I wrote this nearly 30 years ago, when I was a medical student!
Reading it again now, I can see several arguments I would frame very differently today, and a few conclusions I would no longer state with such certainty. But I have resisted the temptation to rewrite it.
What interested me was how we perceive the world, what we mean by the “self,” and whether our identification with the physical body is as straightforward as it seems.
So here it is exactly as I wrote it then — reasoning, overconfidence, philosophical leaps and all.
Humans take many of nature’s marvels for granted. We believe everything we see and hear, only to realise later that nature has its own mysterious, deceptive ways.
It is not an uncommon experience to wake up from a deep sleep in a perplexed state, wondering who or where we are. Sleep and dreams are among the greatest mysteries of nature, offering valuable clues into the enigma of creation.
Isn’t it amazing that we are blissfully unaware of our surroundings, and thus virtually cease to exist, during sleep?
Imagine being on an island all alone. Is it possible to sleep peacefully at night without doubting Mother Nature, wondering whether she might fool us when we wake up? Fears of not waking up, or of waking up in a completely different place or surroundings, would surely creep into one’s mind.
Indeed, “hypnophobia” is the fear of sleeping that some individuals have, and it is not unreasonable. It is the fear of losing one’s identity.
Sleep is akin to a near-death experience where the “I” no longer exists.
Does the world really exist when we are asleep — when the “I” no longer perceives it?
How can one prove or disprove this?
We blindly believe that everything must continue to exist because of circumstantial evidence — because continuity of events is maintained after one wakes up. However, one cannot be certain of this fact.
The existence of an object or person is only relative to our existence and our perception of it. The “perceived” cannot exist without the “perceiver”, and vice versa. A “subject” cannot exist without the “object”.
Infinite noises surround us in our day-to-day life. Most noises sink into oblivion unless one is “listening”. One can never be sure about the existence of a particular noise unless he or she was listening to it, in spite of being in its vicinity all the while.
Similarly, once the senses are shut, as during sleep, everything around us disappears and virtually ceases to exist.
Conversely, our existence is also relative to the objects surrounding us. Without the world around us, there would not be anyone or anything to recognise our presence.
This statement — that everything exists or does not exist depending on one’s wish or will to perceive it — may sound egoistic and preposterous. It indirectly states that we are the creators of the universe.
However, this may not be far from the truth.
“I am the creator.”
“I” Am the Creator
It is the “I” which recognises and acknowledges the world around.
It is the “I” which has emotions and thoughts.
It is the “I” that sleeps, dreams and wakes up.
The “I” we are talking about here is the ego.
Without the ego, man does not exist. Ego makes man survive. It is this ego we strive to satiate, whatever we do.
However, the ego — and hence man — is selfish, and there are no two sides to it.
We love someone because it makes us happy. Happy that someone is there to love us back. Happy that someone is there to praise or compliment our deeds.
A person who loves purely for the sake of someone else’s happiness would be a rare find indeed.
Therefore, even supposed “true love” is selfish.
Why do we give money to a beggar?
Because his sorrow made us unhappy, and giving him money in turn made us happy.
Similarly, why does one cry on the demise of a dear one?
It is not because we feel sorry that our loved one is no longer able to enjoy this life. It is because previously he or she used to give us happiness by caring for us, loving us, or giving us things.
Outrageous as this may seem, even a person crying is doing so because it is making him or her happy.
Remember how relieved one feels after crying one’s heart out.
Man does everything, only and only to satisfy his ego.
The Theory of “One” Existence
Let us switch off our senses for a moment.
Stimuli of light, sound, touch, pressure and so on would no longer be perceivable. Everything around us would fade away from existence.
Even our own body would vanish, as the senses that perceive it would no longer exist.
Similarly, even the thought process in our brain would cease, since thoughts are provoked by stimuli.
What would remain then is the “I” alone, suspended in an unending space.
Now, do we exist?
Where?
One cannot perceive even one’s own body.
How can such an existence — where neither subject, the world, nor object, ourselves, exists — be proved?
The hypothetical situation imagined here is not too far-fetched. What we are imagining is, in effect, a person who is deaf, mute, blind and deprived of all senses.
