11/18/08

thank god for walking!

life reveals its lessons to us in such quaint little ways. today as i walked to school, i took a different route so as to stop by the post office on the way (my nephew turns 7 this week, and i had to mail some cards :)). as i passed by the congregational church on durant, i saw a poster with the following quote:
Never place a period where God has placed a comma.
- Gracie Allen
i had to repeat this line in my head several times to even begin to grasp its full import. with each iteration, i found myself uncover a deeper meaning. how many times do we believe we 'know' god's intent? in a day, even? how many times do we accept defeat and lose the will to carry on? we shy away from the uncertainty of life every day, when we could just as easily accept the certainty of life that there is uncertainty in life :).

as i crossed a road while the light was red (for the drivers), i thought to myself - "there is no way i can tell how long this signal will remain red. it could turn green this second, or the next, or the next, but there is no way for me to tell when. especially when i don't know how long it's been red when i looked at it first." if we expand this experience to a larger time scale, we realize it is akin to many others that we face on a daily basis. like a prospective student i got to know today asked me, "what will you do when you graduate?" i smiled and thought, "you know, i have no idea. i don't even know what i will do an hour and a half from now." (i did present her with a potential outcome though.)

from a state of fear of this inescapable uncertainty, i am slowly coming to embrace it with hope and faith. true that we could lose everything we have in the very next instant, but it is just as true that our lives could change remarkably for the better in this very next instant. why is one way of thought better than the other? it isn't; it is only fear/attachment that make it so. our life exists only in the present moment. not to say (at all) that one should not have a path one treads on, but we only live in the now, not in the past or future. therefore, pain or excitement for the past or the future has no meaning. the present holds within it limitless joy; we need only open ourselves to receiving it.

15 comments:

Adu said...

"why is one way of thought better than the other? it isn't; it is only fear/attachment that make it so."

does this apply to thoughts on spiritual purposes/progress as well? :p

sometimes i feel, that the desire to seek detachment over attachment, stems from a fear of attachment and it's consequences, no?

8&20 said...

adu: you're absolutely right, as far as i can tell :). the desire to detach comes oft from suffering, from an inability to deal with a life situation, from attachment - indeed. may it not be that suffering is the trigger that is meant to bring us closer on track wrt our spiritual purpose on this earth?

but just as soon as one finds detachment, one finds peace. and the loop becomes self-fulfilling.

Adu said...

hmm...maybe spiritual purpose should be defined as (and maybe you've already defined it on the blog as such or as something else) the course of action and thought that gives you peace. now should it be a constant state of peace regardless of external stimuli that the spirit should strive for, or just an overarching sense of peace with oneself and the way one is leading one's life? i don't think that any one of these is a more "noble" goal than the other. certainly one is a seemingly more desirable goal to strive for, and the other a more easily achievable one.

in any case, the path to attaining peace may be through detachment for some, maybe not for others. the latter kind of people may be able embrace life, embrace its transience, feel extreme sorrow, extreme pain, yet be at peace with themselves.

but is there any deeper meaning to our purposes, beyond just the superficial, prudent goal of being at peace? i feel that maybe the "life force" is just like any other...gravitational/electromagnetic etc. and we shouldn't try (because if we try we will fail) to attach a romantic meaning to our lives. just as physicists are seeking a unifying theory for these other forces, there may be a unifying theory for all our life forces (one-ness, non-duality etc.). or maybe the way atoms of an object coexist in peace to form a whole, our spiritual purposes are to fall into and be at peace with our places in the whole.
but is there any deeper meaning beyond that?

8&20 said...

all good points, adu. for now i will just say that i have no proofs of existence. i believe because i am led in that direction... because i believe in a greater reality.

and the purpose is not peace... as tnh says - there is no path to peace. the path is peace. i do not know what the purpose is yet, either. again, i just believe that there is a greater purpose to our being. but realizing that too may become a lifelong experience :).

we can follow up on this a little later and see how our thoughts evolve :).

Nikhil said...

actually, adu, i disagree with u - i dont think the point of spiritual progress is to just gain peace of mind. If that were our only metric to measure growth/progress, then what if I claimed that I get peace of mind by killing people, or raping young girls, or robbing banks? Is that morally justifiable? I think the moment you get down to saying that these things can vary from person to person, it leads to a very subjective notion of morality and spirituality. And this seems flawed to me, as then there is really no basis for coming to a common understanding of truth.

