The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

Hello everyone.

Today, my son introduced to me a new book/text, and I am very grateful for that.

The book is titled Vigyan Bhairava Tantra, and the author is Ranjit Chaudhri. I am referring here to the 2008 publication by Prakash Books India Pvt. Ltd.

The Vigyan Bhairava Tantra (AKA simply Vigyan Bhairava) is a spiritual text originally written more than 2000 years ago, and it belongs to Kashmir Shaivism – a philosophy of Monism. Vigyan Bhairava means either “knowledge of God” or “God consciousness”.

Before I continue, and just to clarify, as the author has put it: “Today, people harbor the misconception that tantra is about sex. That is incorrect. Tantra is mainly about enlightenment.” More generally, “The Sanskrit word Tantra derives from the verbal root tan, meaning ‘to weave’, or ‘compose’, and refers to a type of instructional text, often written as a dialogue between a god and a goddess.” [I found this last bit at https://www.britishmuseum.org]

As noted by Ranjit Chaudhri, the book is a “Translation and Commentary”; it contains a translation of the original Vigyan Bhairava text from Sanskrit to English, as well as some commentary by the author. I would like to relate to some of the commentary, in the context of the ideas I’ve been discussing here since I started writing this blog.

The reason I got so excited, and decided to post about it, is the awe I felt when I read the introduction in the book, and realised – as hinted in this post’s title – that it resonates perfectly with the ideas I’ve been presenting in this blog; be they Spinoza’s, Hoffman’s, or my own (if anything I wrote in this blog is original, in the slightest).

As Ranjit Chaudhri wrote, in the context of Monism (the text in square brackets is my own commentary):

“There is only One, there is only God [I can’t help but think of Spinoza]. There is no Reality but God. The fact that we look separate from each other is an illusion. Our sense organs do not show us the complete picture [is that Hoffman, or what?…]. Deep down, we are all connected. For example, we look separate from trees. A human being defines the boundary of his body by his skin. Similarly, we know where a tree begins and where it ends. A human being looks separate from a tree. However, humans breathe in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide. Trees do just the opposite. We are now beginning to understand that by destroying our forests, and our environment, we are in fact destroying ourselves. We cannot survive on our planet, if there are no trees…“

Being a conservationist, and lover of trees, I especially like the last part… Reminder: This is from 2008; early days of Climate Change reckoning. How sad that so many years have been wasted and we (humans) are still not being adult about it.

Back on topic, I depart from Chaudhri at a later statement: “This is also how we bring peace and joy into our lives – by controlling our minds. The more control we have over our minds, the more peace and happiness we experience.“

I think I know where it comes from, though; as an explanation follows: “The above answer may surprise many people, especially those who believe that our happiness is dependent on the external conditions of our lives, or on our material wealth… The text explains that this is not true. Nothing external can bring us lasting happiness. This is because everything external is subject to change.“

I have no qualms about happiness being more a question of inner state than a result of external conditions. Absolutely none. But I think that inner peace and happiness (assuming I actually know what happiness really is; which I am not sure of at all) are not the result of control, of any kind.

The aspiration to gain “control over our mind” sounds to me like the Ego desperately trying to stay in power over the vast depths of our subconsciousness, and everything mysterious that lives there. That sort of control (more like suppression) will only lead to a diminished life and to depression over time, as Dr. Hollis explains at length (and provides many examples from his work as a therapist). I subscribe more to the idea that LESS control might lead us closer to inner peace and to the ever-elusive happiness.

By all means, let ALL of our soul come up from the depths and express itself; every fragment of it is still a part of us and holds some potential for enlargement. The insecure Ego might judge some of those personality fragments as “ugly” or “shameful”, and might try to sanitize them out of existence; unfortunately, they are not going anywhere, and whatever we try to suppress will not go away but rather go under, back into the subconscious. From there it will inevitably spill into the world in ways we can’t control and maybe can’t even imagine; hurting us and others on the way.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here…? Later, Chaudhri added: “We can change the external circumstances of our lives, by changing some of the beliefs that caused them.” I perfectly agree with that; but my take is not along the Ego “editing” and sanitizing our thoughts, to end up supposedly living a “cleaner” and “neater” reality, dictated by all the “right” thoughts. Instead, the belief change I am aspiring to is towards the thinking that ALL OF ME (and all of YOU – after all, we are not separate) has room in this world. To me this seems to have the potential of living a larger life, with more options. Yes, it is risky, anxiety-provoking, and it highlights my responsibility for my choices and actions. But the alternative is at least as damaging to the world, and it does not relieve me of responsibility either.

This is all I want to say at this point, at the end of Chaudhri’s Introduction. I might continue this discussion as I continue reading. See you all tomorrow.

Peace to all.