Such a state of no-existence of the self can be equated to a state of all-existence: the soul, being no longer bound by the body but by the infinite boundaries of the universe, would exist everywhere.
“If the ‘I’ alone remains after shutting down all the senses, it has to be the truth. It has to be the One.”
Is this what happens after death?
What Is “I”?
Spiritualism has always stated that the world is non-existent or unreal. Having come this far, the statement is not difficult to comprehend.
By extrapolation, it would also mean that our physical body, which is a part of this “world”, is also non-existent.
What exists eternally is the soul — the real “I”.
It alone remains perpetually even after the senses switch off. The body changes relative to the world around it. But the soul is immortal and omnipresent.
Let us analyse this statement and see if it makes any sense.
In colloquial terms, we use the word “I” to describe an individual — ourselves. By that, we mean our body, emotions, intellect and the life-bearing soul beneath.
Absurd as this may sound, why do we believe that this body is ours?
It is because our body obeys our commands only, not someone else’s; gives us stimuli from the outside world; and follows us wherever we go.
However, what about a person paralysed in all four limbs and with no sensations?
His body has none of the above attributes. Then how can he say that it is his body?
In fact, the body outside is now rather like a chain binding him and dragging him down to one place.
But is he really affected at all?
No.
He is simply unable to perform certain functions that other people do.
If one gives him a mechanical limb that perfectly simulates the human body, he becomes a normal person again.
Thus this body is nothing but a gadget for the “I” to play with and express itself. It is a trivial instrument capable only of perceiving limited sensations and obeying limited commands.
Command it to fly — it will not.
Therefore, “I” is not the body.
It is well known that emotions and thought processes can be severely blunted in diseases affecting the brain, such as stroke. However, that does not mean that the person does not exist.
We often comment in such circumstances, “He is a different man.”
Is he really a different man inside?
It is the same soul — the “I” that was there all his life.
Therefore, neither emotions nor intellect can form part of the “I”.
It is a common experience to see a child who is genuinely injured while playing stop crying when offered a chocolate — when distracted.
We often wonder how that is possible despite the obvious injury.
Here is a possible explanation.
On sustaining the injury, the child becomes worried that something is happening, or may happen, to his body. In other words, he identifies himself with his body and starts crying.
Of course, pain plays a major part.
However, as soon as he is distracted by the chocolate, he subconsciously blocks the pain impulse. This is similar to the noise analogy discussed earlier.
In effect, the child ignores his body and stops identifying his “I” with the body. That is why he no longer feels the pain or cries.
As one grows older, we realise that small bruises are really harmless. We therefore ignore such pain stimuli. Adults generally cry only in the face of major or life-threatening injuries.
However, it is only wise men who realise that even larger blows to the physical body do not take away even an ounce of their life, and are hence unaffected by the sorrows of life.
If the body were real — that is, the real “I” — why would the pain disappear?
The real “I”, the soul, is unaffected by what happens to the body.
There was once a great sage in ancient India called Ramana Maharshi, who underwent surgery without anaesthesia.
After all, once we know that the body is an instrument, it is not difficult to switch it on and off at will.
This is what the saying,
“Free yourself from the bondage of this body”
probably implies.
One experiences pain or suffers only as long as one identifies oneself with this body.
Once one realises that one is not this body, nothing in this world is going to affect him.
Not even death.
Because the soul — the “I” — can never die. It is imperishable, unlike the body.
One should, in fact, be happy to die because it is just like wearing a new set of clothes.
People feel so happy to wear a new dress.
But to wear a new body…?
It is just that no one realises that dying is akin to the process of changing clothes.
“When the existence of one entity is but relative to the existence of the other, they do not actually exist.”
The Theory of No-Existence
The statement “I alone exist” is amusing.
In the hypothetical circumstance discussed earlier, where all the senses are switched off, the “I” can only be described as existing. One cannot use any dimensions to describe this existence.
However, “existence” makes sense only when contrasted with a “non-existent” state.
If something exists everywhere and at every time, how can that be called “existence”?
What does “life” mean without “death”?
Therefore, the question begs:
Does anything exist at all?
This Is “The Science of Life” — Vedanta
The truth in the above statements is better understood when one realises how incomplete and deceptive our physical senses are, and how contradictory their interpretations of the world around us can be.