Peace of mind is an ultimate consequence of getting onto the right path. But it cannot be used as a metric to judge something, for several reasons. One, we might think ourselves to have peace of mind, but maybe there is an even greater level of peace we just aren't aware of? Two, maybe we commit some action and find it doesn't give us peace of mind. And so we abandon it. But maybe we would have gotten peace of mind in the long run - so if we just used that as a metric, we'd never commit actions which in the long run would bring us peace, but in the short run cause us suffering. In most cases its hard to perceive that we would obtain peace in the long term. Three, that which brings us peace of mind (our perception) might harm others. And sometimes these effects arent even perceivable, so its not enough to say that one should be at peace with oneself and others.

In sum, there are two points I wish to make. One, it makes more sense to me to think of reality/truth/the right path being one - and the seeming multitude of paths that work for people being a result of our not knowing enough, not understanding ourselves enough, and not being perceptive enough. So it seems like fundamentally different things work for different people when it comes to spiritual progress - but barring minor details, this is actually false, and if we all got onto the right path, we'd discover what we were missing.

Two, one cannot judge actions by just their perceived consequences (for there could be consequences we don't perceive). One also cant judge actions based purely on their effects on oneself (for one could just be deluded). What one really needs is an external standard - which I personally believe comes to us through the various spiritual teachers over the ages, who get access to these greater truths about the world through the medium of revelation.

Adu said...

hey nikhil, my comment stemmed from 8&20's last comment, "but just as soon as one finds detachment, one finds peace. and the loop becomes self-fulfilling."
it sounded like finding peace was the goal of her spiritual quest. and that sounded like a fine enough goal.

but i'm not sure why u feel that the goal of one's spiritual progress should be used as a metric for judging actions. i don't think i suggested it should be. do you feel that it should be?

i haven't so far found an entirely satisfactory theory of morality (have spiritual teachers passed on one to us that i am just not aware of?). and in the absence of one, i'm entirely okay with using an external set of axioms for practical purposes, such as the set of axioms that are currently used for the maintenance of law and order.

to summarize, i'm not sure whether we agree or disagree :)

Adu said...

oh also, u mention the right path. what is that?

Adu said...

i think the fundamental question i have is, why do u feel that one's spirituality and society's morality are/should be connected?

also, why does the existence of one right path make the most sense to you?

Nikhil said...

ok i think there's way too much here to cover in a comment, so lets leave all this to a conversation in person. a few quick thoughts:

1. The right path: That which will lead to the greatest spiritual progress for us. Why is that important? Because I believe that fundamentally human beings are spiritual beings, and that the essential purpose of life is to grow spiritually, develop virtues and reflect the divine attributes better. How do I know this to be true? I don't - but I believe it is, based on what a number of people over the ages have said, my own experiences and observations of the world, and logical reasoning. Do I, or anyone else, know exactly what to do at every step on this path? No. But as we consciously try, study, reflect, we gain a better understanding. At any given point different people have different understandings, and so we all think we've found our own separate paths. However, more likely, we've all just discovered different aspects of that multi-dimensional reality.

2. Why I think there is one path: First, by "one" path, I dont mean exactly one and the same in every respect. Of course as we all progress along our spiritual journeys we will progress in ways that are fine tuned to our individual nature. But apart from those, I dont believe there are fundamental differences between what is best for you and for me. And this is because ultimately reality is one - and our spiritual paths should be leading us towards a better understanding of that reality. For example, if one person claims that there is only one God, and another claims that there are many Gods, both cannot be right. One cannot say - whatever you believe is right for you is what is true, and is best for you spiritually. Clearly at least one of the two must be wrong. And so if one of the two was right in his belief about reality, he would benefit to that extent, while the other won't - and so to that extent he would be more on the right path. Of course, none of us is capable of making that judgment for certain, as none of us has a completely objective view of the world. But over time, with effort, we gain a better understanding of what kind of reality is more likely.

