugar*. Similarly, let *saltiness* represent the functionality of the substance called *salt*. It may be safely surmised now that each set of properties (of sugar and salt) are the integral functions of their molecular configurations (molecular structures). That is to say, we witness here that *quality* is begotten of structure (configuration), not as classically/ traditionally believed.

It has been believed traditionally that quality is the function of matter/ substance. Our argument replaces *substantial/ material origin* of quality-function by *structural/ configured origin*.

This discovery metamorphoses the fundamentality of universe from *matter* to *configuration* (structure). This is the basis of ontological structural-functionalism.

What could be the identity of matter/ substance then?

Matter is stripped of mass as soon as it is out of gravitational field. Matter is stripped of opacity as we zoom in unto its molecular/ atomic/ sub-atomic interior. So, isn’t it safe to imagine that matter itself is a form of experiencing of *relative structure* at the subject/ object interface? In this context, think of the differing experiences of an obese person and a thin person while passing through the same rocky crevice.

David! Is Bhanu Padmo a materialist really?

When you look at the salt cube or sugar cube, you see only the surface structure, never see the successive deeper structures and the deepest structure. However, the deeper structures are truer sources/ causes of surface structure. An unknown deeper structure is first surmised and next, perceived. The surmise is a *prospective structure* made up of neural appendages inside the physical brain.

In other words, idea/ universal is a real transient prototype of future/ potential sustainable structure and it occurs as an experimental real deep structure inside brain. The epistemic organ that carries out ideation is like an in-built real concave mirror resembling the one fixed to a truck to observe itself. So, the entire world of ideas is situated within the brain that includes the concave organ (the epistemic organ).

David! Is Bhanu Padmo an idealist really?

Bhanu Padmo is a mere *civil researcher* pursuing the humble faculty of non-referential *omnilogy*.

discussion / sister site

Post-103 : Dialogs with Arvind Kejriwal (16-05-2012)

   Against Another Historic Political Joke

ARVIND KEJRIWAL  (May 15, 2012 / forum “indiaagainstcorruption”) :

MPs are reduced to bonded labor of their parties.
The People are supreme, not Parliament.

But unfortunately, in India, the People do not have any control, whatsoever, on the functioning of Parliament, says Magsaysay Award winner Arvind Kejriwal in this hard-hitting article.

Gandhiji wrote this about the British parliament in Hind Swaraj in 1908:

‘That which you consider to be the Mother of Parliaments is like a sterile woman and a prostitute. Both these are harsh terms, but exactly fit the case. That parliament has not yet, of its own accord, done a single good thing. Hence I have compared it to a sterile woman… It is like a prostitute because it is under the control of ministers who change from time to time…’

‘As a matter of fact, it is generally acknowledged that the members are hypocritical and selfish. Each thinks of his own little interest. It is fear that is the guiding motive… When the greatest questions are debated, its members have been seen to stretch themselves and to doze. Sometimes the members talk away until the listeners are disgusted. Carlyle has called it the “talking shop of the world”.’

‘Members vote for their party without a thought. Their so-called discipline binds them to it. If any member, by way of exception, gives an independent vote, he is considered a renegade… Parliament is simply a costly toy of the nation. These views are by no means peculiar to me. Some great English thinkers have expressed them.’

It would be useful to examine how much of Gandhiji’s observations about the British parliament applies to the Indian Parliament today.

India is said to be the biggest democracy in the world. It is the biggest just because we are the most populated country. But is it really a democracy? Do people have any say in governance other than voting once every five years? So we have universal adult suffrage, but can just that be called democracy?

I elect someone once in five years. But in the next five years, neither do I have any say nor does my representative have any say in Parliament. That representative never gets back to me or consults me before voting in Parliament. After elections, he is under statutory obligation to take orders from his party and vote in accordance with the whip issued by his party on various issues.
MPs are reduced to bonded labour of their parties. If anyone dares to speak against his party, he could lose his membership.
For instance, the Congress has 207 members in Lok Sabha today. None of them can vote independently. They will have to vote according to what (Congress President) Sonia Gandhi decides. Likewise, the Bharatiya Janata Party has 114 members in the Lok Sabha. They will have to vote according to what (BJP President) Nitin Gadkari decides.

