Maya And Leela: Utility In Life’s Futility by Santosh Jha (classic books for 13 year olds .txt) 📕

The key question is, what we should understand first – the conflict and pain of ‘maya’ or the very concept of conflict and pain? The cosmic realism and even the microcosmic subjective worldview an individual has are too vast and complex for acceptance and assimilation in our ever-evolving mind. There is however, a simple yet fundamental idea that can be accepted as the ultimate metaphor for easy understanding. What it is?

Without going into the never-ending debate and conflict of how and why this cosmic realism was created, we all can accept that what it is; is common for all. Even if we accept that God created the universe or it came into being accidentally; the reality of the existing universe, as it evolved and as it stands today remains the same. The dualism about past is in no way going to change the singular situationalism of the present.

Therefore, the issue at hand is to talk about and assimilate what stands as realism for all as of now. This can be summed up in the following simple metaphor – “what is cosmic realism is a randomized and ever-evolving notion or entity and what all human endeavors are aimed at is to pick up a pattern of the randomization and make it a cultural value-summation”.

This is where the conflict and pain seems to be born. The objective situation seems to be that we all are in the time and space linearity, which is highly randomized and every passing moment adds to the entropy (degree of randomization) of this realism. On the other hand, within this randomized realism, there always is a pattern, which finally energizes the evolution mechanism. Humans have survived and succeeded only because it has been able to arrive at some pattern and live it as cultural system.

Accepting the macrocosmic objective realism as a randomized energy is the acceptance of ‘maya’ in its honest best form. This ‘maya’ is the cultural manifestation of the conflict and pain that a randomization energy is intrinsically loaded with and within the ambit of this randomized energy, all creatures have to live. This is understanding ‘maya’ in the honest objective form.

Then comes the role of subjectivity. This subjectivity needs to be conditioned by the objective assimilation of the realisms of ‘maya’. Then only it creates the ‘sat-chit-anand’ situationalism. This subjectivity engenders the myriad colors, aromas, song and dance of an exalted ‘self’, which is referred to as ‘leela’.

This ‘leela’ is the manifestation of ‘Nisprih Karma’ (unattached role performance), emanating out of the absolute ‘awastha, auchitya and vyawastha’ (situation, rationality and mechanism) in which the ‘self’ engenders the ‘leela’. Read the trio as ‘consciousness-cognition-causality’. The ‘karta’ (subject) is not the ‘leela-performer’ or the action-doer. Rather, it is just the object of the reception of all ‘karma’ (actions).

We need to talk about this ‘subject’ and ‘object’ divide. It shall help us in understanding the true ‘leela’ positioning of the ‘consciousness’.

There is a dualism of what or who is a subject and who an object in an action of life. We may also say, there are subjective and objective consciousnesses. We need to understand this through a metaphor, which has brilliant reference in religion-spiritualism. Science also accepts it as the prescribed way. There is a metaphor of a bee flying and after seeing a flower landing on it and then sucking the nectar of the flower. This metaphor is a popular love symbolism.

In subjective consciousness, the lover would see himself as the bee and the flower as his love attraction. The act of nectar sucking is the process of love. The raw objectivity of a newborn would also liken it with bee and sucking as love. However, in this objectivity, the subject, that is bee, has different level of innocence and conscious involvement. In a newborn’s love, the prime thing is sucking and the bee, the subject is insignificant as the level of consciousness is missing. In a youth’s love, the bee, the subject is of prime importance and focus as the evolved and cultured mind has a subjective and egoistic consciousness, which is un-evolved in a newborn.

The pure and exalted objectivity sees it completely differently and has the edge. It sees bees and flower both as insignificant. It does not even consider them as subject. It considers the fragrance and sweetness of nectar and the intrinsically symbiotic process involved between bee and flower attracting them towards each other as the real subjects. They truly are the subject as they are energizing the mechanism and both bee and flower are just non-egoistic and non-dualistic objects involved in this beautiful process called love, which satisfies both bee and flower needs.

Love is like the above metaphor. The bee and flower both are driven and guided by their basic instincts for which they are wired. The objective consciousness is coded in their being. The bee needs flower for survival as it provides him with vital nectar. The flower equally needs the bee as the bee makes the process of pollination complete. Both love each other and the love intrinsically happens, it is spontaneous and innate.

The humans have similarity only till here. They differ after that. The man loves the woman and woman loves the man. It is coded in their instinctive and raw objective consciousness but when love happens in grownups, it usually happens in subjective and dualistic consciousness where the cultured mind and subjective being of lover and beloved become far more primary and focus shifts from love to the dualisms of the consciousnesses of the two subjects involved. As it happens, then, love is either not existing or love becomes just the façade for the instinctive act of hardcore animalistic survival needs.

For true and exalted love to happen, it must follow the route of a non-dualistic and pure objective consciousness. In such a state of consciousness, both lover and beloved shed and dissolve their dualistic and cultured mind and finally accept themselves just as unnecessary burden of being objects of love. And then, the real subject of love, the fragrance, rainbow, song, dance, everything falls in the linearity of a symmetrical and symbiotic sub-consciousness where cultured consciousnesses of egoistic selves of the two ‘objects’ of love dissolve into one singular and objective higher consciousness.

