September 30, 2006 | 09:12 PM
Am I speaking of Death ?
Lu asked : You speak of a limbo with no structure and context as frightening. Maybe it is frightening because, as you said, we cannot leave our structures and obligations behind. If we did not have such ties we would have no problem. Then we would find "true happiness"? Are you speaking of death?
Perhaps Lu, I am speaking of Death, but not as Death as an end, for in our mind even death is context by which we view life ...
First, what is 'no structure and context' frightening to ? It is frightening to the mind and to the ego. For the Ego cannot survive without context. And if are able to seperate our selves between 'me the ego' and 'me the observer of my ego' then we can observe how frightened the ego, (or lets give it the name 'mind') is when you take away context and structure. That is the battle though. The battle to be able to seperate the 'I' and the observer of the 'I', both of them being the correlation between your mind and your consciousness. And the understanding of ' who is the observer' of the 'I' ? Is the observer also the mind, or does the observer sit outside the mind ? Is that what we call consciosness.
Death ? I am not talking about the passing away of life. I am speaking of the ability to come out of the mind as an observer within this existence of what we percieve as life . But that is another discussion. For if there is no concept of linear time, then there is no passage of time between Birth and Death. They happen at exactly the same moment in Time and Space. And then if that is true, then they exist not in any particular space or time, but in eternity.
You exist (not existed) before your percieved birth, and after your percieved death, and the perception of your birth and death exist in a continual eternal existence.
True happiness ? That is also a play of the mind and the ego. Perhaps we should be talking about true happiness in context of harmony with the Tandav Dance of Shiva. In my next post I will put forward the ideas of the Tandav dance of Shiva,
shekhar
Showing posts with label The search for the self. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The search for the self. Show all posts
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Doubt ! part 2
September 26, 2006 | 06:16 AM
Doubt ! part 2
Lu asked me : I do not understand your allusion to courage--why should it take courage to see the suspension of time? I do not see it as frightening or dangerous. What if instead of chaos we find absolute tranquillity?
Lu, everyone has ther own experience, and I have no doubt that you will find tranquility if u can 'live' in the experience of 'no time'. And perhaps you ahve explored much more than I have, though I have explored a bit more in the 5 years since I wrote that piece on Doubt.
I refer to chaos as the first step to giving up living inside structure. Inside contexts. After all we always refer to ourselves in the context of something else. We imagine ourselves always in context of something else, and we mostly are consumed by our lives in the context of time.
I watched as my daughter who is now 6 years old struggle to come to terms with the 'adult' concept of time. And ofcourse we 'adults' imposed it upon her. We celebrated her birthday every year, once a year. and while she thoroughly enjoyed each birthday, she could nto comprehend that the celebrations came only once a year. Why not celebrate everyday ?
More than that, the question in her mind was always " How old was I before I was one ?" How old was I before before I was zero ? These questions to me at first semed those of a mind coming to grips with the real world, till I realized that they were questions trying to come to grips with a world as adults saw it. In terms of linear time.
So back to your question about Chaos. I often see the universe in terms of the Tandav dance of Shiva, which in Hinduism is the random dance of creation and destruction and then creation again. Continious, seamless and eternal. Like the ocean, with countless waves forming and destructing at the same time.
How random is the Dance of Shiva ? I guess so random that it is impossible to find a pattern, a structure to it. It is impossible to learn it. But if you throw out the very idea of structure, throw out the very idea of patterns, and become one with Shiva, you will perhaps be in harmony with the dance.
I guess my struggle has been to drop the idea of stucture, and have the courage to believe that there is no context, no 'given' as it were. A kind of a limbo that can be pretty frightening to an ego driven mind that needs me to believe in contexts by which to define myself.
So that is the first step of 'Chaos' that I speak of - and then to step off into the abyss, into the void, into a space that has nothing to hold on to, that is what needs courage.
shekhar
Doubt ! part 2
Lu asked me : I do not understand your allusion to courage--why should it take courage to see the suspension of time? I do not see it as frightening or dangerous. What if instead of chaos we find absolute tranquillity?
Lu, everyone has ther own experience, and I have no doubt that you will find tranquility if u can 'live' in the experience of 'no time'. And perhaps you ahve explored much more than I have, though I have explored a bit more in the 5 years since I wrote that piece on Doubt.
I refer to chaos as the first step to giving up living inside structure. Inside contexts. After all we always refer to ourselves in the context of something else. We imagine ourselves always in context of something else, and we mostly are consumed by our lives in the context of time.
I watched as my daughter who is now 6 years old struggle to come to terms with the 'adult' concept of time. And ofcourse we 'adults' imposed it upon her. We celebrated her birthday every year, once a year. and while she thoroughly enjoyed each birthday, she could nto comprehend that the celebrations came only once a year. Why not celebrate everyday ?
More than that, the question in her mind was always " How old was I before I was one ?" How old was I before before I was zero ? These questions to me at first semed those of a mind coming to grips with the real world, till I realized that they were questions trying to come to grips with a world as adults saw it. In terms of linear time.
So back to your question about Chaos. I often see the universe in terms of the Tandav dance of Shiva, which in Hinduism is the random dance of creation and destruction and then creation again. Continious, seamless and eternal. Like the ocean, with countless waves forming and destructing at the same time.
How random is the Dance of Shiva ? I guess so random that it is impossible to find a pattern, a structure to it. It is impossible to learn it. But if you throw out the very idea of structure, throw out the very idea of patterns, and become one with Shiva, you will perhaps be in harmony with the dance.
I guess my struggle has been to drop the idea of stucture, and have the courage to believe that there is no context, no 'given' as it were. A kind of a limbo that can be pretty frightening to an ego driven mind that needs me to believe in contexts by which to define myself.
So that is the first step of 'Chaos' that I speak of - and then to step off into the abyss, into the void, into a space that has nothing to hold on to, that is what needs courage.
shekhar
Doubt !
September 26, 2006 | 01:15 AM
Doubt !
