User:Coexistencial-Reality

Co-Existence in the universe and in me

This book is being circulated for free. My only ask is that you share it with people whom you love and care for. And if you consider them capable, request spreading this for the benefit of the HOMO SAPIENS species.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Written by Anand Damani

Table of Contents

Introduction	5 Coexistence of the Form and the Formless 	8 Substance	15 Cause	22 The Pattern	31 Time	37 Fate	40 Free Will, God, and Evil	43 Our Freedom	48 Language and the Drives	53 Character and Will	55 The Human Agent	57 Ethics	61 Controlling Desires	63 The Self	67 Social Responsibility	71 Appendix	74 A Summary for Reference	75 Explanation for Children	78 Aphorisms	79

Existence is coexistence of the form and the formless. All the forms are evolving in active motion both sentient or non sentient(physical).The formless is indivisible static omnipotent and omnipresent.They both complement and prove the existence of the other. A.A Nagarajji Agrahar. Scientist,vedic scholar,Seer and enlightened soul.

Introduction You’re someone who is connected to and related to me .I gratefully acknowledge this relationship between us and undertake to discharge my duty of respecting your time, your values and your knowledge. Adding to the existing knowledge and bringing it as close as it can be to the TOTAL TRUTH is an endeavour we will pursue together for the next 15 minutes. There is a strong human chain of connections established and let us together acknowledge every single person in this chain for having played a positive and crucial role. Please wrap your head around the concept of KNOWING the existential reality in all its grandeur with a simple goal of satiating your inquisitiveness. Every concept that unfolds may be interesting or repulsive or confusing. Please patiently be open and inquisitive. The physical self and the sentient self coexist as YOU. This is a union that has come about naturally. No human being on the planet had put in efforts for this evolution & union to occur. After a span of time you the physical body will not be sentient and the body will cease to function and start degenerating. Let the mystery of the existence or non-existence of the sentient entity without a body be left open for now. Life till you die is the realm of living, a chance to understand and experience existential reality in its full grandeur.That is a more important question to address. Why would you want to waste this chance? Why would you not want to experience bliss of knowing the total truth within this bodily journey. During this journey together when I mean you, it will be at times you individually and at times the whole of humanity as a species. Based on the context and the extent you want to generalise you can assign the respective meaning. Every day, you are shown the glimpses of existential reality in the form of events and interactions. At times you enjoy and relish the same and at times due to lack of awareness or incomplete vision you are hurt. The litmus test is the feelings of discomfort that you experience. These happen naturally and you have no control on the same. No one on this planet likes to have uncomfortable feelings and as a collective lot all want to be rid of any hurt or delusion. Part of the problem is your inability to comprehend and understand the laws that govern the events as they unfold. Religions and philosophies built and prophesied so far teach that human beings share a nature or inner essence. To be a good person, these creeds teach, is to be true to that shared essence. To be good people, all must find the goodness within.Once we locate it then all our thoughts, words and deeds will be in harmony and sync. This shared essence remained a mystery. Homo Sapiens as a species are inquisitive and any mystery or unknown is not palatable. Science as the new philosophy evolved, as a rebuke to the earlier thoughts and established logical reasoning. You as a species today believe in rationality. The understanding of the laws was a cakewalk as long as the study was about the physical non sentient stuff. All the inventions and discoveries created lots of facilities and comforts. Studying the sentient stuff baffled everyone. Science has also hit a rabbit hole of uncertainty and randomness in deciphering the sentient soul. The life atom or soul that we have within us has a uniform potential capability to experience Existential Reality — All of us have   the capability to imagine and perceive. Aligning the perception to the actual reality is the goal that we all strive for. We need to bridge the gap in the perceived reality and the existential reality. Knowing the existential reality as it exists will unite us to be on the same page. The system of peaceful coexistence will be established. It’s a “human” essence, as well as the essence of ourselves as individuals. To flourish, we should conform to the essence of an existential reality that we all share, but the path is shaped by our individuality. The societies, customs and traditions we grow up within tell us stories about human essence. They use well-worn concepts like “human nature.” Until now no society has been able to clearly document it, which I have done now. Most of us follow customs and traditions — we conform and shelter ourselves in the majority. At some point in life we realise the gaps and shortcomings in those inhuman ways of life. We want to break free and do our own quest to become complete and fulfilled. These social norms, traditions and customs demand self-sacrifice from us as individuals. You bury your natural essence to conform and thrive as best as you think you can. This can entail sadness and grief. In many cases, it can entail self-loathing and self-harm and in many cases harming and hurting others. Dividing humanity as different and not as fellow human beings is the result. It is a very challenging direction to move away from but everyone is found doing that when the pain for fulfilment becomes unbearable. All people in some way bear a heavy burden of what is expected of them, of what they should believe or how they should feel. Our public lives and the shepherding rules of what is deemed normal feels heavy and even suffocating. Liberating oneself from that is what everyone yearns for. You cannot fully understand how to live your life without understanding why you should live it. Only you can answer the question of why. Knowing your role in the Existential Reality is now possible by understanding the coexistence of the formless and the form. Clouds of a lot of the elements coalesce to form a planet. The infinite varieties of elements (sentient and the physical) are the forms that coalesce as a planet. The coexistence of these forms with the formless is what sets in motion the march towards evolution on a planet. From atoms, atomic clusters to molecules to chemical reactions to complex systems and up till homo sapiens the evolution is all triggered by this coexistence. ON this planet which we have named “Earth” all other entities other than homo sapiens are free and in harmony. Homo sapiens being sentient will need to understand and then be in harmony.Now that understanding is there with some of them and a culture to transfer that to society is in process and you will be playing a constructive and important role in the same. How all the elements complement each other and are a prerequisite for the existence of the other is established and proven. Many experiments in the last century around the globe have proved that breaking away is not possible from the entanglement of each other. To live the best life you can, you must align your imagination to this existential reality of the cosmos,and know your role in the cosmos. Your life is self regulated and yet free. Freedom is the greatest of all possessions, because through freedom you’re empowered to obtain the other needs — needs like health, well-being, abundance etc. To find this freedom, you must become just human and get rid of the inhuman behaviour. There is a clear predefined “human behaviour”. You neither exploit or be exploited by other human beings. All that exists in nature is put to judicious use for a comfortable living. Usage in a replenishing way does away with any form of depletion. Sustenance becomes the new normal. Your role is to be resolved and be in harmony. Have the freedom to explore the how and why of the cosmos .Use prudence to understand its impact in your daily interactions and living. You want to find the meaning of existence ? Have the freedom to find the purpose with your own intellect. When we follow incomplete customs and traditions, things become a matter of interpretation — people dispute the way to find harmony, or the way to find God. Religious and ethnic groups are therefore formed around competing ideas, and only result in conflict. People are most unified and peaceful when they align. When you understand that joy is only in sharing and in the present you understand the need for being together and part of a bigger system. From having joy or happiness as a distant goal you are in the present and the now mode to be happy. The journey takes a known path that is getting rid of all delusions and inhuman behaviour. For example, many of us believe that being good requires self-sacrifice, which won’t make us happy. We can also be led to believe that it’s irrational to devote ourselves to the wellbeing of others. While the reality is that we can only be happy with other happy people around us. The happy life, the kind life and the rational life are all so intertwined and entangled. We just need to look at them holistically. “The truth”, as it is meant here, does not mean truth that corresponds to facts about the world — facts that may or may not have occurred. We can contest any given such “truth” for a long time. The truth here means the self-evident facets of our existence — facets that can be known by thinking, understanding and experiencing them internally. The fundamental truth lies in the Coexistence of formless, non-depleting static energy and an infinite variety of tangible and intangible forms. These forms encompass the physical realm as well as the realm of sentience, allowing them to be known, felt, and understood. The formless aspect, on the other hand, remains static and serves as an unending source of energy. To maintain order and harmony, the forms are energized and set in motion. The formless, existing as a unbreakable field, seamlessly coexists with everything and possesses a transparent nature..The forms being energised or in motion to be in order and harmony. The nature of the cosmos, our place in it, and what we are to do with our lives open up from this simple self-evident truth, like petals open from the bud of a flower. And we always need to be aware of the analogy as being a pointer and useful to explain but never substitute the actual existential reality as we understand and experience it. Knowing the truth will set us free from limiting and harmful beliefs. We’ll understand the freedom we have already, and the freedom that we can attain. Vyaapak Throughout history, we’ve wondered what drives everything. There is something that energises and ensures orderliness all around. We’ve understood this omnipotent force as an intrinsic part of our existence. This formless which we are going to name as “vyaapak” is beyond the boundary of our cosmos and the boundary of time. It is a plenum static field of energy beyond space and time .All that can be identified with a boundary both physical and sentient are entangled in that field. Being entangled all entities are energised, identified and regulated to be in order. Every form that can be identified as distinct from the other Is Energised by this non depleting energy Is uniquely bounded and distinct from another entity. Is regulated by being surrounded by the energy field

This is an all pervading omnipotent omnipresent subtle formless entity that coexists with everything. This vyaapak Coexists along with every single unit in existence. All things that exist are all made up of atoms both physical and sentient. Anything smaller than an atom is not in order and all subatomic particles or in the quest to be in order as an atom. Many scientists, philosophers, religious preachers have mentioned and postulated this something.We are now naming it as vyapak. They fell short of explaining vyapak in a way everyone can understand. According to Parmenides, the cosmos is pure oneness a “plenum” — a gapless solidity. Not being able to explain the same clearly led humanity astray. We can now give it a name “Vyaapak” the omnipotent omnipresent and omniscient static field Parmenides reasoned that Vyaapak that is has to be, Vyaapak in not something that cannot  be. This is because anything that comes to be, must have always been in existence. The rule is “what is not can never be and what is can never be destroyed and will only change form” Hence, Vyaapak the plenum is perfect, uniform, unchanging and subtle and complete. The changing reality of infinite elements and units energised, submerged and regulated in Vyaapak can be explained, understood and experienced. But the world as we experience it, is only the changes. It’s never the same, never constant. How could this be an illusion in the cosmos? What if reality really does change? Responding to Parmenides, the so-called “Atomist” I saw Vyaapak, (vyaapak) as the reason for all the changes and  but itself being static and an unbroken plenum. How else would things change and be always changing? Democritus, the fifth century BCE Atomist, reasoned that you could keep cutting things in two until they could be cut no longer. At that point, you would be left with tiny indivisible particles — atoms. The word “atom” comes from the Greek atomos — “uncuttable” or “indivisible”. The world is full of different things that change in a more or less predictable way. For Atomists, the atoms — too small for the eye to see — accounted for the consistency behind the difference and changes of the world. According to Democritus, atoms are without parts or empty space. This needs to be corrected. The indivisible and very subtle vyaapak coexisting as space between the electrons and protons can be rationalised. The atoms change configuration and newer elements are formed. And so both the consistency and the evolution of the universe is thanks to the ultimate simplicity of atoms. But for atoms to exist, Democritus had to therefore insist on the existence of void. The void sounds negative and so the theory floundered and could not make headway. Now with Vyaapak the theory gets the missing piece in the puzzle. Now we know the space between the electron and the proton which is 40 times the size of the electron is in reality an energy field that coexists with them.The mystery and questions raised by the papers of entanglement published by Einstein with 2 other scientists in the 1930s now gets validated. Einstein said “Entanglement is a fascinating and mysterious phenomenon, and it is one of the most important discoveries in quantum physics. It is still not fully understood, but it is clear that it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe.” This whole unfolding of the cosmos becomes complete when the human being with the capacity to understand and enjoy the freedom by self regulation is able to live in harmony. Epicurus agreed with Democritus that the Vyaapak between atoms was essential for change and movement, but he could not completely decipher the same. So the void between clusters of atoms accounted not only for change and difference, but also for the orderly evolution of freedom as new reality manifested itself- From the material world to the plant kingdom, the plant kingdom to the animal kingdom and from the animal kingdom to the  homo Sapiens. The idea of the void makes sense. Movement, change, light. Matter needs space to change. It all needs vyaapak, a plenum, to flow beyond time.This plenum is so subtle that light passing through is not at all affected by it.The temperature of the ray at the outermost point of the sun is the same as the temperature at the outermost point of the earth's atmosphere before getting into the atmosphere. The vyapak facilitates this movement of heat and light without any friction. Most contemporary scientists are all explaining the purpose, meaning existence and role of humanity. They are grappling in understanding the existential reality from many many disciplines of science from physical to the metaphysical from physiological and psychological. Add to their findings this small piece of the puzzle and everything falls in place. Just add this simple truth about coexistence. Once we add this missing piece everything seems to fall in place.

