Lesson 5 – Chapter 2, Samkhya Yoga: Verses 17-38

 Lesson 5 – Chapter 2, Samkhya Yoga: Verses 17-38

I feel as if I’m taking the class and you are all my teachers. I

don’t have to offer corrections, I can sit back, relax and enjoy the

ride. It’s a fantastic new role for me.

Bailey wrote a major appreciation of Bindu’s last

response—don’t miss it. Speaking of staring into the abyss, I added

my very different near-plunge, still vivid to me 33 years later, at

the very bottom of the document.

I am working on a gender-neutral translation of the Gita, and

changing a few of Nataraja Guru’s word selections in the process.

It reads well. You can find it on the Gita page of the website.

Prior to sending this Lesson back to you, I found this, in the

Preface to Gregory Bateson’s 1971 Steps to an Ecology of Mind:

For a man to change his basic, perception-determining

beliefs—what Bateson calls his epistemological premises—he

must first become aware that reality is not necessarily as he

believes it to be. This is not an easy or comfortable thing to

learn, and most men in history have probably been able to

avoid thinking about it.

And I am not convinced that the unexamined life is never

worth leading. But sometimes the dissonance between reality

and false beliefs reaches a point when it becomes impossible to

avoid the awareness that the world no longer makes sense.

Only then is it possible for the mind to consider radically

different ideas and perceptions.

The universe works in mysterious ways!

Bindu

Life feels very full at the moment—almost like running a

marathon, with the ultimate destination being a return to the

Absolute. For me, each week feels like a MondaytoFriday

marathon, balancing work and home responsibilities while

adapting to constant changes and new projects. After my holiday, I

came down with the flu and had to miss the recent office gathering.

I felt it was better not to risk passing it on to others. I am also

trying to make space for these classes, as they genuinely help clear

my thoughts, and I feel noticeably calmer than before.

In today’s world, money gives us endless choices, and so

much of what happens is influenced by financial power. At times,

even spirituality feels commercialised, with God being

presented—or even “sold”—through money. In this modern,

AIdriven age, many people shape the idea of the Absolute to fit

their comfort or beliefs.

With this in mind, I wanted to share my reflections

on Bhagavad Gita, Chapter II (verses 17–38).

The Absolute can feel difficult to grasp in our present-day

context. We live in a world that trusts what can be seen, measured,

and directly experienced. Most of the time, I think in relative

terms—defining myself by my body, my roles, my work, my

relationships, and my successes and failures. From that

perspective, loss feels final, death feels frightening, and suffering

becomes deeply personal.

These verses gently encourage us to look deeper. They do not

reject everyday life; instead, they remind us that there is something

within us that never changes. The Absolute is described as

everpresent and untouched by birth, death, or destruction. When I

reflect on this, I sense it as a quiet awareness within me—the part

that watches thoughts, emotions, and events without being altered

by them.

For me, the Absolute feels like an imaginary

friend—someone I can share everything with, even my anger.

Sometimes I shout, sometimes I laugh, knowing that whatever I

express is received without judgment. In this way, the Absolute

becomes my stress reliever, my Guru, and my soulmate. When I

share heavy emotions with God, I feel lighter and more at peace.

Relative thinking is essential for daily life—for working, caring for

others, and making decisions. But when we rely only on relative

thinking, it can lead to fear, grief, and confusion. Absolute thinking

brings balance. It does not eliminate pain, but it helps me see it

from a wider perspective so that it does not overwhelm my entire

life.

In verse 31, dharma is presented not as a rigid rule but as

something deeply connected to one’s nature. Sri Aurobindo

describes dharma as the law of one’s being, which resonates

strongly with me. What is right is not identical for everyone—it

depends on who we are, what we can do, and the situation we face.

Nitya explains dharma as action that does not create inner

conflict—when our inner truth aligns with our outward actions.

This shows that dharma is less about strict morality and more

about acting with honesty and clarity, free from fear and ego.

In Arjuna’s case, refusing to fight may look peaceful, but it

represents avoidance—turning away from his responsibility and

true nature. Krishna is not promoting violence; he is teaching that

when we act according to our dharma, without attachment to

outcomes, we are freed from guilt, fear, and confusion.

