Having examined in detail the manner in which individual
things come into being, it is now time to turn our attention to the
totality of existence. It is only by examining the nature of the totality
that we can begin to understand Reality as a whole.
This, in turn, will enable us to resolve age-old
questions concerning the origins of the Universe, the existence of God,
and the meaning of life. More importantly, it will further the
reorientation process by which the mind leaves behind its core delusions
and begins to face the true nature of Reality.
In order to properly understand the totality, the
student has to learn how to think non-dualistically. By this, I do not
mean he has to cease using dualistic concepts altogether and enter a kind
of non-dualistic realm, which is impossible for the human mind to do in
any case. Rather, he has to learn how to stop seeking the Truth within a
dualistic framework and instead skilfully manipulate dualistic concepts
in a manner that generates a proper understanding of non-duality.
In my experience, this is a very rare skill indeed. The
main problem is that most people have a strong vested interest in a
particular dualistic belief. An obvious example is the Christian concept
of God. Christians generally conceive of God as "other" - that is, as
something separate from their own selves. They like to create this duality
because (a) it enables them to preserve the illusion of their own egos,
and (b) it enables them to think of God in an emotional manner; they can
conceive of him as a kind of comfortable and secure presence in which
their egos can find refuge. Any attempt to think non-dualistically would
only undermine this dynamic. In effect, the Christian would have to
dismantle his entire world-view, which is unlikely to happen, especially
if he has spent many years establishing a lifestyle and an identity around
it.
Christians are not the only ones at fault. Nearly all
religious people are culpable, as too are most atheists and agnostics. The
average atheist/agnostic is often just as rigid and content in his
worldview as the Christian is, and fundamentally just as insane. Instead
of worshipping God, he worships something just as unreal - scientific
truth. The leading scientists have become his high priests, the scientific
journals and books have become his bible, scientific materialism has
become his religion.
Like a devoted disciple, he regurgitates the words of
the high priests and chants the mantras of scientific materialism
("Ultimate Truth is unknowable", "everything is uncertain", "scientific
knowledge is the only valid knowledge there is", "matter is the final
reality", etc) as though they were the gospel truth. He himself has no
idea whether these things are actually true; he simply takes them on blind
faith. They have become the tenets of his new religion. And yet, just to
compound the madness, he loves nothing better than to turn around and
laugh at the Christians for being mindless sheep!
For the average atheist/agnostic, it is enough to reject
the irrationality of supernatural religion. That is all that really
matters to him. It is the extent of his drive towards truth. As long as he
can contrast himself with the religious lunatics he sees around him and
pretend that he is a rational human being, he is content. To push reason
any further than this would be, for him, a sign of madness. Thus, he
shrinks away from the realm of higher reasoning in the same way that a
fundamentalist Christian shrinks away from the theories of science.
I will explore this issue in more detail later in the
book, but for now I simply want to stress that in order to understand the
wisdom of the Infinite, the student needs to learn how to go beyond both
the religious and atheistic/agnostic mindsets. Both mindsets are locked
within a limited branch of duality and need to be transcended. The belief
in God and the belief in scientific materialism spring from the same well
of egotism, and although the theist and the atheist love to castigate each
other for their foolishness, in reality they are both as foolish as each
other.
The main problem is that they are both equally
spellbound by the delusion of objective existence. They believe that there
really is a permanent physical world out there, one that is unceasingly
solid and three-dimensional, a kind of unchanging spacious realm in which
everything exists as a solid object, including ourselves and our minds.
They do not see that the physical world is never anything more than a
creation of the moment, a kind of momentary appearance that ultimately has
no more substance than a dream. As a result, they remain blind to the true
nature of the world.
The person who is spellbound by the delusion of
objective existence instinctively believes that Ultimate Truth must reside
in a created thing of some sort, whether it be in a physical event such as
the Big Bang or a quantum fluctuation, or abstractly in a mathematical
formula or a set of equations, or in a religious entity such as God. Or
else he rejects the possibility of there being any created entity which
can house the Ultimate Truth and thus rejects the concept of Ultimate
Truth altogether (and thereby becomes an atheist or a nihilist). All of
these cases involve the delusion of thinking that Ultimate Truth is to be
found in an objective entity of some kind. If you wish to become
enlightened and comprehend the Infinite, you need to learn how to
transcend this kind of thinking altogether.
The Illusion of Separation
Even though the Infinite comprises the totality of all
there is, it would be wrong to think of it as a mere collection of
discrete physical objects. It is a unity rather than a multiplicity. The
Infinite is a seamless continuum of which all things are part. The
boundaries that we subconsciously project onto it are not really there.
Separation is ultimately an illusion. Everything merges into each other to
form an uninterrupted process which has no beginning or end.