Dr Iain McGilchrist We bring about a world in consciousness that is partly what is given, and partly what we bring, something that comes into being through this particular conjunction and no other. And the key to this is the kind of attention we pay to the world.” “Meaning emerges from engagement with the world, not from abstract contemplation of it.” “So thinking is prior to language. What language contributes is to firm up certain particular ways of seeing the world and give fixity to them. This has its good side, and its bad. It aids consistency of reference over time and space. But it can also exert a restrictive force on what and how we think. It represents a more fixed version of the world: it shapes, rather than grounds, our thinking.”

“There is always a model by which we are understanding, an exemplar with which we are comparing, what we see, and where it is not identified it usually means that we have tacitly adopted the model of the machine.” “Music – like narrative, like the experience of our lives as we live them – unfolds in time.”

Bernado kastrup "Consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain. It is the fundamental nature of reality." "The universe is not a physical place. It is a conscious field of information." "We are not separate from the universe. We are the universe experiencing itself subjectively." "Qualia are the irreducible elements of consciousness. They are the raw feels of experience." "The physical world is an illusion. It is a projection of consciousness." "We are not our bodies. We are our consciousness." "Death is not the end of our existence. It is the end of our current experience." "We are all one. We are all connected by consciousness." "Consciousness is the key to understanding reality." These quotes give a glimpse into Kastrup's view of consciousness. He argues that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, but rather the fundamental nature of reality. He also argues that the physical world is an illusion, and that we are not our bodies, but rather our consciousness. Kastrup's views have been controversial, but they have also been influential. His work has been praised by some for its originality and creativity, while others have criticized it for being too speculative. However, there is no doubt that Kastrup has forced us to think in new ways about the nature of consciousness. As per Coexistence Philosophy:- Once the existence of the formless Plenum Vyapak and the infinite forms of physical and sentient element playing their role is added to the above everything becomes very clear as spelt out by Bernado.

John vyavyrke some quotes from John Vervaeke's transcripts on the meaning crisis: "The meaning crisis is a crisis of relevance. It is a crisis of meaning because it is a crisis of our sense of connection to something larger than ourselves." "The meaning crisis is not just a personal problem. It is a social problem. It is a problem of our culture." "The meaning crisis is not something that we can solve by ourselves. It is something that we need to solve together." "The meaning crisis is a call to action. It is a call to wake up and to start living our lives with purpose." "The meaning crisis is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to re-enchant our world and to find new sources of meaning." Here are some more specific quotes from Vervaeke's transcripts: "The meaning crisis is not just about feeling lost or purposeless. It is also about feeling disconnected from others and from nature." "The meaning crisis is a symptom of a deeper problem. It is a symptom of our culture's alienation from the natural world and from our own human nature." "The meaning crisis can be solved, but it will not be easy. It will require a fundamental shift in our worldview." "We need to re-enchant our world. We need to find new sources of meaning that are rooted in our connection to nature and to our own human nature." "The meaning crisis is an opportunity. It is an opportunity to start living our lives with purpose and to make a difference in the world." AS PER COexistence philosophy:- The role of the species Homo sapiens becomes clear once we under that the planet became enriched by all the other elements that led to the emergence of the species homo sapiens. This species has the potential to understand and live in order while all other entities before lived in order as per the respective rules. Animal kingdom by Laws of Heredity Plant kingdom by Nutritional Laws of selection of minerals Material world by The count and position of the subatomic particles

Donald D. Hoffman Here are some quotes by Donald D. Hoffman, a cognitive scientist and philosopher who is known for his work on the nature of reality: "Consciousness is not an epiphenomenon. It is the fundamental nature of reality. "Perception is not a window on objective reality. It is an interface that hides objective reality behind a veil of helpful icons." "The world we perceive is not the world that is. It is a world that has been designed by evolution to be useful for survival." "The laws of physics are not laws of nature. They are just descriptions of how our perceptual interface works." "The universe is not a place, it is a process. It is a process of computation."

These quotes give a glimpse into Hoffman's radical view of reality. He argues that our perception of the world is not a direct reflection of reality, but rather a highly selective and distorted representation that is designed to help us survive. He also argues that the laws of physics are not fundamental laws of nature, but rather just descriptions of how our perceptual interface works. As per coexistence phiosophy

Sam harris Rupert Sheldrake Glen Anil Seth Rupert sheldrake

Brendan Graham Dempsey

No matter what theory you subscribe to, there’s no alternative to existence. There’s only what is. The cosmos is bounded and coexists with Vyapaak.It has been and will forever be.In this cosmos planets are all in various stages of evolution and enrichment. This all answers the question, “Why does anything exist?” It answers, “Why is there something. You’ll be surprised at what follows from such a simple and obvious observation. The facts — that are also obvious if we give them enough thought — accumulate into a set of principles that help answer the questions that are most fundamental to our lives. From this one simple fact, we can understand our place in the universe and how we should live. That, in turn, will answer the question of why we should live. “Existence is coexistence ” is a happy phrase when we realise the implications of this simple truth.

Atoms & Subatomic particles Since there is structure and order the cosmos must be finite and definite. All that exists is there and nothing that does not exist will be formed. The cosmos is bound in the vyaapak ,because there is Vyaapak beyond its  extent. If the cosmos is finite, then it’s also eternal — we exist in a world without end. How? If there is coexistence of Material and vyaapak as we have already established, there can be no beginning and neither can there be an end. There’s no alternative to being, the always ever present. We know that Vyaapak is beyond any cause, but eternal. The coexistence of the cosmos must be uncaused, since it has no limit and therefore no beginning. It’s difficult to conceive of something that isn’t caused — Vyaapak we “know” is the cause while itself being too subtle to be caused. We cannot see the wood for the trees in our everyday way of thinking. There’s no one thing that is eternal because “all things” are eternal. That’s not to say all things taken as a whole are eternal, but rather the substance of all things is eternal. Things are limited fragments outlined by the boundary by coexisting in an unlimited whole. They have different shapes, colours and textures making them unique, but they all have one thing in common — they exist, and are therefore part of the whole. Their different forms, which change in time, are different expressions of eternal coexistence. This isn’t a new idea. Benedict de Spinoza’s idea of substance is defined as “in-itself” and “conceived through itself” — the cause of itself. What does Spinoza mean by “substance”? In everyday life, we talk of substances in the plural sense: different kinds of materials that are consistent through change. Water, for example, is a substance that can freeze solid or evaporate as steam, but it nevertheless remains as water, its particles a compound of two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms. Now consider that idea on a more fundamental level. All things have different attributes and properties. Chalk is typically white, my skin is warm, the sun is bright. But properties and attributes change. The sun can dim in the future, my skin would go cold if I die, chalk can be stained. And yet, something must remain the same for those things to change. The fact that those things exist does not change. This is what is meant by substance here. The word comes from the Latin substantia — to “stand beneath”. Substance stands beneath appearance and change. The entanglement of the same with other material makes up the whole existence. Many philosophers tried to guess what is beneath the appearance of real things. Since the ancient Indian Rishis and Greek philosophers began to speculate on the world, they sought to understand both the basis and the unity that underpins coexistence. Substance, if known, can become a foundation to an understanding of coexistence and how each one proves the existence of the other. It can be the basis of a philosophy of the world and life. To find substance is to find the answer we have all been looking for. Thales of Miletus thought it to be water. Heraclitus of Ephesus thought it to be fire. None placed as much importance on substance as Spinoza. He believed that since substance by definition can endure every change, it therefore cannot be created nor destroyed. Substance is the basis of his philosophy of existence. In the same way that water is water if you freeze or boil it, there has to be a consistency that allows the states of changes that all things go through. Things can be smooth, textured, coloured, clear, hot or cold and so on. There are limitless properties, attributes and relations that happen to things. That’s how we know those things — that is how we experience them. But “things” are consistent, even if their properties change. Consistency, then, is at the heart of change. Substance can only be an idea to us. We can only apprehend it through reason. It cannot be known by the senses since it has by definition no properties, attributes or relations by definition — all the categories that make things knowable to us. Substance is the “consistent thing” we get to when we strip and its coexistence with Vyaapak connects it to all other substances. Consider the table I’m writing at now. The table is made of wood. Wood is composed of cellulose fibres and lignin. These are made up of phenolic polymers and polysaccharides, which can then be reduced to monosaccharides which are compounds of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms. We can further reduce down to subatomic particles such as electrons and protons and then quarks. Ultimately, we hit a point where we reach an end to the table’s building blocks that coexist. We hit substance — that entirely independent thing which starts from the atoms who are in order.All subatomic particles are all moving to be in order and are not found in existence. Based on their position we have named them as electrons,neutrons and protons while they are just the same. No matter what you reduce down — tables, trees, people, planets, stars —  you’ll find the ground — “atoms ” — that can no longer be reduced by its constituent parts and nor is it dependent on anything else. Such a ground must necessarily exist because there’s no such thing that is not made up of atoms. We will never be able to strip away the properties and relations of anything to the other substances and that again proves coexistence. This is the existential reality that we can now  understand, It’s hard to think of substance as a thing in itself because here it’s being used as a category — there are things and there is substance. But it’s more than a thing because it’s all things. Substance is pure being — being that is uncountable. All the different things in the world are simply modifications of the same fundamental substance,the subatomic particle. What we have left is that entirely independent and unique thing that coexists with Vyaapak. The computer I’m writing on now is dependent on millions of things to be here now: metal, glass, silicone, all the processes of manufacturing, all the logistics of the computer coming into my possession and so on. All these are causes of the computer’s coming into being. The fact of the computer’s existence depends on this confluence of processes. But existence itself — substance — isn’t dependent on anything at all. Coexistence makes it what it is, and therefore it must be self-sufficient. Spinoza developed the idea of “substance” from René Descartes, who had inherited the term from Aristotle. Take, for example, the statement “the dog is brown”. The subject of the sentence is the substance — the individual that is the dog. The dog is the consistent part of the sentences “the dog is walking”, “the dog is brown”. The dog, then, is a unified and independent subject of predication. So, to Aristotle, substances are multiple—there are as many substances as there are independent objects of predication. Intangibles such as relations, thoughts, feelings and actions are treated as  independant substances that can be understood,seen and experienced but have no physical presence. And so the idea of substance both in a material sense and immaterial sense needs to be understood. The properties, attributes and relations of things may simply tell us more about our way of describing and categorising things. They both are part of reality. It could be argued that how we describe things is what makes those things real to us. Underneath all the descriptions of a dog, and what the dog is doing, where is the dog? Has a dog — or indeed the cosmos — no more “substance” than a number like “twelve” or a face we perceive in clouds? It needs to be understood that language is a tool we use to explain and visualise the reality.Reality predates language and coexistence is the basis for humanity to have developed language. Talking and writing about things is simply helping the others in humanity also see things. These things simply exist in the web of relations of our language. The table and the computer I described above are all made up of atoms the basis building block of material. If God is generalised to the point of being vyaapak, what’s the point in “God”? God is evacuated of content if God is vyaapak. Rather than revealing God to us, Spinoza simply recast the deity as “Nature”. That stands even if, as some argue, Spinoza thought nature was just a part of God and not identical to God. If we were to subtract “God” from Spinoza’s “God or Nature” and leave only “Nature”, where would perfection come into the definition of Nature? We have two conclusions about substance here. We can try to make substance a positively defined thing as Spinoza did in his idea of God — “substance is God”, or we can simply take all things for how they are to us and acknowledge only that they exist — “substance is unknowable”. But think for a moment about change. vyaapak is changing. That’s the other truth we know deep inside. We know change prior to even observing things change, because to think is to change. I have thoughts that come to me in time, and my mind changes from thought to thought. There is change even in the constancy we see in things. The table seems still to us, but it’s just relatively still compared to liquids and gasses. The table is vibrating and changing shape. It is decomposing as a “table” as I write, even if that change is too slow to be perceived. All things, no matter how still, hard and solid they seem to our impermanent human measure, are flowing and transforming from the standpoint of eternity. Change is causes begetting causes. Substance, then, is cause itself. Why? The only thing that is self-caused is cause itself. If the cosmos is infinite, it must be the cause of itself. If the cosmos is the cause of itself, then the substance of the cosmos must be cause.

