Maya And Leela: Utility In Life’s Futility, Santosh Jha [read books for money .txt] 📗

f) be unmodifiable

g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training.

The absence of one or more of these criteria indicates that the behavior is not fully instinctual. Under such watertight definition, nothing of human stands as ‘instinctive’ in today’s world of info superways and info overdose.

The modern science, based on contemporary knowledge of brain and nerve mechanism however believes, most of what humans do or can do is ‘instinctive’ and even learned or experienced behavior can only be present when brain accepts and converts it into ‘instinctive’ behavior. Even if something is considered as conscious behavior, it always has larger influences and shades of instinctive behavior.

A secondary point is the huge confusion among people about the word and idea of ‘instinct’. The confusion is that the term instinct has entered into the popular language expressions as widely used metaphor to describe it either as ‘gut feeling’ or ‘intuition’.

The semantic conflation is not only this much. Many people believe, gut feeling or intuitive emotions are either their heart ‘speaking to them (instead of mind)’ or it is the ‘voice of the soul’. Most believe, the soul and heart voice cannot go wrong, as they are voice of humanity’s instinctive goodness that God has created and endowed all humans with.

Science does not accept it, as it now has the knowledge of brain functioning and the operative mechanism of neurotic plexus of human body. Unlike religious ideas, science says, human mind is value-neutral and almost like a computer with factory-loaded operative system but most of what constitutes human behavior in societal system is learned behavior, which in time becomes part and parcel of his or her instinct.

Remember, even a software we load externally in a computer, shall be finally run by the mechanism of the internal operating system (OS). The operative mechanism is always our instincts, the external programming of ambient culture, which we often accept as our intelligence, needs to work its way only through the instinctive operations.

That is why; the gut feeling and intuitiveness are so much conditioned by popular cultural influences that it is impossible for a human to make a distinction between his or her ‘instinctive’ behavior and ‘conditioned’ behavior. This nature and nurture divide is a huge issue.

You think, all this is so confusing and chaotic! Yes, it is but this is the joy of it; the cyclic situationalism is the joy. The instincts condition the environment and cultures, which in turn conditions instincts and this goes on. Nature shaped the components of nurture; nurture then started shaping the nature and so on. What we are today is such a mega conflation of millions of years of ‘nature-nurture-nature’ dialectical evolution that it is impossible to segregate the two. We need to accept that we have become a complex living conundrum.

That is why, when we now ask ourselves, ‘who am I’, we cannot be sure the answerer is speaking from his or her nature or nurture. The inventiveness and symmetrical artistry of playful-metaphorization is at its best. All answers are true but no answer is objective and, now, another answer to yakshha prashn of ‘kim ascharyam’ is added.

The answer is, “Every moment, everywhere, everything seems to herald the supremacy of me and self. Everyone says he or she knows himself or herself and his or her priorities. Still, in reality, nobody knows exactly who and what truly is this me and self.”

In such a scenario, the entire spiritualism lands in the realm of confusion and conflict. The ‘design of God and His ‘expectation’ for and from humanity itself becomes a huge conundrum. Religion, spiritualism and philosophy work on the premise of the ‘self’ being an objective realism, with born capability of a general will and in instinctive possession of universal goodness. However, this hypothesis seems the primary source of confusion and conflict.

Krishna, the incarnation of Vishnu says in Geeta, “the ultimate karma for a human is to become nisprih”. The meaning of this word ‘nisprih’ in contemporary world is almost impossible. In Geeta, there is a powerful metaphor of akaam karma.

There is a suggestion of a consciousness, which is unattached with instinctive self. That is why; even when someone does an act or behavior, the energy of it should never come from its purpose and end result. Instinctive reaction is considered to be energized by the purpose and fruition of end results. Nisprih consciousness keeps it unattached to the fruition energy.

This is hugely confusing, tough to understand. The suggestion is; everything needs to be done but nothing needs to be done for doing it! Everything needs to be done, which is positioned there to be done yet, in doing it, there must never be the notion of ‘me’ or ‘self’ involved with it. Even when, we look like involved in doing everything, there must never be the feeling and attachment of ‘me’ or ‘self’ in it.

This is mega confusing. The prescription is, “the beingness, the instinctive-me, the intuitive-self, everything shall be there when something is being done yet, there must never be an ‘attachment’ with it.”

This is a big challenge to keep one’s being unattached with the instinct. The trouble is, to do so; one has to be completely sure what this ‘instinct’ is? What part of it is the share of ‘nurture’ and what part is purely nature. This gut feeling or soul voice must first be purged of adulteration of ‘socialization’ and cultural benchmarks, then only one can be sure of the authenticity of it.

The big question is; is it possible to purge the soul voice of such adulterations? Is it possible to segregate the nature-nurture divide? Is the amount of objectivity, which is required for such action possible? Is it possible!

Now, we seem to have the real ‘yakshya prashn’ of ‘kim ascharyam’. The biggest wonder of this mortal world seems to be, “The truth is neither finite nor established and static, still, every human believes, what he or she understands is the truth and what he or she chooses is the finite-static-established positioning of truth. In addition, there is this infinite and acute desire, urge and endeavor to make this truth prevail and perpetuate on everyone and everywhere is his or her primary duty”. Why and how?