I relate this to an experience at work. During a salary

challenge, four of us were performing the same role but were

placed on different grades. Two colleagues received higher pay

because of their grade, despite identical responsibilities. When I

raised the issue, I was offered a higher grade—equal to my

manager’s—based on performance. I declined the offer because it

did not feel right. It would have been unfair to a colleague who

remained on the lower grade, and it could have created discomfort

for my manager. I chose not to pursue the challenge further, and I

have no regrets. I believe that what is truly meant for me cannot be

taken away—especially my values and integrity. Acting according

to my dharma brought peace of mind, even as I explore new

opportunities. I am not running away from what affects me; I am

taking action in a way that feels aligned with who I am.

For me, dharma means staying true to myself, even when it is

uncomfortable. It means not abandoning what I know is right out

of fear, loss, or uncertainty. This chapter encourages me to move

from asking, “What will happen if I act?” to asking, “Am I acting

in accordance with what I know within?”

The classic Vedantic truth, “I am not the body. I am not even the

mind,” feels deeply connected to this understanding of the

Absolute.

Scott: A full life is a great blessing, Bindu, so you are most

fortunate. We just have to be careful not to get too caught up in the

demands our employers are happy to make on us. Bailey has

written about how far it is being taken—we may become a race of

machine/human hybrids. Personally, it doesn’t appeal to me. I’m

content to remain behind as an “all-meat” person, to quote Oz

author L. Frank Baum.

I particularly appreciate this sentence: “Krishna is not

promoting violence; he is teaching that when we act according to

our dharma, without attachment to outcomes, we are freed from

guilt, fear, and confusion.” Your summation of dharma also hits

the mark. You are well prepared for the Gita’s leap, which starts in

the next lesson.

Vivek

Scott, these are two excellent questions to help us absorb the text

and crystallize its personal implications. Great way to start moving

from information to transformation!

Exercise 1

Words like ‘the Absolute’ are very problematic for modern-day

humans, and this section distinguishes absolute and relative

thinking. Reflect on what their differences mean to you, and what

role they have in your life, if any.

The Gita, and Vedanta’s conception of the absolute is transcendent

as well as immanent

This leads to a remarkable implication...that the absolute is not

separate from the relative. It is in and through the relative, it

pervades the relative. And that absolute is you

The first line of verse 16 said Asat (the relative) never exists, and

the Sat (the absolute) never ceases to exist. The second line said

that knowing this, the wise see Brahman everywhere, implying one

can rise above the pairs of opposites of the relative world to see the

absolute behind them

Verse 17 makes this more explicit by saying that the

indestructible...i.e. the absolute pervades ‘all this’, i.e. the relative

world we experience (yena sarvam idaṁ tatam)

This links the ‘relative’ intimately to the ‘absolute’. There is no

change without an unchanging context. There is no relative without

an absolute. There is no pole without its opposite and there is no

opposing pair of polarities without an underlying unity in the

absolute

What does this mean to us in daily life...if we can be sensitive to

it? Three things:

First, listen...with respect. However convinced we are of our

position, it is one position. There are others. Consider them. After

all, we may be the Duryodhana of this drama, not Arjuna!

Listening needs an open mind and humility. Those are big words

and we don’t always rise to them, but causality works both ways.

Listening is a simple act. We can always do that and when we do,

it encourages open mindedness and humility as well

Related, grant the other guy his humanity. Don’t assume he is evil

and operating with intent to harm. He may well be, but it is far

more likely he is misinformed, emotional, deluded, or simply inept

at the task... incompetence explains far more than enemy action!

Neither prevents us from treating even opponents with respect and

compassion

After all, if everything is pervaded by the absolute and that

absolute is you, there is every reason to act with respect and

compassion and no reason not to. The absolute is not a faraway

thing somewhere out there. It is right here, in you, in the other

position, in the other guy. Listening is a small act that can remind

us of a big reality

Second, listening and respect are not naivete or passivity. We do

live in the relative as well. Act, fight in the relative when needed.

But do so with a keen sense of your role and your duty in it. We

saw what Dhritrashtra’s failure to do so led to when he prioritized

his son’s ambition over his duty to his wards, his nephews. He

spoke just in the first verse, but his attitude (mamakaha-mine)

explained so much of the destruction that followed

Third, act with dispassion. That is hard but comes more easily if

we can keep in mind the notion of the absolute that transcends the

polarities of sides and of outcomes that characterize the relative.

