Friday, August 21, 2015

Physics of Reality - 2

Physics of Reality - 2  


Anyone can follow when we speak about a 'thing,' whether the thing is a tangible object or an intangible 'something.' In contrast, the word ‘nothing’ indicates to us the absence of a thing.  That means we understand 'nothing' only in relation to 'something.' But what is 'nothing' actually? How does one define ‘nothing'?
Wenner Gefter, a Radiologist and a Zen aficionado, throws this question as a challenge to his teenage daughter, Amanda.
Thus starts an interesting saga of a father-daughter duo in finding out “the meaning of nothing — and, by extension, the secrets about the origin of the universe and whether an observer-independent reality exists.” Helpfully, Wenner defines “nothing” as an "infinite, unbounded homogeneity," similar to what Advaita would say brahman is. How can something like a world with a form evolve from such a ‘nothing’?
Wenner and Amanda begin their quest with an inspiring interaction with the legendary Physicist Prof. J.A. Wheeler. They pour over through his highly insightful diaries and also interview many of leading Physicists for possible answers. They attempt to understand the highly complex modern developments in Particle and Theoretical Physics as well as Cosmology in terms of simple physical models by providing flesh and blood to the dry theories of the specialists. “Trespassing on Einstein’s Lawn” (Bantam Books, 2014, pp: 419) is a record of  their  discoveries  penned  by  Amanda. Some excerpts from the book follow:


You can get something from nothing. Because, in a way, the something is always there. It’s like if you build a sandcastle at the beach and then knock it down – where does the castle go? The castle’s ‘thingness’ was defined by its form, by the boundaries that differentiated it from the rest of the beach. The castle and the beach, the something and the nothing, are just two different patterns.
***
John Wheeler suggested that the very posing of [a] question creates a bit of information, and that such bits were the fundamental building blocks of reality. “The universe and all that it contains (‘it’) may arise from the myriad yes-no choices of measurement (the ‘bits’),” Wheeler wrote, “Information may not be what we learn about the world. It may be what makes the world.”