The larger point, which needs to be understood is; if ‘nisprih’ means being unattached, then this unattachment should be not only from the instinctive ‘me’ and its actions but from the truths of the subjective soul voices too. How can one be ‘nisprih’ if this unattachment is partial and incomplete?

To be ‘nisprih’ is a big attainment. Being ‘nisprih’ means rising above the maya structures. This means rising above the “human inventiveness and symmetrical artistry of playful-metaphorization of confusion and chaos into something meaningfully and intuitively enjoyable, in time-space situationality.”

It is a huge challenge to rise up to this level of objectivity. Science says, objectivity is not possible for humans. In fact, it is not possible even for machines. No machine can work on hundred-percent efficiency. In fact, religion too says it is impossible for humans to attain hundred-percent objectivity.

Most human minds have been trained to accept that only one thing has been stationed in the cosmos as completely objective. That is God. That is why; every human has this ultimate benchmark of attaining godliness. Like, it is every machine’s pursuit to attain cent-percent efficiency. However, this does not seem possible ever.

If divinity is attainable, then it cannot be the final destination. If godliness is attainable then where is the utility of the benchmark of divinity? Godliness is something, which is beyond the limits of attainment of humanity.

In religion, objectivity has such a difficult positioning that it is even beyond perception of average humans, let alone it being achievable! Geeta elaborates the desirability of karma in the following way: ‘Life is ephemeral but not unreal; one needs to be unattached but not detached; being ‘nisprih’ looks like being recluse but it is not the same; doing without sense of doing is true action; the action and behavior, which is purged of instinctiveness are true action and behavior; all actions should be like offerings in a yagna (holy fire); only that action and behavior, which stands at the assimilative point of tangible and intangible is pure, etc.

All this looks like a complex portrayal of confusion and conflict. It has been hinted in Geeta: ‘to be human is to stand at either end of the two extremes of this conflict (dualism). It is only God who stands in the middle of the two extremes and still, ubiquitous in both the extreme ends (non-dualism). This is some exclusive positioning, which is reserved only for God, unavailable and untenable for humans.

Science attempts to present an easy and understandable definition of this cosmic conundrum and conflict. It says, ‘objectivity is not possible for humanity as the very presence of body melts the objectivity. The objective realism and truth changes the very moment it is observed. It is only natural that there shall be difference in ‘observer-dependent’ and ‘observer-independent’ realisms. This is the stated position of quantum physics.

Forget and forego the debate and conundrum. Just accept that this cosmic energy of conflict and confusion is not a burden, rather a huge source of perpetuity of joy for all of us. As it has been said, “human inventiveness and symmetrical artistry of playful-metaphorization of this confusion and chaos into something meaningfully and intuitively enjoyable, in time-space situationality is sheer joy”.

An average human does not need to delve deep into these issues. Just be innocently humble to accept the under-mentioned ‘four pillars’ as essential for the beautiful palace of workable objectivity.

Being ‘nisprih’ as enunciated by religion is a long tough process. To ensure that the life becomes a long unending process of joy-journey towards attaining ‘nisprihta’, one just needs to ensure, first, he or she would never discriminate against anyone. Second, shall make tolerance towards all as his or her primary virtue and never ever allow aggression towards anyone. Shall keep away from greed and self-gratification instincts and four, life-long make such endeavors that would keep him or her on the unending journey to mitigate ignorance.

That is why; Geeta says, ‘all actions must be like offerings at a prayer’, which ensures that all actions must be aimed at collective wellness and never towards singular self-gratification. Never ever be narcissistic about what you know. Knowledge is an infinite journey. Journeying is joy, not arriving. The moment you feel you have arrived, narcissism kills your wisdom.

Human inventiveness and symmetrical artistry of playful-metaphorization of this confusion and chaos into something meaningfully and intuitively enjoyable, in time-space situationality is sheer joy. This has to be understood and accepted and then has to keep performing the four virtues stated above. This is the sat-chit-anand position available for humanity.

This is the form of divinity available for humans. This is the preferred journey. The sat-chit-anand position empowers humanity to unravel and understand maya and enjoy its dance and song. As this happens, then, the individual becomes the theatre, performer, audience and the play all at one time. Then, the truth stands there to applause.

**

Maya Smiles As Self’s Leela Enthralls

Confusion and conflict is something built-in mechanism of our ‘self’. Many of us have this fleeting realization that our persona is a big mystery. The mechanism of brain does these mystical things for us.

Modern science says, “We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are”. In other words, you do not see what is there to be seen but what you think must be there to be seen. Similarly, what we say is not what is meant to be said but what we mean it to be said.

This is what popular human definition is about ‘conflict and confusion’. However, it is one huge facility of mind, which very few of us see, accept and appreciate as something truly wondrous and desirable. Those few, who understand this all, what they do, has been referred to as ‘leela’ (unattached role-plays).

Spirituality, philosophy and science are one in