Anuraag.xyz

Tag: meditation

  • Beginning, again

    Today marks the resumption of my daily meditation practice.

    It is important for a simple reason: to re-engage with, to remember, the conceptual, symbolic web of interconnections we are all caught within—indeed, what we largely are at that fundamental level. Our very being seems woven from language. ‘Me’ is defined by language and symbol. There appears to be no true ‘escape’.

    This remembrance brings a sense of okayness, a fragile peace that lasts until the forgetting inevitably returns. And we forget because the experience of language is now so all-encompassing. It is the ocean we float in each moment, the clothes we wear, the very air we breathe. It has even infiltrated the realm of sleep. Meditation on pure sensation offers the only remaining glimpse, a way to see through this pervasive medium. Ironically, I find myself crafting this reminder using the very ‘stuff’ I’m trying not to lose myself within.

    Language, it seems, has also claimed sovereignty over our emotional landscape. Our feelings often arise from how deeply we immerse ourselves in its narratives and structures. While a ‘pure’, non-symbolic emotional state might theoretically exist, I suspect it’s now so thoroughly intermingled with language that differentiating it becomes nearly impossible—at least, until one grows accustomed to extended periods of being ‘language-free’ (a state one might also call ‘thoughtlessness’).

    During those brief moments when the language of words pauses or diminishes, a visual symbolic language often takes its place. Interpretation then feels automatic, instantaneous—much like the sounds we hear without conscious effort.

    The idea behind the Vipassana-style abandonment of symbolic processing isn’t to kill the mind. Rather, it’s to generate a sense of utter freedom from the cages of symbolic orientation—a system which, knowingly and unknowingly, operates as the most complex, interconnected mechanism for the control and management of human beings.

    Yet, this glimpse of how utterly free we truly are does not shatter the symbolic order once and for all. It cannot, because our very identity is composed of the same building blocks that function as crucibles of power dynamics and control within the larger, interconnected symbolic fabric. As one might ask: “Can a part of the set, whose whole definition is that it is part of that set, escape the set?”

    And so, this potential for freedom is often framed as destruction—as the death of the idea of self.

    I feel the only way forward is to play with it—to engage in an infinite game that never reaches a final closure, but instead enables a dance that makes one feel profoundly alive. This isn’t about subjugation, but about an acceptance of this symbolic Other, and a realization that we all possess the means to rehash and redefine the language and symbols. Through this play, we can spark countless rebirths of our idea of self, our identities, the very stories that shape who we think we are, how we feel, and how we interact with our fellow symbolic meat puppets.

  • Recognizing the ‘I thought’

    “Mind is only a collection of thoughts and the thinker who thinks them. The thinker is the ‘I’-thought, the primal thought which rises from the Self before all others, which identifies with all other thoughts and says, ‘I am this body’. When you have eradicated all thoughts except for the thinker himself by ceaseless enquiry or by refusing to give them any attention, the ‘I’-thought sinks into the Heart and surrenders, leaving behind it only an awareness of consciousness. This surrender will only take place when the ‘I’-thought has ceased to identify with rising thoughts. While there are still stray thoughts which attract or evade your attention, the ‘I’-thought will always be directing its attention outwards rather than inwards. The purpose of self-enquiry is to make the ‘I’-thought move inwards, towards the Self. This will happen automatically as soon as you cease to be interested in any of your rising thoughts.” – Annamalai Swami

  • Empty Set

    A root ‘why’ question that you can infinitely regress to is ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’

    One of the most widely accepted ‘answer’ to this question is the Anthropic principle , which in simple terms can be stated as: There is something rather than nothing because only when there is something this question can be asked in the first place. This something has given rise to an intelligence in the universe that can pose such a question. Another way to put this is: we see this something and the so called ‘fine-tuning’ of the universe because life as we know it could not have evolved in any other set of circumstances.

    A lot of philosophers and physicists balk at this answer, since it eradicates any need for further inquiry into the question. Nonduality is also assumed to be, by the mind, a similar ‘cop out’ on trying to really answer the question. I have personally witnessed a lot of people frown when the conversation reaches a point where someone utters:

    ‘Things just are.’

    ‘I am’.

    ‘It all is just a happening.’

    In this post, I’ll try and use a logical structure to basically say the same thing, but hopefully present a more ‘satisfying’ answer to the mind.

    ****

    First up, let’s understand a term called ‘primitive notion’ that is key to the whole body of mathematics. Here is how Wikipedia defines the term:

    A primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience.

