Life
is full of uncertainties and hazards and poignant small ignoble things; but
through them all the conscious Little One feels the force, though not aware of
the invisible hands that give the push there is the unwitting movement forward.
These puppets and marionettes, themselves powerless, are ignorant of the source
from where comes their effectiveness, their action, their voiceless song. The
sonnet gives in the couplet a clinching account:
Ignorant
themselves of their own fount of strength
They
play their part in the enormous Whole.
This
is the ephemeral creature’s every day life but, in the final analysis, they all
serve even if unwillingly, unpleasantly, a mightier Power. It looks as though
there is nothing in vain in the creation, Nature with far aim in view labouring
to work out every detail.
There
is a concept in philosophy known as Occam’s Razor which holds, essentially,
that if all other things are equal, the simplest explanation is likely to be
the correct one. This concept helps cut through the layers of complexity that
confront us when we try to understand the world around us and the role we play
in it. There are benefits to this concept when it helps us avoid complexity
that is simply developed by the human mind for the sake of apparent profundity,
or for the purpose of baffling and misleading others.
At
the same time, if we gaze with a clear vision at the world around us, we find
that the “simplest” is frequently not fully able to address the reality of the
universe.
Humans
prefer simple explanations and thus, favor responses that are “black and white”
rather than those that have subtlety and complexity of interactive and
inter-related parts.
Nevertheless,
the real world is not as simple as we may choose to view it. Whether we view
the structure of the material universe and the action of subatomic particles,
the inter-relationships of the innumerable forms of living beings in a
symbiotic living web, or we view the human body with its numerous interactive
organ systems and physiological functions that involve very finely tuned
biochemical reactions, we find complexity everywhere. To truly understand the
world and our lives, we therefore must be prepared to develop our understanding
to both encompass simplicity to cut through verbal convoluted structures, and
complexity when viewing the refined intelligence of the organisation of the
universe.
Sri
Aurobindo prefaces the new chapter with some thoughts on this issue: “But
after all perhaps when we come to think more at large about the matter, we may
find that Nature and Existence are not of the same mind as man in this respect,
that there is here a great complexity which we must follow with patience and
that those ways of thinking have most chance of a fruitful truth-yielding,
which like the inspired thinking of the Upanishads take in many sides at once
and reconcile many conflicting conclusions.”
As
we move from a world-view that is both anthropocentric and earth-centric, to
one that recognizes the much larger eco-sphere, bio-sphere and universe, we
find that a global or even a universal view vastly expands our vision and
understanding as we recognise and embrace more aspects of the universal
creation.
By
the way, the beauty of Meghadutam was one of the triggers for my getting
interested in Sanskrit. The beauty is in the description of nature.
As a story, there is nothing else. As the cloud proceeds, Kalidasa makes
the cloud stop and pause, so that he can describe nature and the
geography.
Informed
by the analytical approaches of environmental historians, animal geographers,
art historians, and ecological anthropologists, this book demonstrates that no
strict divisions existed between human and animal realms in princely India .
Sovereigns, wild animals, and environments were interactive participants in the
construction of territory, identity, and history.
First,
he gives us a clue that he has read the book “Irreducible Mind” which he quoted in the opening of his
post. (Maybe that’s one reason why Sam Harris is open to the mystery of
consciousness and not a staunch materialist, or so he says.) Second, he
referred to the classic NDE case of Pam Reynolds. And third, he narrated a
seemingly *psi* experience he had in a dream with Tibetan
Vajrayana Master Dilgo Kyentse Rinpoche. If you haven’t read it yet I recommend
reading Harris’s post in its entirety first and then come back
here when you’re done. […]
That
said, I think Harris and Kastrup might at least have some similarities with
their views on mysticism, philosophy, and the mystery of consciousness. Harris
is no stranger to Buddhist and nondual philosophy. Kastrup is no stranger to
Eastern and nondual philosophy either. But the two seem to have a chasm on
their approach to the mystery of consciousness. So as much as I’d like to see a
debate between Harris and Alexander, I’d also like to see a debate between
Harris and Kastrup. Heck, if Sam Harris can take the time to debate Dinesh
D’Souza surely (I hope) he’ll consider debating a more formidable thinker like
Kastrup (unless of course, Harris’s policy is only to debate best-selling
authors.)
Modernity
is the time when the mystery goes inside—to the inner sanctum, the core of the
person. It is the time when the holy is privatized as “her belief.” If “belief”
is the leftover space to describe that which is not of Truth or Reason or
Philosophy, then it is potentially ubiquitous—and rampant. Outside the
ritualized, determined, self-estranging gestures of Philosophy, all is belief.
But then—as if sensing the danger—belief is penned inside the category Theology
(or Religion). In the neat segregations of modernity, Theology (and her
grand-daughters, the religions) become the special foci and repository for the
maverick force of belief.
No comments:
Post a Comment