Kipling expressed a similar thought, ‘If you can meet with triumph

and disaster and treat those two impostors just the same...you’ll be

a man my son’  

Why these three points...how do they fit together?

They help us see the relative and the absolute together, and to act

in the relative focused on the absolute

‘Listen with respect’ connects the immanent and the transcendent.

It is a means for us to lift our eyes and recognize the world we

experience not as all there is but as the immanent form of the

transcendent. ‘Act on duty’ helps us do what we need to in this

relative world we do experience. ‘Dispassion’ focuses us on the

transcendent. We move closer to the transcendent the more we

recognize the unity behind the polarities that create passion

Together, they help us look at the Jagat as the Saguna, a reflection

of the Nirguna, and to act with dharma and vairagya. That creates

chitta shuddhi to facilitate gyana

All this is easier said than done. We may not reach the goal, but we

will be better for trying. After all (1.01) 365 = 37

If you are wondering what that equation is, it is a hokey

motivational thought couched with faux mathematical precision 

i.e. if you are one percent better every day, you are 37 times better

by the end of the year! Useful despite the hokiness

Exercise 2

Verse 31 introduces dharma, and includes Sri Aurobindo’s and

Nitya’s definitions, which are superb. What does dharma mean to

you, and how does what they say match up with your own ideas?

Verse 31 speaks further to the second point above on doing your

duty. It calls out sva dharma, your own specific duty. I take away

two points, one pragmatic, one inspirational

First, do your duty in the role you have. We have different roles at

any time, and roles that change over time. Our duty may be

obvious at most times but that is not always the case. If it takes

some thought, do that...it is well worth it

Equally, there is no point wringing our hands over what is not our

job, over the state of the world at large. You don’t like the stock

market being whipsawed daily by geopolitics, then adapt your

portfolio for resilience...that is your duty to your family right now,

before you seek to cure the ills of the world or expend energy

lamenting them. You don’t like the ecological status of the world,

then recycle in your own home...that is your duty. If you choose to

be an ecological activist devoted to that goal, that is great as well,

but that is a different choice of role than being a householder in a

job

If this sounds hardheaded, think of it as a lens to clarify where to

focus the limited energy we have. To paraphrase Epictetus, your

chief task today is to distinguish between what you control and

what you do not. Act on the former, accept the latter

The second, more inspirational point is, when duty calls you to act

or fight, then make a stand...act. The verse says there is nothing

better than a righteous war for a warrior. This is not an exhortation

to violence and war. Arjun’s sva dharma was that of a warrior.

Ours is so only metaphorically. For us, this is inspiration to stand

up and be counted...against our own sva dharma

Scott: That’s right, Vivek, it’s super important that Arjuna has

recognized his kinship with the enemy, right at the first. There’s a

lifetime of work even with just that. Accepting them does not mean

we approve, only that we acknowledge.

My math skills are very rusty, so thanks for explaining your

equation. Was 37 picked randomly, as is it the actual result? I’m

too busy to carry it out myself….

As to duty, we’ll be converting it to ‘sacrifice’ by the third

chapter and not using the term much, as it is overloaded with

misunderstanding and partiality. Again, Arjuna is caught between

his authentic dharma and his societal dharma, and will spend the

full eighteen chapters sorting out who he truly is, in the midst of

the chaos.

I’m definitely with you, Vivek, that we should surrender

being miserable about all the malfeasance loose in the world.

Living a realized life is our best contribution—not trying to repair

others, at least until we’re done with Krishna’s full course of study,

and are granted our virtual diploma. I’m sure Epictetus would be

happy to be included in this study. Bailey is also bringing in the

ancient Greeks, who would have loved to wrestle with the Gita,

and possibly did.

It’s clear you’re well prepared for soaring up the Gitta’s arch.

Vivek. Away we go!

Gopica

Reading Bhagavad Gita verses 18-34, along with your

commentary, helped me recognize my own mental baggage-the

unconscious patterns I've been clinging to.

The metaphor beyond spiritual aspirant dress codes offers a fresh

perspective; yield to and embrace the here-and-now with neutral

attitude. The beautiful insight that "our path always stretches out

from our feet" emphasizes staying grounded.

