Shree: Nature of Engagement

 

140422: Shree: Nature of Engagement

Good Morning Shree.

Some years ago, an article was written on the importance of the past in our lives; in the manner in which objects from the past were used; and the emotional anchor and so on.

The issue is about the nature of change. And what changes because of this phenomenon? At the core, as I understand, what changes is the nature of engagement of the phenomenon itself. Phenomenon (as far as manifestation is concerned) takes place within subject-object relationship. I am handling an object – so there is “I” and there is “object” and the two get interrelated. As space-time changes, “I” change and the meaning attributed to the object also changes (in effect the perception and the reality of the object changes too). Similarly when the “object” changes, I have to form new set of relationships with the object in terms of feeling it, handling it, setting it to purpose, maintaining it and so on and the emotions with it get to be formed subsequently.

Thus, “past” is a set of relationships with all objects (and environment) and our actions formed within the bracket of time imagined as “past”. This had set a relationship with the environment forming certain anchors/ emotions/ values/ actions and expressions.

This “past” can be replaced by “present” and also by “future” and what we are dealing with is the whole set of relationships (creating imagination or a sense of reality or the nature of engagement with existence and our place in manifestation).

When one talks about “loss of emotional anchor” or “disconnection” isn’t one implying the above nature of engagement? And in this relationship everything from livelihood to perception to action comes into play. Much is at stake when one considers security or materials or rate of change or technology or imagination or relationships or situations.

Thus while trying to imagine and embrace “change”, one is required to consider the nature of engagement that will be created therefore. And more than this, any change should assist one to touch consciousness (i.e. assist him/her in transcending in any situation). Thus “change” should be a gateway to consciousness. Change is apparent, consciousness is the only Absolute.

If one sees engagement in this manner, then perhaps one is talking of fundamental values and going beyond judgments and evaluations and one’s actions are then becoming timeless.

It is not the “AI” which is problematic but it has not yet offered access to consciousness – in the manner in which it has been deployed (or related or imagined) by our minds. The moment it offers access (something which we ourselves need to invent), only then we can say that “AI” and ourselves have matured to use it in the most fundamental way as is required.

Continuing this further, the word “object” can be extended to environment or architecture (as an idea) or relationships with people or systems (such as hand done or machine made or fast or slow).

I have a problem with the manner in which situation, systems, people in Developed Nations are perceived and engaged with. The crux of imagination formed in those regions is one of “fragmentation” and extreme aloofness and disconnect and there are several factors acting linearly and simultaneously to generate the feeling of total disconnect and isolation, which can be elaborated but I do not wish to do so because to even elaborate on these factors is to inflict hurt on oneself. Of course this is just one perspective – there maybe people who fully endorse that idea of Developed Nations.

On the contrary, the acknowledgment of consciousness and its presence as a sacred dimension in manifestation in our environment and all related processes is what may be a common factor in India’s history. Another emphasis in our environment is of “pattern” – spiral to be precise. Pattern of seasons, then agriculture, then history, then human relationships, then activities and so on. Pattern is beyond space and time and is beyond you or me and hence respecting the pattern (maybe an expression of consciousness) becomes important. Is that deliberate or incidental realization – is a difficult question to answer and life itself is a combination of deliberate act and spontaneous creativity, thus the notion of a “start” itself has limitations and even quite dangerous to consider. Life exists and hence there is a place of ambiguity and interpretation.

The presence of consciousness and of patterns is eternal but we need to access it. Sometimes “situations” help; our conditioning helps; environment helps; time helps; culture helps; geography helps. So the point is (if at all there should be) that where will you get this access – in what situations or imaginations? Is it here?

Another point to be remembered that is referred in philosophy – अनुसंधान (continuous connect and remembrance of consciousness as a real dimension of life through our imagination, thoughts, actions). If one considers highest quality of human responses in India – then the above statement appears true in all fields of art and architecture from the beginning of Time. This effort and the need to stay connected with consciousness has vitally been reinforced in India. But past profound precedents in engagement do not guarantee present nature of engagement – superfluous as they seem. Thus, the effort needs to be continued in all times and in all spaces.

Hari Om.