Finite Order Everything that we can identify as a unit from the atom to the human physical body is an entity in order.It is in order at the individual level and plays its specific role in the bigger order.Say a call in the kidney is complete in itself.So is the kidney by itself but as a part of the excretory system it plays its designated role. The excretory system plays its role in respect to the human body. This clearly lets us know of the finite orderliness in existence. The philosopher David Hume asked himself a simple yet profound question in the eighteenth century: Why do things happen in a predictable way? In other words, why do some events necessarily follow other events? For example, if you were to roll a ball along the ground, why wouldn’t it just float vertically into the sky? Or why wouldn’t it disappear in a puff of smoke? Why does fire always give off heat, and why is ice always slippery? One predictable thing following another is what philosophers often call “causation” or “causal necessity”, because each effect has a necessary relationship to its cause. Causation is important to philosophers and scientists because it is what seems to bind the world together. Think of it as a kind of cosmic glue. The coexistence philosophy establishes the rules for all events. The formless static Vyapaak is the cause and source of energy for everything while itself just being. No change at all Just the standstill expanse. The cosmos therefore has a consistent way of behaving to enable us to survive. If the world had no basic order to it and was an unpredictable chaos, there would be no life. I’m writing now because the earth orbits the sun in a predictable way. We also couldn’t exist if we couldn’t predict how things will behave. The consistency of the world is assumed in how we comprehend and engage with reality. This impact that everything has on the other things and the affect all other things have on the one thing is possible because they are all united, bound, connected and regulated by vyapaak. The common sense necessary to survive takes causation for granted. I can ponder the question of cause because of the stability and consistency the cosmos affords us, along with our automatic comprehension of that consistency. Most philosophers before Hume took a dogmatic approach to explain this universal consistency. They argued that nature’s laws are decreed by God (this is “dogmatic” because it requires no external proof, God’s existence was taken for granted). Hume took a sceptical approach, relying only on his senses: he pointed out the simple and obvious fact that the causal connections between things are unobservable. Vyapaak is too subtle to be observed or felt but can only be experienced. If, for example, we were to hit a ball with a bat, we think we see event A — the bat hitting the ball causing event B — the ball flying through the air. But in fact we’ve merely seen event A and event B. The connection that links the events lacks any observable properties whatsoever. There is no “event” between cause and a corresponding effect that can be perceived by the senses. All we know is that when something is acted upon, there’s a consequence of some form. If I kick a stone that could move, it necessarily moves. Why this “necessary” event takes place is something that explains the continuum. So how do we account for causation — the consistency of cause-and-effect? The entanglement of everything and every single thing affecting each other explains all the events that occur. Everything being energised by Vyapaak are in motion. The emergence and manifestation of more and more complex entities is the story of evolution in each planet in the universe. All that exists will always continue to be there. Nothing is created nothing is destroyed.The form just keeps changing as is evident on this planet Earth. All the other planets are on this trajectory and at some stage on this evolutionary process. How does heat come from a flame? How does a thought translate into the movement of our limbs? How does the vibrating violin string produce sound? Coexistence shows this when we observe the operation of causes, we always find entanglement a cause to an effect making the  link between everything that exists. The word “transcendental” in Kant’s explanation means “beyond experience.” Kant suggests that there’s an inner structure to the mind beyond the reach of our experience. Think of your sense organs. You cannot see your own eyes or hear your own ears. We passively experience the world through these organs. The mind’s inner structure imposes order on our experience itself through intuition. We cannot know these structures of intuition in the same way we cannot see our eyes or hear our ears. While there are things that exist before consciousness, Kant believed the human mind made them relatable to us. Both the things in the world as they are in reality and the faculties of the mind that make them relatable to us are ungraspable to the intellect. We know the world through a “synthesis” — a combination of both the world that the senses perceive and the mind that makes sense of it through an in-built intuition. Kant’s Transcendental Idealism was the best explanation for causal necessity and the consistency of our experience of the world and was so for a very long time. The idea that the world is mediated through (and ordered by) mind has underpinned many philosophical assumptions in the several hundred years since he published the Critique of Pure Reason in which he laid out those ideas. As soon as we take Kant’s elegant solution to its logical conclusion, we find that it’s problematic. The problem is that Kant is mixing two categories: there’s no world without mind and no mind without world. If time and space result from the synthesis of mind and reality, then reality outside of mind must be an undifferentiated chaos. There would be no colour, no shape, no sound, no light or dark, no time and no space. If our minds order this undifferentiated chaos, how can a world exist outside our heads? Kant’s idea is now described as an idea of “correlationism”, a term coined by Quentin Meillassoux. Correlationism is Meillassoux’s description for any philosophy that holds that we only have access to the correlation between thinking and reality, but never to either of them separately. Does the world only exist in the human mind? We know there was a world before humans and human thinking existed — palaeontologists dig up specimens of a pre-human age all the time, for example. Kant’s system for explaining causation — that experience is a synthesis of mind and world — cannot account for the world before the human mind came into being. So while Kant managed to formulate a satisfying way to explain the consistency of the way things behave — causality — there are some problems with that explanation. We’ve come no closer to positively ‘proving’ that there’s a reality outside human experience. This is because the very substance of reality is the cause is cause itself. If I hit my fist on a table and shout, “this table exists!” There’s no connection in my actions — the banging of the fist and the declaration — that can prove that the table exists. Objects can be inferred as real through their causal relationships, not our insistence. We understand the table to be real insomuch that it’s a cause of my fist-thumping behaviour. In fact, it’s one of many causes. Its place in the causal web connecting things together allows us to consider it real enough to cause our thoughts about it. In this way, real things are real in a negatively-defined sense rather than a positively-defined sense. In other words, they’re real as things which are things to other things. That last sentence probably sounds confusing. To explain, I’ll draw on the ideas of the twentieth century philosopher Martin Heidegger. The German philosopher demonstrated that there is an “as structure” to things. Things are defined in our practical understanding of the world as serving purposes. For example, a hat can be a hat as a head covering, a hat as a prop on a theatre set, or turned upside down as a container, or thrown onto a fire as fuel. In each case, the hat is “as something”. These are causal relations. The possibilities of the hat’s causal relations are inexhaustible. We’ll never know the “hat” for any purpose that is of the hat itself. We only know things through their relation to other things. Our grasp of the hat is as a thing that exists as something in every way we consider it. If we were to strip away every description of how it serves as a cause of one kind or another for us, the object disappears. This is because the object — in this case the hat — is caused and, in turn, causes. When we understand objects as part of the continuum of cause, we see that they melt into the stream of that continuum. Things-in-themselves, or the positive qualities that constitute things, don’t exist. There’s no “hatness” of a hat. The object has no essence within it that gives it its properties because these properties are a manifestation of cause itself. And so, the problem of causality, as it is identified by David Hume, is a false problem. The reason we cannot perceive causation is because the cosmos itself is cause. Remember that all things are the sum of the cosmos, and all things are cause. Let’s consider the hat again. The hat in question may have a consistent shape, weight and texture to us, but from an inhuman perspective, it’s part of the continuum of change. When vyaapak is cause, you’re not going to perceive cause, you can only understand it. The “effects” are only the motions of cause chained together. People often mistakenly consider cause and effect when they look at discrete causes and their discrete effects, but every “effect” is in turn a cause. The causal connection between the bat and the ball is the motion that results from their impact. That motion in turn becomes a cause for innumerable other changes. The very word “effect” suggests a terminus of some kind. This word has a spell over us, making us consider things as terminations of causes, rather than as being in the continuum of cause itself. Cause itself is the substance of all things. If we reverse our tabletop analysis from the last chapter, we’ll see that the conjoinment of subatomic particles cause atoms, atoms cause compounds, compounds cause monosaccharides, and so on and so forth. These components of the table don’t necessarily cause each in turn, but they’re necessarily part of the “effect” that is the table, which is itself a cause of many things in turn. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein invited us to consider the statement, “a rose has no teeth.” The phrase is so obvious it seems odd to even say it. But Wittgenstein challenges us with the idea that the rose has, in fact, teeth in the mouth of the beast that dungs the soil from which the rose is nourished. An alien visitor that couldn’t perceive the differences between earthly life forms would see it that way — a continuum of energy, rather than a rose and a beast. Another way of looking at it is through atoms. I may be partly made up of carbon atoms exhaled by a caribou four thousand years ago in Siberia, partly made up of the wing of a dung beetle crushed at the foot of a young pharaoh. Atoms have had their own journeys for billions of years. I am merely a vortex of atoms, a dust devil of being for a blink of time in the endless aeons that these atoms that make my eyes, my hair, my skin have existed. From the perspective of the atom, there are only atoms — not people, or trees, or planets. And so it is with causes and effects. Causes have “sense” to us insomuch that they are understood from the standpoint of their immediate effects, but consider causes from the perspective of cause, and you’ll see that there’s only cause. The chain of “cause and effect” would, in fact, be an undifferentiated continuum to an inhuman eye. Effects are only the ends of causes to our everyday understanding of the world.

