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

4 Responses to “Am I speaking of Death ?”

  1. kedar says:

    hi dude…
    Your mind is a very resolved mind. Such Mind is very weak because the person is strong. Observer of the mind is AWARE. That makes the MIND weak. It has become weaker. But then you say –
    ‘ 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.’
    Some thing beautiful is happening, dude…
    ‘ Who is the observer of I?’ That ‘WHO’ is the part of omnipresent trapped inside you. Hold a ring in water. There is water around the ring and inside the ring. What if that inside water starts feeling that it has its own existence? There would be a lot of running and huffing and puffing and at the end it will realise…oh…there was no need to run…. So its better to STOP!
    Now rather than thinking that there is an observer of I. Is it possible just be with that observer and forget that, ‘some one’ is observing ‘I’. Your MIND will stop working…how long can you be with that someone? How long can you accept that ‘SOME one’? How long can you be that some one?
    Close your eyes… and JUMP…
    take care…lots of love…kedar…

  2. K.A. says:

    You say: 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’
    Thats very true, the Ego cannot survive without context. And the day, one is able to separate Ego from the observer of this I, the person is re-born.
    Than you say:Is the observer also the mind, or does the observer sit outside the mind ? Is that what we call consciosness:
    When God has created Humans,he gifted them with Brain, hence the thoughts were born. Unless man thinks, he can not be aware of his surroundings i.e. he will be UNaware of everything if he has
    no ability to think. And consciousness is one of the states of Mind, so it just cannot survive outside one’s mind.
    If you re-call the days back in GURUKUL, every child was taught to go out and ask for bhiksha. Bhiksha is not at all synonym to Bheekh as most of the people term it that way. It had much wider meaning, its just that we are unaware of what our previous generations were practising.It was done so that the ‘EGO’, the very ‘I’ gets killed in a person from their very childhood days. They were to go door to door and collect Ann in the name of food for inhabitants of Gurukul. Though it was not that they had no food to survive if not collected enough Ann. It was just to practise to kill one’s ‘I’.
    >Death? :
    Yes, its exactly the death of One’s Ego. this is what i personally understood, the moment you are able to separate your ego from the observer of the ego,you are reborn as a person who is nomore He, he becomes one with the Universe, the God, he is alive for all,not just for Himself, he has nothing to ask for, hence no regrets in life, he only believes in Karma, thats it.
    Loved reading your thoughts here.
    Regards,
    K.A.

  3. Lu says:

    Death is not the end of life, yes, I understand; it is part of a continuous cycle of existence in which our present shape is but one of the many we may assume in the passing of time. We consider death as final and absolute, when we are misled by the apparent importance of our life, when we give too much importance to the present and we do not see the bigger picture. I understand and I appreciate your vision.
    I am not sure about the “ego”–too much psychoanalytical baggage attached to it for me. I would prefer inner consciousness, or spiritual self: the part of ourself that defies limitations of time and space; it lived before we were born and will continue to live after our body dies. We may call it intuitive self or soul for lack of other terms–an ancient and invisible knowledge that helps us understand and deal with our surroundings.
    When both my children were infants, I felt that their tiny bodies were inhabited by old souls because they seemed to understand their psychological environment too much. Still they seemed oblivious of their intuitive knowledge. My son still has moments of uncanny knowledge that shock me from time to time.
    Maybe, our makeup results from the fusion of a genetic mass influenced by the physical environment and an abstract entity that stands outside time. We are brought up to think rationally and not to trust our intuitive self, hence the battle between the opposite sides of ourselves, between the I that obeys the demands of a physical and rational world, and the I that aims at nourishing the spirit in us.
    “The observer”–I am not sure I understand this concept. Whether the observer is a god outside us or our spiritual eternal self that is part of us, it should not scare us. This constant (self)watch and inherent critique serve to make us understand ourselves better and possibly help us change for the better. After all, we are on a journey of (self)discovery.
    Can we get tired of the observer? Of course we can. That is why we change persona, we embrace different attitudes, philosophies. We must get tired of our boring self and look for ways to renue it, if we want to grow–if we want to feel alive.

  4. Amit Vashisth says:

    “Am I speaking of Death?”
    Naah…!!!
    ————————————————
    Realization takes time, u can’t ask or teach or influence anyone to REALIZE … Cosmic Interest is awakened … not as a fashion… but as a need … and on its own … and Before this state … Every discussion is about Intellectual Superemacy … just like SHASTRARTH ( an Intellectual competition between Pundits, in Ancient India)..But the need is of INTERPERSONAL SHASTRARTH .

Leave a Reply