Give Me My Crown Back by Santosh Jha (best large ereader .txt) 📖

scientific explanation and secular-objective literature, we can express it objectively and understand it holistically.

The primary thing about Self or ‘I’ is dualism of its situation or position as ‘Karta’, subject, observer or protagonist. The idea of Karta, subject or protagonist stems out of the above-mentioned insistence about ‘I’ or self being the only and ultimate ‘verifiability’ of all Reality. The famous quote of Descartes, ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (I think, therefore I am) is probably that innate and embedded ‘perception’ about the centrality and inevitability of ‘consciousness’ in the scheme of idea of Reality, which probably engenders this sense of ‘I’ or self being the protagonist of all probabilities of Reality. This ‘mysticism’ is now unraveled and modern science now has enough knowledge to point out the stupidity and hypocrisy in dualism of ‘I’.

The greatest mysticism for ‘Self’ is the perception of the expression of Self itself! This is the seed of all stupidities and hypocrisies that humanity is loaded with. The very complex and yet unresolved idea of Consciousness plays out and installs this situation and position of Dualism very intelligently and categorically. Modern science also somehow establishes that self, ‘I’ or consciousness is not automatically and innately the ‘Karta’, observer or protagonist. It is rather only a ‘Medium’. Consciousness is a medium and it itself is an emergent and evolving entity of the body-mind medium. Therefore, in a sense, Consciousness – this hugely unputdownable and powerful realism of ‘I Am’, is just a medium (sub-media) within a medium! This definitely divests ‘I’ or Self off the much acclaimed ‘centrality’ and ‘preeminence’ in the overall scheme of Reality.

This primary and most critical idea of ‘Consciousness as Medium within Medium’ needs to be understood with perfect clarity. There is a very famous metaphor used by both spiritualism and science for explanation of Realism. It is about a honeybee sucking nectar from a flower. A honeybee comes flying, sits over a flower, sucks its nectar and then moves away. Traditionally, or in populist perception and linguistic sensitivity, there seems no Dualism in this act as it is believed that from the perspective of what is being observed, the honeybee is the Subject, ‘Karta’, observer or protagonist and the bee sucking nectar is clear ‘act’. Of course, the flower is the Object as it is doing nothing. The honeybee is the doer of action and therefore singularly qualifies for being the Subject or Protagonist.

The dualism however creeps in when we see and accept the other perspective that is equally true but not ‘observable’ to general sight mechanism. This other perspective says; honeybee and flower are both only Objects as the supposed ‘Action’ is being done on both equally. The action is not honeybee sucking nectar as it is only the Effect of a Cause that is actually energizing the Action. Naturally, it is this ‘Causality’, which is true Subject, Karta, protagonist and ‘observer’, as it is this Cause, which has created the ‘act’ (reaction) of this effect playing out between honeybee and flower. It is the energy of causality that created the ‘media’ of a ‘giver’ and another as ‘taker’ but both are just expressing or playing out the ‘script’, directed by the energy of causality.

This Causality (Subject/Karta/Protagonist) is the innate, symbiotic and intangible relationship between honeybee and the flower. The real and true Subject is the innately wired ‘Connect’ of the honeybee to seek nectar from the flower. Two elements are in a relationship, which is an effect of the core causality of survival-symbiosis between the two. Therefore, both the elements of honeybee and flowers are only Objects and both are equally reacting to and effecting something, the cause of which is scripted in the ‘Relationship’ or ‘Context’ between the two. This intangible Causality is the Subject and true Protagonist, not the ‘I’ or ‘Self’.

This of course is the microcosmic interpretation of the larger macrocosmic Realism. The macrocosmic Realism says that consciousness is not in flower or honeybee, even while both may be living entities. In other words, consciousness that exists in honeybee or flower is only a small and dualistic medium of the larger, non-local and non-dualistic consciousness, which exists and stays elsewhere or everywhere. The real and true non-local and non-dualistic Consciousness is the Causality of ‘Context and Relationship’ that is just having a medium of body-mind of honeybee and flower. It is the Causality that is the Real and True Subject and Protagonist as it is this Causality, which goes on to create the ‘Matter’ in the form of different ‘Media’ for its unraveling and final expression. This final expression is usually accepted as Reality by all of us as it is what our five senses can perceive and react to. However, this sure is not Reality.

In simple words, it is the Causality that is true, real, core and critical element of Observance but is not automatically observable to we humans through our sensory mechanism and therefore does not qualify as Reality for us. However, this causality, even while being the true Observer or protagonist, requires the Media for its expression or for playing out its effects. The Causality is always intangible, whereas the Effects it engenders have to be tangible to attain a form and dimension. Naturally, causality creates the ‘media’ of matter – the form and dimensions. All living and non-living entities, including human beings, their body-mind realisms are ‘forms’ – The Media, for expression of Reality. Human consciousness is a complex media as it is the result of prolonged evolution of cosmic causalities of billions of years.

Consciousness of living beings is the Media that causality as observance uses for playing out Reality, which our sensory mechanism and processes can and does easily see, feel and accept. It is because this consciousness is also a media of our body-mind tangibility, enabling consciousness to perceive reality, thus extending it a misplaced sense of being the observer but it is not as consciousness is just media.