3. Spirituality and society: There are many things to be said about this, but i'll try keep it short. Spirituality is both about personal growth and our interaction with the world around us. Too often we lead dichotomous lives, believing spirituality to be very personal and nothing to do with the outside world. I believe most spiritual schools of thought say the very contrary - the whole point is to become a better person, so one can serve the world better and do good for others. Spiritual growth is a combination of karma, jnana and bhakti - actions, knowledge and devotion. Trying to separate them out, in my understanding, is meaningless.

Ideally we want every aspect of our life to be in alignment with the fundamental purpose of our existence - which, as I said earlier, I believe to be the realization of our spiritual nature and development of spiritual qualities.

Adu said...

okay, so your definition of spiritual purpose is to develop virtues and reflect divine attributes. what are these virtues/attributes? is it a list that has been passed down by sages? and why should we be trying to cultivate them? what is the ultimate purpose? one practical reason for trying to cultivate them could be to attain peace/bliss/whatever. but what beyond that?

or could we just be deluding ourselves into believing there is something beyond that, because the belief, like a placebo, is what sustains us. are we in reality merely like atoms of a chair, say, that need to (and do) interact cohesively so that the chair can remain a whole? microcosms within macrocosms?

i don't believe u would have iron-clad answers to all these questions, i merely ask because you seem to have a lot of conviction/belief and i wonder what lies behind that...examples you have encountered for instance?

8&20 said...

10 comments! gosh, i feel loved ;)

i'll leave you two to battle it out. i don't have the answers. right now, i'm just beginning to find the questions, yaar. daya karo :).

Nikhil said...

adu - ya, i think its theoretically impossible to have iron-clad answers to these questions - in fact, if there were, then we'd all have to believe it, and there'd be no element on choice. There's no question of doubting that the earth revolves around the sun, and anyone who doesn't believe that is just being silly :) So if the existence of a spiritual reality were categorically provable, we'd all have to necessarily believe it. So I think there is an inherent subjectivity in this, and the value of personal experience is paramount.

So yes, we'll defer the rest to an in-person conversation :)

Adu said...

battle's the wrong word, 8&20. i do not come from an opposing stance, at all. i do not even know what my stance is. i'm simply trying to understand what u guys believe in and why. if it's even the same thing that you're all believing in, or if there are differences.

for instance, about one-ness, yesterday i wasn't sure even what that meant to you, while earlier, i'd just accepted some fuzzy understanding i had. i was wondering if it was the following (perhaps this should be the subject of another post for you):

just as we cannot distinguish between the particles of an object, so also, some being above us all, would not be able to distinguish between all us humans, or perhaps between any thing on and including the earth? because we are all part of the same system. essentially that all levels of the cosmos, exhibit the same patterns.

this was one meaning of one-ness that i could come up with. is this what you mean, or tnh or other spiritual leaders?

if it is (which i doubt it is), why should the thought that we are all part of one system bring so much comfort? i mean, i can envision in my mind that if i were to believe in some vague, fuzzy notion of one-ness, i would be quite a happy person. perhaps, even, i would be in a state of bliss, where thereafter i would have no more questions. questions would just not be necessary. but is that all? is that all we should be aspiring to reach...a state where we have no more questions cuz we're so happy?

Adu said...

also, i'm hereafter declaring a commenting-with-questions hiatus. cherish my last question, 8&20 :)

the reason i'm stopping, is that i feel my fundamental questions just don't go away. the discussions on one-ness, love etc. have been very useful to me from a *practical* perspective - in that if i can internalize some of the ideas even if they're vague and fuzzy, i'll be a happier person, better able to deal with the stresses of my life. however, my fundamental philosophical questions just don't go away. so rather than belabouring, i'll stop :)

8&20 said...

adu: i don't think that the questions go away so easily. i think that there are no definitive answers, and one has to embrace that fundamental uncertainty before one embarks upon this quest for answers.

the journey is what is important, in this respect, i feel. gradually, the fog starts to clear. and visibility may never be 100%. but the journey is important to lead us to 1. asking the right questions, and 2. learning how to begin to answer them, as we may best understand these answers ourselves, and then 3. articulating these in a way that the world might.

i don't even know if i'm at 1 yet. your questions are too difficult for me to answer with any shred of confidence. but give me a year, perhaps, and maybe i'll have made a tad bit of progress by then? ha ha. hope is the last thing to die, they say.