Who Packed Your Parachute?

 

 

Air Commodore Vishal was a Jet Pilot. In a combat mission his fighter plane was destroyed by a missile. He however ejected himself and parachuted safely. He won acclaims and appreciations from many.

After five years one day he was sitting with his wife in a restaurant. A man from another table came to him and said “You’re Captain Vishal ! You flew jet fighters. You were shot down!”

“How in the world did you know that?” asked Vishal.

“I packed your parachute,” the man smiled and replied.
Vishal gasped in surprise and gratitude and thought if parachute hadn’t worked, I wouldn’t be here today.

Vishal couldn’t sleep that night, thinking about that man. He wondered how many times I might have seen him and not even said ‘Good morning, how are you?’ or anything because, he was a fighter pilot and that person was just a safety worker.

So, who is packing your parachute?
Everyone has someone who provides what they need to make it through the day.

We need many kinds of parachutes– we need the physical parachute, the mental parachute, the emotional parachute, and the spiritual parachute.
We call on all these supports before reaching safety.

Sometimes in the daily challenges that life gives us, we miss what is really important.

@mediapositivity

MAY WE ALL HAVE THE WISDOM TO ASK AND ANSWER THE WISE QUESTIONS !

A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted Guru. He said: “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Vedas.”

“Do you know Sanskrit?” the Guru asks.

“No,” replies the young man.

“Have you studied anything from Hindu philosophy?”

“No, Guru. But don’t worry. I just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Vedas.”

“I seriously doubt,” the Guru says, “that you are ready to study Vedas. It is the deepest knowledge ever known. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Vedas.”

The young man agrees.

Guru holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

The young man stares at the Guru. “Is that the test in logic?”

The Guru nods.

”The one with the dirty face washes his face“- he answers wearily.

“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Very clever,” the young man says. “Give me another test.”

The Guru again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”

“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So, each one washes his face.”

“I didn’t think of that,” says the young man. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”

The Guru holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Each one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So, neither one washes his face.”

The young man is desperate. “I am qualified to study Vedas. Please give me one more test.”

He groans, though, when the Guru lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”

“Neither one washes his face.”

“Wrong. Do you now see why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Vedas? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is nonsense, foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”

May we all have the wisdom to ask and answer the wise questions

Brain/ Mind/Consciousness-‘Knowing The Knower’

Is human consciousness all about our brain and neurons? Or could there be something deeper to it?

There is no evidence existing which necessarily proves neural activities are the CAUSE of consciousness. Though they indicate CORRELATIONS only, in fact perceptual studies have accumulated plenty of evidences which disproves CAUSATION by brain.

Take for instance, the famous claim by John Searle, Slusser Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley: that neural activity and conscious experience stand in the same relationship as molecules of H2O to water, with its properties of wetness, coldness, shininess and so on. The analogy fails as the level at which water can be seen as molecules, on the one hand, and as wet, shiny, cold stuff on the other, are intended to correspond to different “levels” at which we are conscious of it. But the existence of levels of experience or of description presupposes consciousness. Water does not intrinsically have these levels. We cannot therefore conclude that when we see what seem to be neural correlates of consciousness that we are seeing consciousness itself.

While neural activity of a certain kind is a necessary condition for every manifestation of consciousness, from the lightest sensation to the most exquisitely constructed sense of self, it is neither a sufficient condition of it, nor, still less, is it identical with it. If it were identical, then we would be left with the insuperable problem of explaining how intracranial nerve impulses, which are material events, could “reach out” to extra-cranial objects in order to be “of” or “about” them. Straightforward physical causation explains how light from an object brings about events in the visual cortex. No such explanation is available as to how those neural events are “about” the physical object. Biophysical science explains how the light gets in but not how the gaze looks out.