Ilyas Azmi, a former MP, says the Lok Sabha is a chessboard with 542 pawns who are controlled by the leaders of a few political parties.
Doesn’t India become a dictatorship of the leaders of the ruling party in between two elections? These few men and women control Parliament and the executive for the next five years. They are influenced, either through money power or some other influences, by various lobbies.
Who are these leaders accountable to?

They are accountable to none. This is a very dangerous situation. So, we have a pretence of elections every five years, through which we hand over the country’s control to a few individuals. And there is a very good understanding among the leaders of all parties.

They are different and separate only in name and for public consumption.
Behind the scenes, they are all the same, united and together. They publicly curse each other, but never punish each other when they come to power.
Else, how do you justify that the Bofors scam never reaches its logical end after several decades despite governments of all parties having been in power? Those from the Opposition are also well taken care of by the ruling party by giving contracts to their kin.
So, parliamentary democracy, as it exists today, has become a very well-oiled system to systematically loot the country. Public interest is incidental.
Is Parliament as sensitive to the pains and sorrows of the people of India as it is to its own members? When (Agriculture Minister) Sharad Pawar was slapped, Parliament moaned for two precious hours.
But when farmers commit suicide, when farmers died recently in police firing, when Narendra Kumar (the IPS officer) was murdered, the same Parliament did not spend even a few minutes on it.
They debate the Lokpal Bill for 42 years, yet don’t pass it. But they pass the Bill to increase their own salaries within a few minutes.
Now, let us look at the character of the present Parliament. One hundred and sixty-two MPs in the Lok Sabha and more than 40 in the Rajya Sabha have pending criminal cases against them, and several others face serious allegations of corruption.
How can we expect them to ever pass Bills to strengthen the criminal justice system or to punish corruption? There is a direct conflict of interest.
And if you raise these fundamental questions, you are threatened with parliamentary privilege.
The biggest problem is that Parliament is completely disconnected with the people of India. There is no mechanism for the people to intervene in the affairs of Parliament, to direct Parliament to enact laws on particular subjects, to prevent it from passing certain other kind of laws.
The People are supreme, not Parliament.
But unfortunately, in the Indian system, people do not have any control, whatsoever, on the functioning of Parliament.
In several countries, through the mechanism of referendums, people are able to amend or nullify the laws passed by parliament. Through the mechanism of initiative, people are able to initiate enactment of laws. This not just enables people to directly intervene, it also keeps parliament on its toes and under check.
In India, as a beginning, why can’t each MP be required to send a copy of a Bill to all the villages and municipal wards falling under his constituency? We can make a beginning with only certain types of Bills which have far-reaching consequences.
Let the people in each village and ward assemble as gram sabhas or mohalla sabhas, discuss the contents of the Bill and give their feedback to their MP. The suggestions received from all gram sabhas and mohalla sabhas could be compiled by the MP and presented as his opinion in Parliament rather than the dictates of his party.
That would be real democracy.

BHANU PADMO :

Arvind! I have consigned my views earlier your central and provincial (Odishan) cronies on the basic fallacies on your side. You are trying to enact another historic joke in the name of mass movement. How could all these go on or what would you reap in the end if the seed is expired? Have you checked intimately the political theory you have borrowed?

Since you still think that thinking is a difficult task and there are alternatives to thinking, we have thought of launching Praja Dal (Civil Party) ourselves as at village-level to implement what we call Civico-cracy which is civil polity woven out of the basic definition of Civil Society.

Read the following cursory observations put into a dialog format.My observations are threaded in for a portion of Arvind Kejriwal’s Essay.

Arvind! Don*t miss the train.

 

(Bhanu Padmo)

 

(Against Another Historic Political Joke : Bhanu Padmo – Arvind Kejriwal Dialog)
AK : MPs are reduced to bonded labor of their parties.
BP : Even if this is the case, any right political objectives of the political parties couldn*t be impeded by this. Have we speculated the contingencies these political parties create with respect to wellbeing of overall polity? Have we thought about the cause of erosion of the possibility of high objectives of existing political parties? Do we really need the political parties? Wouldn*t appropriate *party-less politics* serve the nation better?

AK : The People are supreme, not Parliament.
BP : This is a hazy statement that brews unforeseen political problems. The inherent ambiguity of this statement needs to be expressly solved. Let*s think over the meaning of *people*.

When we take a macroscopic look at the *people*, we find that it is like a net consisting of almost evenly distributed knots connected to one another by threads. The knots are the grassroot-level natural civil leaders/ creative personalities who practically lead their natural followers in certain walks of life. These followers as ordinary citizens are the threads of the net. The natural leaders are the extra-ordinary citizens.