The Pattern The improbable stability that causality brings to the world leads us to wonder why that can be the case. Is the universe governed by laws? What is the source of these laws, and can we understand them in a deeper, more fundamental way? The Stoics believed that reason governs the cosmos through “divine logos”. This logos is the reason of God, and God’s divine providence guides all that is in the cosmos. Christianity inherited an idea like this. Essentially, it’s the “dogmatic” explanation for causality. The laws of nature are decreed by — and at the mercy of — God. God can make miracles happen because God can break His own rules. Some believe that the all-knowing God has set the future — our fate and the fate of things around us is fixed because events play out in a fixed way known — and therefore determined — by God. Those who don’t believe in God but hold a mechanistic view of the cosmos may agree that all that happens is fixed for eternity. Many hold that the “laws” of nature mean that everything is determined by events prior. The cosmos is thought of as being like the mechanism of a clock — every single thing in the cosmos is interrelated in the same ways the mechanics of a clock are interrelated. Could it be that as our understanding of the clock increases, we are more able to predict future events? This idea was first articulated in this way by Pierre-Simon Laplace, a French scholar working in the nineteenth century. Laplace’s “Demon” is a hypothetical creature that knows the location and momentum of every atom in the universe. Such a creature, Laplace held, would know the future. He wrote, “for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present before its eyes.” Many who believe that all things are determined would probably agree that such knowledge could exist, at least hypothetically. The idea of divination is founded on a similar principle. If the world is a mechanism of interrelated parts, you could infer the destiny of one part by observing the movement of another. This is how some people believe that you can read the fate of one thing from the appearance of another, like the fate of your marriage from the palm of your hand, or your army’s likelihood to win a battle from the patterns in the entrails of a sacrificed animal. This is because, for the fortune-teller, everything in existence is interrelated, like the cogs and springs of a clock. Chrysippus of Soli, the head of the Athenian Stoic school at around 230 BC, who laid out the world-explaining system of Stoicism as we know it, wrote: “…all effects owe their existence to prior causes. And if this is so, all things happen by fate. It follows therefore that whatever happens, happens by fate.” Events simply happen in an unchanging chain of causes. Since he believed everything to be fated, Chrysippus also believed in divination. The future can be read in, say, tarot cards or the palm of a hand because the order of the tarot cards or the lines in the palm are inextricably linked to events to come. For us mortals, there’s only a predictable consistency in the way things behave at the most immediate causal level. If you put your hand in a fire, it’ll burn. But as causes compound together, predictability and consistency are lost. If I were to flip a coin with my thumb, for example, it’d fly straight up into the air to a certain point and fall again. I can predict that will happen. But I cannot predict whether the coin lands on its “heads” or “tails” side. I could take a guess for a one-in-two chance of being right, but it would only be a guess. As we go further down the chain of causes into the future, we lose predictability entirely. The chances of guessing the right outcome decrease as the number of causes the outcome depends upon increase. But why shouldn’t we be able to predict events further down the chain of causes? Why should human intellect fall short of knowing for certain about future events? There is no reason that we shouldn’t if future events are indeed fixed in destiny. Is it a matter of not fully knowing the complexity of the compounded causes? Or is it that, in actuality, the event is not determined? While it seems the flipped coin behaves in a particular way, is there a “natural law” that for all time has guaranteed on which face a coin will land for each given flip? The indetermination of the future — of compounded causes, suggests that there are no laws determining events themselves, or at least not any laws we know of. There is a consistency only in the way things behave: how events come to be, but not what actually happens. Is that consistency written in mysterious laws? No. There’s no good reason to believe in the dogmatic explanation for causality. The temptation is to believe that the observable consistency in the way things behave can be concluded as all things happening consistently to an overarching fate. The distinction here is that the effects of immediate causes are predictable, but far off events are not. This distinction has given rise to the idea of “laws” of nature: that the way things behave is governed by timeless rules. As we have discovered already, all is cause. “Effects” are only causes in turn that human beings interpret as effects. And as we have already demonstrated, the cosmos is eternal, and so there is no terminating “effect” or outcome to all the causes that have played out over time. All the effects in the cosmos didn’t begin with one cause, and all causes won’t end in one final effect. If we understand that the cosmos has no beginning and no end, the supposed bond between cause and effect becomes nonsensical. In fact, all that lends consistency to the way things behave is how causes have played out before us. This may sound like a paradox: surely there had to be consistency in the way things behave for the causes to play out in the first place. How, for example, did things move from the beginning without laws of motion? That’s a valid point if we consider the idea that the cosmos began at some time. But remember Coexistence means nothing started and nothing ends. Nothing that is will be destroyed and nothing that is not will be created. . What’s more, the very substance of the cosmos is evolving towards self regulated continued existence. Cause entails change. How cause actually plays itself out is unfathomable, but that doesn’t make it unreal. Today’s most widely accepted materialist explanation for the beginning of the observable universe is the “Big Bang” theory. The theory holds that, because the universe is expanding, it likely emerged from a single point of extreme heat and density around 13.8 billion years ago. The universe exploded into being, so the theory goes. Barely anything is known about the “singularity” from which the universe emerged. It’s probably impossible to know what happened before the big bang, since time itself likely had been born of the big bang. The big bang created the conditions for the mere moment, the mere blink of human existence. All cause we know is cause since the big bang — if the big bang did indeed happen. But the observable universe is just one fragment of the cosmos. The cosmos is absolute and eternal. Cause unfolding throughout eternity has determined what is possible or impossible in the future. For example, if I seriously injured my knee in an accident as a boy, I wouldn’t be able to become a professional runner. What if the same could be the case on a cosmic level? What if the stirrings of vast clouds of matter billions of years ago have determined things that are permissible or impermissible now? It’s hard to imagine what the melting pot of the cosmos was like billions of years ago, but just imagine that what we perceive as “laws” are simply part of a pattern produced by changes over an unimaginably vast course of time. What there is for us — now — is cause. Cause is all you could define as the substance underlying all that there is. When you excavate down, deeper into the reaches of being, there is only cause, and the pattern of cause is what governs what is and is not possible in our universe. How can we describe it as a pattern? Because there is an observable consistency, and that is change. Change is the perceptible expression of cause, and the impingements of change upon change give us a pattern. Think of the pattern as a card game. As I play each card, one by one, more and more possibilities are precluded from happening because cards are being removed from the deck. The game is a pattern because its future is structured by its past, even if the cards are drawn at random. We see “laws of nature”, but the consistency we perceive is actually only pattern. The pattern we mistake for the “laws of nature” has no reason or purpose. It only resembles laws because, in the blink of our existence in the vast reaches of time, we ourselves are a product of those so-called “laws”, and so we assume them to be immutable. Since the “laws” of gravity and motion shaped us and our world, we consider them unchanging and eminent. But, in reality, they’re contingent. Let’s consider natural laws in the same way Michel de Montaigne wrote of human laws: “Laws gain their authority from actual possession and custom: it is perilous to go back to their origins; laws, like our rivers, get greater and nobler as they roll along: follow them back upstream to their sources and all you find is a tiny spring, hardly recognizable; as time goes by it swells with pride and grows in strength.” What we consider laws of nature are accidental properties of the cosmos, perhaps feeble in origin, but seen from our own feeble perspective, they’re mighty and even all-controlling. In the vast reaches of infinite time, the cosmos has unfolded in a way that has produced a moving pattern. This pattern isn’t immutable because it changes as the cosmos itself changes. This is because the cosmos — the totality of vyaapak — is the pattern itself. What really allows for the consistency in the relationships between things is the eternally revolving kaleidoscope of the cosmos playing itself out as cause. But while it’s impossible to model a universe within its own framework, this simple analogy at least points us to the idea that there are no natural laws. Only the unfolding of change and self-determined “rules” emerge with the convergence of events, and events are simply the manifestation of cause. Change happens in time, why is that? Time There is in existential reality only the PRESENT.

All other planes of time are a result of our imagination. We have put in reference the Sun and based on the rotation of the earth created this concept of time. Existentially the present is the sum total effect of the interactions of all the substances as discussed earlier. Plato held the idea that time is the result of our world being an imperfect copy of the true and perfect world. The philosopher’s own origin myth, explaining the birth of the universe, accounts for why we came to be immersed in time. According to Plato, the demiurge (the divine “father” and creator of the universe) made a living creature in the image of the eternal gods. Filled with joy at his achievement, the creator made a universe as best as his ability allowed him. This meant creating a moving image of eternity — a copy of reality divided into fragments, when the true eternal reality was one and unmoving. The constant changing of the copy of eternity that we inhabit is what we call time. So time, according to Plato, is a by-product of the universe’s imperfect condition. While true reality is unmoving and utterly harmonious and simple, our universe has a messiness owing to the limited ability of its creator. The theory behind this myth is one of the most robust responses to the question of why things change. To this day it doesn’t contradict the science of the Big Bang theory, which states that time began with the birth of the universe. Plato’s theory of time perfectly fits with his theory of Forms. Forms are perfect, they exist eternally and therefore out of time. Our imperfect world of appearances, on the other hand, constantly changes and never remains the same. According to Plato, knowledge about the world is only fleeting and imperfect, in the same way the world itself is fleeting and imperfect. But knowledge about forms cannot change, it is eternally true. The flow of time is the perfect world broken into moments. As elegant as this explanation is, it’s incorrect to say there is a perfect world. There is the cosmos, and that is it. There is no time without cause itself. People often think of time as flowing, like a river. But it’s better to think of time as growing, not flowing. Think of the cosmos as a great tree. For the tree, every branch, twig or leaf is an outgrowth that only serves the purpose of sustaining the tree of which it is a part. As the tree grows, its mass increases, but its mass increases to sustain the ever growing organism. Change is like such a growth, it could be thought that it sustains the cosmos. Cause itself is the substance of the cosmos, and it sustains itself in its outpouring in the same way a tree sustains itself in growth. In the absence of vyaapakness, the cosmos does vyaapak but grow by the passing of innumerable moments. It grows not in space, but in change. It can only exist in moments, through moments by which cause plays out. Time emerges from change as the undetermined and imperfect future becomes the determined and perfect past. If these moments were to cease, so does the entirety of the cosmos — its future, present and past.

Fate The explanation for determinism is well-known to anybody with a passing interest in philosophy. It goes like this — given the physical nature of the cosmos at any point in time, only one future sequence of events is physically possible. The reason given for reality being one fixed sequence of events is because the mechanical laws of nature only permit one. In a physically determined universe, there can be no alternative possibilities, only the way things are. Throughout history, philosophers tried to reconcile our feeling that we can choose alternative possibilities of action with the physical—seemingly determined—world we inhabit. If the world is physical, and we are physical, how can our will escape the laws of nature? There are three broad positions philosophers take about human agency in a universe of cause and effect. Firstly, there’s “Hard Determinism”. This is the belief that free will is impossible. The hardest determinists would argue that your life — every single action and thought you have — has been mapped out since the beginning of time. Libertarianism is the idea that we have free will. We can make choices in our lives that are influenced, but not determined by, the external universe. Libertarians would hold that we are wholly responsible for our actions. Lastly, there’s Compatibilism. This position takes for granted the idea that we live in a deterministic universe of cause and effect. However, it tries to reconcile an idea of human free will with the acceptance of determinism, making them compatible. Compatibilism can be thought of as “soft determinism”. Let’s first think about ancient attitudes to free will and determinism. Most of the Stoics fall into the position of compatibilism. Some are “hard determinists”, but none would believe in Libertarianism. As we’ve already seen, the reason for this is that the Stoics were “pantheists” — they believed that God is in all nature. If God is in all nature, then nature must be determined. There can be no room for “free will” in a universe that is all God because God is perfection. The Stoics believed that the universe was ruled through a divine “logos”. Logos isn’t an easily translated word but was used often in Greek philosophy. It broadly means language or logic pertaining to speech. The divine logos is the logic through which vyaapak, including human life, plays out in perfection. In some ways, it could be considered the code of existence: a set of rules by which all events happen. The universe may seem imperfect to us — death and disease, for example, are undeniably terrible for us humans — but the Stoics reasoned that we have only a partial understanding of it. This is because we’re merely a fragment of the whole, and therefore, we can’t stand apart from the universe to be free of the causal connections that make it up. Similarly to the Stoics, Spinoza believed that vyaapak is determined because God is perfect. If God is perfect, then there can be no limit to God. Therefore, Spinoza reasoned, vyaapak must be a part of God. If God is vyaapak and God is perfect, then vyaapak could be otherwise. What is has to be the way it is. God has no plans or purpose for the world. If He did, he wouldn’t be perfect because reasons are caused, and God is not caused at any moment because God is perfect. But, as we’ve already discovered, rather than revealing God to us, Spinoza simply recast the deity as “Nature”. If we were to subtract “God” from Spinoza’s “God or Nature” and leave only “Nature”, where would perfection come into it? God is perfect by definition, but nature isn’t. If there’s no necessity for perfection, then there’s no necessity for determinism. Free will — the belief of the libertarian position on human agency — is equally fraught with problems. The central problem of free will is that it is logically incoherent — to have full control of your destiny, you would have to be the cause of yourself. Friedrich Nietzsche, criticising free will, likened the idea to Baron Von Münchhausen pulling himself out of a swamp by his own hair. Nietzsche was a nineteenth-century materialist who had a disdain for the idea of reason. For Nietzsche, our use of reason itself is as determined as anything else. There must be a cause to “me”, that makes “me” think I’m free, but the cause means I’m not fully free because that cause is extraneous to my will. Even if I “caused” myself, something would have had to have caused me in the first place to cause myself. And so we have an infinite regression. I simply could never be an entirely free agent. Nietzsche goes further to suggest that our feeling of being in control of our actions are caused as a mere by-product of forces out of our control, like smoke coming out of a traction engine.