At what point exactly does a human being come into
existence, for example? At the moment when the male sperm penetrates the
female egg? When the conceptus is formed? A month after conception? The
moment of birth? No matter where we decide to draw the line, it will
always be an arbitrary decision on our parts. It will always be a
construct of consciousness that we mentally project onto the proceedings.
In reality, there is only a continuum. The human never really comes into
existence at all - except as an illusion.
Nothing in the Universe has a beginning or an end. The
causal processes that comprise a particular object cannot be separated in
any way from the causal processes that comprise the rest of the Universe.
It is our conceptualizing minds which arbitrarily carve up this continuum
into "things". It is we who decide where one thing ends and another
begins.
The way the mind delineates Reality into "things" can be
compared to the way we delineate the earth s surface into lines of
latitude and longitude. While these lines are obviously very useful for
the purposes of navigation and measuring time and so forth, no one would
dispute that they are mental creations and nothing else. It is simply our
way of carving up the earth for practical purposes. The same applies to
the existence of things themselves. We find it useful to carve up Reality
into "things" and to treat these carvings as though they were real
independent objects. As long as we never forget that the "realness" and
"independence" of these carvings is an illusion of our own creation, there
will never be a problem with our doing this.
But alas, people do forget and wars break out.....
The fact that all boundaries are illusory does not mean
that Reality is merely a featureless, homogenous soup in which there is no
differentiation at all. Instead, think of Reality as a kind of flowing
stream in which eddies and bubbles and all sorts of weird and wonderful
shapes are constantly being created. While these eddies and bubbles
certainly exist to our senses and seem to possess boundaries, it is easy
enough to see that if we were to alter our perspective sufficiently enough
their boundaries would magically disappear and we would observe their lack
of separation from the rest of the stream. Similarly, even though Reality
is constantly differentiating itself into distinct forms, its sheer lack
of boundaries dictates that these forms ultimately have no beginning or
end, and ultimately no real existence.
Direct Experience of the World
At any given moment, our senses and minds experience a
rich tapestry of colour, sounds, smells, feelings, emotions and thoughts.
It is a complex tapestry composed of countless details, full of variety,
ever-changing and yet always complete. It is like a fantastic work of art,
far greater than any masterpiece created by man. The details are almost
mesmerizing. No matter where one looks or how minutely one examines a
single aspect of this tapestry, the view is always intricate and rich.
Anyone with a developed aesthetic sense could never tire of gazing at its
beauty.
Note that what we experience directly in any given
moment cannot be disputed. For example, if we perceive what seems like a
tree in a particular moment, then it becomes an indisputable fact that
what we see in that moment is something which seems like a tree. It is
impossible for this to be refuted in any way. Even the mere attempt to
refute it would involve a tacit admission that one actually did perceive
it. Of course, the additional question of whether the object concerned
really is a tree and not an hallucination of some kind is open to
debate, but that is a question which only arises after the initial
perception. The existence of the initial perception itself is beyond
dispute.
Similarly, the perception of contrasts between different
objects also cannot be disputed - for example, the visible contrast
between what seems like a tree and what seems like empty space surrounding
the tree. This direct perception of contrasts is beyond the possibility of
being an hallucination. It is real. And yet, at the same time, these
contrasts are never anything more an appearance to us as an observer. The
perspective that we create as observers is what allows these contrasts to
come into being in the first place. They have no other reality outside of
this.
A white cloud can seem sharply divided from the blue sky
from our perspective here on the ground, yet if we were to zoom up to the
cloud and try to establish where the boundary between the cloud and sky
actually lies, we would not be able to do it. The seemingly sharp boundary
would give way to a fuzzy continuum in which the cloud gradually thins
out. Even the densest pieces of matter lack clear-cut edges when viewed
from the molecular or sub-atomic perspective. This illustrates the more
general truth that the boundaries and contrasts we perceive directly in
the world are appearances only. They are entities which only exist to an
observer with a particular kind of perspective. Outside of this
perspective, they have no existence at all.
The contrasts that we perceive directly in the world
obviously play a very large role in determining how we should mentally
carve up the world into "things". So when I said earlier that the carving
up process was an arbitrary one, I was using term "arbitrary" rather
loosely. Even though the way we mentally carve up the world is arbitrary
in the sense that we could easily choose to carve it up in a different
manner if we wanted to, it is undeniable that there are ways of carving
which seem more natural and practical than others.
For example, it is usually more natural for us to draw
boundaries around a tree at the interface of its bark (or branches or
leaves) and the surrounding space, rather than, say, at a line ten meters
further out into space. It is more natural because the tree presents a
natural outline due to the contrast between its dense molecular structure
and the relative emptiness of the surrounding space. We generally find it
more useful to think of the tree as consisting solely of the dense
molecular part, as opposed to, say, the "dense molecular part + ten meters
of surrounding space".