Many features of ordinary consciousness also resist neurological explanation. Take the unity of consciousness. I can relate things I experience at a given time (the pressure of the seat on my bottom, the sound of traffic, my thoughts) to one another as elements of a single moment. Researchers have attempted to explain this unity  by invoking Quantum coherence however this fails  because they assume that an objective unity or uniformity of nerve impulses would be subjectively available, which, of course, it won’t be. Even less would this explain the unification of entities that are, at the same time, experienced as distinct. My sensory field is a many-layered whole that also maintains its multiplicity. There is nothing in the convergence or coherence of neural pathways that gives us this “merging without mushing”, this ability to see things as both whole and separate.

Here are also problems with notions of the self, with the initiation of action, and with free will. Science begins when we escape our first-person subjective experience. Thus, measurement takes us further from experience and the phenomena of subjective consciousness to a realm where things are described in abstract but quantitative terms. To do its work, physical science has to discard “secondary qualities”, such as color, warmth or cold, taste – in short, the basic contents of consciousness. For the physicist then, light is not in itself bright or colorful, it is a mixture of vibrations in an electromagnetic field of different frequencies. The material world, far from being the noisy, colorful, smelly place we live in, is colorless, silent, full of odorless molecules, atoms, particles, whose nature and behavior is best described mathematically. In short, physical science is about the marginalization, or even the disappearance, of phenomenal appearance, the redness of red wine or the smell of a smelly dog.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is all about phenomenal appearances. As science moves from appearances and toward quantities that do not themselves have the kinds of manifestation that make up our experiences, an account of consciousness in terms of nerve impulses must be a contradiction in terms. There is nothing in physical science that can explain why a physical object such as a brain should ascribe appearances to material objects that do not intrinsically have them.

Our failure to explain consciousness in terms of neural activity inside the brain inside the skull is not due to technical limitations which can be overcome. It is due to the self-contradictory nature of the task, of which the failure to explain “aboutness”, the unity and multiplicity of our awareness, the explicit presence of the past, the initiation of actions, the construction of self are just symptoms. We cannot explain “appearings” using an objective approach that has set aside appearing as unreal and which seeks a reality in mass/energy that neither appears in itself nor has the means to make other items appear. The brain, seen as a physical object, no more has a world of things appearing to it than does any other physical object.

From the Vedic literature, we learn that there is a conscious self that is separate from the  body. Obviously, we are conscious of every single impulse that the senses of our body deals with. There is perfect interaction. So science will question how the self can interact so well with the body if it is not part of the body. And why is consciousness affected when changes are made to the brain? If the self is separate, then consciousness should not be affected. These are the arguments of science, and the Vedic literature offers some very interesting answers. If these arguments are answered, then why not consider an alternative viewpoint, as described in the Vedic literature?

There have been top scientists at such places as the University of Virginia using the strictest standards for documenting and researching particular phenomena. They have been able to demonstrate conclusive findings in over hundreds of test cases with patients who were, according to all known laws of physics, technically in a state of unconsciousness, or in a coma due to a heart attack or accident. The patients, after being brought back to consciousness, explained in detail what procedures had been performed to revive them. They described themselves as floating out of their body, up into the room, looking down and watching the medical procedures the doctors were performing on them. There was no possibility that they could have dreamed this as subsequent tests have shown. This shows that there is a difference between the brain and the mind, and that the mind or consciousness can continue working even though the brain is impaired and hardly functioning at all, as in a comatose state.

In the near-death experience we have the description of what happened to the individuals when they were revived, but what if they had not re-entered their body? What if the patients could not be revived? If they had died, where would they have gone? Or is death simply the end of everything? When someone dies, the relatives may cry and exclaim, “Oh, he is gone, he has left us.” But what is gone? He is lying there, or at least the body is. So if he is gone, then it is that part you have not seen that is gone. So what is it?

WHAT   IS   IT  ?

What is it , which is so difficult  to figure out with the help of mere intellect of academic studies? however it has become one of the major topics of curiosity in the field of modern science today. Is it worth knowing anything else without knowing the knower itself?