If measurement built the universe bit by bit, as Wheeler suspected, then observers somehow implicated in the creation of reality – a radical picture that, if true, would mean that ours was a participatory universe. As the Physicist Paul Davies wrote, "Wheeler seeks to... Turn the conventional explanatory relationship: matter -> information -> observers on its head, and place observership at the base of the explanatory chain: observers -> information -> matter.”
Warren Gefter: If observers create reality, where do the observers come from?
John Wheeler: From Physics. From the universe. I like to say that the universe is a self-excited circuit.
***
Is the objective world the ultimate reality, independent of observers? Is the world “out there,” as it exists in and of itself regardless of how we perceive it? The answer has proven far thornier than one might think. In the early 20th century, Einstein found that space and time were not fundamentally real but are observer- dependent. The founders of the quantum mechanics were coming to grips with the realization that observers play a far more profound role than anyone had imagined. But what few people knew is that in recent years, things have gotten a whole lot weirder. Today, cutting-edge physics is forcing us to completely rethink the nature of reality and our place in the cosmos. In studying the physics of black holes, physicists have found that particles are observer dependent; in exploring the consequences of the holographic principle they have found that even 4-D spacetime – which has been left intact by Einstein’s theories – is also observer-dependent, introducing what Leonard Susskind has called “a new kind of relativity.”
Space, time, gravity, particles, spacetime, dimensions, the gauge forces, strings – all would inevitably and profoundly turn out to be observer-dependent Boojums, culminating in a total rethink of cosmology itself.
These are the conclusions that boggle the mind. The things we have long believed to be the most fundamental features of reality have turned out to be nothing more than mirages. One by one we see that the seemingly solid building blocks of the universe are consequences of our own point of view – and that the universe itself is a strange kind of fiction. It seems the more deeply we look into the nature of reality, the more clearly we find only a reflection of ourselves.
***
We are stuck inside the universe – which means we can’t give a consistent description of the universe without also describing ourselves. But Godel’s theorem showed that self-referential statements can’t be proven from within the system that’s stating them. In physics “proven” means “measured,” and measurements are about gathering information.  The Godelian incompleteness of the universe seemed to place fundamental limits on the amount of information we can access. If self-referential statements can’t be proven by physical measurements, then observers can’t measure themselves.
As Rovelli had confirmed, “the whole relational view [of quantum mechanics] is somehow related to the impossibility of total self-measurement. The entire structure of the quantum mechanics tells us that our information is always limited.”
In relativity, the finite speed of light, long believed to be infinite, rendered space and time observer 
dependent. In quantum theory, Planck’s finite constant was long held to be zero; it rendered all physical features connected by uncertainty relations observer-dependent. Most recently, the discovery that the entropy of a region of spacetime, which everyone had assumed to be infinite, was actually finite, made spacetime itself observer-dependent. The speed of light, Planck’s constant, entropy – they all represented nature’s most fundamental limits. The limits were the clues. If we could find the limits, we could find the reality. Or the lack thereof.
***
We never see simultaneously-alive-and-dead cats because superpositions represent a multiplicity of points of view, and, by definition, a given observer has only one. … And the key thing was that if reality weren’t observer–dependent, we wouldn’t see interference. Interference, the physical manifestation of non-Boolean logic, exists because nothing is real or because reality is nothing.
Physics is now telling us that we can’t talk about yes/no truth assignments (based on Boolean logic) at once. They are non-commuting gauge copies. As Susskind had said, it all came down to the misuse of the word and. Not dead and alive.  It is dead or alive. “Quantum gravity may not admit a single, objective, and complete description of the universe,” Bousso had written. “Rather, its laws may have to be formulated with reference to an observer – no more than one at a time.”
***
[A state of infinite, unbounded homogeneity – otherwise known as ‘nothing’] couldn’t change because it has no outside. But here on the inside, it could appear to change, as if something is just what nothing looks like from the inside. Here on the inside, with a finite speed of light, observers can’t see the whole thing. Their perspective is bounded. But when you put a boundary on the [nothing], it’s no longer the [nothing] state. It’s something.
Consider whatever you want, like color, a form, an object, a mass, a particle, and put yourself into it, in the interior of the thing, then the thing disappears. In the color there is no color …. What makes the color is the wavelength. If you are smaller than the wavelength, the concept of color does not even exist. It disappears completely. If you are in light, participating in its motion, light and time disappear (this is what Einstein understood when he was fifteen). Therefore, in motion, there is no motion, in position, there is no position, in particle, no particle.
***
From my point of view, the light leaving a star 5 million light-years away takes 5 million years to reach my eye. But from the light’s point of view, its journey is instantaneous. From the light’s POV, the speed of light is not the speed of light. It has no speed. It is everywhere at once in a single instant. A photon doesn’t see the universe. A photon sees a singularity.
***
Here’s the reality test. If you can find one frame of reference in which the thing disappears, then it’s not invariant, it’s observer-dependent. Nottale had pointed out the one frame in which the speed of light disappears: the frame of the light.
***
Now I was beginning to understand what information really was: asymmetry.  To register a bit of information, you need two distinguishable states: black or white, spin up or spin down, 0 or 1. You need twoness. After all, entropy was a measure of missing information, and with entropy comes symmetry. A smoothly distributed gas, the epitome of high entropy looks pretty much the same everywhere – it’s highly symmetric. And what is symmetry? It’s redundancy of description, a redundancy of information. The [nothing] state is a state of perfect symmetry, which makes sense considering it was nothing. So how do you get information from the [nothing] state, turning nothing into something? You put a boundary on it. The boundary breaks the symmetry, creating information. But the boundary is observer-dependent, and so is the information it creates.
***
The message was clear: having finite frame of reference creates the illusion of a world, but even the reference frame itself is an illusion. Observers create reality, but observers aren’t real. There is nothing ontologically distinct about an observer, because you can always find a frame in which that observer disappears: the frame of the frame itself, the boundary of the boundary.
Spacetime, gravity, electromagnetism, the nuclear forces, mass, energy, momentum, angular momentum, charge, dimensions, particles, fields, the vacuum, strings, the universe, the multiverse, the speed of light – one by one they had been downgraded to illusion.
***
Physics isn’t the machinery behind the working of the world; physics is the machinery behind the illusion that there is a world.