Here is one of the more frighteniing conversations with the Astrophysicist, Piet Hut (which I am serializing in The Film maker and the Astrophisicist blog ) : From: Shekhar Kapur, Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001, To: Piet Hut : You Said : < Needless to say, IF linear time is not real, then a realization of that fact makes one a more effective player in alleged linear time; just like you can only be an effective film director if you realize that a film is not real -- which doesn't mean it is arbitrary. >>
Dear Peit :
I am going a different way : I still want to see (because I imagine everything as a picture) - time like a little canary in a cage : caged by us - therefore I look and say :
" this is a Canary in the cage - and that is the reality" The cage is my mind - and the canary a way of making time absolute. In my mind I open the cage - and the bird fies away and just in one whoosh disappears - as if there was nothing else.
I have to destroy the cage and throw myself into chaos. I have to understand that I am not caged by time - but time is caged by me interms of a linear concept - I would rather go this left field way because it forces me to completely think chaotically. Like the bird represents a spirit - and time is actuall a free spirit. But gentle and soft and ethereal.
Time is Space : Free flowing like God. Time is God. That is the unknown dimension - GOD/TIME/SPACE - I know that in my bones - but my mind must force itself through the pain of logic - I must put my mind through absolute chaos and put it in self destruct - and the only way is chaotic thinking - not to allow it to to hang it's coat on any peg.
I know that at the end there is light. But the the tunnel is dark and dangerous - and for those without courage may get lost in the tunnel - and destruct everything without understanding.
No, not understanding, but - without experiencing.
A half a Buddha is perhaps worse than someone enclosed in Maya.
Lets keep up these conversations - I do not have to totally understand what u say - nor do you, I guess. But as long as we keep questioning each other - there will be at some points of time a coming together - a synchronization - and then like a wave - disbelief and questioning again.
shekhar
Doubt !
Here is one of the more frighteniing conversations with the Astrophysicist, Piet Hut (which I am serializing in The Film maker and the Astrophisicist blog ) : From: Shekhar Kapur, Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001, To: Piet Hut : You Said : < Needless to say, IF linear time is not real, then a realization of that fact makes one a more effective player in alleged linear time; just like you can only be an effective film director if you realize that a film is not real -- which doesn't mean it is arbitrary. >>
Dear Peit :
I am going a different way : I still want to see (because I imagine everything as a picture) - time like a little canary in a cage : caged by us - therefore I look and say :
" this is a Canary in the cage - and that is the reality" The cage is my mind - and the canary a way of making time absolute. In my mind I open the cage - and the bird fies away and just in one whoosh disappears - as if there was nothing else.
I have to destroy the cage and throw myself into chaos. I have to understand that I am not caged by time - but time is caged by me interms of a linear concept - I would rather go this left field way because it forces me to completely think chaotically. Like the bird represents a spirit - and time is actuall a free spirit. But gentle and soft and ethereal.
Time is Space : Free flowing like God. Time is God. That is the unknown dimension - GOD/TIME/SPACE - I know that in my bones - but my mind must force itself through the pain of logic - I must put my mind through absolute chaos and put it in self destruct - and the only way is chaotic thinking - not to allow it to to hang it's coat on any peg.
I know that at the end there is light. But the the tunnel is dark and dangerous - and for those without courage may get lost in the tunnel - and destruct everything without understanding.
No, not understanding, but - without experiencing.
A half a Buddha is perhaps worse than someone enclosed in Maya.
Lets keep up these conversations - I do not have to totally understand what u say - nor do you, I guess. But as long as we keep questioning each other - there will be at some points of time a coming together - a synchronization - and then like a wave - disbelief and questioning again.
shekhar
Is this where my father resided ?
September 18, 2006 | 02:51 AM
Is this where my father resided ?
As I lit my father's funeral pyre and watched the flames consume his body, the priest handed me a long bamboo pole. To puncture the skull. To release his spirit, he said, but also the skull has a tendency to explode..
And then the unthinkable happened. The wood fell away and I watched as the exposed white fatty tissue of the brain began to bubble and melt in the intense heat. I called my sister to watch with me. Is this where my father resided, I asked ? In this piece of tissue ? Is this where his mind existed ? The mind of one of the best known peadraticians in India ? Is this where his passion, compassion and warmth for all the little children who's life he devoted to saving existed ? Excuse me for not using the word soul, though I am so tempted to.
And is this where his love for his own children existed ? For me and you ? And with the brain extinguishing into flames, does that love no longer exist ?
And what about me ? Is that who I oved really ? That brain ? Was that the sum total of my father ?
Or is the truth something else. That the mind does not reside in the brain. That emotions do not reside in the mind. That that which we call love and memory and emotion exists in a realm beyond the physical body. More then just synapses of neurons that express themselves through chemical reactions
shekhar
Is this where my father resided ?
As I lit my father's funeral pyre and watched the flames consume his body, the priest handed me a long bamboo pole. To puncture the skull. To release his spirit, he said, but also the skull has a tendency to explode..
And then the unthinkable happened. The wood fell away and I watched as the exposed white fatty tissue of the brain began to bubble and melt in the intense heat. I called my sister to watch with me. Is this where my father resided, I asked ? In this piece of tissue ? Is this where his mind existed ? The mind of one of the best known peadraticians in India ? Is this where his passion, compassion and warmth for all the little children who's life he devoted to saving existed ? Excuse me for not using the word soul, though I am so tempted to.
And is this where his love for his own children existed ? For me and you ? And with the brain extinguishing into flames, does that love no longer exist ?
And what about me ? Is that who I oved really ? That brain ? Was that the sum total of my father ?
Or is the truth something else. That the mind does not reside in the brain. That emotions do not reside in the mind. That that which we call love and memory and emotion exists in a realm beyond the physical body. More then just synapses of neurons that express themselves through chemical reactions
shekhar
Rationalising or fooling yourself ?
September 10, 2006 | 03:17 PM
Rationalising or fooling yourself ?
"Maybe our concept of time is just a method for rationalising things and making it have a point or giving it a meaning... a perspective."
yes absolutely, raviswamy, our five senses in their limitations need to reduce perception to rationalize our understanding of the world we inhabit...
So we give everything a begining, and an end. We see time linearily. And then we spend our lives wondering and being afraid of the event called Death, because we have decided the universe exists in beginings and ends, in events separated in time/space. The question we should be really asking is "if the event of Birth never happened, then how can Death happen ? Or is my Birth and my Death continious even as I write ?
What I keep struggling with is why we need to reduce everything to a point where we need to rationalize it. Why do we need to rationalize ? It seems purposeless, but then of course it is difficult to find any purpose in this world. The only purpose we have ever seem to have found is in imposed 'morality'. But the Universe is neither moral nor immoral. It's amoral.
