THE WORLD OF" MANY"

Oneness may be an enticing idea, yet it's only an “ idea, ” not what we typically see or witness every day. What we've to deal with in our diurnal lives isn't oneness, but its polar contrary — numerous- ness. The world we breathe by, the world that we seek as well as shrink from, the world that both annoys and attracts us, is the world packed with the “ numerous. ” Oneness is simple, numerous- ness is complicated. Unity is peaceful, diversity is noisy.     From the moment we're born, we encounter a world filled with numerous objects, numerous trees, numerous creatures, numerous people. Our eyes bring in a variety of forms and colors, the cognizance let in all kinds of sounds, the lingo is oriented to a range of tastes, the nose is sensitive to colorful kinds of smells, and indeed touch isn't just of one type. What's our world if not a arbitrary pool of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations, all connected and connected by the meaning assigned to them by the mind? What's our life if not the narrative erected around all of our gests of the “ numerous ”?     Our books uphold the experience of diversity in the world, our television shows and pictures do the same, as do the songs we sing and the games we play. Our exchanges assume the reality of the different world and our conclusions depend on it. Our minds are filled to the brim with the “ numerous ” which the world serves us on a server. We're so boxed in by it that it funnels our thinking, feeds our favors, and limits our imagination.     An important derivate of the numerous- ness girding us is the underpinning of the idea that the world is “ real. ” The mind has a way to reason this out. The people around me see the same world that I see. The world thus isn't commodity that I'm imagining. It’s really outthere.However, how could we all smell the world in exactly the same way?   If it did n’t have an objective reality.   All of this helps to affirm the “ numerous ” and relegate oneness to only an fantastic idea, or an insolvable ideal that one may pine for but noway attain.     It's nonetheless possible to ask — does the world have to be real just because all of us see the same world? The answer is that it does n’t have to be. All the people in my dream see the same world too. While they all believe that the world is real, when I wake up I realize that not only was it not real but that all the people I saw in my dream were also not real. Nothing in my dream was real. Only the utopian — me asleep and featuring was real.     It was me, this one utopian, who created this world of “ numerous ” and lowered myself, as it were, by getting just one critter among the numerous in my dream. The creator- me forgot myself and came a critter. When I wake up, the dream vanishes along with the lowered- me. I formerly again know who I always was. The one — me! was real each on. The “ numerous ” — all the people and everything differently I saw in my dream — did not live before my dream began and they didn't live after my dream ended. Did they really “ live ” when the dream channel was on?     We read in the Māṇḍukya Kārikā(2.6)     आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा ।     वितथै सदृशा सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिता ॥     Ādāvante ca yan- nāsti, vartamāne’pi tat tathā,     Vitathaiḥ sadṛśāḥ santo’vitathā iva lakṣitāḥ.     “ That which exists neither in the morning nor in the end is likewise( absent) in the middle as well. In malignancy of being illusory, the objects are viewed as if they're real. ”     Brahman alone was in the morning and Brahman alone exists in the end( after enlightenment). The mysterious appearance of the “ numerous ” between the morning and the end is a dream which appears real until the “ sleeping Brahman ” wakes up. Brahman falls asleep( as it were), dreams of the world of “ numerous ”( as it were), and wakes up( as it were).     Everything is “ as it were ” — but because of ignorance, it appears real. It crushes us, torments us, grinds us to such an extent that we feel helpless and rudderless. It’s beyond belief that a dream could inflict similar annihilation! But it does and it’s still doing it. When shall we wake up and leave all this gibberish behind us?     still, the following perceptivity from the Upaniṣads may begin to make further sense   If we keep this hide- and- seek of oneness and numerous- ness in mind.   एको देव सर्वभूतेषु गूढ ।                              Eko devaḥ sarva- bhuteṣu gūḍhaḥ.     The one tone- resplendent being is hidden in all beings.( Śvetāśvatara,6.11)                              एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम् एतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् ।              Ekadhā- eva- anudraṣṭavyaṁ etad- apramayaṁ dhruvam.                           “ Unknowable and unchanging, it should be realized only as one.                                              ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.20)                       मृत्यो स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति ।               Mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati.  “ He goes from death to death who sees as if there are numerous in it( Brahman).                                                                       ”(Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.19, Kaṭha,2.1.11)                        सलिल एको द्रष्टाऽद्वैतो भवति ।                  Salila eko draṣṭā advaito bhavati.   “ It becomes( transparent) like water, one, the substantiation, and without a alternate.                                        ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.3.32)                           नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन ।                    Na- iha nānā- asti kiñcana.   “ There are absolutely no ‘ numerous ’ in it( Brahman). ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.19)               न तु तद्‌द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तम् ।     Na to laddie- dvitīyam asti tato anyad- vibhaktam.  “ There's also no alternate thing separate from the substantiation that it could see.                                      ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.3.23)              तत्र को मोह क शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत ।     Tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śokaḥ ekatvam- anupaśyataḥ.  “ What vision, what anguish, can there be for a person who experiences oneness? ”( Īśa, 7).

 Oneness may be an enticing idea, yet it's only an “ idea, ” not what we typically see or witness every day. What we've to deal with in our diurnal lives isn't oneness, but its polar contrary — numerous- ness. The world we breathe by, the world that we seek as well as shrink from, the world that both annoys and attracts us, is the world packed with the “ numerous. ” Oneness is simple, numerous- ness is complicated. Unity is peaceful, diversity is noisy. 
 
 From the moment we're born, we encounter a world filled with numerous objects, numerous trees, numerous creatures, numerous people. Our eyes bring in a variety of forms and colors, the cognizance let in all kinds of sounds, the lingo is oriented to a range of tastes, the nose is sensitive to colorful kinds of smells, and indeed touch isn't just of one type. What's our world if not a arbitrary pool of sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and sensations, all connected and connected by the meaning assigned to them by the mind? What's our life if not the narrative erected around all of our gests of the “ numerous ”? 
 
 Our books uphold the experience of diversity in the world, our television shows and pictures do the same, as do the songs we sing and the games we play. Our exchanges assume the reality of the different world and our conclusions depend on it. Our minds are filled to the brim with the “ numerous ” which the world serves us on a server. We're so boxed in by it that it funnels our thinking, feeds our favors, and limits our imagination. 
 
 An important derivate of the numerous- ness girding us is the underpinning of the idea that the world is “ real. ” The mind has a way to reason this out. The people around me see the same world that I see. The world thus isn't commodity that I'm imagining. It’s really outthere.However, how could we all smell the world in exactly the same way? 
 If it did n’t have an objective reality. 
 All of this helps to affirm the “ numerous ” and relegate oneness to only an fantastic idea, or an insolvable ideal that one may pine for but noway attain. 
 
 It's nonetheless possible to ask — does the world have to be real just because all of us see the same world? The answer is that it does n’t have to be. All the people in my dream see the same world too. While they all believe that the world is real, when I wake up I realize that not only was it not real but that all the people I saw in my dream were also not real. Nothing in my dream was real. Only the utopian — me asleep and featuring was real. 
 
 It was me, this one utopian, who created this world of “ numerous ” and lowered myself, as it were, by getting just one critter among the numerous in my dream. The creator- me forgot myself and came a critter. When I wake up, the dream vanishes along with the lowered- me. I formerly again know who I always was. The one — me! was real each on. The “ numerous ” — all the people and everything differently I saw in my dream — did not live before my dream began and they didn't live after my dream ended. Did they really “ live ” when the dream channel was on? 
 
 We read in the Māṇḍukya Kārikā(2.6) 
 
 आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमानेऽपि तत्तथा । 
 
 वितथै सदृशा सन्तोऽवितथा इव लक्षिता ॥ 
 
 Ādāvante ca yan- nāsti, vartamāne’pi tat tathā, 
 
 Vitathaiḥ sadṛśāḥ santo’vitathā iva lakṣitāḥ. 
 
 “ That which exists neither in the morning nor in the end is likewise( absent) in the middle as well. In malignancy of being illusory, the objects are viewed as if they're real. ” 
 
 Brahman alone was in the morning and Brahman alone exists in the end( after enlightenment). The mysterious appearance of the “ numerous ” between the morning and the end is a dream which appears real until the “ sleeping Brahman ” wakes up. Brahman falls asleep( as it were), dreams of the world of “ numerous ”( as it were), and wakes up( as it were). 
 
 Everything is “ as it were ” — but because of ignorance, it appears real. It crushes us, torments us, grinds us to such an extent that we feel helpless and rudderless. It’s beyond belief that a dream could inflict similar annihilation! But it does and it’s still doing it. When shall we wake up and leave all this gibberish behind us? 
 
 still, the following perceptivity from the Upaniṣads may begin to make further sense 
 If we keep this hide- and- seek of oneness and numerous- ness in mind. 
 एको देव सर्वभूतेषु गूढ । 
 
                          Eko devaḥ sarva- bhuteṣu gūḍhaḥ. 
 
 The one tone- resplendent being is hidden in all beings.( Śvetāśvatara,6.11) 
 
                          एकधैवानुद्रष्टव्यम् एतदप्रमयं ध्रुवम् । 
 
          Ekadhā- eva- anudraṣṭavyaṁ etad- apramayaṁ dhruvam. 

                         “ Unknowable and unchanging, it should be realized only as one. 

                                           ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.20) 

                    मृत्यो स मृत्युमाप्नोति य इह नानेव पश्यति । 
 
           Mṛtyoḥ sa mṛtyum āpnoti ya iha nāneva paśyati.

 “ He goes from death to death who sees as if there are numerous in it( Brahman).                                                                       ”(Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.19, Kaṭha,2.1.11) 

 
                   सलिल एको द्रष्टाऽद्वैतो भवति । 
 
              Salila eko draṣṭā advaito bhavati. 

 “ It becomes( transparent) like water, one, the substantiation, and without a alternate.

                                      ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.3.32) 

                        नेह नानास्ति किञ्चन । 
                  Na- iha nānā- asti kiñcana. 

 “ There are absolutely no ‘ numerous ’ in it( Brahman). ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.4.19) 

            न तु तद्‌द्वितीयमस्ति ततोऽन्यद्विभक्तम् । 
 
 Na to laddie- dvitīyam asti tato anyad- vibhaktam.

 “ There's also no alternate thing separate from the substantiation that it could see.

                                    ”( Bṛhadāraṇyaka,4.3.23) 

           तत्र को मोह क शोक एकत्वमनुपश्यत । 
 
 Tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śokaḥ ekatvam- anupaśyataḥ.

 “ What vision, what anguish, can there be for a person who experiences oneness? 

                                            ”( Īśa, 7). 

                                                        Source:Vedanta society,Wikipedia

SeeDISQUSComment