(To Continue -- Physics of Reality - 3)

Friday, July 24, 2015

Physics of Reality - 1

 Physics of Reality - 1


Faced with uncertain futures, and distressed by unconquerable disease, decay and death, Man has been in pursuit of an eternal, immutable and unbounded “something,” ever since, perhaps, he has become aware of his own capability to think abstractly. The ultimate quest has been the same whether the investigating men followed a predominantly philosophical path or adopted an analytical approach.  The Scientific method, however, splurged the society in general with a bounty of little goodies, the by-products of its analytical search, that could at least tentatively alleviate the suffering and bring about a degree of amelioration to the people at large.
Clarity in thought and precision in expression are the hallmarks of the method of scientific investigation. The former helped in evolving a well-defined standard terminology  and the latter contributed to the achievement of accuracy in measurement and freedom from bias in observation. Of all the various branches of Science, Physics excels itself in both clarity and precision. So it is interesting to ask, ‘What does Modern Physics tell us with respect to the most ancient question that man has raised?’
Quantum Mechanics says that ‘our observations influence the universe at the most fundamental levels, because the boundary between an objective "world out there" and our own subjective consciousness blurs at those levels.’ As Tim Folgers put it, “When physicists look at the basic constituents of reality— atoms and their innards, or the particles of light called photons— what they see depends on how they have set up their experiment. A physicist's observations determine whether an atom, say, behaves like a fluid wave or a hard particle, or which path it follows in traveling from one point to another. From the quantum perspective the universe is an extremely interactive place.”
Prof. John Wheeler, ‘one of the last of the towering figures of 20th-century physics, after a lifetime of fundamental contributions in fields ranging from atomic physics to cosmology, suggested that our observations  might actually contribute to the creation of physical reality.' To Wheeler "we are not simply bystanders on a cosmic stage; we are shapers and creators living in a participatory universe. Wheeler's hunch is that the universe is built like an enormous feedback loop, a loop in which we contribute to the ongoing creation of not just the present and the future but the past as well.”


Self-excited Universe (Wheeler)
Tim Folgers continues: “Wheeler conjectures we are part of a universe that is a work in progress; we are tiny patches of the universe looking at itself — and building itself. It's not only the future that is still undetermined but the past as well. And by peering back into time, even all the way back to the Big Bang, our present observations select one out of many possible quantum histories for the universe.

Does this mean humans are necessary to the existence of the universe? While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles. Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen. The trail of disrupted atoms left in the mica by the high-energy particle becomes part of the real world.

At every moment, in Wheeler's view, the entire universe is filled with such events, where the possible outcomes of countless interactions become real, where the infinite variety inherent in quantum mechanics manifests as a physical cosmos. And we see only a tiny portion of that cosmos. Wheeler suspects that most of the universe consists of huge clouds of uncertainty that have not yet interacted either with a conscious observer or even with some lump of inanimate matter. He sees the universe as a vast arena containing realms where the past is not yet fixed.”

If we ask whether Physics will be able to at all find answers to the fundamental questions like ‘why the universe came into being?,’   Wheeler feels that whereas the fundamental “Why?” questions may be a bit tricky, we may be able to answer at least “How?” part.
Andrei Linde who contributed to the theory of Inflationary universe is confident that Physics may be able to find an answer someday to the fundamental questions we ask, though we do not have a surefire answer as of now. He says encouragingly, “You know, if you say that we're smart enough to figure everything out, that is a very arrogant thought. If you say that we're not smart enough, that is a very humiliating thought. I come from Russia, where there is a fairy tale about two frogs in a can of sour cream. The frogs were drowning in the cream. There was nothing solid there; they could not jump from the can. One of the frogs understood there was no hope, and he stopped beating the sour cream with his legs. He just died. He drowned in sour cream. The other one did not want to give up. There was absolutely no way it could change anything, but it just kept kicking and kicking and kicking. And then all of a sudden, the sour cream was churned into butter. Then the frog stood on the butter and jumped out of the can. So you look at the sour cream and you think, 'There is no way I can do anything with that.' But sometimes, unexpected things happen.”
Let us return now to the question whether the universe is really participatory? It maybe 'participatory,' yes; but is it a universe? No!  We can only talk in terms of a participatory universe per a reference frame -- one at a time. We create a universe every instant. We shall take up in our next Post how it is so.
(To Continue ... Physics of Reality - 2)

 

Friday, June 19, 2015

What is Enlightenment?

