Time. Who has the Time? Time for reading posts about the Yoga Sutras, for example...
We're always running out of Time, or Time is short, never enough Time...
Time has been a great fascination for me, well, for a long Time. Yet, not in the way that I am obsessed with punctuality or expensive time pieces, or that I am a clock watcher (far from it actually), but rather what I am interested in is what we are looking at today in these three sutras: The relationship between the Perception of Time and the Mind.
There is a well-worn Zen koan (illogical word puzzles to confound "rational" mind; think one hand clapping) that tells the situation of two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One asserts that the flag is moving, the other says that it is the wind that is moving. A third, much wiser of course, master overhears and tells them that they are both wrong. Not the wind, not the flag,;but the Mind is moving...
Such is the case with most things in life. Two sides arguing, both are usually in the wrong to some extent, if not fully, hence the argument.
The Mind Moves. Can it be so? What really is the passage of Time other than the perception of its passage by the mind? If we do not perceive the change, does the change happen? It's the old chestnut of the tree falling in the forest...did it make a sound? How can we ever know. For, like Schrödinger's unfortunate cat, as soon as we perceive something, we create its reality from a possibility. We decided the fate of the cat in the box as well as the flag in the wind, with our Minds.
Turning then, our minds, to the Yoga Sutras again, we have arrived at 4.13-14. Three simple, concise sutras, which read almost like a footnote. However, footnotes often contain the keys to the puzzle, so let's see what we can see here:
te vyakta-sUksmã gunãtmãnah 4.13
parinãmaikatvãt-vastu-tattvam 4.14
vastu-sãmye citta-bhedãt-tayor-vibhaktah panthãh 4.15
Giving us,
The constitution of the gunas are either prominent or subtle. 4.13
Because of the singular nature of evolution/transformation (parinãma), the essential state of an object (vastu) persists. 4.14 (we'll clean this up shortly)
Because of the difference of minds (citta) in the singularity of an object (vastu), there are divided paths for them. 4.15 (again, clean-up is coming)
Before we clean this up a bit, it is best to rehearse the three gunas and what they are because, as with the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras primary goal is to overcome the dominance of the gunas...so, what are they?
The three gunas (qualities, characteristics, attributes) are:
Sattva--radiance, intelligence, clarity, harmony
Tamah--darkness, ignorance, obscurity, discord
Rajah--dynamism, passion, turbulence, chaos, change
Sattva is arguably the "best" guna to manifest, but, the entire system of the gunas is based upon the fact that everything is a mixture of the three, yet, at any given time, one may be dominant, and it is in our best interest to cultivate the sattva; though, at all times? Does rationality always seem like the best answer over passion and change?
Ultimately, both the Gita and the Sutras will say, like the Zen master above, mu, or neither (and both). We shall have to wait just a bit longer to go into more detail on that, but for now, we are in the realm of the gunas, and everything that we perceive in the Universe is a mixture of them.
Returning then to the 3 sutras, we see:
These three gunas then can either be manifested boldly or subtly (4.13). In other words, sometimes we may readily perceive which guna is dominant and in what proportion, other times, not so apparent.
However, it is the inherent combination of the three gunas in an object that gives it its "existence" in the physical world (4.14). We call something a name because we recognize it through the singular evolution of Time (or, rather, our perception of that transformation (parinãma)). My cat sitting in front of me is "Lucky" because he was "Lucky" yesterday and the day before, etc. If suddenly, he was "another" cat, then he would no longer be "Lucky". But, what makes him "Lucky"? At this physical level, that of Prakriti, or Nature, it is persistent constitution of gunas.
The constitution of the gunas create the quiddity of the thing, or cat, itself...or, what makes you you.
However, it's not that simple...because, what makes you you to you is different than what makes you you to me, or to your mom or dad or your best friend...
Which leads us to 4.15 again, and the question of the flag in the wind. 4.15 says that there is a singularity of the object/Cat (and its mixture of gunas), however, there are differences in minds perceiving that object/Cat, which leads to many paths, or perceptions, and ultimately perceived realities.
One of my cats was named "Babette", for example, before we adopted her. My daughter and I did not keep that name, yet, the cat remained the same, or did she? Does she become a new cat with a new name and new humans?
Comparing III.55...we have the formula of divide and conquering; uniting and transcending again. In the mind (citta) we perceive and we divide things into categories and name them. But, that stagnates them in time, freezing them in a prison of a definition as to what they "are". In the Mind's Eye, however, which is beyond reason and rational thinking, and more in the realm of intuition, imagination and proper intelligence (that is, not book learning, but "seeing" something or someone for what it or he/she is, not what we want it/them to be...), then we go beyond the moment in Time, we transcend the moment...and we then begin to finally "see the light"...
To be continued...
We're always running out of Time, or Time is short, never enough Time...
Time has been a great fascination for me, well, for a long Time. Yet, not in the way that I am obsessed with punctuality or expensive time pieces, or that I am a clock watcher (far from it actually), but rather what I am interested in is what we are looking at today in these three sutras: The relationship between the Perception of Time and the Mind.
There is a well-worn Zen koan (illogical word puzzles to confound "rational" mind; think one hand clapping) that tells the situation of two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One asserts that the flag is moving, the other says that it is the wind that is moving. A third, much wiser of course, master overhears and tells them that they are both wrong. Not the wind, not the flag,;but the Mind is moving...
Such is the case with most things in life. Two sides arguing, both are usually in the wrong to some extent, if not fully, hence the argument.
The Mind Moves. Can it be so? What really is the passage of Time other than the perception of its passage by the mind? If we do not perceive the change, does the change happen? It's the old chestnut of the tree falling in the forest...did it make a sound? How can we ever know. For, like Schrödinger's unfortunate cat, as soon as we perceive something, we create its reality from a possibility. We decided the fate of the cat in the box as well as the flag in the wind, with our Minds.