I do not believe we are born with an addiction to only the 5 senses. We acquire the ability to shut ourselves out of anything that does not fall into the perception of an increasingly limited rationalistic world. That's modernism. Logic.
My daughter at 4 was extremely comfortable with the idea that Angels existed and at the same time did not. She saw no difference between the logical world and the illogical one. To her the connection between what she saw and what she imagined was not contradictory. But now at 6, with her going to school she is already getting trained to ignore that which cannot be touched, seen, heard or smelled,
Consequently she is less and less comfortable with her emotional life, as myth and imagination are played down in schooling. But the do not go away do they ? They bubble up in the most unexpected ways. And sometimes dangerous ways. You and I are coming to terms with our loss of universal percepton by arguing out right now through words.
Buddhism says that at the root of all human suffering is Desire. I do not dispute that. For Desire only arises out of a misunderstanding of Time/Space continuum. How can I desire something unless I see the object of desire as something seperated from me in time/space. But even Quantum Physics now reveal that all such seperation is not real fact, but is assumed fact through the act of observation by the observer.
What i want Buddhism to explain to me is the purpose of Desire, if there is one. Procreation of the species? is that all ?
Shekhar
Rationalising or fooling yourself ?
"Maybe our concept of time is just a method for rationalising things and making it have a point or giving it a meaning... a perspective."
yes absolutely, raviswamy, our five senses in their limitations need to reduce perception to rationalize our understanding of the world we inhabit...
So we give everything a begining, and an end. We see time linearily. And then we spend our lives wondering and being afraid of the event called Death, because we have decided the universe exists in beginings and ends, in events separated in time/space. The question we should be really asking is "if the event of Birth never happened, then how can Death happen ? Or is my Birth and my Death continious even as I write ?
What I keep struggling with is why we need to reduce everything to a point where we need to rationalize it. Why do we need to rationalize ? It seems purposeless, but then of course it is difficult to find any purpose in this world. The only purpose we have ever seem to have found is in imposed 'morality'. But the Universe is neither moral nor immoral. It's amoral.
I do not believe we are born with an addiction to only the 5 senses. We acquire the ability to shut ourselves out of anything that does not fall into the perception of an increasingly limited rationalistic world. That's modernism. Logic.
My daughter at 4 was extremely comfortable with the idea that Angels existed and at the same time did not. She saw no difference between the logical world and the illogical one. To her the connection between what she saw and what she imagined was not contradictory. But now at 6, with her going to school she is already getting trained to ignore that which cannot be touched, seen, heard or smelled,
Consequently she is less and less comfortable with her emotional life, as myth and imagination are played down in schooling. But the do not go away do they ? They bubble up in the most unexpected ways. And sometimes dangerous ways. You and I are coming to terms with our loss of universal percepton by arguing out right now through words.
Buddhism says that at the root of all human suffering is Desire. I do not dispute that. For Desire only arises out of a misunderstanding of Time/Space continuum. How can I desire something unless I see the object of desire as something seperated from me in time/space. But even Quantum Physics now reveal that all such seperation is not real fact, but is assumed fact through the act of observation by the observer.
What i want Buddhism to explain to me is the purpose of Desire, if there is one. Procreation of the species? is that all ?
Shekhar
Time and Event
September 10, 2006 | 03:04 PM
Time and Event
ravi swami : Yes...moment and continuity are contradictions in terms - an 'event 'assumes a "before event and after event" situation - what you are saying is that every "event" exists and is not marked by a start and end point, if it did then "time" as concept has to exist -
as in editing a film, an in point and out point, but outside of the "edit", events and actuality(for want of a better word), continue, despite the film makers division of the continuum to make logical sense and tell a story....
Maybe our concept of time is just a method for rationalising things and making it have a point or giving it a meaning... a perspective.
I sometimes ponder on the idea of dividing time into ever smaller divisions - like you see in "time slice" films - at a certain point time appears to stands still - on a theoretical level this is what is supposed to occur for a viewer if he/she/it approaches the speed of light, time "stands still" and all "events" become simultaneous...
Time and Event
ravi swami : Yes...moment and continuity are contradictions in terms - an 'event 'assumes a "before event and after event" situation - what you are saying is that every "event" exists and is not marked by a start and end point, if it did then "time" as concept has to exist -
as in editing a film, an in point and out point, but outside of the "edit", events and actuality(for want of a better word), continue, despite the film makers division of the continuum to make logical sense and tell a story....
Maybe our concept of time is just a method for rationalising things and making it have a point or giving it a meaning... a perspective.
I sometimes ponder on the idea of dividing time into ever smaller divisions - like you see in "time slice" films - at a certain point time appears to stands still - on a theoretical level this is what is supposed to occur for a viewer if he/she/it approaches the speed of light, time "stands still" and all "events" become simultaneous...
Time and time again
September 10, 2006 | 12:51 PM
Time and time again
rawi swami said : .....time is actually (as we understand the meaning of the word) better described as "moment" or continuity - not an evolution of anything but a constant...within that constant there are "events"...us, supernovas, all instances of "local time"....
I agree, ravi swami, but.....
..... if time is a constant and not an evolution, then we have reconsider our definition of the word 'event', for the word event assumes a moment that is not continous, but singular. But a singularity of an event assumes a past and future where that singularity never existed, right ? And if so then are we not, after having described Time as a constant, contradicting ourselves ? So every event too, in that case must also be'constant'. So it always existed, does exist and will always exist. And is therefore not an event at all, but also a constant.
shekhar
Time and time again
rawi swami said : .....time is actually (as we understand the meaning of the word) better described as "moment" or continuity - not an evolution of anything but a constant...within that constant there are "events"...us, supernovas, all instances of "local time"....
I agree, ravi swami, but.....
..... if time is a constant and not an evolution, then we have reconsider our definition of the word 'event', for the word event assumes a moment that is not continous, but singular. But a singularity of an event assumes a past and future where that singularity never existed, right ? And if so then are we not, after having described Time as a constant, contradicting ourselves ? So every event too, in that case must also be'constant'. So it always existed, does exist and will always exist. And is therefore not an event at all, but also a constant.
shekhar
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker 2
September 10, 2006 | 12:51 AM
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker 2
I would urge anyone on this blog that is interested in the exploring the areas where mysticism and science collide to click on the blog on top of the page about my conversations with Peit Hut, the astrophysicist.