The true awakening came from: "This isn't mystical faith in some

divine program. Each of us unconsciously selects a tiny segment of

the total vibrational world to engage." This completely reframes

karma as conscious choice.

Each verse provided key takeaways, making me reflect on how

often I've chosen withdrawal or bystander attitudes during events

around me perhaps clinging to conditioned "witness karma"

mentality.

Verse 92 from That Alone, the Core of Wisdom brought deeper

clarity; fulfilling my roles and responsibilities at each life stage

becomes my dharma, which shapes my karma. This brought real

freedom.

My understanding of dharma has evolved from childhood moral

stories teaching "good deeds = dharma," toward absolute

responsibility. 

To me, the Absolute is objective Truth, while reality remains

subjective perception.

Thank you!

Scott: Very nice, Gopica. I’m happy you’re engaged with what’s

developing. There is a contradiction in your third paragraph,

however. Our brain is selecting what we perceive in advance of our

conscious awareness, so it’s an unconscious process, and our

action, our karma, is for the most part not left to conscious

deliberation. You are perfectly correct that there is a conscious

aspect in our decision-making, but up till now it has been focused

on a very narrow bandwidth of obligation and duty. We don’t

realize how much shrinking of data is taking place. We need to

open ourself up with contemplation of the Guru’s mind-stretching

instruction, which begins with the next lesson and will unfold in a

carefully thought-out procedure. It begins with rejection of the

ordinary, which has us quite trapped, and the resulting

claustrophobia is what energizes our desire to break free and

uncover more of our true self.

I’m not sure what verse 92 of That Alone suggested to you,

Gopica. This is a place where if you share more of what you’ve

understood, it will be educational for the rest of us, also.

Congratulations on taking that terrific course!

Nandita

These verses offer the foundation of how to deal with the various

emotional challenges which life throws at us. I often face

emotional pressure due to role conflict, emotional overload and

work stressors. There is a distinction between transient external

realities and the indestructible nature of the true Self. The enables

us to understand that by anchoring ourselves in stable values and

professional principles, we are less likely to be swayed by the

constant changes around us. 

By realising that we cannot control all consequences but can act

ethically and in a balanced way. Therefore, we focus on acting in

best practice rather than guaranteeing outcome.

Acceptance of impermanence reduces cognitive resistance and

allows clearer thinking in crisis, reduce rumination and emotional

exhaustion. 

Role based duty or dharma should be the anchoring point whereby

we fulfil our responsibilities without worrying about the outcome.

Decision yet reflective action based on moral and ethical

principles, without any expectations reduces attachments and

enables the mind to be balanced and allows for emotional

regulation and psychological flexibility. Equanimity — the ability

to remain balanced amid success and failure, gain and loss, praise

and criticism. .

Overall, these verses present a timeless model for grounding

oneself in enduring principles, accept uncertainty, clarify role-

based duty, act with full commitment, and release attachment to

outcomes. 

Scott: The Gita’s program boils down to us learning self-respect

for the vast beings we are, so that we aren’t intimidated by

domineering people in our environment. Identity with the Absolute

is legitimate, but we have to earn it, because we start the search

convinced of our inadequacies—which does have value, it’s just

not the whole story. We are inadequate, like the Kaurava army, yet

also adequate, like the Pandava’s army.

Your suggestions, Nandita, fit the bill very well, so you are

properly prepared for the adventure ahead.

I would add that role-based duty or dharma often feeds into

having anxiety about outcomes. We will first regain our identity

with our full Self, and then it will naturally apply to the actions we

choose or are constrained to do. Discarding expectations is one

technique for getting distance on the roles we play, to spend

quality time with our undirected essence.

The next lesson begins with a firm rejection of popular

beliefs, so we no longer depend on them for guidance.