Free Will, God, and Evil Most scientist know and are aware of free will. But they are not able to articulate it or explain it in a way that we can explain the same to the children in school .They are confused and so not able to express it .Everyon every human being experiences it and the inability to express it is keeping them stumped. Using the philosophy of coexistence and knowing vyaapak as the non depleting energy that manifests itself as knowledge in the life atom/soul explainis the free will as the power to imagine, perceive , understand and know existential reality.That drive to know the truth is the free will and till we know the truth delusion is also the result of free will. Considoring oneself as the body and an animal are the two most important delusions that have driven mankind to this state of meaningless existence .Now the time has come for everyone to know the purpose and meaning of existence. If my life is determined by internal  forces of cause and effect, I can ultimately be held accountable for my actions. Responsibility is fixed on the homo sapiens because of the sentience and not on heredity as in animals. . vyaapak as the static field and not a s doer can resolve all of human misgivings about shifting the responsibility of all that occurs to God/ supernatural energy. Both Heaven and hell that are the outcome of human imagination are ways of existence that every single human being is responsible for himself. Being in harmony is heaven and being in disarray or delusion or confusion is hell. Align the thoughts, speech and action within himself. When interacting with another human being, understand that the other person has his own free imagination and interfering in the same is only as much as he permits. Ideal and harmonious behaviour is only by respecting the free will and imagination capability of the other person. Not interfering and not allowing oneself to be interfered is the way forward. The interaction should pave the way for both of them to attain enlightenment and clarity about the whole of existence.That is natural and bound to happen.

Predestination is another delusion that humanity has embedded into spirituality that needs to be resolved. All the outcomes are based on effort. Efforts in the right direction will lead to harmony and order. Efforts in the wrong direction will lead to chaos. The fifth century philosopher Boethius reasoned a way out of this circle by drawing the distinction between the knower and what is known. Now we know that the knower is the homo sapien or the human being and what is to be known is the existential reality. Boethius argued that God exists outside of time. God is eternal, and therefore all time is all-present and immediate to God. The easy mistake to make is to come to the belief that God sees the future from the present point in time. But God — being omnipotent — doesn’t exist in time since God is beyond time. Now we just need to add that Existence is always the present. All future and past or in the imagination of the human being and that imagination is to be used to be in order in the present. Neither to ruminate about the past or to worry about the future. All our actions then, Boethius argued, are present to God in an instantaneous moment. Therefore, vyaapaak  even if it hasn’t yet happened from our human perspective — a perspective that is immersed in time. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius argues that God is the pure good and doesn’t intervene in the world. Instead, all things seek to attain the good — to come to order as that is the existential reality. Free will is attained only by those who act in virtue. Acts of evil are a lack of complete and proper understanding, and so we become less free when we don’t act in virtue. Materialist philosophies struggle with the problem of evil. As we have discovered, if we were to accept determinism, we’d have to accept that all people are potentially good and need clarification about the wrong teaching they have imbibed from the society and culture they grew up in. The culture and society is dilapidated and needs fresh thoughts to lead to enlightenment.The same is possible one person at a time and that is inevitable. Many materialist philosophers will agree that it is out of sheer luck that a person is not a murderer. This is incorrect. All the physical matter we are made of — the electronic signals in our brain as much as the matter in our body — is subject to the same law of cause and effect as anything else and is regulated by the life atom /soul which is in the quest to know the existential reality by using the free will. In a cosmos of material cause and effect, there are neither acts of good nor evil, only events that have been determined since the beginning of time by the laws of nature. The physical and the sentient natural elements are all moving towards orderliness. But even if there were laws of nature, they wouldn’t determine events themselves, only what is and isn’t permissible. Determinism is a self-evident truth. There’s no objective proof that anything at all is determined by natural laws.This existential reality is beyond and above the Empirical evidence based science but can be understood by the faculty of free will. As we’ve already seen, David Hume saw no observable property of “cause”. A materialist would see “cause and effect” and assume all our actions are effects of causes. ONce the sentient life atom/soul is also understood ontologically then the mystery is solved. This conclusion is a clear understanding of the free will and its responsible use to align our perceptions to the existential reality. The choices of our actions will always emanate from our inner selves. Both are the reality about agency – and truths – This r reality is there and that is why we do not need empirical data points or evidence. The truth is always there whether we infer and know it or we are deluded and negate the same. It’s not immutable laws but the mutable pattern that determines what is and isn’t permissible in a moment of time. That’s not the same as the pattern determining events themselves. We’re part of the pattern, along with vyaapak. This pattern is regulated and in order regulated by timeless laws. The future of an enlightened society with no delusion and unified by virtue is the future. As expressed in “the laws of nature”, the pattern creates the human being with the requisite hardware and an opportunity for the soul/life atom to understand existential reality and be in order and harmony. To put it in simple terms, the pattern only sets rules of what is and what isn’t possible now. This establishes that these rules are unchanging,We can understand them using the faculty of free will and change all our delusions to resolution. Effects are alway the necessary outcomes of causes, they are simply causes in turn for next efforts. Causes only seem necessary after perceiving them from the standpoint of “effect”. Before “effect” there’s only a matter of probability. To state that vyaapak happens by the necessity of its causes is akin to saying, “it happened this way because it happened this way”. Cause only has “effect” when the effect is isolated and viewed in retrospect. And so the materialist conception of determinism doesn’t hold up if we consider that effects are only causes in turn. But this isn’t to say we’re fully “free” either. There are materialist philosophers who believe that human beings possess free will. They make the distinction between determined things — matter, and undetermined things — people. Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, made a distinction between “being-in-itself” — inanimate things like dust particles, stars, flowers and buildings, and “being-for-itself” — consciousness. The things that fall into the former category are subject to the chain of cause and effect, while consciousness sits outside the chain. Sartre makes consciousness exceptional in nature as being the only thing that is free. But from the standpoint of eternity, vyaapak is free. vyaapak is determined to be as it is. The world is eternal, so substance is pure cause, and all effects are, in turn, causes. Human beings are so enamoured with the idea of cause-and-effect that they assume the universe was caused. It wasn’t. There’s no goal nor any original state of the cosmos that is doing the determining. Since vyaapak is doing the determining, vyaapak in the cosmos has a preordained path or fate. People who believe in determinism look at cause and effect in a way that is tantamount to saying “a rose has no teeth” — they see the effect only from the aspect of its immediate causes. Suppose a glass slips out of my hand and smashes on the floor. If the physical cosmos is determined, the glass was fated to slip out of my hand. The determinist would say that the world is in such a way that the glass smashing at that moment was inevitable since the cosmos began. If the glass slipping out of my hand now is true, it must have been true yesterday, last week and a million years ago. But to assume this, we’re making two mistakes. Firstly, the world isn’t fixed in any particular way. There’s no fixity in how the pattern plays itself out since the pattern is freely caused by its own constituent parts and vyaapak else but cause. Secondly, for all the reasons described before, the cosmos never began. The glass slipping out of my hand can only be true from its own happening. The cosmos is actually eternal, so the fact of the glass slipping out of my hand had never been true until it happened. We can only understand effects to be determined, and they’re only determined from their own standpoint. When we see fire, we know it has been ignited. We don’t conceive of that fire to be a cause until one of its effects comes to our attention. Events that have come to pass are prisms through which we can see their own coming into being. We can also see the present moment in such a way. vyaapak that has happened must necessarily have had to have happened to make the world what it is in every particular present moment, but the present moment itself passes into “the past” as soon as it is known. Its known-ness — its determined and perfect state — is the very thing that makes it the past. The future is incomplete, imperfect and unknown. It’s a matter of probability and not certainty through which we can consider the future. So vyaapak is determined. But then, neither are we entirely free.