Though these conversations happened 6 years ao, I am finding them fascinating all over again. Piet has promised to answer questions - but he is a bit busy for the next 10 days, in the meantime I will continue to serialize the conversations and feel free to post comments and questions to Piet.
Shekhar
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker 2
I would urge anyone on this blog that is interested in the exploring the areas where mysticism and science collide to click on the blog on top of the page about my conversations with Peit Hut, the astrophysicist.
Though these conversations happened 6 years ao, I am finding them fascinating all over again. Piet has promised to answer questions - but he is a bit busy for the next 10 days, in the meantime I will continue to serialize the conversations and feel free to post comments and questions to Piet.
Shekhar
Till the rains come.
September 04, 2006 | 12:28 AM
Till the rains come.
Her grandson hung loosely from her hip. Lacking the energy to steady his head lolling from side to side. He was badly in need of food.
Yet as she implored me for some money I knew she had not been doing this for long. For the hundreds of beggars I pass every day have a permanent look carved onto their faces. A look to evoke pity. But her smile is warm. The shine in her eyes real.
Where are u from ?
Sholapur, she said. There were no rains and the fields were dry. No one was hiring labour, and there was no food or water. 20 of her community walked, hitched rides on top of trains and buses to come to Mumbai.
To beg for food, shelter and water. This is after all the city of dreams.
Where do u live ?
Wherever we find the space.
Which means the streets, the shelters under the highways. The narrow spaces on the dividers between the roads. Real Estate is at a premium here, even to put down your head to sleep on the streets
Her grandaughter walked upto me. Hand stretched out to beg, but her heart not in it. Not yet. anyway. It had not yet become a profession. She smiled the most stunning smile, eyes still sparkling with hope and optimism. All of sixteen.
We will go back soon to sholapur, she said to my question.
When ?
When the rains come. When the crops grow. When there is food and shelter.
That I knew, and she knew, would be not till the next monsoons a year from now. Would this community exist together for a year ? Would the warmth in her eyes, and the sparkle in her grandaughter's eyes survive that long ?
Or would this family be indistinguishable from the permanently etched and grimaced faces of al the others.
My daughter's school bus arrived and she stepped out laughing. The old lady laughed too. She asked for her name and blessed her. I gave her some money and she bent to touch my feet. I said no. In the same square mile we existed on different planets. But at this moment I wanted to be her equal. Equal in their hope. Equal in their dignity. Praying that somehow they may be able to survive the onslaught of the city.
I drove home, as Suresh, my driver laughed.
You really got taken in didn't you, sir. Have u not been watching TV ? There has been so much rain in Sholapur that their are floods everywhere !
He is wrong. He must be wrong.
Shekhar
Till the rains come.
Her grandson hung loosely from her hip. Lacking the energy to steady his head lolling from side to side. He was badly in need of food.
Yet as she implored me for some money I knew she had not been doing this for long. For the hundreds of beggars I pass every day have a permanent look carved onto their faces. A look to evoke pity. But her smile is warm. The shine in her eyes real.
Where are u from ?
Sholapur, she said. There were no rains and the fields were dry. No one was hiring labour, and there was no food or water. 20 of her community walked, hitched rides on top of trains and buses to come to Mumbai.
To beg for food, shelter and water. This is after all the city of dreams.
Where do u live ?
Wherever we find the space.
Which means the streets, the shelters under the highways. The narrow spaces on the dividers between the roads. Real Estate is at a premium here, even to put down your head to sleep on the streets
Her grandaughter walked upto me. Hand stretched out to beg, but her heart not in it. Not yet. anyway. It had not yet become a profession. She smiled the most stunning smile, eyes still sparkling with hope and optimism. All of sixteen.
We will go back soon to sholapur, she said to my question.
When ?
When the rains come. When the crops grow. When there is food and shelter.
That I knew, and she knew, would be not till the next monsoons a year from now. Would this community exist together for a year ? Would the warmth in her eyes, and the sparkle in her grandaughter's eyes survive that long ?
Or would this family be indistinguishable from the permanently etched and grimaced faces of al the others.
My daughter's school bus arrived and she stepped out laughing. The old lady laughed too. She asked for her name and blessed her. I gave her some money and she bent to touch my feet. I said no. In the same square mile we existed on different planets. But at this moment I wanted to be her equal. Equal in their hope. Equal in their dignity. Praying that somehow they may be able to survive the onslaught of the city.
I drove home, as Suresh, my driver laughed.
You really got taken in didn't you, sir. Have u not been watching TV ? There has been so much rain in Sholapur that their are floods everywhere !
He is wrong. He must be wrong.
Shekhar
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker
August 27, 2006 | 07:49 PM
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker
5 yeras ago at the World Economic Forum in Davos I met an amazing mind and soul. Piet Hut is Dutch, married to the beautiful Eiko, who is from Japan. His is Buddhist and a proffesor of at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University. The meeting led to an amazing series of e mail exchanges on the nature of reality ...
I then lost contact with Piet. On a whim I suddenly turned up at his house in NY and discovered he had just survived cancer, and his mind was more alive than ever. To my amazement he had a record of most of our conversations between July 2001 and August 2003.
I now plan to serialize these conversations on this website and then for Piet and I to continue the conversations both on his website and mine. They mostly are in the form of questions on the nature of the Universe I asked Piet from the point of view of an artist, and then he attempts to answered them from the point of theoretical physics. You will soon find a posting on the top of the blog page called 'The Astrophysicist and the Film Maker
For those that are interested in looking at all the correspondence at one go, should go to Peit's website :
http://www.waysofknowing.net/ShekharOldExchanges/OldExchanges.html
shekhar
The Astrophysicist and the Filmmaker
5 yeras ago at the World Economic Forum in Davos I met an amazing mind and soul. Piet Hut is Dutch, married to the beautiful Eiko, who is from Japan. His is Buddhist and a proffesor of at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton University. The meeting led to an amazing series of e mail exchanges on the nature of reality ...
I then lost contact with Piet. On a whim I suddenly turned up at his house in NY and discovered he had just survived cancer, and his mind was more alive than ever. To my amazement he had a record of most of our conversations between July 2001 and August 2003.
