Création

And had I learned anything I learned one thing - "Nothing that is created, is without desire."

A truly profound statement not just because it expounds on the nature of that which is created but more importantly because even before there was creation there must have been desire. In conventional Hinduism, Desires are a Human trait. They are a remarkable flaw. The flaw which makes the world go round and round and round until you want off.

Desires, as a human trait and inherently flawed, thus have negative connotations. According to the Rig Veda there is much that expounds upon the truth in that sentence. It mentions also that the 'Divine Hand' was moved by desire to create this earth. Were this true, then it would follow that the Divine Hand is Flawed as well. But, if we choose a wider truth for the Divine Hand, that which makes it the cause for everything but reason for nothing, then the criteria for the 'Divine' become harder to fill.

Hinduism encounters this problem uniquely by creating the 'lesser' gods of Creation (Brahma), Sustenance (Vishnu) and Destruction (Shiva). Gods preoccupied with the purpose of the universe. Gods that manifest themselves on Earth to sometimes claim a greater truth lost to mere mortals. Thus, the Greater Consiousness or the Is is left to do what it does best - be everything that is created and destroyed within it. Just be.

Creation (of anything) is the utmost hardest fact to reconcile. But it is also that which gives respite to the other flaw in the "cause-&-effect" cycle - Moksha/Nirvana. If there is Delusion there must be Clarity. If there is Birth there is Death. If there is "Entrance" (Creation) into "something" there is "Release" (Moksha) from this "something".

Which brings me to...the Ultimate Reality that exists. That which has always existed?
Has the Is no perception of time? Am I so bound by the cycle of Birth and Death that it causes my conception of the Divine to be so limited or was it that this cycle was created in an image of something veritably cyclic.

If the Universe, of which the Is is a part always, is cyclic in nature then the Is always is. The nature of Is may or mayn't change.

What are we? Are we a manifestation of his thoughts? Are we that which he projects and lets tattle on? Then we are not in control of our destiny. For thoughts can be molded and shaped. Thoughts of the Is won't be thoughts at all. But really, Is. So everything that starts with the Is ends with the Is. Because the Is is all there is.

I'm feeling a bit overwhelmed by it all. I need some time to think it through.

~~~

Meanwhile, as I wrote this, I had a discussion with White Samurai about a paper he plans to present in JC. It is a unique paper. It discusses the complexities of sentient life. Of the smallest unit of life and its overpowering intelligence in dealing with an environment capable of anything. It makes you truly wonder at the intricacies that life begets in its struggle for survival.

Anyways, this led to a half-hearted discussion (on my part) about the nature of Science. I argue that great scientists go to the big questions to ask the pertinent ones for micro-situations. He argues that in the current state of devolved science asking the right micro-questions has nothing to do with knowing the wider world at all.

I ask myself this - is that true? If that were true, what purpose would Science truly serve?
The real purpose of science, as I understood it, was to help us understand the nature of reality around us. As long as we are here, we might as well get to know it. The minutest intricacies and the most fundamental, most unbreakable of laws. The way things interact, the myriad of possibilities of the consequences of interaction, the possibility of conquering death.

Why anyone would fathom such a wish...I can only wonder. Doesn't the next big adventure lie in death? Don't the next big questions lie there?