If dream and intelligence is to be taken as essence of sovereignty, sovereignty of nation may be deemed to lie with nation*s *plenary body of grassroot-level natural civil leaders*. People are supreme only through supremacy of grassroot-level natural civil leaders. This is the basic doctrine of *civil society*.

If Parliament would be composed of the elected representatives of plenary civil leadership, that would be the supreme political institution. Unfortunately, our Constitution is yet to be rightly interpreted to empower the plenary civil leadership appropriately and sufficiently.

Present Parliament can at best be described as *Managerial Parliament* as the elected members of Parliament are in effect managers of the existing political establishment including governance machinery. We need to augment our polity by addition of the non-existing head-institution of polity – the *Civil Parliament* that would constitute of elected representatives of plenary civil leadership. Civil Parliament would be the supreme political institution wielding the deliberation of plenary sovereignty of nation.

AK : But unfortunately, in India, the People do not have any control, whatsoever, on the functioning of Parliament.

BP : If you could visualize the fact that the present Parliament is virtually only the Managerial Parliament and if you could appreciate the fact that our Constitution has not been rightly and appropriately interpreted to locate national sovereignty in the plenary civil leadership, it would realize that our country is headless (without true sovereignty) at the moment.

The institution for exercising national sovereignty will be Civil Parliament which is yet to be materialized. Naturally, nation can’t exercise its sovereign command (full sovereignty) through the Managerial Parliament effecting Direct Democracy.

AK : India is said to be the biggest democracy in the world. It is the biggest just because we are the most populated country. But is it really a democracy? Do people have any say in governance other than voting once every five years? So we have universal adult suffrage, but can just that be called democracy?
BP : If you compare a nation with a factory, the similarity between the two is that both have three lines of functions. The physique of the factory along with the body of servants constitute the establishment. Next comes the management. The final function is the authority or ownership. The corresponding lines of function for a nation are similar viz. the State Establishment including Government Servants, the Representatives of People as Managers of State Establishment and the Representatives of Plenary Civil Leadership as the Sovereign Masters of Polity and State. We call this the Triple Parallel Model of Democracy.

Implementation of this model would usher in true and direct democracy. India is devoid of such political arrangement. So democracy is severely lacking in this nation.

There is no need for deification of universal adult suffrage which is used merely for electing/ finding a Manager of State Establishment, not for ascertaining Sovereign Authority of National Polity. Sovereign authority would be created through a special method of nation-wide consolidation of grassroot-level natural civil leaders and gleaning there from elected civil representatives.

 

AK : I elect someone once in five years. But in the next five years, neither do I have any say nor does my representative have any say in Parliament. That representative never gets back to me or consults me before voting in Parliament. After elections, he is under statutory obligation to take orders from his party and vote in accordance with the whip issued by his party on various issues.
BP : Civil Parliament composed of elected civil leadership (out of nation-wide plenary grassroot-level natural leadership) is the answer. Civil Parliament would bear the supreme authority. It would device the Integrated People*s Manifesto and invent clauses of all necessary Codes. Managerial Parliament would be subordinated to it in all respects. Civil Parliament would be the apex body for Judiciary and Administration and all other State functions.

AK : MPs are reduced to bonded labour of their parties. If anyone dares to speak against his party, he could lose his membership.
BP : Finally, the Managerial Parliament would ban political parties in its precinct. Political parties could still have a role outside the gate of Parliament prior to an election for the purpose of propagating political awareness among people with respect to the preferred clauses of welfare manifesto. But elected managers would form a singular party-less body to carry out governance.

AK : Doesn’t India become a dictatorship of the leaders of the ruling party in between two elections? These few men and women control Parliament and the executive for the next five years. They are influenced, either through money power or some other influences, by various lobbies.
BP : If we go back to the factory-analogy of a State, isn*t it plain and simple that the manager and the servants would divide the spoils between themselves in the absence of the owner? The responsibility of welfare of an un-owned or disowned factory couldn*t be ascribed to management and the body of servants.

AK : Who are these leaders accountable to?

They are accountable to none. This is a very dangerous situation. So, we have a pretence of elections every five years, through which we hand over the country’s control to a few individuals. And there is a very good understanding among the leaders of all parties.

They are different and separate only in name and for public consumption.
BP : In the absence of formalized national sovereignty (the nation-wide plenary body of natural grassroot-level civil leadership and their elected representatives), who could be accountable to whom!!