I now plan to serialize these conversations on this website and then for Piet and I to continue the conversations both on his website and mine. They mostly are in the form of questions on the nature of the Universe I asked Piet from the point of view of an artist, and then he attempts to answered them from the point of theoretical physics. You will soon find a posting on the top of the blog page called 'The Astrophysicist and the Film Maker
For those that are interested in looking at all the correspondence at one go, should go to Peit's website :
http://www.waysofknowing.net/ShekharOldExchanges/OldExchanges.html
shekhar
Welcome to Eternity, bye bye Big Bang
August 21, 2006 | 05:59 PM
Welcome to Eternity, bye bye Big Bang
Have always struggled with the idea of the Universe actually having a 'begining' with the Big Bang and therefore by inference an 'end' ...
If the principles of Quantum Physics are to hold true, then surely time has absolutely no linear value. The concept of Timelesness is where the the new Quantum Theorists and the Spiritualists are finding common ground. In Eternity !
Now Neil Toruk, proffesor of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at cambridge university has expounded that there was no single Big Bang. But millions of them. But Toruk goes further, as the London Times reported :
"If Toruk and his colleagues are right it would mean that "Time, Matter and Energy have always existed, and always will". There is no singular point in time where we can say that he Universe was born. So there was no begining of Time and no end. Time therefore cannot travel in one straight linear line.
So welcome to Eternity. The search for a 'begining' and an 'end' to all things is just part of our attempt to reduce the universe to something that can be contained within our limited comprehensions. If nothing ever began, then how could it end ?
The Universe is just infinite eternal potential. Where all possibilities exist, have always existed and will forever exist.. and the the non-possibilities to these events also exist. The Universe is an infinite idea, of infinite potential and infinite possibilities.
Shekhar
Welcome to Eternity, bye bye Big Bang
Have always struggled with the idea of the Universe actually having a 'begining' with the Big Bang and therefore by inference an 'end' ...
If the principles of Quantum Physics are to hold true, then surely time has absolutely no linear value. The concept of Timelesness is where the the new Quantum Theorists and the Spiritualists are finding common ground. In Eternity !
Now Neil Toruk, proffesor of applied mathematics and theoretical physics at cambridge university has expounded that there was no single Big Bang. But millions of them. But Toruk goes further, as the London Times reported :
"If Toruk and his colleagues are right it would mean that "Time, Matter and Energy have always existed, and always will". There is no singular point in time where we can say that he Universe was born. So there was no begining of Time and no end. Time therefore cannot travel in one straight linear line.
So welcome to Eternity. The search for a 'begining' and an 'end' to all things is just part of our attempt to reduce the universe to something that can be contained within our limited comprehensions. If nothing ever began, then how could it end ?
The Universe is just infinite eternal potential. Where all possibilities exist, have always existed and will forever exist.. and the the non-possibilities to these events also exist. The Universe is an infinite idea, of infinite potential and infinite possibilities.
Shekhar
Ripples
August 15, 2006 | 07:33 PM
Ripples
Are we merely ripples created by a universal consciousnes eternally at play ?
And if before the ripple subsides, we have known eternal love and compassion, then the ripple perhaps has had some significance.
The essential element seems to be humility. So much humility tha it can wash away the ego in it's tide.
That then is my battle. But my ego and my sense of Induviduality fights back so hard !
It's exhausting,
Shekhar
Ripples
Are we merely ripples created by a universal consciousnes eternally at play ?
And if before the ripple subsides, we have known eternal love and compassion, then the ripple perhaps has had some significance.
The essential element seems to be humility. So much humility tha it can wash away the ego in it's tide.
That then is my battle. But my ego and my sense of Induviduality fights back so hard !
It's exhausting,
Shekhar
Ripples
August 15, 2006 | 07:33 PM
Ripples
Are we merely ripples created by a universal consciousnes eternally at play ?
And if before the ripple subsides, we have known eternal love and compassion, then the ripple perhaps has had some significance.
The essential element seems to be humility. So much humility tha it can wash away the ego in it's tide.
That then is my battle. But my ego and my sense of Induviduality fights back so hard !
It's exhausting,
Shekhar
Ripples
Are we merely ripples created by a universal consciousnes eternally at play ?
And if before the ripple subsides, we have known eternal love and compassion, then the ripple perhaps has had some significance.
The essential element seems to be humility. So much humility tha it can wash away the ego in it's tide.
That then is my battle. But my ego and my sense of Induviduality fights back so hard !
It's exhausting,
Shekhar
The Ego and Context
August 05, 2006 | 05:01 PM
The Ego and Context
Can I see myself out of any context ? Can I just exist ? without contextualizing my existence ? I have been battling this question over the last few days and would welcome comments.
I am a father. A film maker. A man. A human being. I am one person for one moment and another the next. I am good and bad in the same moment, indeed good and bad at the same time in the same context ! But every thing that I am, is contextualized by something else. Every thought I have is contextualized by something else. Even a thought cannot exist on it's own.
Try it. Think of yourself and then try and remove all context. Not possible is it ? You always think of yourself in relationship to something else. Even when u say "I love", which are probably the two most powerful words in the universe, there is a context who or what you love, however enormous your love may be.
So when those that have immense Wisdom say "I am". Just those two words "I am", surely they are talking about an existence without context ? Because if Buddha talked about 'formlesness" and 'Shunyata', surely He was talking about an existence without contextualizing that existence. How can infinity have a context ? How could timelesness have a context ? How could shunyata have a context ? Non Infinity ? Non Shunyata ? Non timelesness ? Doesn't make sense.
How weak the Ego is then, how weak our induviduality is then, when we exist only in the imagined context of something else. And we live our whole lives based on imagined contexts ?
How do we get to a life without context ? Is that what consciousness means ?
shekhar
So I realize how weak the Ego is. It has absolutely no value without Context.
The Ego and Context
Can I see myself out of any context ? Can I just exist ? without contextualizing my existence ? I have been battling this question over the last few days and would welcome comments.
I am a father. A film maker. A man. A human being. I am one person for one moment and another the next. I am good and bad in the same moment, indeed good and bad at the same time in the same context ! But every thing that I am, is contextualized by something else. Every thought I have is contextualized by something else. Even a thought cannot exist on it's own.
