Comment: Comment CD ‘Generation 4’
Because man has not understood what the present is, neither has he understood what is man. Because you see an action in the present, you are convinced man is the doer. And this concept ‘man is a doer’ is conditioned into man. The very same life which has conditioned the thought, will de-condition it too. Man cannot do it. Now he can begin to enquire. In this century life has started disclosing its secrets to you. Life covers itself very intelligently, not that it is doing anything real. Mind grew into man. Life allowed it to be grown into man. That is the intelligence of life to make something appear it is there, but it is not. Only life is.
Comment: Comment CD ‘Chaos’
Why cannot knowledge conduct life? What keeps you here? Such profound questions, and man has not questioned his own questions. Living happens not because of our knowledge. Knowledge does not conduct life, life conducts knowledge. We have to confront knowledge, if we understand it is not possible to go through knowledge, it becomes very simple. It is not knowledge which conducts life, it just accompanies you in your life. When the mind stops, who controls life? Life is not conducted by a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’. Life happens, life never stops. Mind stops and starts. You simply live, not think of living. Live the mystery of life.
Comment: Comment CD ‘Opinion’
When did man first have an opinion? A life which is singular, a life which is harmonious, gets distorted merely because of an opinion, the power of air, the illusory power of air. It is our opinions, our conclusions and our interpretations, that prevent us from admiring the force of life. How valuable is each one’s opinion? Man has not seen life as it is. An understanding makes you live your life without any doubt, any worry, without an inclination to laugh at the other, to just live life that happens. Very humbling satsang, thank you.
Comment: Comment CD ‘Conclusion’
What could be the significant characteristic of life which is very evident? What is this significant virtue of life? And how did an opinion form into man’s mind? It is fascinating to follow these questions back to prehistoric man. Light transformed and sophisticated as sound, and over evolutionary time right and wrong came into play and judgement came into being, a rudimentary phenomenon of man. And once the judgement came about, superimposed over this belief, the outcome was conclusion. It is like a story that begins with ‘once upon a time…’. An illusory story. The words which you use make us understand that man is not the doer.
Comment: Comment CD ‘Interpretations’
All through ‘Interpretations’ you share with us how relative our opinions are. So long as man safeguards his opinions, he will be safeguarding his mind, not life. There is nothing in the mind except an opinion, and it is an opinion which keeps us separate from each other. There is not a jot of reality in opinions, everything breaks down to light. And thank you for the two beautiful parables which reveal that it is our opinions that disturb us, that is as far as we have understood life. So happy with the trailer of ‘Non-Duality, Life as it is’ in the May newsletter. It is amazing to realize the stripping away of beginnings and endings. What a documentary.
Letter to AAU:
From Reiner Wehrenfennig, Germany
Dear Dr. Shankar
So the pure light could be pointed as “as well as” in the “now” and the reflected light as “either…or at any time”.
Shankar: Pure light could not be pointed, but reflected light could be pointed for it ‘appears in the ‘now’ as an optical illusion and an auditory illusion in the form of a thought in the mind.
You stated in the Interview 4: in the now destruction and construction happens simultaneously. Mind would state: construction happens “first” afterwards “deconstruction” afterwards “construction” again….and so on. From this relative understanding of mine now my questions:
Quantum physics brings science to a border where even Albert Einstein stated “god should not throw dice”. So Einstein comes to knowledge that the nature of time is relative and at the same time has to declare lightspeed as final: 300.000 km per second. So his great theory comes up put collides with quantum physics when he stated the above. He obviously wanted to stay in a universe of causality. David Bohm on the other side tried to combine both views of the scientific mind: causality in an unfolding universe and a not local universe as an implicit universe which is not unfolded. So if there is no “locality” there is no space and time as observed in the behaviour of twin particles when the spin of one is turned it will spontaneously be turned in the other too independent how distant they would appear – no time and space has to be travelled to effect some cause.
Shankar: In between the two particles are particles too. The mind just does not know them for the speed of particles in between the two particles is much faster than the speed of light appearing as the particles thought to be seen.
So we know from particles that the photon plays a special roll: it seems absolute and never changing whereas particles seemed to change indefinite…. A wise man asked: what is the smallest particle which could be ever found? He answered by his own: the unknown particle. So would you say: science is striking an understanding of the absolute?
Shankar: Science will try to find the unknown particle and not the unknowable particle
So if “lightspeed” is limited to 300.000 km per second this could only be “reflected light”?
Shankar: Reflected light that appears as light.
Are photons “absolute” light? Or may be Higgs particles…?
Shankar: Reflected light. Absolute light cannot be seen or thought.
If light faces a duality in mans mind (frequency and particle) – frequence should point to the pure light (it only points to because frequence needs time too) whereas particle point to matter or reflected light?
Shankar: Frequency and particle both point to the presence of pure light.
Next scientific concept is Shaldrakes morphogenetic fields: an “individual” seams to learn for itself but other “individuals” of the “collective” automatically participate from it. So this may point to ONENESS?
Shankar: Learning happens to other individuals too just as learning happens to an individual and he does not bring it about.
After exploring many religious beliefs and on the other side read a lot of individuals of this religious traditions which seemed to have got absolute understanding (Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Kabir, Maharshi, Aurobindo, Rumi, Eckhart, Lao Tse, zen masters….) I must summarize: all this individuals do not claim any longer to be a doer or an thinker or an speaker. But they refer to their traditional scripts anyhow. In my case of tradition I would like to mention the bible as one script pointing to truth (views from three major religions of monotheism: Islam, Christianity and Judaism). We spoke already about it. Beside concepts of shame, receiver and giver there is the concept of a tree which appears as two trees: “tree of knowledge of good and bad” and “tree of life”. It is remarkable that first it is told of a garden eden in which in the middle are planted two trees. Later on in the story of eva – which was taken by the way from “sleeping man" – only one tree in the middle of the garden is from interest – the tree of life is out of focus from now on. Is this not what you are telling? The tree of life reflects the tree of knowledge in the now?
Shankar: Tree of life (meaning pure light) reflects the illusory tree of knowledge in illusory time (meaning reflected light and sound).
Being kept in the tree of knowledge (of good and bad) means being kept in duality which gives man a feeling of being naked which he was before too but does not know it until he grasps the apple. Man then was making hides for his shame – I now would call it: mind was happening to him.
Shankar: Correct. Illusory mind happened to illusory man.
You told in the interview: mind is the shadow of life. I would translate to bible language: tree of knowledge is the shadow of tree of life. Isn`t it?. Feeling “naked” is the cause of the Illusion of being a thinker, a doer and a speaker?
Response: A nice metaphor indeed.
So far my current motions of thought in my mind.
Shankar: Mature motions indeed.