    For example, in contemporary geometry, point, line, and contains are some primitive notions. Instead of attempting to define them, their interplay is ruled (in Hilbert’s axiom system) by axioms like “For every two points there exists a line that contains them both.

    And here are two key examples of primitive notion that are relevant to the analogy that I’ll be building below:

    Set theory: The concept of the set is an example of a primitive notion. As Mary Tiles writes: [The] ‘definition’ of ‘set’ is less a definition than an attempt at explication of something which is being given the status of a primitive, undefined, term. As evidence, she quotes Felix Hausdorff: “A set is formed by the grouping together of single objects into a whole. A set is a plurality thought of as a unit.”

    Naive set theory: The empty set is a primitive notion. To assert that it exists would be an implicit axiom.

    Now let’s consider a set S of all possible Objects, Processes and Concepts defined as follows:

    S ε  {O, P, C}

    where:

    Objects: Whatever your mind labels as it perceives via the sensory apparatus of the five senses and thought. O ε {sights, sounds, smells, touches, tastes, thoughts and the infinite combination of these internal and external perceptions}

    Processes: State changes that appear to be an event in time. P ε  {Bodily and mental functions, aging, sunrise, …}

    Concepts: Laws, theories, explanations, definitions, language, logic. C ε {Laws of thermodynamics and energy conversation, general relativity, evolution, natural selection, Choice, Desire, set and number theory, axioms, primitive notions….}

    Note the inter-relatedness of these three elements of S. Some Concepts are set of Processes that talk about Objects. Some Processes are set of Objects that change and are explained via a Concept. And since both Concepts and Processes have names, and are perceived, labelled and categorised by your mind, they are all Objects as well.

    This inter-relatedness makes the differentiation almost trivial , but the point of defining such a set is to point you to this subtle fact: Your whole experience of consciousness is basically S ε {O,P,C}, whereas consciousness itself  is the raw awareness that contains these. 

    Symbolically, consciousness is the brackets { } that contain everything that can be talked or thought about. These curly brackets of Awareness contain and enable everything that we perceive.

    This empty set of pure Awareness is a primitive notion of everything that is. To assert that it just is, is an implicit axiom of reality.

    Primitive notions are bedrock to all rational and scientific thought. If you believe in mathematics and if you have ‘faith’ in the truth of its primitive notions, how can the primitive notion of consciousness be treated differently?

    ****

    When the bomb of nonduality was first detonated in my mind around a decade ago, the fallout was wide. It look a long time to pick up the pieces and try and see the whole. One of the natural questions that the mind throws up in this journey is:

    “So what should I ‘do’ with this deep realization?”

    Imagine for a moment that ‘you’ have a choice between picking being identified with S ε {O,P, C} OR the the empty set {}. What would you choose?

    The Concept of choice and an individual who is making the choice is of course contained in ‘C’ itself to begin with, so what we are really asking is : Can an element of set ever become aware of the set in which it is contained? To be even more precise – Can a part ever realise the whole that contains it?

    This question is behind the entire enterprise of illusory spiritual seeking that has goals such as enlightenment. The thing that is doing the seeking (the person/mind) is necessarily going to be caught in this act forever.  To be what the seeking is trying to be, it needs to paradoxically stop seeking in the first place.

    Osho talks about the same things from the perspective of effort. He says that in the initial stages of spiritual seeking, a lot of effort will be put by an individual, and it is very much required. Think of it as laying the ground work and foundation for the eventual giving up of all effort. A point will come when no more effort will be required, because the empty set will make itself known when all effort drops away. (We all are this empty set every night during deep sleep, but there is no memory of it for our minds to refer to. Remember, memory is also something that is within the set ‘P’ of Processes).

    So how can one ‘choose’ to be the empty set? By dropping all effort and seeking. Let the entire process of cosmic evolution that is burning like a fire within you reveal itself to your Awareness as an undeniable evidence of your true nature – a cosmic process that is happening on its own.

    Our minds have made us deeply believe that choosing {O,P,C} is the ‘right’ or natural way of being. Of course the mind will choose something that ensures its own survival. It is after all a product of arguably the most complex natural selection process know to itself.

    Falling back to the source, this Great nothingness, is our eventual destiny anyway. The second law of thermodynamics guarantees this state of high disorder and randomness where complex ordered life form will have to expend an energy that is greater than all the available energy to continue existing. That is when the process of evolution comes to a definite end. If you do not like this line of argument, just look at your own life. You will die one day and your body-mind implementation will come to an end. You return to the nothingness and become the empty set. So why not touch it time to time while you are within the set?

    ****

    [This post originally appeared on my substack]