Try it. Think of yourself and then try and remove all context. Not possible is it ? You always think of yourself in relationship to something else. Even when u say "I love", which are probably the two most powerful words in the universe, there is a context who or what you love, however enormous your love may be.
So when those that have immense Wisdom say "I am". Just those two words "I am", surely they are talking about an existence without context ? Because if Buddha talked about 'formlesness" and 'Shunyata', surely He was talking about an existence without contextualizing that existence. How can infinity have a context ? How could timelesness have a context ? How could shunyata have a context ? Non Infinity ? Non Shunyata ? Non timelesness ? Doesn't make sense.
How weak the Ego is then, how weak our induviduality is then, when we exist only in the imagined context of something else. And we live our whole lives based on imagined contexts ?
How do we get to a life without context ? Is that what consciousness means ?
shekhar
So I realize how weak the Ego is. It has absolutely no value without Context.
The Void
May 13, 2006 | 02:58 PM
The Void
Those of us that carry
inside us
an immense darkness
are blessed by God
for we have been given the choice
to fill the void
with what we chose
it's an empty vessel
waiting to be filled
with love
do not
deny the need
the craving
the fear
the longing
for love
or else
the void
will be polluted
by immense doubt
shekhar
The Void
Those of us that carry
inside us
an immense darkness
are blessed by God
for we have been given the choice
to fill the void
with what we chose
it's an empty vessel
waiting to be filled
with love
do not
deny the need
the craving
the fear
the longing
for love
or else
the void
will be polluted
by immense doubt
shekhar
Freedom
April 07, 2006 | 01:14 PM
Freedom
I struggle with freedom,
I want to be free,
but have no idea what I want to be free of ?
I look for the context to freedom'
and then I want to be free of the context
and if there is no context
what do I want to be free of ?
how can i be free if
my freedom is always tethered to a context ?
even an idea
that may sound as lofty as 'consiousness'
Is freedom ever possible without a context ?
or does the context become the ever shifting cage
I imprison myself in
Shekhar
Freedom
I struggle with freedom,
I want to be free,
but have no idea what I want to be free of ?
I look for the context to freedom'
and then I want to be free of the context
and if there is no context
what do I want to be free of ?
how can i be free if
my freedom is always tethered to a context ?
even an idea
that may sound as lofty as 'consiousness'
Is freedom ever possible without a context ?
or does the context become the ever shifting cage
I imprison myself in
Shekhar
And you thought you knew me ?
March 27, 2006 | 04:46 PM
And you thought you knew me ?
How limited must your perception be, to say you know me ?
Do you even know what I look like ? When your eye is percieving less than 1 % of the waves/information packets reflected off me, emitted by me, or passing through my body.
How can u say u felt my touch ? When you know there is no physical matter in me. When u know that my body is just massless particles of energetic information packets whizing in space, intermingled with trillions that you don't feel or see.
What would I look like if you could see all those particles, all those packet of information ? Would you be able to even define my physicality ? Or would I have absolutely no contained, induvidual physical form.
How limited must your perception be to be able to define me.
So u think you know me by my emotions, my thoughts ? Knowing that your interpretation of my emotions are only defined through the prejudiced prism of your own judgement of yourself.
So you think you know me by what I do ? By my acts ? Knowing that there is no act so pure that it is fact. That all acts are merel interpretations of events.
Do you think you know me by having observed me ? Knowing that here is no observation so pure that it does not judge the observed. Once again through the imperfect eyes of the observer.
Do you think you know me by sensing the results of my actions ? Knowing that every potential event has as much an induviduality as you and I ?
So here's the paradox. The more u define me, the more you limit and narrow your perception of me, the more real I become to you. So if you stopped defining me, limiting me, would I cease to exist for you ? Or would we see ourselves as pure consciousness ?
Shekhar
And you thought you knew me ?
How limited must your perception be, to say you know me ?
Do you even know what I look like ? When your eye is percieving less than 1 % of the waves/information packets reflected off me, emitted by me, or passing through my body.
How can u say u felt my touch ? When you know there is no physical matter in me. When u know that my body is just massless particles of energetic information packets whizing in space, intermingled with trillions that you don't feel or see.
What would I look like if you could see all those particles, all those packet of information ? Would you be able to even define my physicality ? Or would I have absolutely no contained, induvidual physical form.
How limited must your perception be to be able to define me.
So u think you know me by my emotions, my thoughts ? Knowing that your interpretation of my emotions are only defined through the prejudiced prism of your own judgement of yourself.
So you think you know me by what I do ? By my acts ? Knowing that there is no act so pure that it is fact. That all acts are merel interpretations of events.
Do you think you know me by having observed me ? Knowing that here is no observation so pure that it does not judge the observed. Once again through the imperfect eyes of the observer.
Do you think you know me by sensing the results of my actions ? Knowing that every potential event has as much an induviduality as you and I ?
So here's the paradox. The more u define me, the more you limit and narrow your perception of me, the more real I become to you. So if you stopped defining me, limiting me, would I cease to exist for you ? Or would we see ourselves as pure consciousness ?
Shekhar
Am I dead or alive ?
March 22, 2006 | 01:15 PM
Am I dead or alive ?
At this moment do you percieve me dead or alive ? If someone tells you I have been in a serious accident. and till your sensory information asks you to percieve my state as one or the other, I could be dead and alive at the same time. So if all existence is imaginary, illusory, then you have effectively put me in a limbo, neither dead nor alive ! This thought was triggerd by Tushar's post included below,
Schroedinger's cat is a quantum paradox posed by austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger in the 1920s. it is what is called a GENDANKENEXPERIMENT - german for a thought experiment.
in this thought experiment schroedinger proposed to einstein that a cat be put in a box. along with the cat, the box also contains a radioactive mineral and a vial of prussic acid (HCN). there is a 50 per cent chance that the radioactive mineral decays in say an hour. if the radioactive mineral decays, it emits a quantum particle which breaks the vial and releases the prussic acid and kills the cat.
so, at the end of the one hour, there is 50-50 chance that the cat is dead or alive.
now, this is where the fun begins.
unless the observer actually opens the box and checks, the cat is neither dead, nor alive… it exists in both states. it is alive as well as dead.
it is the observer who ‘collapses the dead-alive wave function’. he opens the box and finds the cat to be either dead or alive. and that determines the state of the schroedinger’s cat.
the event does not happen till you observe it.