What is Enlightenment?

When we see an object, say a tree in the yard, or hear the sounds, say when a teacher speaks, or taste or touch a thing, we gain knowledge. In general, we obtain knowledge by perceiving an object using any of our five senses. This process is called Direct Perception. We may also obtain knowledge using our mind without making a direct contact with the object concerned. Such a process is called Inference. That is how knowledge in the empirical world is usually accumulated by us. But brahman or Self-Knowledge, which is non-accumulative, cannot be understood either through Direct Perception or Inference. It can only be realized without any medium being involved.

Swami Kaivalyananda of Panmana Ashram, Kerala, India recently explained very lucidly the subtle difference between Direct Perception and Immediated Knowledge in a couple of articles published at the Advaita Academy. I am presenting below a few excerpts from the articles:

“Delusion as of now exists and all sAdhana-s like prANAyAma etc. are done on the supposition that one has to attain the Consciousness. [] the unconditioned Consciousness being our essential SELF, It needs to be only known that we are always free of delusion. Though we speak about aparokshata, or Atma sAkshatkAra, it is spoken as a courtesy. Just as delusion is a specific action of Consciousness, discrimination is another. The shruti guides us to the subtlest form of discrimination and helps us to negate all that veils the Pure Consciousness which is also called as brahman or Atman.”

The Swami Ji further explained how Shankara defined the word aparokshata (im-mediacy) giving an example. He says:

“The knowing of an object, book or table is sa-upAdika i.e. through various mediums. Therefore, it cannot be aparoksha or im-mediate knowledge. Pure knowing or pure knowledge is without depending on any mediums. To perceive a book, we need eyes (akshi), the mental mode (chitta), and the object (viShaya) like the book etc. And above all this, we need the knowledge. The knowledge of an object such as the book in this instance is gathered with the help of various mediums, inhibited by conditionings, such as space, time, instrument of perception (karaNa), the distortion of the mind-stuff (chitta) and the very object itself. Therefore, knowing or knowledge in the ordinary sense is never aparoksha (im-mediate).

However, knowledge or Consciousness in its essential nature is pure knowing, without being conditioned, fragmented or constricted by the various mediums. In the normal knowing, [what is involved] is chitta-vritti or thought or chitta-pariNAma (modification of the mind-stuff). All the knowledge of objects (viShaya-s) is a transformation of the chaitanyavat-chitta or mental stuff plus Consciousness. This is what is ordinarily called knowledge, a knowledge which is dependent on, or channeled through various mediums, vikshepa-s (projections) and vikalpa-s (distortions). However, in and through all this, there is definitely the sphuraNa or illumination of pure knowledge i.e., Consciousness, because Consciousness in its absolute nature is aparoksha (IM-MEDIATE).

There is such a thing as upAdirahita i.e., pure knowing without any of the mediums and that indeed is aparokshatva or im-mediate knowing.”

IMHO, Enlightenment is that im-mediate Knowing.

 

Friday, May 22, 2015

A Taste of Oneness – A Weekend In Togetherness on Lopez Island

A Taste of Oneness – A Weekend In Togetherness on Lopez Island
By Bev Byrnes

[Dear friend and a natural Artist, Bev Byrnes is soft spoken and pleasant to be with. She wears an infectious smile ever on her lips. She was born in Ohio and had a typical American upbringing, including Sunday school. She was still at that innocent age of 14, when an accident took away her elder brother. A shock it was to the young mind. Grieving apart, the unexpected event led her to a deep search for truth. She even undertook several philosophy courses during her Collegiate studies and investigated into all manner of religious and spiritual ideologies. She felt an inner sense of connection to a certain ‘knowingness.’ As she grew older the inner knowing gained strength and she came to rely more on a sense of resonance and less on intellectual pursuit. Spiritual searching took a back seat for a time while she raised a family and took to the study of various artistic avocations. Once her children were grown, her hunger for deep truth returned. This time it landed her with a Sufi teacher who introduced her to Non-duality. Eventually her searching ended. She and her family now live in Seattle where she maintains a studio for the study and practice of painting and tea. Her website is here.