There are many instances, though, where this is not the
case. Consider, for example, the boundaries of Australia. Although there
appears to be a natural outline of Australia in the interface of its
coasts and the adjoining seas, it is politically more useful to extend its
boundaries further out to sea, thus enabling the Australian Government to
patrol its coastlines and protect its interests more effectively. The
strip of ocean between the coastline and this projected boundary is
officially regarded as being part of Australia. Importantly, the widening
of Australia in this manner is no more contrived or artificial than that
of confining it to its coastlines. Whether one chooses to lay the
boundaries at the coastlines or further out to sea, the process is exactly
the same. In both cases, a mental boundary is cutting up what is
essentially a causal continuum.
In the end, how we choose to carve up the world is not
so much an arbitrary process on our parts, but one that is specifically
determined by our goals and values. It is our desires and values which
determine what goals we have, and, in turn, what kind of world we
ultimately perceive. Hence the profound comment by the Buddha that "the
world is created by desire".
A fundamentalist Muslim desires only the spread of Islam
and because of this he lumps all non-Muslims into one box, as things that
need to be wiped out. To him, all non-Muslims are the same. He doesn t
differentiate between them. They are just undesirable clones to be killed.
A Westerner, by contrast, does tend to perceive differences between
people, whether they be Muslims or non-Muslims, and this arises out of his
desire for individual freedom and a life of constant hedonistic pleasure,
coupled with his lack of desire for idealistic solutions. In both cases,
desire is shaping what they perceive and experience.
Categories
As soon as the mind projects boundaries around a
perceived phenomenon and determines it to have a beginning and an end, the
next thing it does is try to categorize it. It attempts to slot the
perceived object into a pre-existing abstract framework which it has
developed over the course of its lifetime. This enables the individual in
question to quickly gain knowledge of what he is perceiving and to
anticipate its behaviour. For example, he might spy a small brown object
on the ground, which his mind automatically categorizes as a "leaf". In
making this categorization, the individual is able to recall to mind the
behaviour of leaves in general and allows him to conclude that the small
brown object he perceives is likely to keep lying where it is. He can be
fairly sure that it won t suddenly fly up and attack his throat, or
attempt some other kind of threatening behaviour. He can even bend down
and examine it to see if he can learn anything more about the behaviour
and characteristics of leaves, and thus add another component to the
abstract framework for future reference.
Creating categories has long been a major tool of
survival for our species. Reducing the infinite complexities of the world
to a manageable number of "things" allows our minds to create an abstract
map of the world and thus enables us to respond to situations with greater
skill and sophistication. It allows our reasoning abilities to extend far
beyond the very rudimentary forms found in animals and provides the
platform for the acquisition of hidden complex forms of knowledge, such as
those explored by science and philosophy. It also makes complex social
interactions possible and underpins the laws and moral codes of our
society. In short, it has been an integral part of the creation of human
civilization.
Despite its great value in a practical sense,
abstraction also possesses the ability to blind us to what is ultimately
true in life. Those who lose themselves in their abstractions without
realizing they are doing so (and unfortunately, nearly everyone in the
human race does this) quickly fall into the belief that their own abstract
world is the only world there is, and in doing so they lose all contact
with reality. An obvious example of this can be found in politicians who
lose themselves in a world of "voters", "electorates", "policies", "party
numbers", and so on. Other examples include scientists who become absorbed
in a world of "energy", "forces", "stars", "particles", "species", "carbon
cycles", etc; and fundamentalist Christians who are obsessed with "souls",
"angels", "demons", "heaven", and the like. They all tend to forget that
the abstract world they deal with on a daily basis is simply that - an
abstract world.
They are not the only ones who do this, however. The
average person on the street is guilty of it as well. He tends to lose
himself in an abstract world of "self", "family", "business", "country",
"football team", "friends", "enemies", "pleasure", etc. He too falls into
the trap of thinking these things are real, even to the point where he is
prepared to fight and kill over them. It is also the reason why the
average person loves to indulge in mind-altering pursuits such as music,
dancing, alcohol, drugs, sex, meditation, religious ecstasies and the
like. He is looking for temporary relief from the conceptual prison that
he normally lives in. The exhilaration that he feels when he partakes in
these things is the exhilaration of escaping all the frustrations, worries
and fears which relentlessly consume him in his abstract world.
It is part of the skill of the philosopher that he
masters his powers of abstraction and does not allow them to swamp his
mind and distort his perspective. He is in complete control of his
conceptualizing mind. He is able to do this because he is not hampered by
the egotistical desire to clutch at things for his security and identity.
He no longer has any worldly purposes or goals, nor any attachment to a
particular point of view, nor any vested interest in what happens in the
Universe. He is entirely free to roam around at will, entering and leaving
any abstract world he likes, never being fooled by any of it. He has
broken the back of his own existence, as it were, and now enjoys the
complete freedom of his infinite nature, a freedom that is beyond purpose.
