The Primal Debt- II

As I was saying in the previous post, my mind and my heart has certainly benefited from reading this. I no longer feel obliged to hate people who have wronged me. I mean what can someone take from me that I didn't owe them in the first place? Along with this is also gone any resentment that I used to harbour for the things that others have and which had been denied to me. A deep sense of peace settled in me once I realized that no one can give me more than I deserve and no one can take away what is rightfully mine.

All the suffering that I've had to go through is a result of my own actions- whether in this life or the previous ones. I don't blame anyone. I'm happy that the suffering happened and those whom I had wronged in the past have had a chance to settle their debts with me, so that I'm now free of the karmic debt.

I always wondered why are some people able to make me do certain things for them? Why did I not say no- for doing something nearly impossible? Or that why some complete strangers have gone beyond the call of duty to help me out. But I understand now. Its because we were all connected somehow.

I quote from Aghora: "Suppose I know I have a rnanubandhana with you.If I am wise, I will ensure that the debt is paid off; it will mean one less bondage to the world and will bring me closer to my goal of self- realization. People enjoy being repaid but usually balk when it comes to paying out. the result is karma.

In my case, I am very anxious to finish off my cycle of births and deaths so I allow every person who has any rnanubandhana with me to take from me whatever they are entitled to. Whether they are entitled to make my life miserable, or to make me poor, or whatever, I don't mind. Let them do it; they cannot take from me any more than the value of the debt I owe them. The moment I object in any way, even mentally, then karma has begun."

Reaching Equilibrium

Just heard some where there each and everyone of us has to go through the suffering that has been destined for us. If this doesn't happen, we don't get the ultimate salvation- Mukti or Moksh. If we look at it from a more basic view, going through the suffering eases a bit of the load- some of the burden that we carry; both in this life and what we have carried over from all our previous lives. Till we reach a zero balance. Reach the point of perfect balance or harmony- the Equilibrium that all creation strives to.

Every one of us has our own brand of things that are our own personal hell- for someone it could be the fear of humiliation at the hands of others, or being ignored or disrespected, or even finding yourself all alone... It could be physical or mental, and I'm sure that it must vary in degrees for everyone. I might think that I'm going through the very worst a human can endure, but that's because I'm going through a personal suffering- that can't be shared and divided and consequently perhaps lessened. The point is we need to accept the bitterness in our life so that we see it for what it is- our own doing (whether from the actions of this life or the previous) and only then can we get past it. I don't know about any one else who might read this- but this theory made me feel a bit better about my life and my future. I'm learning to focus on the bright and beautiful new day ahead, and not the dark, lonely night that lies behind me.

Am "I" real or unreal?

I am currently reading Radhakrishna's book Indian Philosophy. Had discovered it in the Sophia College library while research, and had really liked it. Discovered a copy at my grandmother's place in Delhi. Apparently, it belonged to my great grandfather, Pandit Mauli Chanda Sharma, supposedly an intellectual. My granny gifted to me over a year ago, but it had been lying neglected in my cupboard, until recent frustation with my life forced me to take it out and indulge in some meaningless speculation about the purpose of life and existence.

I found a very interesting excerpt about the reality or unreality of ourselves, our existence, and here it is:

" How are we to acoount for this world? The emperical variety is there bound in space, time and cause. If the self is the one, the universal, the immutable, we find in the world a mass of particulars with opposed character. We can only call it non self, the object of a subject. In no case is it real.

The principal categories of the world of experience, time, space and cause are self contradictory. They are relative terms depending on their constituents. They have no real existence. Yet they are not non existent. ( What is existence? What is non existence? Is it a physical sensation?) The world is there and and we work in it and through it. We do not and cannot know the why of this world. It is this fact of it's inexplicible existence that is signified by the word माया (Maya). (Does this mean the world the world is mutable and unreal and will ultimately be changed/ destroyed while the self will not do any of these things? Where will the self go if there is no world to exist in? To define it's universalness against? )

To ask what is the relation between the absolute self and the empirical flux, to ask why and how it happens, that there are two, is to assume that everything has a why and a how. To say that the infinite becomes the finite is or manifests itself as finite is on this view utter nonsense. The limited cannot express or manifest the unlimited. The moment the unlimited manifests itself in the limited, it itself becomes limited. To say that the absolute degenerates or lapses into the empirical is to contradict its absoluteness. No lapse can come to a perfect being. ( By the way, When exactly had we established through irrefutable logic and proof beyond any doubts that the self was infact perfect, real, univeral and unchanging?) No darkness can dwell in perfect light. We cannot admit that the supreme which is changeless, becomes limited by changing. To change is to desire or to feel a want , and it shows lack of perfection. (going by this, can we actially ever admit to anything at all, since admitting to one thing would mean, that that alone is true and unreal and there are no other possibilities. That everything else is false and unreal. That's too narrow and limited for me!) The absolute can never become and object of knowledge, for what is known is fimite and relative. Our limited mind cannot go beyond the bounds of time, space and cause, nor can we explain these, since every attempt to explain them assumes them. ( Does this mean they are inassumable? And thus infinite?) Through thought, which is itself a part of the relative world, we cannot know the absolute self. (But then, from where has the concept of "absolute self" arisen, but from our own thought/ experience/ sense- perception- which are again objects of the emperical world. How can a subject/ real thing come from an object/ unreal thing? How do we "know" an "absolute self" "exists"? What is knowing? Is it a-priori? A-posteriori?

Christian science defines time as "error" or illusion.

Kant says " if time is a quantification of duration of events, a spatial measurement used to quantify the extent and duration of and between events, then what about altered states of consciousness, as experienced by dyslexics, mad people and those using hallucinogens. As the boundaries for experiencing time are removed, so is its relevance.)