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

paintings. They have larger values and utility in their antiquity perception. Bread and milk must be fresh but cheese tastes good even when old and having gone through dated process.

The notions of ‘value’ and ‘utility’, which fixes virtues and relevance to an idea or action, are also very subjective, often, colored by the cultural mind and its archetypal instinctive preferences.

At the end of the day, wisdom is never singular; it probably cannot be ever. It is highly subjective to individual or group choices and value summation. Some love them and wish to stay as ‘dated’, some would want them ‘outdated’, and others may ascribe it being ‘undated’ as priority. We may think, we all love latest versions of mobile phone but many would love to stick with their old phones. It is a choice of mind.

No need to set up a jury, no judgment should ever be instituted. Every singular choice out of the human inventory of plurality has its pleasure and pain, good and bad, benefits and losses. What one chooses, sets up his life and living journey of pain and pleasure. The worldview one opts, decides his journey, sojourns, path-mates and destination.

Human ingenuity has almost always helped humanity evolve and grow but, where and when one applies his or her ingenuity is however individual’s subjective choice. Every human has his or her own different destinies as choices make them this way.

Every single choice has its set of pains and pleasures, therefore, at the end of life, we can say, nobody is better off and nobody is worse off as the average attainments of all choices look similar, if not same.

It also seems a clear fact that most of us shall always have this regret about the choice or choices we made or did not make as we all have this innate urge to count pains and not count pleasures. It is tough to know when and where human ingenuity would work and where not as, it is a choice that is more on subconscious being than in conscious one. Probably, this is why they call it ‘maya’ (asymmetrical juxtaposition of subconscious value summation).

Repeated surveys have suggested that, most people, when they are on deathbed, regret that they could not spend as much quality and leisurely time with near and dear ones. One would be bound to accept that probably, the virtue is in being with our own people and not in personal struggles for individual glory.

This is not right ad true. The fact remains that ‘regret’ has its own mechanism. The mind consciousness would always primarily count those ‘missing’ aspects, which should have been there to make a ‘perfect’ picture. If someone has worked day and night all life and build a fortune for himself and his family; at the end of life, he shall regret about not spending enough time with family and friends. The core idea is – can he possibly regret something, which he has already in plenty? Some may, but most would not.

On the other hand, someone, who always spent quality time with family and loved them well, shall probably regret at the end of life that he could not work enough to give more money and facilities to his family and friend. It is natural. He too cannot probably regret, what he already has or had in plenty.

We regret what we do not have or what we could not do. Once we understand the mechanism of the emotion of ‘regret’, we shall have the holistic and assimilative idea of life and living realisms. Our mechanism is designed for ‘whole’. However, in our lives, what we attain is the success, utility and fruition of the ‘part’. Naturally, the subconscious mind shall generate the emotion of this ‘imbalance’ and this shall be expressed in the feeling of ‘regret’.

Understanding the mechanism of all such vital issues of life, which makes life a ‘maya’ and mystical realism, we can land in a state of mind-consciousness, which is referred to as ‘leela’ positioning.

The ultimate ingenuity is making it a conscious process to see and accept all such cardinal issues of life like, conflict, regret, joy, pain, love, fear, anger, etc, as it reveals the duality of the choices and value summations. Then it becomes easy to master them. This is one single thing where both religion and modern objective wisdom are one in opinion and virtuosity of choice.

**

Welcome, Don’t Reject Maya

It is very crucial here to state one fact, which has been a major current in human thinking and perspective about the world and its utility. This is the reactionary urge of rejecting the vagaries of the world, along this world too and become a loner and recluse. We need to talk about this issue too for holistic discourse on ‘maya’ and ‘leela’.

In the infinity, perpetuity and immensity of transcendental possibilities of multiversal realisms, one may stand in absolute and finite objectivity, the level and degree to which a subjective being can afford to be.

Religion seems to put a restrictive limit to this positioning. It says, “Objectivity is not denying subjectivity but remaining detached to it. Be, but still not be positioned like being. The non-being cannot attain the objectivity of being; therefore, being dead to strings of life is no road to experience objectivity. Being lively to the strings of death may not be ideal, but preferable.”

Limping beyond this restriction is possible, of course, it is, but then, the purpose of experiencing objectivity is lost as, beyond this limit, purpose of any genre itself is a burden and cannot practically be carried through. The objectivity of death is near possible in life but then, at this stage of time-space linearity, life’s dimensionalities have no reason and utility. Even if it is just an infinitesimal and microscopic strand of connect, it is essential for the experience of objectivity.

The realism is one huge objectivity platform and subjectivity, though may seem to stand in absolute randomization; must remain in cyclic path positioning to the gravity of the objective core to be of any worth for experiencing.

