Incarnari, Anger, & Maya. .

Erwin Schrödinger was not a crazy hippie.

Erwin Schrödinger was born in Vienna in 1887. In 1933 he won the Nobel Prize in Physics, and is widely considered to be one of the most brilliants Scientific minds of the last Century.

I wonder how many people will read Erwin Schrödinger’s classic, “What Is Life?” and instead of memorizing and the regurgating some selected passages which allow one to be graded on a scale as compared to how well others memorize and regurgitate. . . . .instead of that hamster wheel route. . .I wonder how many people will join him on that great search?

The original Catholic publishers of What Is Life refused to publish the book.


Regarding Anger. . . .

Cells communicate. That is how the organism operates, grows, changes, moves, rests, and evolves . . . . .cells communicate.

As I see it, the cell/human primate communicates through a few basic means. . .sound, sight, modes of touch, and the exchange of symbols/items. When the signal is interpreted a certain way, the cell moves on, or the cell joins a larger structure for a period of time.

Could we say is as it should be?

If so, then there is no rational reason for the existence of anger post the event itself. And by that I am not implying that there should not be anger. . . . .to the contrary. Instead I am asking. . what evolutionary function does it serve, and why would it have been a trait that stays from generation to generation?


“Of course, as soon as a goal is conceived, spontaneity is at once destroyed and the self-consciousness of the ego-entity, with its sense of personal doership, takes over. From then on, the vision is pin pointed on the goal, thus missing everything really worthwhile in life.

The ‘purposeful’ life indeed misses the purpose of day to day living, which is to enjoy the unity in the duality and the multiplicity of life. It is only when the ego-entity realizes this fact that there springs the sense of total freedom, and then comes the floodlight of true vision, which misses nothing and enjoys everything. Then spontaneous action, not being in conflict with the natural course of events, with What Is, enables the man of true understanding to be fully receptive through his senses to the entirety, of the universe.”
-Ramesh Balkesar


I would offer that one theory for its life span as a program would be that it serves a useful function to the organism. On both a large and local scale. In the moment its uses are clear, as a means of self preservation of the species. But beyond the event itself. . . what about the lasting anger brought about through memories of a past event, bitterness, anguish, harshness, animosity, malice, irritability, hatred, malevolence, and all the overall misery such thoughts bring. . . .what purpose would they serve?

I have given that a lot of thought, having experienced that state my self. . .many times (anger). The only rational answer I can find is this. . . .those emotions serve as warning signals. . . signals primarily to the organism feeling them primarily. . . .and they are a warning that that person is ignoring something. And as long as that some-thing is ignored, some form of anger will arise.


Part of the mechanism of that anger seems to be an internal story, one that when repeated elicits a certain reaction. . .emotional, train of thought, experience. I recognize that this sounds like an inter related chain of events which feeds of itself, a story creates anger, the anger is a warning that the story is serving in some capacity as a mask, covering a broader, deeper issue that the individual themselves is trying to ignore.

Therefore, the only logical response is to invite it. . .and then to look through it, under it, behind it, at what is really going on. And the more we push it away, hide, ignore, as opposed to invite, open to, and observe, the angrier we will feel.

It is a warning signal to the organism that something is not right. The something is inside the organism itself, and it is not being looked at by the organism itself. . . .so a warning signal is fired up. Someone committed to misery as a form of self identification will ignore the warnings, and in so doing increase their frequency, and intensity. . .until at some point, some time, it breaks down, and breaks out.

“How can I tell what I think until I see what I say?”
-E. M. Forester

So the only rational option is. . . .invite it.

I believe this is why all the great spiritual mystics, prophets, and leaders, have always warned against anger. By warning I mean describe, and by describe I mean understand. Not because it is a “sin”, or even because it will most likely be part of a much larger chain of events which usually bring more sorrow to all parties involved. Even though that last sentence is factual. No, I think they all spoke about anger as they did because they knew that the size and frequency of it was a direct link to the internal sirens that attempt to wake us when we stray to far from the path of freedom, truth, and love.

But that is just my opinion now.