All wisdoms, in their core awareness assign the ‘subject’ positioning not to the individual self, but all those elements in our instincts, culture, milieus and their dynamic interplay, which always remain randomized. Some call it as ‘intangible-affectors’ and insist that these elements, which are decisive factors of our emotions, are the real ‘subjects’. Individual consciousness remains the object of all actions as these emotions are decisive in the decision-making process of the mind consciousness.

The ‘maya’ is inevitable and we all need to understand and accept that all the ‘leelas’ of ‘maya’ and also that of ‘self’, may not bring in joys only. However, every shade of the ‘leela’ would for sure make the ‘self’ experience and experiment with something novel and sublime. This is the objectivity of the subjectivity of the cosmic realism and the super-positioned situationalism of the ‘self’ that is pure magic and ‘sat-chit-anand’ positioning.

Being in control and expecting joy is not life’s worth. It is just in understanding the randomized energy of ‘maya’ and then accepting the ‘sat-chit-anand’ patterning of the ‘leela’. Let the objectivity of the energies condition the situationalisms of the subjective ‘self’ and then ‘play’ with it. The song and dance shall follow on the platform which lengths between the two extremes of objectivity and subjectivity. Let ‘sat-chit-anand’ prevail and consume every realism.

**

Au Fait With Probabilistic Superposition

What we have talked about is what spiritualism offers as an interpretation of ‘maya’ and ‘leela’. As we talked earlier, philosophy and science also speaks of the same core idea. We shall now talk of the two ideas in the domains of philosophy and science and see the similarity.

Philosophy says, “Actualizing what you know was there is a tad boring. What is exciting dwells on the fine-line that what you accepted as right may well turn out to be wrong, at the last drop of the hat. It is thrilling to internalize what the wise say, “Questions till not answered are better than sure answers, as they keep unleashing the precious energy of creating layers of probabilistic values and eventualities”.

Answers do seem to stop the journey powered by insatiable, quintessential and infinite inquisitiveness of human mind. Journeys, they say, must go on, even though some destinations you reach might sound like worth staying a lifetime! Uncertainties of probabilistic benchmarks of unending inquisitiveness are evolutionary call. Can we stop evolving… can we…!

The positioning of eventualities here is what spiritualism referred as ‘maya’. The state of consciousness matches with that of the mental position of ‘leela’.

Science on the other hand opens up more probabilities than other streams of human knowledge as somehow, science has hit the criticality stage of knowledge-threshold, which ensures; more questions come to the fore for humanity.

The discoveries of science may not yet be acceptable as popular answers. As the ‘sure’ answers may be deemed as still few decades away; or may never come; this situational probablism looks like ideal for fruition of scientific philosophies, often a complementary component of science, especially physics.

Pure science and philosophy, as we know, have same primary source in the form of human imagination, often beyond cognitive and tactile realms of sensory perceptions and consciousness. Both have an uneasy symbiotic relationship. Both even do not fail to say extreme things about each other’s utility and form.

Somehow, both science as well as philosophy indulge in propositions and claim fruition and finality on things which are more than often matters beyond empirical evidence, logical validity, inductive warrant, corroboration, falsification, hypothesis-testing, causal reasoning, probability-weighting, and so forth.

This however does not mean such matters and their propagation are not relevant for humanity. This rather is the joy of the symbiosis of the two – philosophy often feeds scientific quests and scientific quests often are subject-line of philosophizing.

The famous philosopher Kant said it very right, “Philosophy of science without scientific input is empty, while science without philosophical guidance is blind”.

Accepting this helps a lot in accepting and understanding many of today’s scientific propositions as much of them, including the very popular and contemporary Quantum mechanics, as they border hypothesis beyond empirical evidence, causal reasoning and physical corroboration. This much stated, we have interesting interpretations and causal philosophizing based on what quantum realism maintains of physical state of the cosmic probablism.

Quantum mechanics says, ‘objective reality does not exist, that instead, all we see are probabilities collapsing into one particular configuration and all other possible realities might just exist together in a quantum multiverse (more than one universe)’.

As per quantum realism, ‘atoms can be made to experimentally display both a wave and particle duality’. So we have a universe where a particle (smaller than atom specks that form atoms) is not a particle until observed. A particle is both in wave as well as particle states. However, the moment an observer sees it or just happens, the wave collapses into particle.

In addition, we can either know exactly where or exactly when a particle is, but not both. Without wave function collapse (observer-independent), all probabilistic values for every subatomic particle would exist in superposition (existing simultaneously in all probable states in different multiverse).

Apart from what quantum says of multiverse superposition, Stephen Hawking’s ‘M-theory’ is there, having to do with the multiple dimensions – eleven at the latest count – that are taken to constitute the ultimate reality beyond appearances despite our sensory perception being limited to the three-plus-one of our familiar spatial-temporal world.

This suggests; realism may still be intact in one