Intellectual understanding of life, is only meant to ask intellectual questions about it.
There cannot be “truth” in any answer as there cannot be falsehood. There can only be beliefs… and as we can appreciate there are many of those.
We cannot explain about ourselves by separating from life. We cannot chase our own tails thinking that “the tail” is different from “me.” That is just a thought, a belief when the reality shows that the tail is always there with “me.” Do we see that?
We separate from life itself and then we ask:
who am “i”?
what is the purpose of life? (Life being something different from “I,” of course.)
Where do I go when I die? (Question full of “I.”)
Those questions are a great starting point of philosophical musings and theories.
Then someone says: “Here are the true answers.”
Q: Why do I need to believe them?
Because they come from this great authority. End of report.
OK. I will believe.
Is it going to help that I “know” to be a spirit or a soul or whatever word I want to use?
Not a bit. When a loved one “dies,” how do we react even though we know so much intellectual information, so many beliefs?
We mostly behave just like anyone who does not “know” anything…. but our “knowledge” could allow us to “save face” to look “detached,” to look “cool.”
That lack of honesty has consequences in our own health.
Do we believe in Paradise? Do we believe that we will go to Heaven just because we have joined a religion or because we believe in someone?
Then we shouldn’t be afraid of death, of destruction, of Armageddon, etc.
That is not the case. We want to protect this “I” as much as possible AND get the other piece of the pie in the “after life.” That is a greedy “I” indeed!
Ananda shares that the very “I” that we want to protect is the one that we need to realize. All the answers will come at that point little by little; and those answers are non intellectual, they cannot be put into a religion or a dogma.
That is when to “connect to the source” to become a better “I” in the afterlife is completely unnecessary, because we realize that there is no separation in between.
Again, there is no separation in between.
Who makes that separation?
The consciousness of that “I.”
Want to be a detached observer?
May not be about being detached from “others” or the “world.” It is about being detached from that “I.”
Who am I?
I am not the “I.” 🙂
Does God exist?
The believer says “yes.” The atheist says “no.”
The thinker says: “Define what do you mean by God?”
That conceptual definition automatically makes God. Then the job of the non-believer is to deny that existence.
What is the origin of that duality?
“I exist and therefore a greater power must exist, for obviously it is not I.”
I exist, but God does not exist, for there is no proof of his “I” being around.
The consciousness is the same, full of “I,” just different polarities, different extremes.
Ananda just points out the futility of thinking, the traps of logic and the illusion of definitions and concepts. However, use those “tools” at the “office world.” Those tools are very useful there.
When we are in tune with our feelings, in appreciation of this experience which we call living, when we feel gratitude for being without words, there is no time nor space in or minds to make useless questions. Although, they are necessary questions to make in some people’s path; the realization of that uselessness could arrive in its due time.
Therefore, “yes”…those questions are useless but then “NO,” those questions are necessary for some to arrive at a different consciousness.
Affirm now just to deny later on.
Say, it is “true” now, just to find out its “falsehood” later on.
That is why dogmas and morality are necessary, to stick with one side of the story and to deny the other…until we can no longer deny it.
What a game, my friends!