The Essential Lie of Categories
It is said that Eskimos have forty different categories
of snow, whereas we in the West have a mere half-dozen. So who is right?
Are there really forty different types of snow? Or are there only a
half-dozen? The answer is ultimately neither. If we wanted to, we could
easily break up each of the forty categories that the Eskimos have devised
into lots of smaller categories, in effect creating hundreds, or
thousands, or even millions of different types of snow. Indeed, we could
conceivably break down these categories forever and yet never reach an
end. For at bottom, each of these types of snow is an illusion, a chimera
created by our categories. No two snowflakes, or snowfalls, are ever
alike. Each one is unique event, never to be repeated. The sheer lack of
repetition here dictates that the categories of snow which we create,
however useful they might be in our daily lives, ultimately refer to
nothing real.
Similarly, the fingers at the end of our hands are part
of the world of abstraction and hence an illusion. A finger is essentially
an abstraction and nothing more. We might think that we are referring to a
finger when we point to the end of our hand, but in reality we are not.
What actually exists there is not a finger, but an ever-changing form that
ultimately has no identity and no boundaries. Fingers, on the other hand,
are static mental images that deviate from what is really there.
We can, of course, pick up a physical object, such as a
leaf, and point to its various features and describe their functions. But
even here, we are still only referring to abstractions. The various
shadings of the leaf boil down to a handful of categories of colours; the
aerodynamic properties boil down to engineering categories; the
photo-synthetic properties boil down to chemical categories; and so on.
Even when we point to an unusual feature, an oddity which is specific to
the leaf in question, we are making use of standard categories pertaining
to that particular species of leaf. It is impossible to get around the use
of categories. We use them all the time, both in speech and thought. And
it is through our categories that existence is created.
In reality, Nature is a continuous, ever-changing flow
in which nothing ever really comes into existence. Our conceptualizing
minds take a hold of this flow and create frozen images out of it, which
we subsequently believe to be existing things. That our minds do this is
also part of the continuous, ever-changing flow of Nature. Our minds have
no choice but to create things in this manner. It is what it is caused to
do. In this way, our minds are part of the creative process of the
Universe. It is through our minds that things literally come into being.
In a very real sense, we sit at the right hand side of God.
The Role of the Observer
Not only is the mind responsible for the frozen images
that we call "things", but it is also responsible for the way we perceive
the world in any given moment. I spoke earlier about how the contrasts
between objects that we directly perceive in the world are largely
dependent upon the perspective of the observer. We now need to take this a
step further and see that the very attributes and properties which things
appear to possess are also largely determined by the observer.
Consider the point of a needle, for example. From the
naked eye, it appears shiny, smooth and sharp. Yet as soon as we place it
under a microscope, the smooth, sharp point magically disappears and a
wide mountainous terrain bearing an uncanny resemblance to the dull
surface of the moon takes its place. So which appearance is the real one?
Is the needle point really smooth and sharp? Or is it really a wide
mountainous terrain?
From our ordinary human perspective, a large mountain
such as Mt Everest appears to be a very solid and immoveable object. It
almost seems timeless in its inability to change. Yet from the perspective
of an observer for whom a million years of our time flashes by in a
second, the mountain would appear to be very soft and fluid. So which is
the real mountain? Is it hard and immovable, or soft and fluid?
If we were to change the structure of the human body so
that it processed and interpreted the data streaming through its senses in
a radically different way, there is little doubt that we would perceive a
vastly different world. Take the experience of colour, for example. As we
all know, each of the colours that we see in the world corresponds to a
particular frequency of light. But if our brains were wired differently so
that each colour corresponded to a different frequency of light, or if the
brain decided to construct a whole new collection of colours in place of
the more familiar ones, then our world would suddenly look very strange
and different indeed.
In fact, it is conceivable that each person has his own
particular colour scheme, each one unique unto itself and bearing no
resemblance to anyone else s colour scheme. Subjectively speaking, there
are probably an infinite numbers of ways to experience, say, the colour
"red". The way I experience it probably has no resemblance to the way
other people experience it. If I could somehow be transported into another
person s consciousness, I would probably find the colours there to be
completely alien to me. I cannot even begin to imagine, from the
perspective of my own consciousness, what they would be like.
Clearly, then, the properties displayed by an object are
greatly dependent upon the perspective adopted by the observer. If the
observer s senses were suddenly structured differently, or if he suddenly
changed his perspective, then the old familiar objects would suddenly
appear very different. While our senses and our perspective are not the
sole creators of what we perceive in the world - no one thing is ever the
sole creator of anything - they are nevertheless integral to the existence
of everything that we experience.