Our Freedom The possibilities of our lives are all based on how we align our perceptions using the faculty of Imagination Vyaapak being the source of Energy for the physical body becomes the source of Knowledge and understanding for the life atom/soul. Itself being inert and static, it gives us the vision to experience bliss by understanding all that is in existence. All things are in order and behave in an orderly fashion. The material world does it by just being in existence. The plant kingdom does it by nourishing, growing and decaying to enrich the soil. The animal world by displaying their hereditary traits. . Homo sapiens have the capacity to understand and then be in order by choice by proactively choosing to be in order. Everything in the cosmos is between being determined and self-determined — that is, being entirely in control of their circumstances. Every element being submerged and immersed in Vyaapak is interconnected and affects and is affected by each other. A mote of dust helplessly floating in space, is always going to be affected by the forces that act on it in a finite definitive way. The whole universe is in order and harmony. This speck of dust has none of the capacities to have freedom as we would positively define freedom, it’s practically at the mercy of other forces that act upon it at any time. But what is freedom to us in this respect? Freedom is by no means absolute. It’s not a matter of things being either entirely “free” or not free. The meaning of the word derives from its context. I can freely raise my arm, but I cannot perform a somersault. How free I am depends on my desires since desires are either fulfilled or unfulfilled. For example, a prisoner can be described as “free” as soon as he’s released from jail, but he’s by no means free in millions of other respects. From the amount of money in his bank account to the gravity that’s keeping his feet on the floor, the prisoner is subject to countless limits on the aggregate freedoms that he possesses. The prisoner has been freed from prison but is far from fully controlling his destiny. This is what is meant when we consider that there’s no absolute free and self-determining state. All things are free enough to act on each other. Like bodies in space have a gravitational relationship, all things impinge on other things. To exist is to hold some degree of freedom on a vast and constantly changing spectrum of “free”. As human beings, we can reflect and act on our situation — at the very least in the sense that thinking is an act. Like other animals, a person has a greater degree of freedom than a mote of dust, but only a degree. We should dismiss any absolute “free will” and instead consider the degrees of freedom of will. To possess any degree of freedom of will, what we’ll call “agency”, an entity must have three capacities. Firstly, the capacity to act intentionally as an individual is required for agency. Then we require a capacity to choose between alternative possibilities. Intention is possible without choice, yet choice is essential for agency. Finally, control is required. The capacity to have some control over its actions allows the agent to manifest intention and choice in the world. Without agency, there’s no agent. All things may be undetermined, unchained from any fate, but only certain things have one or more of the capacities above to at least partly determine their own existence, to participate in their fate. Many species of animals have the above three capacities in limited ways, but only human beings have reason, and that gives us a heightened freedom of will over other animals. However, our “freedom” uniquely extends from our self-understanding. We are tempted to think of our freedom as all the greater because we understand our place in the world. But we only understand our place from our own perspective. The freedom I will describe is a human freedom in human terms. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “If we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying centre of the world.” People like Nietzsche think it’s absurd that human beings regard themselves as the exception in nature. That’s true — we’re surely not an exception. But we can only be the exception in nature to ourselves. If we could fully communicate with other species, that would change. But there’s no other way of considering our place in the world except as an exception. There’s no privileged perspective of the world to see we’re not the exception because that would itself make us an exception. In the grand scheme of the cosmos, our freedom may be puny and insubstantial, but to us, it is free will. We’re the supreme end of all means that we have at our disposal. We’re at the top of a hierarchy that we must invent to reach those ends. It may well be true that the world to the dog is for the dog, the world to the mosquito is for the mosquito, the world to the worm is for the worm. It may well be that all animals may see themselves as the centre of the world and have their own idea of their freedom in that world. The mosquito may consider itself top of the hierarchy of whatever idea of freedom it has. But that doesn’t change the fact that the world to the human is for the human. The title of this part of the book is “Our Freedom”, and “freedom” here is freedom only as much as we understand it. While no things are determined, that relative freedom — “un-determined” — is negatively defined by what it’s not. This examination of a positively defined freedom is of a freedom that’s a fundamentally human concept. The key to our freedom is our capacity to act on things in accordance with our intentions as we understand them. We may not fully understand our intentions, but – as much as we do understand – our intentions is all we have. This is why human consciousness, which reflects back on itself, is at the core of our unique freedom. Our self-awareness is intrinsic to our understanding of the world — it shapes the world and our agency within it. So far as we can talk about human freedom, several properties are required for the degree of freedom we have: Motion — to move is tantamount to “existence” because all that exists is necessarily in motion. Vyaapak is still and static and everything being energised by the formless Vyapaak is  changing, evolving and in motion. Instinct — All that is alive has instinct. Growth itself is instinct. Plants reach their leaves, for example, to where they’ll receive regular sunlight. Will — All that moves to survive has a will. The will is the will to live. Only animals with a reasonable degree of the formation of the neurological system or brain depict the same. Concepts — As the brain evolves more and more with the increasing neurological power the life atom/soul in those physical body start having concepts of social order,morality and such traits being evident in the baboons, apes and bonobos. Language — From the friction and rhythmic sounds in the movement fo the air and leaves the universe is a place of sound of language evolving. What begins as specific types of sounds in animals evolves to facial expressions to sounds that explain concepts in those strings of sounds in the Homo Sapiens. Sentient — To consider oneself as a subject of another’s intention is to be cognizant of oneself and the others individual existence. Reason — To Reason is to be able to consider a situation from a number of perspectives. Consciousness is a sum total of these characteristics that are displayed in various species on this planet. The cat, for example, crouches when it stalks its prey. It’s conscious in so much so that it understands the need to make itself small and silent to catch the bird it has set its eyes on. It could be said that the cat exhibits these behaviours instinctively. But the cat is aware of its own being at a deep-seated level, which is factored into its calculations. Language is also common among many species. Birds, for example, call out to one another to make their intentions known. The human is the only “talking animal” talking about abstract things like when you are reading this ebook. But only human beings have reason. What makes humans exceptional in the universe, at least to ourselves, is the internalisation of dialogue and our ability to express that to one another. For human beings, language entails the integration of the understanding that other minds exist into our own minds. This is the basis of reason. To a greater or lesser extent, animals have an ability to communicate and calculate and even have high degrees of consciousness, but human beings have the propensity to understand a situation from different perspectives. This propensity is not necessarily exclusive to people, and not all people have this ability, but to be able to read and — more importantly — understand these passages is your privilege as a rational human being. Being able to see and understand everything from infinite possible perspectives will give complete understanding of Existential reality the only real truth that is uniform. Aligning all perceptions to map with the one existential reality is the objective of every human being. Adding the required information to complete all the incomplete and and deluded ideas and concepts handed over to him by culture tradition and society is the simple task that has been eluding humanity so far. With the advent fo the Coexistence knowledge of the form and the foemless as spelt out here by me and as it will get more and more content from the truth seeking people around the world it will become easily accessible and available to more and more people. From being unique and special the journey of humanity will start marching towards being unified and humane. This journey for me has been fulfilling and am inspired every day to live more in coexistence and so will th elast person among the 7.8 billion inhabiting the planet as of today. Before we reach the 10 billion mark this will become the way of life and every new born baby will live a fulfilling life in harmony and Heaven will be the lived life on this planet. Language and the Drives Human language has been one of the greatest inventions of humanity.It has been the base for all other inventions, discoveries and insights. Understanding is at the base of the Homo sapien species. What is understood is expressed using language. Existential reality predates language. So as language became stable and used all that existed where given words. The gross substances that are perceived by sense. The subtle feelings that are felt. The subtler thoughts that are understood. The still subtler experiences that are experienced. Everything that was a substance, a concept, an emotion, a feeling or an experience was given a name. The gaps in understanding is the innate nature of language communication.This stems from the fact that every human being can perceive, believe and imagine. This is the problem that needs to be understood. Language started with expressing what existed. But reason and understanding are complicated by the medium in which they are carried — human language. Human language isn’t the mere signalling of intent from one to another. It exists before us, outside us, and after us. We are nodes in a public network that we understand ourselves through, but do not have control over. The integration of “otherness”, of knowing that other human beings have thoughts and intentions, is beneficial but also limiting. Language shapes the way we express ourselves, as a slowly changing riverbed shapes the quick flow of a river. This also means there’s more that is bearing down upon us, more that precludes our possibilities. Language is an ocean we exist in, we cannot leave it, and we often forget it’s there. As you grow up from infancy to childhood, you begin to associate your “self” with the body you see in the mirror. However, all that you see is the body, not the important but invisible aspects of your being. These invisible aspects exist as much as your body. These invisible aspects allow us to recognise our “self” in the mirror in the first place. What are these invisible aspects? Your name preceded you, as did your parents, where you live and so on. All these aspects of your life impinge on who you are and how you recognise yourself as a unitary being. How you develop in the circumstances you are born into shape those invisible aspects of your being. Intentions are more complicated than we can consider. What we know we want in a given situation is only the tip of an iceberg. Underneath the surface of our consciousness lie a multitude of causes that make up our intentions. Your invisible self is made up of a collection of drives, many of which compete with each other. These drives are desires that seek fulfilment but have no specific object of fulfilment. They’re like the tendrils of vines, blindly extending out to find something to grasp. Where do they come from? The drives have various sources. Principally, they are instincts necessary to live such as the instinct to eat and drink, to excrete, to procreate. Then there are drives that are of the life atom/soul. These are the principal driving forces that in the homo sapiens can become stronger and bigger that the will to exist itself. These drives that are in line with coexistence all lead to resolution.Those perceptions and drives that are handed over to us by society in the form of tradition that lack the complete understanding of coexistence divide and delude our reasoning. To add the missing information to those drives is now possible by tapping into the knowledge of coexistence which explains all that exists. The rules behind every event unfolding gives resolution. We as a collective whole or as an individual can identify and understand the incomplete  social man made rules that are incomplete and lead to exploitation. We can throw light of the coexistence principles and complete them. From the exploiting nature we can convert them into regenerative fulfilling ways fo life and enrich human interaction as well as the ecological balance.If one person me is able to do it That gives the reason and logic that every human being on thi splanet will be able to do it. Everyone will understand the situation himself evaluate the multiple infinite angles required validate the solution and implement it to enrich his life and the life of others instead of being deluded and creating chaos and probelms for anyone or for the ecology. All our instincts that may come into conflict will be resolved with the knowledge of CoExistential reality and create a situation of harmony. We will desire the good of everyone and everything is interconnected with the good of our own selves. In every situation we feel the need to compete with others when it comes to our social standing, we will look at ways to cooperate and as a unified team strengthen the social fabric. The more complex the environmental and developmental interactions with our instincts the more original and authentic our solutions will come to fruition. Our freedom is subject to and independent of the past and the future. We will be able to exist (with Awareness) in the ever present with full confidence and joy. We will be rid of all the pain and sufferings of the past. We will be rid of the worry of uncertainties of the future. Understanding the coexistence of the life atom and the physical body we will be able to look at the existential reality in all its glory and be resolved. Our freedom, then, is manifested in the perception and enacted in the real world in speech and action. It is easy to understand the life atom soul is a permanent sentient being and has free will and makes good use of the physical body constrained by its tenure of existence. But the driver at the heart of our actions means that what we think would be free and unimpeded .The mind will be free of it own limitations of character. This is why a prisoner can be more “free” than a rich man. The fetters on our freedom can be immaterial as well as material. Character and Will Chrysippus of Soli made the same distinction between “internal” mental causes and “external” physical causes. To illustrate his point, he used the simple metaphor of the cylinder. If we push a cylinder on a flat surface, it’ll roll forward. Our push was a necessary cause to get the cylinder rolling. However, the cylinder’s shape — an intrinsic property — was sufficient to make it roll. If you pushed a cube, it wouldn’t roll because it’s not in a cube’s nature to roll. Let’s elevate this very simple example to a more complicated human situation. Let’s say we offer a bribe to a prison guard to get a friend out of jail. Our offer of money is necessary for the guard taking the bribe — it’s an external cause, like the push of the cylinder — but it’s not a sufficient cause for the bribe to happen. What is sufficient for the successful bribe is the prison guard’s unscrupulous character. Just as the shape of the cylinder allows it to roll, the guard has to have an internal makeup to make the decisions he does. The prison guard’s character has a “shape” that makes it amenable to bribery in the same way a cylinder has a shape that makes it susceptible to roll. For Chrysippus, actions are determined by a complex of external and internal causes. Because of this distinction between internal and external, the philosopher held that our actions belong to us, even if we can’t determine our future. Chrysippus never uses the words “free will” in the context of fate. Whether or not the guard takes the bribe is “up to him”, but it’s not a free choice. The guard’s choice is determined by their internal makeup. So to Chrysippus, we have “character” — the interwoven internal and external causes that create our dispositions. Now with our understanding about how those internal factors are driven and originate from we are in a position to clearly outline the path for Human emancipation and enlightenment. As agents that can act intentionally, we aren’t characterless beings that react to external stimuli in an entirely predictable way like the non living cylinder. But neither are we characterless beings that make entirely spontaneous choices without external influences. When it came to the human will, Chrysippus of Soli was a “compatibilist”. To carry his arguments and theory forward we need to understand the Coexistence and the finite behaviour of the universe. So this theory comes only halfway to responsibility. If our character is inextricably enmeshed in a web of causes, then it too is caused. So we still have no control over our judgements. Consider the previous definition of the agent — acting with intention, choosing among possibilities and possessing control. For Chrysippus, we have all of those qualities, but in reverse. The universe controls us, possibilities choose us, and we ultimately act without intention. There’s no agent in Chrysippus’s theory. If the prison guard has no ultimate control over how he judges a bribe offer, how could he be morally culpable for taking the bribe? Internal causes are still causes, even if they are at face value “ours”. But Chrysippus’s idea holds some truth. We too easily slip into the idea that “will” is a unitary thing when it’s a whole multitude of drives that have various degrees of “freedom”. As we’ve already discovered, this is because the freedom of all things means that some things impinge on the freedom of other things. Parts of our “will” or “character” are determined, but are more or less determined according to the pattern. As part of the pattern, we are more or less responsible for our actions, but never entirely responsible. We are only responsible to our own conscience. The Human Agent So what makes us responsible? How are we accountable for our actions? There’s no extra part to us that makes us responsible for our actions, there is nowhere to locate the will itself as some complete and unitary whole. So how do we participate in our own destiny? The world, as we experience it, is the fragmentary sense impressions — of sights, tastes and sounds and so forth — that enter our minds. We take the impressions from our senses and synthesise them into the coherence of a seamless and unitary whole. For example, a woman driving in a car can synthesise the sense impressions into a cohesive and seamless whole that allows her to safely make it to her destination. If the sense impressions of this experience of driving were inconsistent or fractured, the woman could crash her vehicle. So while we experience vyaapak partially, our mind does the work of making the partial experience of things coherent into consciousness. In this consciousness, we’re aware that all the fragments of reality available to our senses have been made coherent. This is where we become responsible for our actions. Our partial understanding of the causes that act upon us necessitates — in the process of weaving together our coherent experience — a reckoning that produces an agent. The “self” is found in this process. There’s no pre-existing unitary self, but rather one that is required for agency. In short, the self — the ego — is a by-product of experience. Our “self” that we see in the mirror is formed in the mind to be a coherent entity that decides how it should act given the incomplete picture of reality it has at its disposal. Like a shadow, this “agent” exists by virtue of us physically being in the world. It’s produced by a process we have no control over whatsoever — this process is consciousness. We have to be agents, we’re given no choice but to choose. But those choices themselves have conditions. We have a myriad of distractions that at least condition the way we think. Hunger and thirst are obvious, but at varying depths beneath our consciousness lie drives that are nuanced, peculiar and particular to homo sapiens. We have many drives we need to become conscious of and have the requisite neurological hardware to do that. Events that have come before us will restrict the spectrum of possibilities open to us. There’s very little you can do, for example, about where and when you were born.Birth itself is just one event in the journey of the life atom to experience bliss.the adoption of the body and the separation from the body are cycles of coexistence that can easily be understood taught and become a part of the social knowledge cloud. In this way, your fate is completely fixed and in your hands. Nothing is random in this whole cosmos and your understanding of these rules is the purpose of the intellect that you are endowed with. Making the right choices is the simple path to understand existential reality in all its grandeur. We contend with a great ambiguity. On the one hand, all things are untethered from fatalism. On the other hand, the interdependence of the existence of all things facilitates the mutual complementarity of all things. We have greater and lesser degrees of freedom to contend with this ambiguity. The greater and lesser degrees of freedom depends on what we are doing or hoping to achieve. Freedom of will is localised to the task at hand. It’s wrong to think of freedom as something one possesses – just as one would possess an item. How much freedom I have in utlising the physical body to get things done is limited by the laws of physics and quantitative.What I can do with the value system in me is qualitative and I can keep getting rid of delusions by seeing things as they are ,or get deluded and not know of things in reality. From the perspective of the task at hand, the fact of causes affects my freedom, not the amount of freedom I somehow possess. The human is not imbued with a quantity of freedom like liquid in a vessel. Freedom is not something we can quantify because our desires determine how free we are. The human is imbued with drives, variously free and unfree in the context of their current object of desire. Freedom is not about autonomy of the individual, which is what some philosophers think of when they discuss “free will”, but the ability of discrete desires to fulfil their goals. Our rational capacity to make sense of those desires – to restrain some, while fulfilling others — is why it’s better to talk of a “freedom of will” than free will. The individual doesn’t have more or less freedom, the individual has more or less understanding — and therefore control — over their desires. How we increase the freedom of will we have, what use we put it to, and to what ends is up to us.