in my post, i have used something i am working on for my script/graphic novel. i have stretched this quantum paradox to a metaphysical supposition.
it is thought that implies existence.
interestingly, while thought experiments are used as probes to speculate on the metaphysical implications of quantum physics, some cultures including our own, have always put a heavy stress on stretching the boundaries of existence through the explorations of the mind. they have a rich trove of tropes - yantras, mantras, koans... the stress has always been on pushing the limits of knowledge and going beyond the percieved reality. rationale... reason... explanation, these cultures have always believed to be superficial... in these cultures, the emphasis has been on freeing the mind of the limitation of senses.
however, since aristotle, reason took centerstage in certain cultures. here, 'scientific' approach was placed over speculation. it culminated in a Deterministic World View of the 19th century... The Age Of Reason was upon us with these cultures spreading thanks to the imperial conquests...
however, in the early decades of 1900, einstien forced the world to take a quantum leap. the special theory of relativity with its implications of time-space continuum and wave-particle duality forced a massive rethink.
it fuzzed up the boundaries between what is and what is not... however, the claims of the quantum world could not be experimentally verified as there were no machines powerful enough to test them. moreover, reason was simply not enough to deal with this paradigm shift.
in such situations, quantum physicists resorted to 'thought experiments'. einstien explained his relativity in the form of a thought experiment where a cyclist comes riding at the speed of light and swerves around another coming in the opposite direction. he suggested shifting of frames of references to understand the implications.
when it came to wave-particle duality, schroedinger proposed this thought experiment to einstien.
curiously enough... there is still a lot of stress being put on the fantastical and 'wow' factor of thought-experiments and the focus is still on resolving a paradox through experimentations and micro and macro extrapolations... this has served as a treasure trove of possibilities for minds on the creative front... from time travel to event-horizons... alternate universes and space-time warps...
the ancient cultures which valued the metaphysical quest however, had a much subtler approach to these quandaries without obsessing with it... its answer to metaphysical dilemmas was simple...
does the dog have a buddha nature?
"mu".
does brahman intrinsically know 'brahma' or is the one who knows 'brahma' a brahman?
"mu".
"mu" is the perfect response to a coffy bite situation.. when an argument continues, mu makes its presence felt...
mu is the brahman state of 'being'. neither right, nor wrong... just a probability cloud... a sacrosanct function full of choices that exists beyond the effect of observation... it may collapse in your thought and still stay untouched in mine...
Am I dead or alive ?
At this moment do you percieve me dead or alive ? If someone tells you I have been in a serious accident. and till your sensory information asks you to percieve my state as one or the other, I could be dead and alive at the same time. So if all existence is imaginary, illusory, then you have effectively put me in a limbo, neither dead nor alive ! This thought was triggerd by Tushar's post included below,
Schroedinger's cat is a quantum paradox posed by austrian physicist Erwin Schroedinger in the 1920s. it is what is called a GENDANKENEXPERIMENT - german for a thought experiment.
in this thought experiment schroedinger proposed to einstein that a cat be put in a box. along with the cat, the box also contains a radioactive mineral and a vial of prussic acid (HCN). there is a 50 per cent chance that the radioactive mineral decays in say an hour. if the radioactive mineral decays, it emits a quantum particle which breaks the vial and releases the prussic acid and kills the cat.
so, at the end of the one hour, there is 50-50 chance that the cat is dead or alive.
now, this is where the fun begins.
unless the observer actually opens the box and checks, the cat is neither dead, nor alive… it exists in both states. it is alive as well as dead.
it is the observer who ‘collapses the dead-alive wave function’. he opens the box and finds the cat to be either dead or alive. and that determines the state of the schroedinger’s cat.
the event does not happen till you observe it.
in my post, i have used something i am working on for my script/graphic novel. i have stretched this quantum paradox to a metaphysical supposition.
it is thought that implies existence.
interestingly, while thought experiments are used as probes to speculate on the metaphysical implications of quantum physics, some cultures including our own, have always put a heavy stress on stretching the boundaries of existence through the explorations of the mind. they have a rich trove of tropes - yantras, mantras, koans... the stress has always been on pushing the limits of knowledge and going beyond the percieved reality. rationale... reason... explanation, these cultures have always believed to be superficial... in these cultures, the emphasis has been on freeing the mind of the limitation of senses.
however, since aristotle, reason took centerstage in certain cultures. here, 'scientific' approach was placed over speculation. it culminated in a Deterministic World View of the 19th century... The Age Of Reason was upon us with these cultures spreading thanks to the imperial conquests...
however, in the early decades of 1900, einstien forced the world to take a quantum leap. the special theory of relativity with its implications of time-space continuum and wave-particle duality forced a massive rethink.
it fuzzed up the boundaries between what is and what is not... however, the claims of the quantum world could not be experimentally verified as there were no machines powerful enough to test them. moreover, reason was simply not enough to deal with this paradigm shift.
in such situations, quantum physicists resorted to 'thought experiments'. einstien explained his relativity in the form of a thought experiment where a cyclist comes riding at the speed of light and swerves around another coming in the opposite direction. he suggested shifting of frames of references to understand the implications.
when it came to wave-particle duality, schroedinger proposed this thought experiment to einstien.
curiously enough... there is still a lot of stress being put on the fantastical and 'wow' factor of thought-experiments and the focus is still on resolving a paradox through experimentations and micro and macro extrapolations... this has served as a treasure trove of possibilities for minds on the creative front... from time travel to event-horizons... alternate universes and space-time warps...
the ancient cultures which valued the metaphysical quest however, had a much subtler approach to these quandaries without obsessing with it... its answer to metaphysical dilemmas was simple...
does the dog have a buddha nature?
"mu".
does brahman intrinsically know 'brahma' or is the one who knows 'brahma' a brahman?
"mu".
"mu" is the perfect response to a coffy bite situation.. when an argument continues, mu makes its presence felt...
mu is the brahman state of 'being'. neither right, nor wrong... just a probability cloud... a sacrosanct function full of choices that exists beyond the effect of observation... it may collapse in your thought and still stay untouched in mine...
Break a blade of grass, and you alter the Universe.
March 16, 2006 | 03:51 AM
Break a blade of grass, and you alter the Universe.