Bailey

     Wow! I want to thank Bindu for her vivid and eloquent

reflections on “experience as Guru” in Morocco.  Sometimes the

Tao grabs you and shakes you up – in her case as she literally

contemplated an abyss.  Something comparable happened to me

not long ago (July 2023) when I ingested a substance I thought was

basically just candy in an airport and found myself starting another

kind of trip.  Like Bindu on that treacherous mountain path I

became frightened, my mind beset with possible disasters; like

Bindu I found a Mantram –or perhaps it found me: I am not this

body; I am not these thoughts (this mind) which accompanied me

as the trip took me higher in the midst of crowds hurrying down

long corridors to catch their flights.  “The unknown often carries

hidden dangers, and only presence of mind allows us to navigate

them safely.”  Again, wow! “Experience becomes the greatest

teacher...transforms us...becomes a manifestation of the

Absolute.”  More dangerous, transforming experiences lay ahead,

and now (Monday Jan 26) I find myself in a new home, in a new

community, looking out over a 15” blanket of fresh snow into the

sunlit woods.  Amazing, this life!  Bindu’s subsequent emphasis on

choosing to walk, a human rather than an heroic choice, also

echoes my experience in the airport.  I knew I had to choose to

keep walking, or fall into the abyss, and at the same time I knew

CHOICE WAS ALWAYS THERE.  This awareness remained

with me throughout the ordeal of the next three days, when I was

taken into a hospital for tests and observation before finally being

allowed to board a plane and go home.  Ever since then the

deepening sense of transformation from that experience has

remained with me.  Bindu, thanks, and I love the poem.

 

     What does Absolute mean to me and why is the word called by

Scott “very problematic for modern-day humans” and “contrasted

with relative thinking”?   Every time I taught the Ancient Greeks I

would tell my students about the first professional teachers, the

first free-lance intellectuals, known as Sophists, arriving in newly

“democratic” Athens ca 450 BC and inviting their students to

consider that different peoples from different political communities

(they used the term polis) had different beliefs and customs, so it

stands to reason (Reason!) that such are relative, not absolute.

What is accepted as good (right) behavior in Syracuse is frowned

upon, or mocked, or forbidden in Athens.  So, logically, (logos was

an exciting new word, a new intellectual tool) what is held to be

Truth (what is right) is relative to the values accepted in Syracuse

and in Athens. And these are both Greek places.  The world is

teeming with so many different cultures—all those barbarians who

can’t even speak Greek...Wait a minute!  There’s something

slippery about this logic, isn’t there? (Indeed, “sophistic” is what

slippery logic is called ever since.) Yeah, but a skillful blend of

boldly-asserted-if-tricky-logic and smooth, well-crafted, persuasive

(emotionally appealing) speech (there was a new Greek word for

this, too: rhetoric) can make you the winner in political or

intellectual argument, or in a lawsuit, or an election.  What is

Truth?  It’s all relative! (Confronting whether it was true or not

that a certain Jesus of Nazarath, denounced to him as a dangerous

anti-Roman agitator, was guilty or not, the governor Pontius Pilate

just shrugged.)  One of the most famous and successful of the

Sophists used to boast: I can teach you to make the worse appear

the better cause – i.e. to win! Winning is what counts, isn’t it?

“Truth” can be tailored to what fits my goals, my agenda.  Truth is

what it suits me (my party, my crowd) today; tomorrow is another

day.  Change is always happening.  Get used to it or get out!

       Anything sound familiar?  Relativism and sophistry did not

work out well, it can be argued, in Athens nor did things end well

for democracy as practiced there. 

 

       It was not an intellectual, it was an Athenian working-class

fellow, a stone mason, who strongly rejected the Sophist relativist

worldview. Truth, Socrates taught, is universal, has the status of

absolute value. Reason and Logic are, properly used and

understood, tools which can lead us along the path toward Truth.

He taught through dialogue with students – in this somewhat

resembling the Upanishadic sages and even the Buddha—but using

a critical methodology more akin to Samkhya. Since we mostly

know his dialogues as they were written down and no doubt

polished by his disciple Plato, who was an intellectual, perhaps the

Ur-Intellectual of Western Civilization, good luck disentangling

the ideas of the two, but it is not important for our purposes here to

do so.  They agreed that True Reality is not to be found in the ever-

changing material world, which is known through the senses.  True

Reality exists in an “ideal” realm, an Absolute realm, the realm of

Ideas, which is eternal, unchanging and beyond the physical

world.  Hence “metaphysical” (meta is Greek for beyond). 