Ethics So we’ve come to understand that we’re free — not absolutely free, but free to fulfil desires nevertheless. Our rational mind is able to project multiple futures and then deliberate and choose between the alternative possibilities. We do so by projecting a deliberative self in a process we call consciousness. This is how we participate in our own destiny. How, then, should we use whatever freedom we have? This is the real question of philosophy: “how should I live?” This is the question of ethics. To answer this question we ought to understand the ends to which all our actions ought to aspire. Quite simply, we want what’s good for us, and we wish to avoid what’s bad for us. The problem with traditional moralities is that they bridge the gap between “what is” and “what ought to be” with recourse to some form of absolute truth or higher purpose beyond our own minds. A rational ethics ought to be conceived of neither as a science nor a religion, but as an art by which we aspire to do right by submitting our thoughts to reason, not handed-down laws. There’s no good or bad outside of thinking. An earthquake doesn’t destroy anything in the eyes of nature, it only redistributes matter. Destruction only happens in consciousness — “destruction” is a judgement. The cosmos itself is indifferent to what is good or bad to us. What is considered good or bad then would be good or bad for us as individuals. Only we can judge what’s good and what’s bad. Our own actions must validate themselves by standing to reason. Only we can know what’s good and bad, and we know that through reason alone. For instance, bad can be sickness, poverty and sadness, while health, joy, wealth, exuberance can be good. All these bad and good states can exacerbate one another in turn. Health, for example, can bring joy, while sickness could bring poverty. But only one good can give rise to all the others. Freedom is the ultimate good because freedom allows us to pursue all other things that are good, such as health, joy and wealth. The freer I am, the more autonomy I have to pursue what I think to be good for me. I can, for example, leave my house to buy food if I’m hungry. But if I were not free — if I were held captive, for example — I wouldn’t be able to leave the place of my captivity to fulfil that simple desire. Moreover, the less free we are, the more the range and ambition of our desires are themselves inhibited. If I were held captive for years, I wouldn’t even be aware of the new things I could have enjoyed as a free person. To repeat the analogy from before — the prisoner may well be more free than the rich man, since so much unfreedom is in the mind, but the prisoner would nevertheless still prefer to be free from prison. The cause of all that’s bad for us is physical pain and mental disturbance. Both are brought about by an insufficiency of freedom and are themselves a limit on freedom. Consider physical pain. If a peasant in the seventeenth century broke their leg, they would be lame and probably in pain their entire life. If I broke my leg today, I would have it fixed quickly, thanks to modern medicine. The seventeenth-century peasant had fewer freedoms than I do now. Having broken his leg and becoming lame for life, his freedom was further inhibited, and he was prevented from living as full a life as he could have had. Physical pain gives us mental anguish not only from the pain itself, but also in how it precludes us from certain things we desire. We can either prevent pain or manage any pain that we can’t prevent. We can prevent pain by not putting ourselves in harm’s way and eradicating existing pain with medicine. We can dull pain or manage the magnitude of its disturbance through physical or mental therapies. Freedom allows us access to more possibilities in preventing and mitigating physical pain. There are more forms of mental disturbance than physical pain. Physical pain usually has the secondary effect of causing mental disturbance, as can be imagined with the example of the peasant. Mental pain compounds in many ways. We can have anxieties and desires that come about from our thoughts about the past and the future, but there are also mental disturbances that originate in our physical make-up. The latter chronic forms of mental pain are one and the same as physical and should be treated as such — with medical and therapeutic help. These acute conditions are what we describe as mental illness, and our doctors have understood pathologies for their emergence. Infinite Desires (N-N=N) Once we understand the working of the life atom/soul we know that the brain is the conduit and the aspirations,thoughts,desires all happen in the sentient life atom. The process of being fulfilled to savoring the feelings is being done in the life atom and the senses through the brain are just input devices. All the mental disturbances that occur also occur in this life atom and get transferred to the body through the brain and the pathological responses are generated from an increased heart rate to perspirations. All the cravings, feeling of remorse for our actions, feeling sadness and bitterness that comes with being denied what we desire are all activities of the lifeatom. These are mental disturbances that aren’t exclusively and directly caused by physical illness or privation, and all of them are, of course, result in an agitated state of the life atom that is not good for us. We suffer immensely from these emotions, yet they are ultimately in our control. We simply need to understand the difference between the two various kind of ways our desires operate. Our purpose is to keep the body healthy and fit for us to be able to acheive the goal of getting to see the reality and behave in a human way and set a tradition of humane living for experiencing harmony and bliss. All the needs of the physical body are desires that ensure our physical  well-being. Needs are innate and include all activites we need to undertake to survive. These natural activities include eating, drinking, sleeping, excreting.To protect the body having a shelter that we can call home is also needed. The other kinds of needs that can not be fulfilled by any material but only by another human beings can be understood very clearly by understanding the life atom. When I need to sleep, I can sleep for a sufficient amount of time to end that need. It’s the same if I’m thirsty: I can drink a glass of water to quench my thirst.All these are time specific and can be quantified or measured. But the other needs of company ,love, respect etc are not measurable and required in continuum. These are something that only another lifeatom residing in a physical body in the form of human being can give. I’d be wrong to believe that I “need” luxurious furniture to rest in or a glass of fine wine to quench my thirst. These are actually “wants”. I would be wrong to desire popularity when all I need is company because while the need for company is easy to fulfil, there’s no limit to what being “popular” entails. Confusing wants with needs brings unlimited disturbance to yourself. The person who takes pleasure from a cup of water and a bowl of lentils can be truly happy. A person who wants ever more luxurious food and drink will be forever unhappy. To have what is sufficient to live is sufficient to experience joy. Bliss is within us, waiting to be found. A gold bar is the epitome of the “empty convention” behind our wants. Gold has no ultimate intrinsic value. It would be worth a great deal in a city like London — it could be exchanged for thousands of loaves of bread. But you’d wish that same bar were a single loaf of bread if you were starving to death on that desert island. If I wanted something, I would be less free. This is because I would be driven by socially motivated desires rather than by requirement. This may seem absurd because, after all, being free is surely about choice. But wants are artificial desires that don’t come from within. Wants are socially motivated and therefore an impingement on our autonomy by the world around us. Our anxieties multiply with our possessions if we become attached to them. What is meant by socially motivated desires? Socially motivated desires can be the pressure to conform with other peoples’ standards or influenced by advertising, for example. These desires emerge as society distorts what we believe to be good or even essential for us, to think of “wants” as “needs”. We often feel that our wants are simply to please ourselves, that they are spontaneous and even natural — as natural, even, as our needs. But we ought to understand that they came from our being part of a society. We were given sugary food and so we crave sugary food, we’re told that successful people wear luxurious clothes and so we aspire to own such clothes. It’s ultimately the intention of other people, whether directly or indirectly, to make us want those unneeded “pleasures”. The distinction between wants and needs is important because we must understand our motivations in order to make free choices. Do we need a serum for smoother skin? Or is it something we want to appear more beautiful to other people? We may argue that to appear more beautiful is essential to have a greater influence over people to gain what we ultimately need. This is sound reasoning, as long as it is needs and not wants that guide us. The point isn’t that we should rid ourselves entirely of socially motivated wants (though that will likely make us all happy), but that we should never confuse them with natural needs. Realising this is essential to happiness. We typically think of freedom as being unhindered by others in fulfilling our desires. But true freedom is to be won from our own damaging impulses in addition to those who seek to exercise control over us. To ensure our own freedom, we must constantly be on guard against the unreasoned thinking that gives rise to the desires of wants. Wants are a latent control that other people have over us. We need to act according to the dictate of reason and not be swept along by our irrational desires. And so, the more we want, the less free we are. To want is to not be free. To choose is to be free, but to understand our choices is to be freer. Freedom isn’t just the ability to satisfy our desires, it’s the ability to understand our desires. It’s not enough to have desires and act to fulfil them — to act in a truly free way is to understand why you have a desire in the first place. The most common philosophical argument against any freedom of will is that we’re conscious of our actions, yet we often don’t understand the causes of our actions. While we seem to act freely to fulfil our desires, we have no understanding of the origin of our desires. As Arthur Schopenhauer put it: “A man can do what he wills but cannot will what he wills.” The reality is the exact opposite. People have the capacity to understand and therefore change their desires, but cannot necessarily fulfil them. Reason can help us understand what gives rise to our “wants” as sufficiently well as we understand our innate needs.

