Frames of reference

We all accept the three dimensions of space and the fourth of time. Naturally, it appears that the dimension or frame of reference of time contains the three dimensions of space as a composite. What puzzles me is the possibility of another frame of reference – of mind. If you accept it, then the next question is whether it contains frame of reference of time or vice-versa. And, extending this doubt to an extreme, and putting it more generally, is it possible that these two frames of reference are - uniquely - mutually-recursive? For example, you know the current time or some notion of time, because of your mind, that can think about it (time contained by mind) and you are likely to change your mind about something, sometime (mind contained by time)? Mutual recursion poses an interesting problem - for it leads to chaos. This begs the question whether the chaos could possibly be true, or is simply beyond our comprehension, to even reason about it being true?

Vikaras

Something that has always stuck with me and something that I learned in early years, was the inability of bhautik humans to control our indriyas and the inability to fight the vikaras - Kam (sexual desires), Krodh (Anger), Moh (Materialism), Maya (Relationships), Aalysa (Laziness) and Pramad (Self importance). Later on, somewhere else I read a story where a learned-being who happened to have mastered his indriyas and resist all of the above vikaras. One day God decided to take his test, and tempted him to give into the vikaras, one by one, in a series of tests. At each test, the learned-being truly passed God’s test. After the final test, God disguised himself/herself as an ordinary person and met him. He told God about the series of incidents that had occurred today, boasting how he successfully managed to resist all temptations. God smiled. The learned-being had truly resisted all temptations, all but, the arrogance of success.

Simplicity of the truth

Someone once asked me – Do you know what is Gyan? I didn’t understand her. Ignorantly and thinking ‘smartie me’, I came up with fairly good logical and philosophical answer. She said no – this wasn’t it. I was surprised. For a moment, I was in disbelief. She said Gyan is absence of Agyan. Today, after several months, I have understood it - the simplicity of the truth. Truth is a simple notion, clouded by noise, that may appear rational otherwise. (From another perspective, the question could be generalised to any duality, where one is real, and the other is absence of it, and not really real, for example, light and darkness.)