There is this interesting thing that came to me today. The thought was of replacing the word 'quality' in Pirsig's metaphysics by 'consciousness'. Pirsig says that everything can be called a pattern of quality. I say everything in this world can be called 'consciousness'. There it is. Finally, Pirsig meets Vedanta.
Now if quality of Pirsig is the same as consciousness of Vedanta, then there should be two types of consciousness - static consciousness and dynamic consciousness. Dynamic consciousness is at the cutting edge of the knife. It determines what path consciousness takes.
With this world view I tried hard to figure out what should be our purpose in life. After a while it all got lost in ambiguity. The problem is that when I tried, I could not define what is life in the first place. If the distinction between living and non-living is not clear, then how can we determine what direction life, or for that matter anything should take?
Pirsig and Pyrrho come to my rescue here. I will discuss Pyrrho first. Pyrrho was a skeptic. And I find his concepts more suited to my nature. I think deeply about any issue and even if there is a single proof against an assumption, I will not adopt it. And here lies the problem. Most initial assumptions will always have at least one argument against it. According to skepticism, everything is ambiguous and hence the inability to make that initial assumption is but natural and not one's fault.
And hence, using reason alone, one can never form a metaphysics. And hence I am back to the same conclusion that I made some time back. Dump reason in the bin, when you are working on that first assumption. That first assumption is the 'seed crystal' (the concept of seed crystal is courtsey Prisig) from which the whole metaphysics is derived. And hence assumption ZERO (before the first) is that the 'first assumption' is whatever you like.
An interesting tangent from assumption 'ZERO' is that what you like is dependent on what you are, and what you are is dependent your genes, upbringing, experiences etc etc. Thus though what you like is something you decide, it is mostly predecided. Hence if you do not chose your metaphysics, do not derive your own philosophy, and do not control your own actions, how is it that you are responsible for your actions.
The fact is that the whole concept of 'responsibility' is also a ghost of one's mind. There was no 'responsibility' before humans evolved. And hence, to get bogged down by something that is nothing but a few electrical signals in the mind would be stupid. But stupidity was something which did not exist before humans arrived. Stupidity is relative. An intelligent person considers a lesser intelligent person stupid. If this intelligent person comes across a person more intelligent, he/she will be the stupid.
I will leave the tangent there for now, as tangent is a line and it can go on forever. So I make assumption ZERO because the cosmic play has caused me to do so. You are now in the vicinity of the Bhagwad Gita. From assumption ZERO I derive my first assumption that all there is, is consciousness. Why? Because it like it. Why? Because the cosmic play causes me to do so. Why? No one knows. Go ask the cosmos if you can. But as Vedanta says, it is the sport of the Brahman, the pure consciousness. Which means for no reason whatsoever.
There we go. Now we have a solid base to stand on. Now we can go ahead and embrace Vedanta and the Bhagwad Gita. Now we can look at others, who have differing philosophies, with indifference. It is the same cosmos that has caused them that has caused me. It is the same Brahman that is them that is me. I am them. They are me. There there. Problem solved.
Now if quality of Pirsig is the same as consciousness of Vedanta, then there should be two types of consciousness - static consciousness and dynamic consciousness. Dynamic consciousness is at the cutting edge of the knife. It determines what path consciousness takes.
With this world view I tried hard to figure out what should be our purpose in life. After a while it all got lost in ambiguity. The problem is that when I tried, I could not define what is life in the first place. If the distinction between living and non-living is not clear, then how can we determine what direction life, or for that matter anything should take?
Pirsig and Pyrrho come to my rescue here. I will discuss Pyrrho first. Pyrrho was a skeptic. And I find his concepts more suited to my nature. I think deeply about any issue and even if there is a single proof against an assumption, I will not adopt it. And here lies the problem. Most initial assumptions will always have at least one argument against it. According to skepticism, everything is ambiguous and hence the inability to make that initial assumption is but natural and not one's fault.
And hence, using reason alone, one can never form a metaphysics. And hence I am back to the same conclusion that I made some time back. Dump reason in the bin, when you are working on that first assumption. That first assumption is the 'seed crystal' (the concept of seed crystal is courtsey Prisig) from which the whole metaphysics is derived. And hence assumption ZERO (before the first) is that the 'first assumption' is whatever you like.
An interesting tangent from assumption 'ZERO' is that what you like is dependent on what you are, and what you are is dependent your genes, upbringing, experiences etc etc. Thus though what you like is something you decide, it is mostly predecided. Hence if you do not chose your metaphysics, do not derive your own philosophy, and do not control your own actions, how is it that you are responsible for your actions.
The fact is that the whole concept of 'responsibility' is also a ghost of one's mind. There was no 'responsibility' before humans evolved. And hence, to get bogged down by something that is nothing but a few electrical signals in the mind would be stupid. But stupidity was something which did not exist before humans arrived. Stupidity is relative. An intelligent person considers a lesser intelligent person stupid. If this intelligent person comes across a person more intelligent, he/she will be the stupid.
I will leave the tangent there for now, as tangent is a line and it can go on forever. So I make assumption ZERO because the cosmic play has caused me to do so. You are now in the vicinity of the Bhagwad Gita. From assumption ZERO I derive my first assumption that all there is, is consciousness. Why? Because it like it. Why? Because the cosmic play causes me to do so. Why? No one knows. Go ask the cosmos if you can. But as Vedanta says, it is the sport of the Brahman, the pure consciousness. Which means for no reason whatsoever.
There we go. Now we have a solid base to stand on. Now we can go ahead and embrace Vedanta and the Bhagwad Gita. Now we can look at others, who have differing philosophies, with indifference. It is the same cosmos that has caused them that has caused me. It is the same Brahman that is them that is me. I am them. They are me. There there. Problem solved.