Su asked me "do you think that being RECEPTIVE is the connection to this potential of coincidences or do you think that every human being is able to CREATE her/his reality with it´s coincidences with conscious thoughts? OR: is it a mixture of both? " But they are both the same thing, are they not Su ?
How receptive Su ? If you are totally receptive then u understand that there are no coincidences. When everything is experienced as formless and interconnected, then where is the coincidence in this matrix ? Where everything is infinite potential and infinite possibility, then the creation of possibility is just the idea of perceived reality jumping events around the matrix to suit your imagination ? Do you get the analogy ?
Quantum Physics reveals that particles cannot be observed independant of the observation. They behave as they are observed to behave. Does that mean they have no independant existence ? How can that happen ? Are they imagined ? Perhaps. But to the observer they are real. Which means that Particles are merely infinite possibilities and realities, and you decide which possibility and potential becomes a percived reality for you. Through your act of observation
Now change the word particle to event. The event as an infinite potential and possibility. You focus, through your experiment, and for the purposes of this argument lets call your experiment desire or passion. Your desire/passion creates the infinite possibility and potential into your reality. So both are true and the same thing. Your receptivity and your creation of your reality.
Break a blade of grass and you alter the Universe. Nothing, not a single thought, no even small or huge, leaves the universe unchanged. That is what the Universe is, right ?
Shekhar
Break a blade of grass, and you alter the Universe.
Su asked me "do you think that being RECEPTIVE is the connection to this potential of coincidences or do you think that every human being is able to CREATE her/his reality with it´s coincidences with conscious thoughts? OR: is it a mixture of both? " But they are both the same thing, are they not Su ?
How receptive Su ? If you are totally receptive then u understand that there are no coincidences. When everything is experienced as formless and interconnected, then where is the coincidence in this matrix ? Where everything is infinite potential and infinite possibility, then the creation of possibility is just the idea of perceived reality jumping events around the matrix to suit your imagination ? Do you get the analogy ?
Quantum Physics reveals that particles cannot be observed independant of the observation. They behave as they are observed to behave. Does that mean they have no independant existence ? How can that happen ? Are they imagined ? Perhaps. But to the observer they are real. Which means that Particles are merely infinite possibilities and realities, and you decide which possibility and potential becomes a percived reality for you. Through your act of observation
Now change the word particle to event. The event as an infinite potential and possibility. You focus, through your experiment, and for the purposes of this argument lets call your experiment desire or passion. Your desire/passion creates the infinite possibility and potential into your reality. So both are true and the same thing. Your receptivity and your creation of your reality.
Break a blade of grass and you alter the Universe. Nothing, not a single thought, no even small or huge, leaves the universe unchanged. That is what the Universe is, right ?
Shekhar
Looking for proof in Coincidence
March 15, 2006 | 02:45 PM
Looking for proof in Coincidence
Cinda wrote : "The number of the new school? 44. Destiny, co~incidence...where do these messages come from?" "The number 44 seems to follow me around", she said.
I have one such number too, It is the time on the clock which says 11.11.
So am I looking for it ? Does my subconscious mind ring an alarm bell each time it should be 11.11 and I happen to look at a clock. But for that one would have to assume that all clocks work in synch. Very few that I look around at actually do.
What is the significance, and why shoud there be one ? Of course as I look for a number consciously I am going to far more aware of it and will start to see patterns in it even if it is random. Like 44.
But it is interesting to see if it is not random. Is this is our subconscious mind drawing us to this number once we have set the whole thing in motion ? Or does it go deeper, that the 'event' of the number has a much greater significance to our lives. So we set off in search of that significance. I would say, though, Cinda, that the search itself may become compulsive and you may destroy that which you were searching for.
There is a difference in the acceptance of a pattern, and the need to find the proof of it. Once you are looking for the proof, as even predicted ny Quantum Physics, you are altering the very subtle existence and perception of the pattern (of 44, in your case). In that case 44 does exist because you search for it.
We as a society are loosing our connection with the mythic sense of our lives. In doing so we ask our logical brains to test what our consciousness percieves. Most of what are consciousness percieves has little desire other than perception. When our mind gets into the act, it looks for analysis and action.
So, Cinda, 44 is probably not the only coincidence that dominates your life. Just the one out of trillions that you are aware of. Is there is a reason for you to be aware of it ? Is your sunconscious telling you something so you may act upon it ? Wait, without looking for it. Trust your subconscious. Your life is a matrix of coincidences, of potential coincidences. In fact many scientist have now strarted to believe that there are no coincidences in life. Not that everything is preordained, but that every potential event is set up proir to our acting upon it.
Shekhar
Looking for proof in Coincidence
Cinda wrote : "The number of the new school? 44. Destiny, co~incidence...where do these messages come from?" "The number 44 seems to follow me around", she said.
I have one such number too, It is the time on the clock which says 11.11.
So am I looking for it ? Does my subconscious mind ring an alarm bell each time it should be 11.11 and I happen to look at a clock. But for that one would have to assume that all clocks work in synch. Very few that I look around at actually do.
What is the significance, and why shoud there be one ? Of course as I look for a number consciously I am going to far more aware of it and will start to see patterns in it even if it is random. Like 44.
But it is interesting to see if it is not random. Is this is our subconscious mind drawing us to this number once we have set the whole thing in motion ? Or does it go deeper, that the 'event' of the number has a much greater significance to our lives. So we set off in search of that significance. I would say, though, Cinda, that the search itself may become compulsive and you may destroy that which you were searching for.
There is a difference in the acceptance of a pattern, and the need to find the proof of it. Once you are looking for the proof, as even predicted ny Quantum Physics, you are altering the very subtle existence and perception of the pattern (of 44, in your case). In that case 44 does exist because you search for it.
We as a society are loosing our connection with the mythic sense of our lives. In doing so we ask our logical brains to test what our consciousness percieves. Most of what are consciousness percieves has little desire other than perception. When our mind gets into the act, it looks for analysis and action.
So, Cinda, 44 is probably not the only coincidence that dominates your life. Just the one out of trillions that you are aware of. Is there is a reason for you to be aware of it ? Is your sunconscious telling you something so you may act upon it ? Wait, without looking for it. Trust your subconscious. Your life is a matrix of coincidences, of potential coincidences. In fact many scientist have now strarted to believe that there are no coincidences in life. Not that everything is preordained, but that every potential event is set up proir to our acting upon it.
Shekhar
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