 

      So why has the concept “absolute” become “problematic”?  It

is held to be incompatible with the basic assumptions of Scientific

Materialism, which has been gaining ground among intellectuals

since the later 19 th  century, when Darwin’s theory of evolution

became the dominant intellectual paradigm and Nietzsche’s

metaphorical cry “God is dead”  (albeit put in the mouth of a

Madman) struck a deep intello-emotional chord.  For the

20 th  century philosopher Martin Heidigger that cry signifies the

demise of metaphysics as a structuring feature of Western

thought.  It has also become the rallying cry of vociferous atheists,

who follow the citation of Nietzche’s phrase with “Good

Riddance!”  Generally modern atheists caricature belief in God as

mere superstition (in the tradition of 18 th  century philosophers like

Voltaire) and argue that Science alone, with its measurement-and-

experiment-based methodologies, can lead to Truth in the context

of our universe, the only one we can know (at least for now).

Science, they insist, is on the path to achieving a total, integrated

Theory of Everything which has no more place for archaic

concepts like “soul” or “spirit” (or atman, or brahman) than for a

Creator God or Divine Providence.  Science alone! And for a

particularly vociferous school of atheists Science has to do only

with Matter.  There is nothing behind or beyond.  

 

     Perhaps this position can be caricatured with a slogan: Nothing

Beyond!  It amounts to a kind of fundamentalism. The Israeli

historian Yuval Noah Hariri offers this quick sketch of what he

argues is becoming the dominant intellectual ideology in key

scientific communities.  The last chapter of his provocatively titled

recent book Homo Deus (2016) calls it “The Data Religion”:

"Datism declares that the universe consists of data flows, and the

value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its

contribution to data processing. This may strike you as some

eccentric fringe notion, but in fact it has already conquered most

of the scientific establishment.  Datism was born from the

explosive confluence of two scientific tidal waves. In the 150 years

since Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species the life

sciences have come to see organisms as biochemical algorithms.

Simultaneously, in the eight decades since Alan Turing formulated

the idea of a Turing Machine, computer scientists have learned to

engineer increasingly sophisticated electronic algorithms.  Datism

puts the two together, pointing out that exactly the same

mathematical laws apply to both biochemical and electronic

algorithms.  Datism thereby collapses the barrier between animals

and machines and expects electronic algorithms to eventually

decipher and outperform biochemical algorithms.” (p 372)   Well,

“I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!” (the sarcastic sneer uttered by Darwin-

deniers in the 1860s) needs to be updated to an insult more like:

Your grandmother was a faulty feedback-loop!

     Commenting on verse 26, Scott offers this useful summary of

what the position I have dubbed Nothing Beyond seems to

imply: “the belief that everything is just a temporary accident

occurring in a meaningless void “.  No wonder Arjuna is tempted

to throw down his bow in despair!  Good thing Krishna is on

hand.  Sure, we’re all born and we’re gonna all die.  Life is still

wonderful (except when it’s not). Even a resolute materialist can

agree.  But, to go to further, to balanced Truth beyond the limits of

mere materialism, whatever dies is going to be born again, as it

were recycled (verse 27—what Scott dubs in his comments the

holistic position).  Birth and death, around and around,

action/reaction: that’s Nature.  Nature binds (and bounds) us all

within the Laws (anthropomorphic metaphor, that!) which are the

proper domain of scientific study. Which domain is also,

necessarily, the domain of relativity.  Where does the Absolute

reside?  Beyond Nature. (oops, egad, Dr. Heidigger, is

Metaphysics back?)  Where we are not suited, by our untaught

human nature, to understand all that cause-and-effect complexity.

(Verse 29).  Here is the territory of Mystery.  This we can’t

understand but we can experience. Some call it the Tao (Nataraja

Guru sometimes did). People experience life differently.  That’s

duality. Don’t regret it, Arjuna (and the rest of us). Live it as your

own nature bids you (verse 30).  How you choose to live it, thus to

act, that’s karma (verses 31-38).

 

     Dharma?  Arnaud Desjardins notes, in a text I read the other

day, that the dharma of a bird is to fly, the dharma of the newborn

babe we have all been is to demand and to receive.  Baby knows

only “me”, my need, my desire.  As we grow from there?  To

understand, to accept, to embrace the reality that the universe is not

all about us (but ego insists it is), that as we come to understand

our capacities-as-well-as-our-limits we are called upon to act in

accordance.  Does that make sense?