Turning then, our minds, to the Yoga Sutras again, we have arrived at 4.13-14. Three simple, concise sutras, which read almost like a footnote. However, footnotes often contain the keys to the puzzle, so let's see what we can see here:
te vyakta-sUksmã gunãtmãnah 4.13
parinãmaikatvãt-vastu-tattvam 4.14
vastu-sãmye citta-bhedãt-tayor-vibhaktah panthãh 4.15
Giving us,
The constitution of the gunas are either prominent or subtle. 4.13
Because of the singular nature of evolution/transformation (parinãma), the essential state of an object (vastu) persists. 4.14 (we'll clean this up shortly)
Because of the difference of minds (citta) in the singularity of an object (vastu), there are divided paths for them. 4.15 (again, clean-up is coming)
Before we clean this up a bit, it is best to rehearse the three gunas and what they are because, as with the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras primary goal is to overcome the dominance of the gunas...so, what are they?
The three gunas (qualities, characteristics, attributes) are:
Sattva--radiance, intelligence, clarity, harmony
Tamah--darkness, ignorance, obscurity, discord
Rajah--dynamism, passion, turbulence, chaos, change
Sattva is arguably the "best" guna to manifest, but, the entire system of the gunas is based upon the fact that everything is a mixture of the three, yet, at any given time, one may be dominant, and it is in our best interest to cultivate the sattva; though, at all times? Does rationality always seem like the best answer over passion and change?
Ultimately, both the Gita and the Sutras will say, like the Zen master above, mu, or neither (and both). We shall have to wait just a bit longer to go into more detail on that, but for now, we are in the realm of the gunas, and everything that we perceive in the Universe is a mixture of them.
Returning then to the 3 sutras, we see:
These three gunas then can either be manifested boldly or subtly (4.13). In other words, sometimes we may readily perceive which guna is dominant and in what proportion, other times, not so apparent.
However, it is the inherent combination of the three gunas in an object that gives it its "existence" in the physical world (4.14). We call something a name because we recognize it through the singular evolution of Time (or, rather, our perception of that transformation (parinãma)). My cat sitting in front of me is "Lucky" because he was "Lucky" yesterday and the day before, etc. If suddenly, he was "another" cat, then he would no longer be "Lucky". But, what makes him "Lucky"? At this physical level, that of Prakriti, or Nature, it is persistent constitution of gunas.
The constitution of the gunas create the quiddity of the thing, or cat, itself...or, what makes you you.
However, it's not that simple...because, what makes you you to you is different than what makes you you to me, or to your mom or dad or your best friend...
Which leads us to 4.15 again, and the question of the flag in the wind. 4.15 says that there is a singularity of the object/Cat (and its mixture of gunas), however, there are differences in minds perceiving that object/Cat, which leads to many paths, or perceptions, and ultimately perceived realities.
One of my cats was named "Babette", for example, before we adopted her. My daughter and I did not keep that name, yet, the cat remained the same, or did she? Does she become a new cat with a new name and new humans?
Comparing III.55...we have the formula of divide and conquering; uniting and transcending again. In the mind (citta) we perceive and we divide things into categories and name them. But, that stagnates them in time, freezing them in a prison of a definition as to what they "are". In the Mind's Eye, however, which is beyond reason and rational thinking, and more in the realm of intuition, imagination and proper intelligence (that is, not book learning, but "seeing" something or someone for what it or he/she is, not what we want it/them to be...), then we go beyond the moment in Time, we transcend the moment...and we then begin to finally "see the light"...
To be continued...
Love this topic. Reminds me of my 'kiwi' enigma when i was younger.
ReplyDeleteKeep doing what you're doing. It gets appreciated.
So. There is no general truth, only perceptions of a possible truth. Then why our urge to communicate? Share our feelings,thoughts, experiences? Words are so limited, as we agreed on one day. And the message behind them can't get delivered, as it can only trigger a memory of a individual perception at most, that might not even correspond in the slightest way to the original intented content. So, why the deeply seeded need in all of us to be heard?
ReplyDeleteAs always...spot on. I would not say that there is no truth at all, but "general" truth as in common to the majority, probably not. Precisely because of the limitations of the words as you say. The urge to share, though, is almost driven by the frustration of not feeling understood. What if one were truly understood? The urge would most likely disappear, or at the very least, diminish. But, behind that, why even that urge of wanting to be understood? Why indeed. On a perception level, when a creature recognizes or sense familiarity, that urge manifests as communication. But, as we did in fact agree that one day, words fail us at some point. And, what we talked about today, trying to relate an experience always sounds false, feels false, inauthentic to the actual event. So, why bother? As you know, I deep down feel that the only true communication is understanding through mutual silence. A single glance can unite, but, as with kaivalya, that is not enough, there must be transcendence. And, it can only occur when there is not the need to stake out the territory of "I/mine" against "you/yours" whether physical, or with ideas, thoughts and experiences. Grammar ultimately thwarts this, because, for grammar, we need a subject, which when expressing ourselves is always the primary "I" and "you" becomes the object. We want to be heard, yes, but more than that, we want to be seen. Within the sutras, the quest is to unite and transcend the division between the seer and the seen. Begging the ultimate question here, which you anticipate: can that division be overcome between two people? I believe it can be, but not with words. Which, leaves us with the original paradox (which you anticipated as well) of the Tao...and the irony of Socrates, when he states, "The only thing I know is that I know no-thing..." Hence, the impetus of this post...that is, Kaivalya can only be expressed by "Neti neti". True communication then comes in the space created by the lack of words, not by that which they fill.
ReplyDelete