No Fear & No Hate

It’s done. The knot which held together many of my conceptual confusions is loosened. I see clearly.

Reality is so simple. Like a sky clearing after a thunderstorm, awareness of truth shines after years of tormented reflection.

“Does God exist?” This is a confused question. Theists and atheists are caught in the confusion. Thinking answering “yes” or “no” is the way forward.

The way forward is to see beyond the question. To see the limits of the question. To see how much there is to experience and grow and do beyond the question.

What one believes about God is neither here nor there. It needn’t point to anything deeper. One can be a devout believer and miss the transcendent experience of feeling God’s love. One can be a serious unbeliever and be clueless about the rational nature of our lives.

Doesn’t matter what you believe or don’t believe. Or even what you do or don’t do. Thoughts and actions are only by products of a deeper way of being. Focusing on the by products can’t lead to the deeper reality.

You don’t get the by products right first and then get to the deeper reality. You leave the focus on the by products behind, and then through your being the right thoughts and actions arise on their own. And in a way you can’t predict.

It is not a limitation of the mind that you can’t predict the path. Just as it is not a limitation of the shell that it has to break for life to emerge.

The rootedness of life isn’t found in thought or in action. It is found in a way of being.

That way of being is characterized by two basic features: no fear & no hate. A total detachment from the fears and hates within yourself.

Be fearless. And be hateless. That is transcendence. That is most rational mode of being.

It’s that simple.

Keep an eye on the fears/anxieties/nervousness and the hate/annoyances/irritations without identifying with them.

Do that and you will understand more about God’s nature or about reason than any book or seminar can teach.

Awaken into the realm of your own being which is beyond your thoughts, identities and ideals. It is a vast ocean of consciousness waiting to be experienced and explored.

See you there.

6 thoughts on “No Fear & No Hate”

  1. Hello Bharath,

    I hope that you and your family are well and are coping successfully with the current dangerous and stressful situation.


    1. Hi – We are well. Quarantined like most people and seeing how things go. Hope you and your family are well.


  2. Yes, true. Certainly it is a kind of preliminary condition to drop attachment to illusion-preserving binary questions like the one mentioned, in order to widen one’s receptivity to wider truths. One must come to see why questions are posed in this kind of form, to be ready to glimpse what lies deeper and provide it’s roots.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. What I find interesting about this question is the sense of wonder behind it, and not how do we go about answering it. When focused on in the latter way, as if we are looking for an answer that explains why there is something rather than nothing, we are imposing a form onto the question – as if it has the same form as “why is there a sofa in this room, rather than nothing?”

      I am not saying that the question is meaningless. Same with question of God’s existence. Rather, the questions have to been seen in the context in which they arise – and it requires developing an attunement to the origins of the questions to see what the question is an expression of and what is moving it.

      These questions neither carry their meaning or form on their sleeve, nor are they just meaningless. We can think of it this way: suppose I say, “What a beautiful day.” And someone replies, “No, it is a crappy day, because of X, Y and Z.” And then the person who replied defended their response by saying: “Well, you made a declarative statement. Which purport to describe the world. And so are open to evidence and objections. And I am giving the objections. So you have to engage with me to prove me wrong if you want to stand by your statement.” It is entirely right to say that such an engagement with my statement has missed something important – in particular, my state of being I was giving expression to. What looks like only a state about the world actually has a lot to do with how I am feeling. This doesn’t make my statement subjective exactly, since there are ways for others to engage with and probe my statement. But it can’t be done in a blunt way of just, “well, you made a declaration, and here are the rules of making such statements, and so defend yourself.”

      I think this is the insight of Wittgenstein’s view, which has been lost sight of by his academic interpreters. The classic philosophical questions hover in an in between realm, between expressions of wonder/mystery/angst/hope/disillusion/etc and statements of fact/conceptual analysis/scientific discourse/etc. The fact that they hover in this in between space doesn’t mean they are confused or meaningless, though it does mean that we can easily fall into confusion because of their amorphous/delicate nature. It means rather that it takes a certain kind of insight or skill to expand on the philosophical questions/claims/frameworks in a way which stays true to the speaker’s real and meaningful ideas which were implicit in the questions/claims.

      Often philosophy is done as if people are mere instruments for the grand philosophical questions – the people are just the bodily carriers of the abstract, and we have to raise to the level of the abstract to fully answer the questions. I think this gets it backwards. Philosophical questions – especially the perennial ones – are tools for understanding each other as people better; to better understand the people making the philosophical statements. The more we focus on trying to understand the person making the assertions or raising the questions, the better, and the insightful the philosophical engagement will be.

      I think this is what anti-metaphysical thinkers like the Buddha or Lao Tzu also discovered long ago. When the Buddha said that he isn’t interested in metaphysical questions of the self or reincarnation, he meant that what he was interested in most was the person raising the question and his motivations/needs/situations, and how best to help that process. What makes this interesting is that often the person raising the philosophical questions might not himself have the best insight into what is moving him, and it takes a certain skill to develop that insight.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.