I am deeply indebted to Bev for readily agreeing to prepare this write up for posting at our Blog -- ramesam.]

A Taste of Oneness – A Weekend In Togetherness on Lopez Island
By Bev Byrnes

*** Take 7 friends, all well-ripened in Non-duality. Place in a quiet home by the sea for three days. Add perfect weather and good food. Mix in liberal amounts of video and audio clips by a favorite teacher along with lively discussion, spontaneous periods of silence and a few outdoor nature walks (spice it up with a handful of deer and one tenacious mink). Warm for a time under a full moon while stirring in good conversation, great music and a hefty dose of tear-filled laughter. Steep extensively in the deep, knowing stillness of Presence-Awareness. ***

There were few expectations when I left for our little group retreat. Though we’d managed to cobble together a loose agenda it was really just a back-up plan, in case the hope that things would unfold in the moment backfired and we all ended up staring at each other, wondering what to do. But as we departed the ferry, SFAITH,  and made our way to the house, the reality of “island time” made its presence known; a place where going-with-the-flow is a palpable side effect, it seems, of just breathing the air.
 
For the past year now I’ve been meeting with a small group of friends who share a mutual interest in Non-duality. Though I happen to be the newest member, the group has been meeting almost weekly for many years now. We all speak ‘fluent Non-duality’, having read innumerable books together with countless hours of discussion on the topic. There is no designated teacher among us, a fact that is valued and even guarded by the members. We come as we are, speak from what we know (and don’t know) in this particular moment, and learn and grow in a heart-centered and equanimous environment.
 
No ego dominates the conversation, everyone participates from an awareness of flow that transcends individual agenda. As Martha Stewart would say, it’s a good thing. Once in a while the members gather for a weekend together, a chance to spend an extended time focused on contemplating "This." A few weeks ago we gathered at a friend’s house on Lopez Island, in the beautiful San Juan Archipelago of Washington State.

Buddha Purnima, May 2015
As it happened (and unbeknownst to us until later), our chosen retreat dates coincided with the auspicious Vesak or Buddha Day, the holy Full Moon day commemorating the birth, enlightenment and death of Gautama Buddha, but (perhaps fittingly) this fact was nowhere in mind when we gathered outside one night to marvel at the beauty of the full moon. I was requested to make a record of our weekend together, but how to describe what went on? Description can be a tricky matter, the topic of which we debated on at one point during our stay. What are we trying to describe, ultimately? And who is it that’s doing the describing? If you’ve been schooled that The Absolute (to use a few descriptive words) is absolutely indescribable, then it follows that any description of it is Not It.

But I won’t go into that. Arguments and discussions abound across the interwebs. It’s an exhaustive and exhausting debate. The curious will not be stopped in their seeking. But the debate did one thing, for sure. It revealed itself as yet more seeking, subtly (or maybe not so subtly) disguised as key knowledge held as somehow crucial for realizing one’s true nature.

Silly rabbit.

Once the rabbit chasing was over the business of spending time together, diving, exploring and steeping in the stillness of Presence-Awareness flowed once again, quenching that most ultimate of thirsts. It’s a blessing—truly—to do this sort of thing in a group. Spending time with others, sinking deeply in the true nature of reality, somehow opens the floodgates, and doing it with a group of friends, particularly this group of friends, amplified it even more.
And what did we ‘do’ exactly? Well, after beginning the retreat with some welcome laughter from this video on exactly that topic, the day’s activities unfolded with little effort. Lately the group has been digging into Rupert Spira’s teachings, so we spent considerable time watching videos and listening to audio recordings, stopping often to share and discuss the implications and findings. There were guided meditations, too (a’la Spira), which served to further solidify and embody the teachings.  But while the videos, audios and discussions were all an important part of the unfolding, there was something deeper going on, and here is where descriptive words will surely fail. A little help from Longchenpa might be useful:

“Even if you intellectually understand what things are in themselves, if they linger on as objects of inspection there is no benefit in such understanding. In order to acquaint your intellect with what intrinsically matters, you must go into the wild wood of inner calm.”  – Longchenpa

It was just this wild wood of inner calm that quietly grew and forested in between discussions and meditations, imperceptibly taking root in the most unassuming and mundane of places and circumstances…seamlessly settling over the dining table, stretching out across the water, padding the quiet footsteps of early morning and late-to-bed. Even at times of laughter and fun it was there, like the immense, imperturbable stillness of the ocean, present not just beneath but within the lively waves and froth. There was no need, indeed not even an attempt, to try to feel it or make oneself aware of it. But there was a noticing of it; a precognitive, instinctual noticing. Even ‘noticing’ is too strong a word, too doing-related. It was more simply the presence of Awareness itself.
 
One morning I found myself awake in the early dawn. The horizon was just beginning to lighten and so I made my way down to the rocky, driftwood-strewn shore. As I sat watching the sky and water a furry, sleek brown mink made its way toward me, ducking in and out of the pockets of driftwood. It seems I had placed myself right in the path of its daily dawn patrol. My presence, rather than being something fearful, was merely a bother, an obstacle in its way. Its single-minded tenacity would not be shaken. Our meeting brought to mind a favorite short story by Annie Dillard. In it she writes about a chance encounter with a weasel and muses about living wild:

“I could very calmly go wild… where the mind is single. Down is out, out of your ever-loving mind and back to your careless senses... Time and events are merely poured, unremarked, and ingested directly, like blood pulsed into my gut through a jugular vein.”  (excerpted from “Living Like Weasels” in “Teaching a Stone to Talk”).

This wild wood of inner calm, the immense oceanic stillness of awareness itself, is similarly gut-ingested and irreducibly integral. It flows and lives as the very stuff of life itself. There is no ‘doing’ or ‘locating’ it. The mental activity of pinning it down and describing it is merely an obstacle in the path – nothing to bother too much with and ultimately undeterring to That Which Is. There is no space or place It is not, yet Its nowhere to be found. It’s the mink, the seer, the chilly dawn patrol, so perfectly everywhere, in everything, It goes mostly completely unnoticed. But there it was this weekend, in the company of dear friends... there in the midst of seeking, in the bleary-eyed shuffle for morning coffee, in the tear-streaked giddiness of uncontrolled laughter… the always-present, utter-allness of This, in which all of life moves and breathes and has its very being.  

Bowl with Mandarins, 2015 by Bev Byrnes
 

Friday, April 17, 2015

If God is All, then what am I?

If God is All, then what am I?
By Peter Dziuban
 
[Dr. Alfred Lewis Aiken (1897 – 1968) was born in Norwalk, Connecticut. He was a veteran of World War I & II, a chemistry teacher, a dentist, a medical doctor, an actor, playwright and many things. But one question that he never left until he discovered the true answer was “if God is All, then what am I and where does that leave good and evil?” He talked and wrote about his findings during the 50’s and 60’s, much before Non-dual teaching was popular in America. Hillier Press makes his works available to all. Peter Dziuban, who is not unknown to the readers of this Blog, has studied Alfred’s teachings in depth and realized that Consciousness is All that IS. I am very grateful to Peter who has been extremely kind to make this short contribution for our Blog on Dr. Alfred Aiken’s teaching  -- ramesam.]
 
 
If God is All, then what am I?
By Peter Dziuban
 
Did you ever ask yourself, “What is God to God?”
 
It’s like asking, “What is Infinity—not to me—but what is Infinity to Its own Infinity?”
 
What if the only One that experiences God is God?
 
What is it like where the only One that experiences pure Consciousness is that very same pure Consciousness—and that there is only the One pure Consciousness?
 
What does it feel like when reading these questions? 
 
With all this talk of there being only one infinite God, is also there a feeling of a “me” being left out? 
 
Or does it feel clean? 
 
Is there an aliveness to the pure singleness, the clear, clean, only-ness of the infinite, the pure Divine One?
 
This infinite Divine One is pure Consciousness.  Then, as there is only the One, mustn’t this Infinite One have something to do with this very Consciousness aware here, now, as these words are being read?
 
There is a common sense notion held today that the Infinite is something vast, somewhere out beyond what the human mind experiences as its finite world.  From this finite view, it is sometimes conjectured that it is possible to attain the Infinite—but to do so, one must first rise out of finity.
 
But what happens when you flip this view around, and start from the “other direction”—start from the Infinite instead of the finite?
 
That’s the game changer.  Infinity, being infinite (which is another way of saying All), leaves only Infinity.  Infinity doesn’t go only so far until It stops and bumps up against a finite state, and begins to co-exist with finity.  Infinity, being infinite, precludes there being a secondary finite state out of which It could rise.
 
Being infinite, Infinity leaves nothing besides Itself from which It could come to arrive at Itself.  Infinity is.
 
“Instead of looking ‘up to God’ let us begin looking ‘out from’ God.”  From That Which Is, by Alfred Aiken, published by Hillier Press.
Dr. Alfred Aiken
 That passage was a real “stopper” for me.  In another sense, it was the start, a beginning of a new way of living.  It brought all the seeking to a screeching halt—but it was not the end of unfoldment.
 
I first came across Alfred Aiken’s work on Infinite Reality in the 1980’s.  I had been seriously “on the path” for several years, and a part-time seeker for many years prior to that.
 
There’s no need to go into all that had been previously studied.  The main point is that I had worked sincerely, and made a lot of progress (or so I had assumed).  I still had further to go, but I was getting there.  And that’s just it.  “I” was getting there.  There was still a “me” who was slowly making the grade, or trying to.  There was still a “middle man”—this me who had progressed beyond the old Peter, but still had quite a long way to go to reach the Divine.
 
The power of Aiken’s passage was that it stopped “me” in my tracks. 
 
“Of course,” the realization came, “Infinite Consciousness, God, the Self, is already AT or being Itself.  And that is this very Consciousness being aware right here, now.  This Consciousness can’t belong to a ‘Peter’—because Peter is just a body, an unconscious thing.  And other than that, ‘Peter’ would consist only of a lot of thoughts and feelings—but they’re not conscious either.  Only the One Consciousness Itself is being this Consciousness, and It can’t progress to Itself because It already IS Itself.”
 
There isn’t space here to go into all the implications and ramifications of turning the perspective around—in which God is looking out as God, instead of there being a separate “me” that is looking up to a God.  If this has “struck a chord” with you, you can investigate Alfred Aiken’s work further if you wish.
 
There are however, two distinctions worth mentioning. 
 
The first is something that immediately felt different, and very direct.  Yet it took a while to be able to articulate exactly what the difference was.  It’s this:  pick up virtually any book of spirituality, nonduality, whatever.  Almost always, the author’s writing is done in such a way that it is merely talking about—talking about Self, talking about nonduality, talking about experience, talking about what “you” should or shouldn’t do.  And, the writing even may be very accurate in what it’s talking about.
 
But when you first pick up a book such as That Which Is, you instantly notice that there is a different feel to it. 
 
It’s because the writing is clean.  It is done in the awareness that It literally is the One Infinite Consciousness that is being conscious so the writing can be done.  And the writing is done on the basis that the Infinite Self, being the only Self, is simply talking to Itself.  There is no middle-man author, no interpreter,  talking about Self in order to help or clarify things for a separate “you.”
 
As is always said, words can only point.  True.  But whenever anything is put into words, those words carry a certain “energy signature”—that’s why the author chose to use those particular, specific words instead of countless other possible words that might have been used.  Words are like mental footprints, and they can always be traced back to the state of thought or level of awareness that gave rise to them.
 
Meanwhile, the reader appears to be receiving that certain “energy package” or feeling while reading what the author has “transmitted.”
 
Now consider the difference in that transmission, or feel, if the writing is imbued with a sense of, “there is another self ‘out there’ that this writing is going to enlighten.”  That’s one type of energy. 
 
Compare that to the feel of writing that is not imbued with any layers of anything—and has no agenda—but is just “coming from” the Purity and Clarity of Infinite Being.  Period.
 
Such writing never talks to a “student,” or one that needs enlightening, or one that must do anything.  All there is, is the eternal, present Perfection of that one, pure Omnipresent Self, and no other that has to, or can, become anything or see anything.  In other words, the Author is the same One as the Reader.
 