Scott: While we’re integrating mind and body into an undivided

entity, a chant like “I am not this body,” serves to counteract a pre-

existing belief in something solid and separate. So it isn’t “wrong,”

it’s a technique. Nitya used to lead us through a chakra meditation

that included those words, and its effects were astonishing, to say

the least.

“Absolute” is frowned on because it is taken as referring to

an absolute limit—my beliefs and not yours. Nazi absolutism, the

exact opposite of what we’re talking about. The term is not

associated with what we’re after: an all-inclusive ideology,

incomprehensible to partisan awareness. I enjoy your account of

olden times, Bailey, and how the Absolute hides in plain sight.

Always.

The Bonobo and the Atheist, by Frans de Waal, has my

favorite rant about Fundamentalist Atheists, and is a really fun

book. Loved Sapiens, but found Homo Deus nauseating. I’m not

going to sign up for the computer upload, but my writings on the

website may be read by AI (in one-quadrillionth of a second) and

have a slight impact on uploaded machine beings.

This is a topic we could talk long into the night over, Bailey.

Some day. I do wonder if it’s an ego fantasy to be replicated a

zillion times, with each replicant having its own individuality.

Elongated Musk is already doing it the old-fashioned way, by

initiating babies, and I expect he’ll be first in line for fathering his

own universe….

Very important point you make: science limits itself to the

relative. As it should. Yet it should also leave doors open for non-

relativity, and in rare cases it has. We won’t be accessing it by

relative algorithms, but more intuitively. It’s why Krishna is about

to downplay goal-orientation, where you start out with a limit,

which curses your exploration from the start. Relativity is like

wealth: you can’t take it with you.

Your last paragraph, Bailey, demonstrates the negativity of

absolutism: it’s all about me. We are being led at the present time

by adult infants, or infant adults, who’ve never gotten over it, and

it’s mighty ugly. Somehow we must learn to reconcile our isolation

as individuals with a vast or infinite universe where community

and cooperation expand our potential exponentially.

Here's my very real abyss story; though, like Bindu, I’m terrified

of heights, this is another way to gaze into nothingness.

A Peek at Sannyasa

After a lovely stay in the Ooty Gurukula in 1993, my family

was traveling with Nitya by train to Madras, where our flight home

was slated in a few days. Emily was 11 and Harmony 5. Jyothi,

Nitya’s assistant, was with us. At Mettupalayam you change from

the toy train to a real one, and the first stop is Coimbatore, where

Nitya asked me to get him a magazine at the shop across the

platform. I took out a ten rupee note and headed over to it. While I

was standing in line, the train started to go, rapidly picking up

speed. I raced over and jumped into a car, hearing behind me a

distant “No! No!” I turned and stood in the doorway, and saw a

young man rushing toward me, waving and shouting “No, no!

Trivandrum train!” I leapt off just at the last moment, and watched

the train accelerate into the dusk. He explained that the train

divided in half at that station, and the Madras half was still sitting

there. By getting on the moving train, I was heading down into

Kerala with no money, no ID, not even a ticket, and no idea where

Nitya was headed with my dear family. I realized if I had stayed on

the train, I would have become a de facto renunciate.

Maybe the shock was intensified by my close relationship

with Nitya, but my mind was blown. I had been very close to

losing all contact with my loved ones, and the implications kept me

reeling. I walked in a daze back to the compartment in the

stationary half of the train, and told them my story, which no one

else was much impressed by. Then I went back and got in line to

buy the magazine. As I stood there, the other train pulled out in the

other direction, and there was no way I could catch it. I almost

fainted.

India is full of kind souls who help out in a pinch, and

another one of them noticed my flushed face and stupefied look,

and said, “No worry—the train is only moving to another

platform.” After a few minutes I saw it come in at a distant part of

the immense station. I bought the magazine and headed toward it,

taking resolve to always keep my passport and wallet with me in

the future.

Twenty-eight years later, (now 33) part of me still looks into

that gaping black hole of real sannyasa, and recoils in shock. I

loved my life as it was, and did not want to let it go. The Unknown

was truly terrifying, and very near at hand.