Illusion, mystic and the nothingness

Billy comments..

"So, if to know the truth is to occur by knowing first the self, and to truly learn these things we must first be free of all previous knowledge (or limits), then are we to be free of all self-idealization? Do we need to be free of our "knowledge" about ourselves AND the world?

Is the connection between truth and ourselves the connection of the definition of truth: that which exists? Whereas the Maya would be considered: that which does not exist?

And lastly, is the nothingness that is the "(ultimate) truth" simply complete openness free from the confines of definition and limits imposed by categorization in the form of previously gathered knowledge?"



My comments:

Self idealization happens because of the presence of “I”. “I” is nothing but the ego, which in turn, is the result of memory; explicit and implicit around our fears. To feel secure, we idealize in us.

However, we are not just a bundle of ego but an object with fragmented psyche. Our knowledge has happened while being forced to think in terms of family, town, nationality, caste, race, color, religion, beliefs, language, etc and the same is “colored” because of our fragmented approach of looking at the world. We could not be ready for the investigation, unless we are able to get out of our “divided” psyche,

Our knowledge ( I am not referring to our knowledge of driving or typing or reading etc which is required for us to survive) about ourselves and the world, is so hardened, that we are not free to look at the truth without prejudice. By freedom from knowledge is meant, that, while we remain “aware” of it, don’t allow it to interfere in the investigation.

Take the example of a mystic like Purnanand. He is not surprised that Shweta had met Babaji because of his knowledge (the immortality) of Babaji. On the other hand, Dr Bhattacharya applies his “rational” knowledge and ridicules Purnanand and later Shweta, when they merely speak the “truth”.

Is Dr Bhattacharya right in making presumption that Purnanand is fake and Shweta is not telling the truth, when he has no direct knowledge of the truth?

Dr Bhattacharya is “educated” and has practiced psychiatry very successfully. However he has never known mysticism (except what he must have heard as a child in Banaras). Yet he makes a judgmental comment!

The (ultimate) truth is not something which can ever be arrived at, by our sensory perceptions and fragmented mind and what we learn that way is nothing but illusion. A true mystic drops his sensory approach to looking at the world and is able to “see” the “connections” through meditation and entering into an “altered state”.



Nothingness (the ultimate truth) may only be perceived by the absence of our knowledge, sensory organs and the (mathematical) mind and if a mystic is able to do that by some means, he is closer to the truth than we are