One may toil, experience and learn the objective art of ‘acting’ but then it has no use and purpose if it is not performed in the ‘theatre’. One however is free to say, ‘art is for the artist, not for the audience!’

This is the fundamental issue about being. The centrality of the whole conflict about the objective and subjective ‘selves’ of the being within a singular ‘self’ in this realism of the cosmos. Even if we attempt to transcend the restrictive prescription of spirituality, we still do not think, we have the right answers. The conflict, emanating out of this dualism remains.

The conflict of realism is still unanswered for humanity. If we accept what religion says, then the realism has a purpose and there is a whole world of confusing and conflicting, yet popularly acceptable answers about the purpose, which can satisfy from a stupid to a genius.

The science has still not found its own answers and cannot accept any other as the right one. The popular philosophy of science about cosmic realism is a theory of ‘accidents’. However, even if the current realism is a product of accident, it afterwards created a purpose, which is writ large on the face of every single being and non-being in the cosmos.

From any perspective of any philosophizing angle, despite absolute objectivity, the singular fact can never be missed and that is – ‘however or whichever way realism came to be, once it came to be, it created a subjectivity and prompt came the need for objectivity. The purpose automatically is born and it is the beautiful baby of both the parents of subjectivity and objectivity.

This beautiful baby called purpose is the generic name of what humanity popularly names as ‘maya’. This baby has the objectivity that cosmic realism in its macrocosm enthralls and enlightens the humanity and it also has the subjectivity that expresses itself in the myriad colors and aromas that realism accepts in its microcosmic incarnations.

It seems like a great gift that a ‘self’ has the benefit and liberty of having dual-extremes of objectivity and subjectivity to sing and dance its way to absolute bliss? It seems so. If ‘maya’ is accepted and appreciated truly, in its entirety and magnanimity.

There are enough beautiful metaphors to understand the entirety and magnanimity of maya. For example, when we start to learn a language, we start with grammar, which is singular and objective for all. Even if one wishes, rules of grammar cannot change for individual. However, when we learn the grammar, we have the subjective liberty to use the language we have learnt for varied and individualized expressions. Someone may become a good orator, someone a poet and another a writer. It starts with objectivity and then blossoms in subjective cosmos.

Good grammar enriches and enhances brilliant communication and good communication suitably flavors the essence of grammar. Both are inseparable and what makes the entire experience a beautifully satisfying one is the poise and symbiotic interplay between grammar and expression – the objectivity and subjectivity.

Life has the similar rule. ‘Maya’ offers both objectivity as well as subjectivity to us. Of course, the platform and horizon of life and living is colossally huge compared to that of a language. This truly is the joy of ‘maya’. Moreover, the best part of interplay of objectivity and subjectivity in the domain of life’s ‘maya’ is the mystical element of randomization, which enhances and enriches the flavors of life experiences.

This randomization of ‘maya’ is also somehow a simple and innocent prescription for all humans. It tells us in perceptible wisdom that learning of live and living realisms needs to be objective and singular like grammar. However, everyone then shall have infinite subjective liberty to experiment with the realism one has in his or her life.

It also warns us that even while we take subjective liberty of ‘expressions’, the grammar of life’s basic and primary learning must never be compromised with and maligned. The subjective liberty shall always remain innately aligned to the justification and utility of grammar.

That is why we talked earlier, “The realism is one huge objectivity platform and subjectivity, though may seem to stand in absolute randomization; must remain in cyclic path positioning to the gravity of the objective core to be of any worth for experiencing.”

Do understand and accept this simple and innocent metaphor. The cosmic realism, still to be unraveled in its details, remains an objective grammar for all to follow. The mechanism, which was created (by God or accident) before we all came to be is objective. The mechanism that we have and that things around us have is objective reality. Within this framework, every individual has the subjective liberty to express and interpret the realisms but never shall the subjectivity stand in contravention and denial with the objectivity rules of the cosmos.

If one understands the mechanism of ‘maya’ and accepts its randomization as one objective platform, the subjective liberty of individual gets energized and then, the life becomes one infinite journey of song and dance. That is why, whichever way ‘maya’ comes, welcome. This is the preferred consciousness position, called ‘leela’.

It is however a sad reality that most humans do not care for learning the objective ‘grammar’ of life and still insist on presenting themselves as the master craftsperson of life’s ‘language and expressions’. They unconsciously malign ‘maya’.

**

Road To Song And Dance Of Maya

To be or not to be… to do or not to do… yes or no! There shall always be at least two ways to make a choice; this is the minimum. However, at times, there may be more options available, more roads to make a choice from.

Now comes the question. Why is there always a dualism and conflicting options for choices? Why there is not a single, decisive and prescribed option for all to follow? Almost every human being thinks on the same line as everyone is faced with the dualism of life and