Here, it is very crucial to refer to contemporary science’s path-breaking idea of quantum mechanics, which deals with the critical issue of ‘Observance’ and ‘Collapsing’ of Reality. This understanding of ‘Observer’ and its cardinal role in Reality is a must to unravel the holism of Reality and the role of ‘Consciousness’ and ‘Causality’ in it.

In quantum science, Reality, at all time and space is considered being super-positioned probabilities. Quantum science says, Reality happens as it is ‘observed’ because observance collapses super-positioning and creates a reality. Before that, Reality always stands as probabilities. Does it make us accept that Reality is not an ‘Always There’ situation, rather, Reality ‘Collapses’ as something, depending on observance? Does this mean, observance ends dualism and enters non-dualism?

The next big question is, is observance critical to Reality? It seems as quantum scientists say, it ends probabilities and installs a Reality, though for the observer! Now, there still remains dualism about the idea of observer. Who can be accepted as observer?

Majority opinion is that observance is essentially consciousness. It is consciousness that observes and installs reality or ‘collapses’ Reality. This is somewhat agreeable quantum science factuality for us. In simple terms, Reality is a dualistic, super-positioned probability at all times as elements that create reality have wave function dualism. Reality however is created or collapsed as dualism ends and superposition collapses the moment there happens an observer. And, this observer is consciousness.

Therefore, the core and cardinal element in the idea of Reality is Consciousness as it is believed to be the ‘Protagonist’ that scripts a Reality. At this point of time, we shall have to stop our focus on everything else and zero down to this singular idea of Consciousness. The scientific reality of consciousness is the most pampered subject of new millennium, even as we all know from our knowledge of human history that consciousness as a philosophical and spiritual idea has always remained with humanity since almost 3000-4000 years back. Does this itself mean that pure science never stands aloof and alienated to philosophy and rather, sort of runs parallel to it? Does the same dualism exist between science and philosophy – when something works but cannot be described how or why, it is referred to as philosophy and if it works, is empirically verifiable and is mathematically explainable, it stands as science?

Probably, even quantum scientists feel that they have rested the onus of Reality on an element of realism, which itself is by nature dualistic. Probably therefore, there is a strong advocacy by new age quantum scientists to present a valid case of non-dualistic consciousness. We need to first understand the basic hypothesis of this ‘dualism’ of consciousness, before we proceed onto larger issues.

The primary idea is, if observance is mechanism and process of consciousness, this makes observance open to dualism – Generic and Specific observance. This dualism is –

1. There is an observance of consciousness, which emanates out of functionality of five senses and sensory inputting. As brain organization at macro level is largely singular for most humans, there is a broadly singular reality of observation, like rivers, mountains and other tangibilities. This is what we may call Generic Observance. This observance is processing of common and non-dualistic subconscious mind states. No doubt, as science insists that no two minds are same, there is bound to be dualism in generic observance too. However, it may be accepted that as the differences are small and there is overbearing generalization of commonality of languages for expression of the reality by generic observation, the dualism is seldom ‘observable’.

For example, I and nine other people may see a door and because of our different mind processing of inputs from five senses, all ten may see the door differently but as this tangibility of door still shall have almost 95 percent of details as common for all ten, we all still shall call it a door as our language commonality cannot express a door with 5 percent difference as anything else! However, if any of the ten has one or two sensory organs tweaked or part of his or her brain states affected, the door may look, say 40-50 percent different. However, as all nine shall call it a door, a deviant observance shall not change the realism of the door.

Still, it is debatable whether this reality is the same for other higher organisms like dogs, elephants, etc as their sensory observation by their brain organizations are not known! Though, we now accept that these higher animals do have consciousness of varied shades. Therefore, somehow, whatever is the reality, we have to limit it to the observance of human consciousness only. That itself is a restrictive hypothesis and negates singular objectivity rule of science. Therefore, even this so-called singular Reality of generic observance may not truly be accepted as non-dualistic.

2. Second observance by consciousness is of intangibilities by conscious brain states, which is dualistic, differentiated by variegated cognitive shades, because of varied experiences and memories of experiences of every single individual. Like happiness, wellness, love, compassion, right and wrong, etc are intangibilities observed by conscious mind states and is always dualistically oriented. Like all ten people may call a door a door but ask them whether the door is good or bad, there shall be five or six different observations about the same door. Therefore, the specific observance by consciousness, as against the generic observance can never be non-dualistic and therefore realities in these domains shall never be singular. Hence the trouble for humanity, not probably extended to other higher organisms.

To simplify what we have talked so far, we need to see and internalize the primary idea that Reality in its innate and elemental form always remains as probabilities. This means, there is probably no Definitive and Singular face, shape, size and dimension of Reality that could be narrated and explained in humanly possible language of words. However, Reality Happens, or in simple sense, takes definitive dimensions of Locations as it is Observed. Therefore, Reality, in any possible way is a function of Observance. Naturally, the ensuing and inevitable question is –