AK : Behind the scenes, they are all the same, united and together. They publicly curse each other, but never punish each other when they come to power.
BP : In the absence of owner, wouldn*t the manager and the servants be thoroughly united to distribute the booty (residual factory) among themselves? Why haven*t we thought of the plenary body of civil leadership to rescue national sovereignty and authority?

AK : So, parliamentary democracy, as it exists today, has become a very well-oiled system to systematically loot the country. Public interest is incidental.
BP : That is natural in the absence of Civil Parliament.

AK : They debate the Lokpal Bill for 42 years, yet don’t pass it. But they pass the Bill to increase their own salaries within a few minutes.
BP : Has any Lokpal Bill the priority objective of organizing and empowering the nation-wide plenary body of grassroot-level natural civil leaders? Without this objective, the entire Bill would turn into another historic political joke. Isn*t it?

AK : Now, let us look at the character of the present Parliament. One hundred and sixty-two MPs in the Lok Sabha and more than 40 in the Rajya Sabha have pending criminal cases against them, and several others face serious allegations of corruption.
BP : Did we think of bringing up the grassroot-level natural civil leadership across the lengths and breadths of our nation? Let*s do it now. That will be the first and final step to get Managerial Parliament and Governance Machinery purged thoroughly.

AK : The biggest problem is that Parliament is completely disconnected with the people of India. There is no mechanism for the people to intervene in the affairs of Parliament, to direct Parliament to enact laws on particular subjects, to prevent it from passing certain other kind of laws.
BP : Civil Parliament is the answer.

AK : The People are supreme, not Parliament.
BP : People are supreme through supremacy and commensurable constitutional empowerment of nation-wide grassroot-level natural civil leadership. Civil Parliament would be the supreme institution as it would house the elected representatives of the omnipresent civil leadership.
discussion / sister site

Post-102 : Dialogs with Abigail Michelle (16-05-2012)

  Detecting Universal Sentience :

The Exponential Principle of Nature (1307)

ABIGAIL MICHELLE  (May 16, 2012 / forum “therampapath”/  thread of reply to BP’s “Meaning of Ahimsa” : So you think there is a difference between ‘types’ of life and animal has a different sentience than vegetable. It is an interesting contemplation. Plants supposedly have their own sentience, viz ‘nature spirits’ and perhaps there is a ‘sentience’ to the elements too, like iron and gold, etc. I don’t know, the elements do combine to make up ‘life’ – and what of molecular ‘life’?
BHANU PADMO : Detecting Universal Sentience : The Exponential Principle of Nature.   There is an exponential principle at work in nature that creates real magic. Think of the number-10. In a way, you materialize it when you count ten sands and hold them upon your open palm. Now, think of 102 (ten to the power two) and try to materialize it in a similar manner. It is much more difficult to achieve. What about 108 (ten to the power eight) and 1080  (ten to the power eighty)? If you have gone through Carl Sagan’s calculations in his book *Cosmos*, you would know that this number in terms of sands would fill the Pacific Ocean, may be.

As we say this, we cursorily witness the exponential principle on nature. The true sighting would occur in a real hierarchy.

Think of a two-level organizational/ administrative hierarchy where ten sub-leaders, each leading a group of ten ordinary members, are put under a super-leader. This super-leader is thus equivalent to 102 (ten to the power two) ordinary members and thus possesses a leadership super-power of magnitude-102. In a similar manner, leadership super-power of magnitude-108 and magnitude-1080 could be respectively achieved in 8-level and 80-level hierarchies in which ten members of every level would form a coplanar group in the process of completing the hierarchy.

With this prelude, let’s reckon the power of a human being, a hierarchical constitution, with respect to its level-constituents at its various hierarchy-levels. If we take organ, tissue, cell, molecule, atom, neutron, photon, neutrino etc as the level-constituents of its hierarchy-levels from top (towards bottom), the exponential power drop across the descending hierarchy-levels becomes plausible.

Power (corporal ability) is sensed as sentience. Thus the drop in sentience from human to animal to amoeba to DNA to metal to light (photon) and further down can be imagined as well.

When human empathy (vicariousness) can*t cope with this exponential decrease in sentience down the evolutionary ladder, we are wrongly apt to think that certain entities are inanimate or non-sentient. Sentience is universal and ubiquitous.

discussion / sister site