I am asked a lot about goal setting. It is a good conversation starter because the views I have expressed on the subject seem so counter-intuitive. But if I were to speak the absolute truth then I would have to admit that life as contracted ego is always a form of hell. That is, always when measured against its alternative, an open, present, and loving state of being. . .now. One equals competition with all ‘others’. And one equals communion with all ‘others’. Just a taste is enough to make me thrash about in the darkness and shadows for a few Years. Its just another way of avoiding the obvious, the decent of the curtain.

To miss nothing, and enjoy everything.
To own nothing, and feel everything.
To want nothing, and be everything.

“The nature of the Universe loves nothing so much as to change things which are and to make new things like them. For everything that exists is in a manner the seed of that which will be.”
- Marcus Aurelius

Maya = that which can be measured

That which can be measured = Temporary

But only always.

Maya - Temporary - Always

Kant declared ‘freedom of will’ to be one of only three metaphysical problems beyond the grasp of the human intellect. . . .and I don’t believe him.

The basic problem I believe many people think exists with this concept is a potential for misuse in terms of behavioral changes. The idea/fear that without a belief in personal thought, choice, and responsibility, the world as we know it would fall into some form of immoral chaos.

Kropotkin’s anarchist theory fits well here. The established harmony of the universe cannot be disturbed because all things within the universe are interrelated. Likewise, social order will emerge of itself, even from anarchy if people are left alone to find for themselves what pleases them and are allowed to follow their nature and bent of mind, because individuality is intrinsic in the community and the order of nature is not a forced order.


The idea/fear that without a belief in personal thought, choice, and responsibility, the world as we know it would fall into some form of immoral chaos. . . . doesn’t make sense in light of a concept which would if true, be operating presently.

Which makes the only relevant question, how am I behaving now, and has this information effected behavior.

There are people who are stuck, fixed, generally set, in the idea that they need a belief in personal will. . . .the fear being that without it their own life would be far more painful.

When in reality, using this concept, even the choice to believe in ‘choice’ would be determined.

“No problem can be solved by the consciousness that created it.”
-Albert Einstein

Jon Franklin, in his Pulitzer Prize winning book, Molecules of the Mind, asserted that our belief in free will is itself determined:

“And so, multileveled Mother Nature, wry and cruel but at times strangely benevolent, has inserted a mechanism, in the human mechanism, to prevent that mechanism from fully comprehending its mechanistic nature.”

But there is a glitch in the system. Derrida knew where it was, but the expression of that is impossible. It can only be pointed to, or symbolized in one form or another.


“Do you understand the depth of this mystery?
Man who is so little among the visible creatures,
a shadow and a dust grain, possesses in the
centre of his being God in entirety.”
- St Symeon ‘the New Theologian’ (949ad)


Schrödinger called the Upanishads, “this grandest of thoughts”, and often makes reference to Vedantic visions in his work.

“Consciousness is the only one, singular, identifiable with its universal Source. The perceived spatial and temporal plurality of consciousness or minds is just an appearance or illusion.”
-Erwin Schrödinger

“Knowledge, feeling and choice (which you call your own) are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all men, nay in all sensitive being.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1925


“Consciousness is a singular of which the plural is unknown (perhaps therefore, a more appropriate word could be ‘Unicity’); that there is only one thing and that what seems to be plurality is merely a series of different aspects of this one thing, produced through deception.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1944

“There is obviously only one alternative, namely the unification of minds or consciousness. Their multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one Mind.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1955

“The plurality of sensitive beings is mere appearance (maya); in reality they are all only aspects of the ONE being.”
-Erwin Schrödinger 1961 (shortly before his death)


If you find the concept of non-doership, which Buddha phrased as: ‘Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof”. . .acceptable because it appeals to your sense of logic and reason. . . .but you cannot truly surrender to the reality of non doership, then pay attention to what Francis Crick (who won the Nobel Prize in medicine for deciphering the DNA code), had to say on the subject:

“You, your joys, sorrows, memories, ambitions, your sense of identity, free will and love are no more then behaviors of a vast assembly of nerve cells.”