Another distinction is one of emphasis.
 
Sometimes in nonduality, the majority of emphasis is given to seeing through the ego, or seeing that there is no limited “personal me,” no separate self, no subject/object, no “doer,” but just experience happening.  That is all well and good—but often that’s about as far as it goes.
 
What about the Unlimited-ness, the Grandeur, the Majestic-ness of Infinite Consciousness? 
 
The very Consciousness that is presently aware so these words can be read, also effortlessly includes what appears as an unspeakably vast stellar universe.  And that’s only when speaking on a three-dimensional basis.  This same Infinite Consciousness is also un-dimensional—meaning It is greater than, or inclusive of, what may appear to be going on in a fourth, fifth, and who knows how many other dimensions! 
 
This very same Consciousness is also absolutely all the Presence existent.  As It is all the Presence existent, the only Presence—It is the only power.
 
And that’s just barely scratching the surface of the wondrousness, the spontaneously fresh aliveness of the One reading this now.
 
For more information about Alfred Aiken’s work, you can visit Hillier Press.

Friday, March 20, 2015

Question on dhyAna and Thoughtless State

Q:  Is dhyAna a meditation technique? 

R:   dhyAna is not a 'technique' of meditation
     
       dhyAna means meditation.   

Q:  dhAraNA is concentration, with techniques,  which naturally leads to dhyAna (true meditation or merging)

When you say that "true meditation" is merging, what is to merge with what?

The word "merging" implies the presence of two things. Are there two things at all?  -- advaita teaching tells us that "What IS" is all One only. Two separate 'things' are not there.

From this advaita understanding we can deduce that the sense of a separate I,  a separate "me" being present, is an imagination. It does not really exist. This imagined separation has to merge with "What IS." In other words, the imagination has to end. Hence it is ending the sense of separation, not a question of merger.

Ending the sense of separation, thus, does not mean investing any effort to change "What IS".  Meditation  does not require any effort to exclude something using the practice of concentration as a technique. (The practice of concentration implies preferring the presence of one thing to the exclusion of all other things).  

Therefore, ending the sense of separation cannot come through concentration.  

 
Hence dhyAna or meditation is merely "dropping" the false notion of a separate "me", separate from "What All IS."

If "What IS" is a fluctuation, I do not have to change/suppress/ modify the fluctuation. In fact, it cannot be done! For, there is nothing else other than the fluctuation at that moment. That's "What IS."

If What IS is deep sleep, "It" is deep sleep.  If "What IS" is awake world, "It" is the awake world.

Q:  Does it not mean that we are all indeed successful yogis every night when we sleep! 

Yes, but, remember, there is no "we" in deep sleep. 

As advaita says, "I am eternally "unchanging" and ever the same."  

Then how can I be something 'different' any other time? 

As advaita says:  "It is only a false imagination to think that you are different or a separate person when you are awake."  

So I am also the undivided  totality of the entire wakeful world - the oneness of all the perceptions, sensations, and 'thoughts.'
(Thoughts are not excluded you see!). 

The position is just like in the deep sleep. I am the entire "Whatever IS", in the deep sleep.
I am the entire What IS in the awake state.

Q:  My question to you is have you ever had an extended period without thought? If so what was your experience?

In the light of the above explanation, it is easy to find the answer to the two questions.

Unless I consciously "separate" myself in order to place a "me" at a distance from "What All IS," why would I have to wrestle with thoughts in the awake world? As we said above the "What IS All" includes the thoughts also.

I have not tried any "gimmicks" towards that end of perceiving a world and feeling sensations but stilling the thoughts exclusively - i.e. experience the perceptions of the world, sensations of the body but be thoughtless. 

I try, instead, to be conscious of a separate "me" arising.
That is to say, I keep a watch if the thought "I am separate" or its kind arises.

If a thought of  a separate "me" arises,  the best thing (or perhaps the only thing) to be done is to just 'notice' it.

Having any 'agenda' with it to change or suppress the 'thought' will go only  to strengthen it! That would be counterproductive.

Hope I am able to respond to your query.