Since the beginning of life wisest men have always realized that knowing the knower is the highest form of knowledge in fact the ultimate purpose..let us be conscious about the consciousness itself, let us be on the path of knowing the knower ..Let us REALIZE  SELF…

Spirituality and Religion, Esoteric and Exoteric aspects

Image result for spirituality and religion  images

One should neither mix nor separate spirituality from religion (theism) since

1) We all are spiritual beings , experiencing physical existence at different individual levels.

2) So called spirituals and non spirituals are both existing in theistic and atheistic groups alike.

3) There are two aspects of all religions, ESOTERIC AND EXOTERIC; esoteric (spiritual) aspect is almost same for all religions. To make this point clear I would like to classify theistic and atheistic groups in a systematic manner.

We can see 2 kinds of atheists

  • 1)SPIRITUAL ATHEISTS are people who do not believe in a literal “God” , but still consider themselves to be (often deeply) “Spiritual” people..also known as non theistic spirituality.. There is no consensus among Spiritual Atheists regarding the literal existence of one’s own “spirit” or a collective “spirit”; however, there is consensus that if any “spirit” does exist, it is not external to the universe and it is not “supernatural”. Spiritual Atheists believe that nothing that exists or happens violates the nature of the universe; they believe that all such things only further DEFINE the nature of the universe.For Spiritual Atheists, being “spiritual” means (at the very least) to nurture thoughts, words, and actions that are in harmony with the idea that the entire universe is, in some way, connected; even if only by the mysterious flow of cause and effect at every scale.
  • 2)NON SPIRITUAL ATHEISTS..are further divided into two classes .i)Dogmatic and (ii)Non dogmatic.. first type of non-believer might be seen as lacking a certain humility. In their outspoken conviction, they’re quite prepared to go on record declaring the non-existence of any supernatural being. Which is to say, their claim is not expressed as an opinion but as UNDENIABLE FACT. (i.e., “No God, or gods, exist. Case closed…unless you present me with indisputable scientific evidence to the contrary.”). … non-dogmatic disbelievers go only one (modest) step beyond the undecided agnostic. But the more tolerant (or less “doctrinaire”) atheist ,unlike the agnostic, who prefers to remain non-committal ,is still ready to take a stand on the matter, asserting (though as an OPINION) “I believe that no god (and certainly not God in the traditional sense) exists.”
    Similarly theists are also of two kinds
  • 1) SPIRITUAL THEISTS..those who have experienced subtle realms and are into INWARD spiritual practices..they know the taste of inner realm of stillness by experience, they also understand the mysticism and symbolism of religious expressions..they laugh at religious conflicts .
  • 2) NONSPIRITUAL THEISTS..are those who blindly follow the scripts and customs without knowing the underlying mysticism and ESOTERIC aspects of religions.they are seen to be indulged in EXTERNAL customs..rarely seen into INWARD practices..they worship God out of fear and selfishness,or sometimes as unquestionable ancestral culture….for the purpose of material well being.. spiritual activities for self growth are rarely seen in their life..they are the ones who easily get involved in religious conflicts .

The Nature of the Serpent is to Bite. That’s Not Going to Change Mine…

A man noticed a snake burning and dying and decided to get her out of the fire but when he did, the snake bit him. Hurt, the man released her and the animal fell back into the fire. The man tried to get her out a second time…and again the snake bit him.

A passerby watching approached the man and asked, “Excuse me, you are being stubborn! Can you not see that every time you try to get her out of the fire, she is going to bite you?”

The man answered, “That is the nature of the serpent…to bite others and that’s not going to change mine, which is to help.”

Finally, with the help of a rod, the man pulled the snake of fire and saved her life. Moral is why change your nature if someone does you harm? Why change if yours is to help but look after your safety  first and take precaution.

Some pursue happiness, others create it. Worry more about your conscience than your reputation. Because your conscience is what you are and your reputation is what other people think of you. And what other people think, is their problem…not yours!

@mediapositivity

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: