SENSE AND MECHANICAL
Sensing is inconsistent; occurs suddenly; its felt only if wishes to
feel about it or even the sensations pass off. Sense approach is giving the
control to the body to react and so prohibited to get into as an
attachment. Being mechanical, is being habitual. Being mechanical, is
carried away unaware of the action being performed. Machine is tuned but
not a sixth sense Human.
“Have a mind that is open for everything and attached to nothing.” It’s
important to realize that an unhealthy attachment is selfish. This is a
hard fact to accept, but you must reflect and ask yourself if you’re the
toxic one in a relationship. If you truly care about how your partner
feels, and their independence as a person, you would have the courage to
let them go — whether that’s letting them hang out with their friends on
their own, or letting them carry on with the rest of their life after a
breakup. An emotional connection to something or someone is never bad.
However, there is a line between a healthy attachment, and an unhealthy
one. If you feel that you have an unhealthy attachment to something or
someone, you can fix this. Write out the reasons why you feel this way — do
you feel “incomplete” without them? Do you feel afraid of losing your
self-esteem or stability if you ever lose that attachment? It may be
helpful to discuss these questions with your partner, or a licensed online
therapist. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you need people and
things you love to stay in your life. However, you should always be your
number one priority, and therefore it’s important to establish a healthy,
emotional connection with yourself first. Anxious and avoidant
relationships are considered unhealthy or insecure attachments. Hemophilia
is a construct that is defined through the tendency to fall in love fast
and easily. It is a want process, not a need process. It is associated with
a rush of falling in love and rapid romantic attachment.
The Upanishads are ancient Hindu texts that discuss the senses in
relation to the elements, the mind, and the self. The Upanishads also teach
that the senses are limited and cannot fully comprehend the true nature of
reality. The senses and the elements
The Sariraka Upanishad connects the senses to the elements.: The ear is
associated with space and sound. The skin is associated with Vayu and
touch. The eye is associated with fire and form. The tongue is associated
with water and taste. The nose is associated with earth and smell. The
senses and the mind. The senses come into contact with objects and send
impressions to the mind. The mind receives and organizes these impressions
into precepts. The senses and the self The Kena Upanishad say that the
self, or atman, is the highest power. The Upanishads teach that the senses,
mind, and body are projections of Brahman, which is the true essence of
reality. The senses and happiness The Upanishads teach that true happiness
comes from finding contentment within oneself, not from material
possessions or fame.
It is a common-place of psychology that the effective
functioning of the senses of knowledge is inoperative without the
assistance of the mind; the eye may see, the ear may hear, all the senses
may act, but if the mind pays no attention, the man has not heard, seen,
felt, touched or tasted. Similarly, according to psychology, the organs of
action act only by the force of the mind operating as will or,
physiologically, by the reactive nervous force from the brain which must be
according to materialistic notions the true self and essence of all will.
In any case, the senses or all senses, if there are other than the ten,
—according to a text in the Upanishad there should be at least fourteen,
seven and seven,—all senses appear to be only organizations, functioning,
instrumentations of the mind-consciousness, devices which it has formed in
the course of its evolution in living Matter. Modern psychology has
extended our knowledge and has admitted us to a truth which the ancients
already knew but expressed in other language. We know now or we rediscover
the truth that the conscious operation of mind is only a surface action.
There is a much vaster and more potent subconscious mind which loses
nothing of what the senses bring to it; it keeps all its wealth in an
inexhaustible store of memory, akṣitaṁ śravaḥ.
Everything begins with vibration or movement, the original kṣobha
or disturbance. If there is no movement of the conscious being, it can only
know its own pure static existence. Without vibration2 or movement of being
in consciousness there can be no act of knowledge and therefore no sense;
without vibration or movement of being in force there can be no object of
sense. Movement of conscious being as knowledge becoming sensible of itself
as movement of force, in other words the knowledge separating itself from
its own working to watch that and take it into itself again by
feeling,—this is the basis of universal Sanjnana. This is true both of our
internal and external operations. I become anger by a vibration of
conscious force acting as nervous emotion and I feel the anger that I have
become by another movement of conscious force acting as light of knowledge.
I am conscious of my body because I have myself become the body; that same
force of conscious being which has made this form of itself, this
presentation of its workings knows it in that form, in that presentation. I
can know nothing except what I myself am; if I know others, it is because
they also are myself, because my self has assumed these apparently alien
presentations as well as that which is nearest to my own mental centre. All
sensation, all action of sense is thus the same in essence whether external
or internal, physical or psychical.
But this vibration of conscious being is presented to itself by
various forms of sense which answer to the successive operations of
movement in its assumption of form. For first[p.58] we have intensity of
vibration creating regular rhythm which is the basis or constituent of all
creative formation; secondly, contact or intermiscence of the movements of
conscious being which constitute the rhythm; thirdly, definition of the
grouping of movements which are in contact, their shape; fourthly, the
constant welling up of the essential force to support in its continuity the
movement that has been thus defined; fifthly, the actual enforcement and
compression of the force in its own movement which maintains the form that
has been assumed. In Matter these five constituent operations are said by
the Samkhya to represent themselves as five elemental conditions of
substance, the etheric, atmospheric, igneous, liquid and solid; and the
rhythm of vibration is seen by them as śabda, sound, the basis of hearing,
the intumescence as contact, the basis of touch, the definition as shape,
the basis of sight, the up flow of force as rasa, sap, the basis of taste,
and the discharge of the atomic compression as Gandha, odor, the basis of
smell. It is true that this is only predicated of pure or subtle Matter;
the physical matter of our world being a mixed operation of force, these
five elemental states are not found there separately except in a very
modified form. But all these are only the physical workings or symbols.
Essentially all formation, to the most subtle and most beyond our senses
such as form of mind, form of character, form of soul, amount when
scrutinized to this fivefold operation of conscious-force in movement.
All these operations, then, the Sanjnana or essential sense must be
able to seize, to make its own by that union in knowledge of knower and
object which is peculiar to itself. Its sense of the rhythm or intensity of
the vibrations which contain in themselves all the meaning of the form,
will be the basis of the essential hearing of which our apprehension of
physical sound or the spoken word is only the most outward result; so also
its sense of the contact or intumescence of conscious force with conscious
force must be the basis of the essential touch; its sense of the definition
or form of force must be the basis of the essential sight; its sense of the
up flow of essential being in the form, that which is the secret of its
self-delight, must be the basis of the essential taste; its sense of the
compression of force and the self-discharge of its essence of being must be
the basis of the essential inhalation grossly represented in physical
substance by the sense of smell. On whatever plane, to whatever kind of
formation these essentialities of sense will apply themselves and on each
they will seek an appropriate organization, an appropriate functioning.
Mechanical action: SB 8.11.5 TEXT 5
ārurukṣanti māyābhir utsisṛpsanti ye divam
tān dasyūn vidhunomy ajñān pūrvasmāc ca padād adhaḥ
ārurukṣanti — persons who desire to come to the upper planetary systems;
māyābhiḥ — by so-called mystic power or material advancement of science;
utsisṛpsanti — or want to be liberated by such false attempts; ye — such
persons who; divam — the higher planetary system known as Svargaloka; tān —
such rogues and ruffians; dasyūn — such thieves; vidhunomi — I force to go
down; ajñān — rascals; pūrvasmāt — previous; ca — also; padāt — from the
position; adhaḥ — downward.
Those fools and rascals who want to ascend to the upper planetary system by
mystic power or mechanical means, or who endeavor to cross even the upper
planets and achieve the spiritual world or liberation, I cause to be sent
to the lowest region of the universe. There are undoubtedly different
planetary systems for different persons. As stated in Bhagavad-gītā (BG
14.18), ūrdhvaṁ gacchanti sattva-sthāḥ: persons in the mode of goodness can
go to the upper planets. Those in the modes of darkness and passion,
however, are not allowed to enter the higher planets. The word divam refers
to the higher planetary system known as Svargaloka. Indra, King of the
higher planetary system, has the power to push down any conditioned soul
attempting to go from the lower to the higher planets without proper
qualifications. The modern attempt to go to the moon is also an attempt by
inferior men to go to Svargaloka by artificial, mechanical means. This
attempt cannot be successful. From this statement of Indra it appears that
anyone attempting to go to the higher planetary systems by mechanical
means, which are here called māyā, is condemned to go the hellish planets
in the lower portion of the universe. To go to the higher planetary system,
one needs sufficient good qualities. A sinful person situated in the mode
of ignorance and addicted to drinking, meat-eating and illicit sex will
never enter the higher planets by mechanical means.
Gita never teaches any action being mechanical at all
Therefore it is a mistake to interpret the Gita from the
standpoint of the mentality of today and force it to teach us the
disinterested performance of duty as the highest and all-sufficient law. A
little consideration of the situation with which the Gita deals will show
us that this could not be its meaning. For the whole point of the teaching,
that from which it arises, that which compels the disciple to seek the
Teacher, is an inextricable clash of the various related conceptions of
duty ending in the collapse of the whole useful intellectual and moral
edifice erected by the human mind. In human life some sort of a clash
arises fairly often, as for instance between domestic duties and the call
of the country or the cause, or between the claim of the country and the
good of humanity or some larger religious or moral principle. An inner
situation may even arise, as with the Buddha, in which all duties have to
be abandoned, trampled on, flung aside in order to follow the call of the
Divine within. I cannot think that the Gita would solve such an inner
situation by sending Buddha back to his wife and father and the government
of the Sakya State, or would direct a Ramakrishna to become a Pundit in a
vernacular school and disinterestedly teach little boys their lessons, or
bind down a Vivekananda to support his family and for that to follow
dispassionately the law or medicine or journalism. The Gita does not teach
the disinterested performance of duties but the following of the divine
life, the abandonment of all dharmas, sarvadharman, to take refuge in the
Supreme alone, and the divine activity of a Buddha, a Ramakrishna, a
Vivekananda is perfectly in consonance with this teaching. Nay, although
the Gita prefers action to inaction, it does not rule out the renunciation
of works, but accepts it as one of the ways to the Divine. If that can only
be attained by renouncing works and life and all duties and the call is
strong within us, then into the bonfire they must go, and there is no help
for it. The call of God is imperative and cannot be weighed against any
other considerations. But here there is this farther difficulty that the
action which Arjuna must do is one from which his moral sense recoils. It
is his duty to fight, you say? But that duty has now become to his mind a
terrible sin. How does it help him or solve his difficulty, to tell him
that he must do his duty disinterestedly, dispassionately? He will want to
know which is his duty or how it can be his duty to destroy in a sanguinary
massacre his kin, his race and his country. He is told that he has right on
his side, but that does not and cannot satisfy him, because his very point
is that the justice of his legal claim does not justify him in supporting
it by a pitiless massacre destructive to the future of his nation. Is he
then to act dispassionately in the sense of not caring whether it is a sin
or what its consequences may be so long as he does his duty as a soldier?
That may be the teaching of a State, of politicians, of lawyers, of ethical
casuists; it can never be the teaching of a great religious and
philosophical Scripture which sets out to solve the problem of life and
action from the very roots. And if that is what the Gita has to say on a
most poignant moral and spiritual problem, we must put it out of the list
of the world's Scriptures and thrust it, if anywhere, then into our library
of political science and ethical casuistry.
Undoubtedly, the Gita does, like the Upanishads, teach the
equality which rises above sin and virtue, beyond good and evil, but only
as a part of the Brahmic consciousness and for the man who is on the path
and advanced enough to fulfil the supreme rule. It does not preach
indifference to good and evil for the ordinary life of man, where such a
doctrine would have the most pernicious consequences. On the contrary it
affirms that the doers of evil shall not attain to God. Therefore if Arjuna
simply seeks to fulfil in the best way the ordinary law of man's life,
disinterested performance of what he feels to be a sin, a thing of Hell,
will not help him, even though that sin be his duty as a soldier. He must
refrain from what his conscience abhors though a thousand duties were
shattered to pieces.
We must remember that duty is an idea which in practice rests upon
social conceptions. We may extend the term beyond its proper connotation
and talk of our duty to ourselves or we may, if we like, say in a
transcendent sense that it was Buddha's duty to abandon all, or even that
it is the ascetic's duty to sit motionless in a cave! But this is obviously
to play with words. Duty is a relative term and depends upon our relation
to others. It is a father's duty, as a father, to nurture and educate his
children; a lawyer to do his best for his client even if he knows him to be
guilty and his defense to be a lie; a soldier's to fight and shoot to order
even if he kill his own kin and countrymen; a judge's to send the guilty to
prison and hang the murderer. And so long as these positions are accepted,
the duty remains clear, a practical matter of course even when it is not a
point of honour or affection, and overrides the absolute religious or moral
law. But what if the inner view is changed, if the lawyer is awakened to
the absolute sinfulness of falsehood, the judge becomes convinced that
capital punishment is a crime against humanity, the man called upon to the
battlefield feels, like the conscientious objector of today or as a Tolstoy
would feel, that in no circumstances is it permissible to take human life
any more than to eat human flesh? It is obvious that here the moral law
which is above all relative duties must prevail; and that law depends on no
social relation or conception of duty but on the awakened inner perception
of man, the moral being.
K Rajaram IRS 14125
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 at 06:16, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Sensing-Vs-Mechanizing
>
>
>
> Immediately after birth a baby cannot speak in words. But it starts
> feeling. Feeling is its language of communication. It cannot use any words.
> With the language of feeling it develops sensing gradually. We see a two
> month or three month baby smiling. It means that it is sensing positively,
> that positive sensing has of course no words in our language. We call it
> ‘the baby smile’. In free and healthy nature, the positive smiling becomes
> very frequent. The baby of course makes the happy baby sounds of enjoyment.
> Actually perception and understanding via feeling is continuation of what
> the baby did while in its mother’s womb. Even after birth the baby grows
> via cell splicing, in the very big womb, nature.
>
> Every life form has its specie particular path of perception and
> understanding. Every organism exhales its perception via smells and sounds,
> creating the great blend of smell and sound based perceptions in the air.
> If the baby is allowed free access to nature, then it continuously
> perceives from the far bigger womb-nature. Its internal hormonal
> communication gets taught and trained by nature, and the baby feels the
> lessons, and it does not identify phenomena with words. But the sounds o
> the baby language are filled with direct perceptions from nature, the freer
> and greater the direct access to nature, the wider the sweep of paradigms
> of perception and understanding.
>
> The basic feature of the Biosphere is that every organism perceives and
> understands in its own specie path and acts and interacts with the other
> species, contributing to the Holistic perception and understanding of the
> Biosphere as one single organism. There is the basic ecological link in the
> chain of emotions, perceptions and understanding. Actually the Biosphere is
> one single organism. Like every life form, other than the human, it can
> neither conceptualize nor understand the techno-logic, the logic of the
> machines.
>
> A machine is cancer to the Biosphere. Nature teaches every organism in
> the ultimate great college of nature for the Biosphere. Nature needs total
> freedom.
>
> When the baby arrives in birth from its mother, it actually starts feeling
> and sensing as a student of nature. Its growth via cell splicing continues
> in nature, the bigger womb. It perceives via feeling and understands in the
> ecological chain of emotions. Like a ell in its body it perceives and
> adjusts to its nano role in nature, the meaning and purpose of its life.
> The cells in it are designed to perceive and know from the hormones. They
> do not do the scientific questioning, doubting, suspecting, believing and
> disbelieving and then by-pass nature with technology.
>
> The baby is designed to perceive from nature directly, employing all its
> sense faculties. Unfortunately it is bludgeoned into the techno path,
> drilling it with the Cartesian logic and brainwashing it into following
> that mechanical approach to perception. If its parents are rich it will be
> jailed into the AC classroom, blocking its access to naure.It is like
> blocking a growing fetus in the womb from the womb.
>
> It is for the Universities to start the ‘Free Nature Parks without human
> tampering’, to revive the natural perception and understanding. Every
> lunatic thinks that he is most intelligent. The human lunatic thinks that
> he is the most intelligent among all organisms of the Biosphere!
>
> YM Sarma
>
> Chat GPT
>
> The passage you've shared reflects on the idea of *sensing vs.
> mechanizing* in the context of human development and its disconnection
> from nature due to technological influences. Here's a breakdown of the key
> points in the text:
>
> 1. *The Language of Feeling*: The text begins by discussing how a
> baby starts its journey in the world through *feeling* rather than using
> words. This early form of communication is described as being connected to
> the baby's natural, sensory experiences—how the baby perceives the world
> before being influenced by the structure of language.
>
> 2. *Perception via Feeling*: As the baby grows, its perception is
> rooted in its sensory experiences. These experiences are linked to natural
> phenomena rather than abstract concepts or mechanized thinking. The baby’s
> emotional and sensory responses are tied to the natural world, which is
> described as a larger "womb" for the baby to grow in.
>
> 3. *Biosphere as a Unified Organism*: The text shifts to a broader
> ecological perspective, where all life forms are part of the *Biosphere*,
> which is considered a single organism. Each species has its own way of
> perceiving and interacting with the world. The relationship between
> species, including humans, forms an interconnected web of understanding and
> emotions.
>
> 4. *The Contrast Between Nature and Technology*: One of the central
> themes in the text is the idea that *technology*, particularly mechanized
> or scientific reasoning, is at odds with natural perception. The author
> views the growth of technological influence as a form of “cancer” to the
> Biosphere, arguing that machines and human-made systems disrupt the natural
> balance. In contrast, nature is seen as an ultimate teacher, nurturing
> organisms through natural perception rather than mechanized logic.
>
> 5. *Human Disconnection from Nature*: The text suggests that modern
> humans, particularly those raised in affluent conditions, are increasingly
> disconnected from nature due to technological and educational systems.
> These systems, such as schools with air-conditioning and urban living,
> block the natural development of sensory perception. The author argues that
> the human focus on technology and logic often limits our connection with
> the natural world.
>
> 6. *Call for Restoration*: The author proposes the creation of "Free
> Nature Parks without human tampering" to help restore a natural way of
> perceiving and understanding the world. These spaces would be dedicated to
> fostering a deeper, holistic connection to the environment.
>
> 7. *Criticism of Human Hubris*: The final sentiment critiques human
> arrogance—specifically, the belief that humans are the most intelligent
> species in the Biosphere. The text implies that this belief leads to a lack
> of humility and an over-reliance on technological solutions, rather than
> embracing the wisdom of the natural world.
>
> This reflection critiques modern society’s increasing reliance on
> technology and its detachment from the ecological, sensory, and emotional
> ways of perceiving and understanding the world that exist in nature. The
> passage encourages a return to these more natural ways of perceiving,
> advocating for the preservation and free exploration of nature without
> human interference.
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoprTsfMaSj6VPVbMynBmD3P-gQAYPGDme6Nqe8QZ5sKEA%40mail.gmail.com.