People have often wondered how we could believe for so long that the Sun revolved around the Earth, and regarding this question Wittgenstein replied:

“How would it have looked, if it had looked as if the Earth went around the Sun?”

Think about it. . . .the same.

So it is no wonder people hold so tightly to folk theories.


“All reality is one in substance, one in cause, one in origin.”
-Giordano Bruno (16th Century)

Note to self: Giordano was burned at the stake by the Conservative Church of the time

I have friends that wonder why bother with the any of this at all. But I have a fairly firm conviction that if every individual ego does a thorough and honest investigation into their own personal experience, they will come to the unmistakable conclusion that every single action that they thought was ‘their’ action turns out in reality to be a reaction to an earlier happening over which they had absolutely no control.

But only every single time.

I am not talking about the surrender of defeat. . .that is the path all people who offer a method revolving around ‘action’ will be forced to admit at some point. But that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a much higher level of surrender.
One that remains stronger then any show of force, will, or effort, by its very nature, at every single moment.
But if we are not independent entities, with choice of action, and responsibility for that action, then how do I conduct my daily life in the world? Or from another thought process. . .how can I stay moral, stay ‘good’, with such a belief system? Or more properly stated, why would I? After reading those last two sentences it must be obvious why I would refer to those questions as coming from a shallower thought process, because the answer to the question exists within the belief system itself.

“The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me”
- Meister Eckhart

“The I with which I see god is the same I with which God sees me”


“Racing along from subject to subject – a drifting panorama of ever changing, ever dissolving views manufactured by my mind without any help from me.”
-Mark Twain

I have read theories that matter/energy is a product of consciousness. That matter occurs within consciousness. And I have read theories that consciousness is created as a by product of matter. That matter precedes consciousness. But both theories assume two. In Hinduism this is known as Advaita = “not two”. In Buddhism this is called co-dependent origination, and interconnected whole. And in Christianity it is the trinity. But I don’t think an accurate understanding of any of the above set symbols points to a different actuality.

“Do you think I know what I am doing?
That for one breath or half-breath I belong to myself?

As much as a pen knows what it is writing,
Or the ball can guess where it is going next.”
-Rumi

To put it another way, I believe we recognize the habits and tendencies (vasanas) that we have learned to accept totally, as ‘good’. Though I believe understanding their purpose as related to Love. . .we see our true selves in that reflection. . .and when we recognize the potential of the union of two into one, we “fall” into Love.

When we fail to acknowledge a reflection of self that we don't understand or accept, then we carry an anger that arises when the image of that past reflection rises up as a story. And that is the warning. A warning which grows until the reflection is seen as it actually is. . . .'I'.


Who in their right mind would want to live forever. Only a very cursory thought process can allow that horror to seem like a great thing. Upon deeper reflection it became so obvious to me that the re-organization of the whole into many-many-many different points of observation, being, and time, is without a doubt real, compassionate, and selfless Love.

”Ultimately there is only one thing in the universe, God or Substance, that which is in Itself and conceived through Itself.”
- Spinoza

I observe any object, and that object is still ‘in’ consciousness, as all objects appear in consciousness. But I forget the screen when the movie is really fascinating. So time being based on movement, and movement being based on space, serve as one and the same thing. So you have to ask, in a world without movement could the concept of time even arise?

Einstein’s basic conclusion was that matter was a curvature of space-time. Otherwise stated matter can be reduced to space time. Which essentially means matter = space-time.

Could matter (space-time) exist without an observer?

“The primary substance of the world is infinite, eternal and all encompassing.”
- Anaximander Milates (Ancient Greece)

The Sanskrit word ‘Maya’ has multiple meanings. These include:

To measure, matter, veil, and dream.

The unknown cannot be expressed in terms of the known. Except to say, return to now.


A very sincere seeker went to Ramana, and with tears in his eyes, confessed that he was a simple man and learned discussions went over his head and his confusion remained. He requested, with much emotion, that Ramana would very kindly tell him in very few, simple words what he should do as spiritual effort.

Ramana said: “Just relax. . . . .and let go.”



“That not everything is going to be the way you think it ought to be. And I shall be free. I shall be me.”



***