The relationship between the unknowable and the knowable: Creative Intelligence; the bridge between the two and the mechanics of both respective fields. The process by which the unknowable becomes knowable is the process of manifestation. The reverse process is growth: the overcoming of our ignorance of our "true nature" by virtue (or its lack) of faulty vision (inadequate perspective & experience).
We usually take the Infinite to mean "a range of possibilities whose boundaries are unknown". But it is more than this. It is undefined unity, not merely a plurality of mysteries yet to uncover. Somehow, the unknowable is rendered knowable by dividing up unity into plurality. The units of plurality are individually infinite within themselves, but the group plurality is finite. This is the magic of Maya: it designates how Ultimate Reality manifests. Surely something is lost in the translation. It is the magic of illusion that something that is knowable is made out of unknowable stuff. This makes knowledge forever incomplete---even for a God. This makes our living in the world possible. This also puts our foot in the door of our goal: the Unmanifest Potentiality, because That is already here within each Unit of plurality.
We are citizens of two worlds, but our focus speaks differently. The process of illusory manifestation, when reversed, is also the process of our recovery. Unlike manifestation, evolution seeks unity among diversity.
What is the upshot of all of this? We get to keep the benefits gained of having experienced both realms. Only when we are satisfied that we have had enough with experience would we be considered worthy of manifesting our own world to our own specification, or call it a wrap and take a nap (for a little while---what is time to an infinite Self?). This is the heritage of us Prodigal Children. We have an eternity to work this thing, called: self-worth, out---but it isn't advisable. We are still caught up in the illusion of our own mortality. A pretty convincing illusion at that. Better to take this horsey by the reins!
Shastra:
1. Invocation; recitation; praise; 2. a sword; 3. in usage: Scripture; also, The Science, or Study (of), as in Brahma Shastra: The Science of the Creator. I favor this last choice.
This last meaning takes us full circle back to the first: invocation. Invocation implies the (siddhi) power to connect with reality directly through the fore-brain as an extra-sensability. ESP is a skill, not lightly levied, that does not operate solely on belief. Like science, it involves training in its use. Hence, scientist/priests are specifically trained in the invocative arts. Invocation is a multi-layered street. It implies the ability to appreciate, by direct cognition, and then interpret as: intellectual meaning, or gestalt emotion, etc., the Creative Intelligence behind the expressed invocation.
I take "The Science of Creative Intelligence" to be the English equivalent to the Sanskrit term: MayaShastra. Although Maharishi Mahesh Yogi focuses on the practical aspect to enlightenment in this generation and the generic basis to reality, I only focus on the qualitative differences in life among different planets and strata of relativity and their derivation from a common resource: the ultimate paradigm for our creation. The sources I use are essentially traditional as well as modern: Vedic wisdom, the I Ching (or "Book of Changes", as translated from the Chinese), western astrology and archeology, esoteric history, music theory, oceanographic and blood chemistry, number, logic, and aesthetic theories. Maharishi has copyrighted the English SCI phrase, but the two terms: the Creative (Ch'ien) and the Intelligent (K'un) are already in use within the I Ching designating the two highest gods from our dualistic point - of - view: Almighty Being (Ishwara/Purusha) and Dharma/Kama. This occurs under the context of the I Ching in its peculiar way of outlining the dieties of the cosmos.
MA-YA literally means: That - which is not, hence its common meaning signifying illusion. This term is predicated on duality in order to function. THAT reality, being existential, is the basis for this reality being non-existential ---- non-being in terms of Being. To top it off, SHASTRA as one of its literal terms ---- SWORD, cuts both ways: dually demarcating these same two ultimate realities. Being is absolute; non-being (that's all of this) is relative and related to being; and the view, or position taken, of witnessing both entertains both in its functioning. Although illusion is MAYA's implication in common usage these days, I wish to emphasize its dualistic stance.
Please bear in mind, that this analysis of relativity, even in its discussion of Diety, is not meant to trivialize Diety into a pantheistic perspective. From my point - of - view, Diety is essentially the Unknowable Source from which this creation sprung. My analysis, and our connection to That, is in no way diminished just because I can not get my finger on a full - fledged view of the situation. I hold Almighty Being to be the best relativistic "name" for the Undefinable. But best in reference to what? This limitation of our perception to require a relative quality to all of our definitions, even of the Infinite, seems to limit the standard to our designating term of the Highest Godhead by rendering it in terms of all of the lessor gods ---- the Almighty reigns supreme over and above the less - than - Almighty ---- as if to trivialize That. Words will have to do, so long as we operate within the field of multiplicity. The beauty of this analysis is in rendering God among the elements of His creation, as if That and This were on equal footing. It may seem to lower the status to That, but it also elevates the status of This to the status of That nature. It is meant to glorify Nature as the best relative equivalent to the Unknowable that we can hope to appreciate while we continue to exist within the boundaries of the Knowable, as well as give a leap - off point to the Infinite through the Almighty.
A dear friend has this to say of the apparent multiplicity of the God - head: it is a question of relationships and the multiplicity, not of God, but of all the other beings in creation who are having their relationship with THAT. To itself, God is still itself; yet to everyone and everything else, God appears not to be the same. "To a child, its father is one thing. To his wife, she sees in him her husband, etc." So it is the multiplicity of other view - points that creates the syndrome of: One God Who Hath Many Identities/Names.
The next problem is the multiplicity of names. Every sound modifies what comes before it. The first sound modifies the silence. The second sound modifies the first. So, if you wanted to have a mantra that was truely unique to you alone, you would have to pick one that began with a sound that no one else has used before you! Nice try. But it points out the limitation isn't our fault. In a sense it is, for expecting too much, for expecting relativity to beqweeth to us an infinite bounty. But in a sense it isn't. The human nervous system's standard for isolating differences in sounds puts a limitation on how far do you want to take the process of isolation? Truely one could split hairs over the differences between any two sounds, both standard and made - up. The intellect is like that ---- forever making distinctions. But the implication at that point would indeed be trivializing the One into minor, relatively less distinguishably significant, distinctions. There are only so many chakras, both major and minor, to the human nervous system. Each one contains its own function to perform and consequently has its own relationship with the one immaculate Purusha contained within the human heart: YOU! So there are only two avenues for creating uniqueness to God's name: to trivialize, or to append a dangling modifier. By adding more letters to an already existing word, no new distinction is being made, but additional features of description are being joined to whatever else came before them.
I'm making a lot of distinctions here, as if they really mattered. Maybe they do to some people and maybe they don't. Just so long as: in the analyzing, one doesn't get lost in a fog of confusion. A lot can be said about reality. I'll do my best to at least keep this delineation organized and thoroughly defined.
This is a relativistic discussion of what is absolutely unknowable from within the human nervous system.
If not for the guidance and inspiration of Charlie Lutes and his friends, I'm told it would have taken a thousand years to develope this knowledge unaided. If it were not for the efforts of Guru Dev and Maharishi, I might have been shoveling mud instead.