The Self Eastern and oriental philosophies have had much deeper studies about the self. Verse 2.23 Bhagwad Geeta नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावक: | न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुत: || 23|| nainaṁ chhindanti śhastrāṇi nainaṁ dahati pāvakaḥ na chainaṁ kledayantyāpo na śhoṣhayati mārutaḥ

Weapons cannot shred the soul, nor can fire burn it. Water cannot wet it, nor can the wind dry it. The life atom/soul or the self is an independent entity which can now be understood and studied. Being sentient it is capable of understanding, knowing, experiencing. It is permanent and can not change in the physical structure. or because it can not change by giving or receiving electrons it becomes permanent. This self is having free will as discussed earlier. As we understand our wants — understanding them to be unnecessary — we get a better understanding of what exactly we are. A typical person would identify their self with their body and may go as far as including their reputation and actions — the way they’re recognised by others. “I’m the President”, a politician would say. “I’m the best footballer in the world,” the footballer would say. “I’m the richest man in the world,” the rich man would say. They are all deluded in the sense that this is a temporary role. This is because all these things are subject to change. If they’re unlucky, presidents can lose their job, footballers can be seriously injured, rich people can lose all their wealth overnight. All the various roles that we play in our life are the outcome of complex systems we have built over time as a race. As human beings in our quest to know the truth we have created so many fallacies and assume them to be truths. The fulfilment is when we understand all that exists and  understand our role in the bigger system of existence. Creating a social structure and tradition where any new born can identify and understand oneself as a union of the self and the body. Fulfilling the needs of the self and the body in a replenishing way is being in order and harmony. True and sustained happiness can only come from that which is good and that which chance can’t take away. These goods, therefore, can only come from within. Fulfilling socially motivated desires furnishes the existence of what couldn’t be our true self. Our name, our tastes, our possessions and our status and reputation are not us. So what are “we”? As we’ve already learned, the ego — the “self” we recognise in the mirror — is constructed in time by consciousness which is itself a confluence of many processes of the mind and body. Matter alone — which includes our body and brain — is not “us” because our sense of self is enmeshed in language, a public utility which no one of us could possess or control. As we’ve seen, our identity had been forming before we were born and could be shaped after we die. We have no control over that. The very fact of our individuality is understood from our place in relation to the community. In the same way that a single letter has no meaning except in a language or a musical note has no purpose apart from a melody, the individual is defined only in relation to other individuals. So, our sense of the self is therefore imputed — that is, we come to the realisation of our individuality by our interaction with other people and our immersion into language. A developed sense of self is not innate. The true, inner self is the ruling power of the mind’s rational core. Human beings demonstrably have reason — the ability to discern between right and wrong or better or worse in their actions. Even if decisions are misjudged, the very fact of deliberation is present in all choices human beings make. This reason within us allows us to understand and make the best use of our predicament as we perceive it. Some thinkers through history have scorned this idea of reason, seeing human beings as having no agency. But they would exercise judgement to come to that conclusion, and judgement stems from reason. The true self is that which must make choices. The compulsion to make choices per se isn’t the result of desires but an innate quality of being an agent. Desires shape our choices, but choice itself — the requirement to make choices — runs deeper than any part of our psyche. It is the heart of our individuality. Our identity follows from choice. We’re individuals by virtue of our desires. Our ego, remember, is the shadow cast by our being in the world. It’s the false impression the mirror gives you of a unified self, yet, at the same time, it’s the means by which we exercise our agency (as an avatar, so to speak). The ego is that projection on which we permit choice through the compulsion of consciousness. That “unified” self can face outwards towards things and status or inwards toward the rationality within us. To face inwards toward reason is to embrace autonomy. It’s acting authentically according to the natural will, driven, as it is, by needs. It’s not acting according to the desires that other people inspire within us or impose upon us, as we’ve learned previously. All these things are at the mercy of powers that are outside our control. What is fully in our control as individuals is the attitude we take toward those aspects of our lives and how that attitude shapes our own desires. We should appraise ourselves not by what we own or our status among others, but by our wisdom, which is making the best use of what’s at our disposal. The natural will — to desire only what is sufficient to live that’s within our grasp — is within our control. Satisfying socially motivated wants may bring temporary pleasure but ultimately come to our detriment. Our actions are only wise if they contribute to our own whole and sustained well-being. The more we understand the causes of our desires and aversions, the better our lives can be. If we’re rational, there’s only one choice in a given situation. That’s the choice that has the best imagined outcome. True freedom, then, is the freedom to choose the only choice necessary to our ultimate best interest. There is, therefore, only one right choice — the one free choice. Freedom isn’t the choice in how to act — since there’s only one right way to act in any given situation, freedom is to be free of what prevents us from acting right. That is, it is not to do as we like, but to do as we should. Doing as we should requires a militant fidelity to self-liberation. When we are truly free, we understand that what we like to do and what we ought to do are one and the same.

The Science of the self (Life Atom) Thanks to the physicists and the scientists we understand the atomic structure. There are subatomic particles known as protons in the centre and another group of particles that are known as electrons going in concurrent orbits of 2,8,18,32,32,18,8,2 in concurrent rings as we move towards heavier elements. We know that electrons have a trajectory that is still not known. The rotation and the revolution motions reduces their weight.The protons and the neutrons in the nucleus have the mass. Now the sentient life atom is a little different from the physical atoms that form the basis of all physical things in this universe. It has only one particle in the centre and has 2,8,18 and 32 particles going around in orbits. This makes it unique in that it is rid of the effect of mass,pull and pressure. So the result becomes permanent and can no longer change the physical structure. While the physical atoms change form by accepting or releasing electrons this atom no longer can change. Along with the permanence it gets the capacity to understand and imagine. Given the requisite neurological system it is able to understand itself and the whole universe. The physical matter evolving from matter to respiring plants, single cell organisms, reptiles, mammals to homo Sapiens are all visible on this planet. The Homo sapiens has the requisite physical infrastructure in the form of complex neurological brain systems that helps him perceive, imagine and experience existential reality. This makes him a sentient being with the will to be resolved and know the answer to the how and why questions. The earlier creatures upto the lizard brain had the will to live. The plants had the power to choose and no will to live. The material world before was to exist.

Social Responsibility So far, we’ve only examined the care of the self — avoiding what’s bad for us and embracing what’s good. What about the care of other people? Ethical philosophies attempt to create a standard for ethical rules. What is meant by that? Well, we can measure the value of one item over another by using a standard like gold (which was once used to back currencies). For example, a house may be worth six gold bars, a car maybe one gold bar. Gold is a constant in this respect, a benchmark by which the value of things is measured. All societies used gold to create precious objects because they all had gold in common. Gold’s preciousness is universal. Philosophies allow us to weigh up the value of our actions against an ethical standard. Constructing such a standard requires coming up with a reasonable understanding of the world and our place in it. The groundwork for ethics has been established. It understands freedom to be standard against which all actions are measured. How free is the choice you are making? You would know because freedom permits only one choice — the most rational choice. The freer we are, the more rational the choices we may make. Human beings are collaborative by nature — the very fact of you reading this sentence proves it. Language has ensured that our understanding of the world is the gift of other people, most of whom lived and died long before us. Collaboration aimed at a mutually beneficial goal is rational. We can enjoy greater well-being for ourselves by working with others. Our own freedom, then, is dependent on the freedom of others. If other people are not free to choose what’s right and good for them, then it’s not right and good for us. What is ultimately good for you is good for everybody. The more we tend to the bonds between us — the more we freely choose to compromise our wants for the needs of the greater good, the freer we become together. It’s our responsibility to ensure the freedom of others because other people’s freedom increases our own. As we’ve already discovered, when we are truly free, we’re rational and therefore collaborative and, to that end, also compassionate. One person’s gain in freedom doesn’t necessarily come at the cost of another’s. We often believe this is the case because we have the wrong idea of what freedom is. True freedom isn’t the freedom to do as we like, but the freedom to do as we should. When we’re truly free, we understand that what we like to do and what we ought to do are one and the same thing. Freedom is the answer to its own question. If freedom is the freedom to choose the right option, it can come to no harm to anybody who acts with good intent. We shouldn’t fear other people’s freedom, but should welcome it since we’re all set to benefit all the more if we benefit together. Look how it is with true love: two people freely choosing one another, unswayed, unhindered by others’ wishes for them, make the perfect union. So it should be with all relationships. We should freely choose one another, to help and liberate one another. Freedom is the greatest good for one, and for all.

Appendix

A Summary for Reference Let’s begin with the first principle — there’s one such thing as “vyaapak”. vyaapak and all the infinite kinds of stuff coexist.,They both are complementary and prove the existence of the other. Since all matter is in motion we know the Vyapak which facilitates entanglement and is a source of energy. Since matter is regulated and in order we know Vyaapak as the regulating force. Since matter affects other matter and is affected by other material stuff we know Vyapak is a connecting force with no break and no boundaries. The static nature of vyaapak can be understood by it being where we have matter and where we do not have matter. The coexistence of the form (all material visible and invisible things and the formless (vyaapak) is thus the existential reality. Vyapak is beyond space beyond time beyond the imaginative power of the self. So we can say “vyaapak” to mean coexistence with everything else .It being the reason for everything in order and yet itself being beyond reason and comprehension. Yet its being and its role can be understood and it is not an entity but coexists with all identifiable entities. Once we understand this principle, we understand it has enormous implications. Firstly, there’s  “vyaapak” to form a structure and regulator to the cosmos. The cosmos, then, is finite and follows specific rules. Secondly, there was no moment when vyaapak or the cosmos was not in coexistence and never will such a moment be possible.  And so, the cosmos we inhabit is both finite in space .The time is always the eternal present and the past and the present are only in the imagination of the self. Existential reality is the only present. If there’s no present or future then there is never the need to have been a “first cause” that set off the motion of all causes and effects. What we think of as effects of causes are really just coexistence and the orderly evolution process for each planet. This is because the chain of changes is eternal regulated and in order. From this we can surmise that what we consider to be the “laws of nature” are all that can be observed, felt and experienced by the self. These are, therefore, laws, all lead to the coexistence of the form and the formless. The cosmos as such is a series of planets in different stages of formation and development. There is always a phenomenon that is to be understood  felt and experienced .Everything is as it is supposed to be whether we understand it or do not understand the same. Cause itself — the changes we experience — is the very substance of being. There’s vyaapak that is static and matter that keeps changing. Vyapak is impervious to change. Change is a property of things, as say, lightness or heaviness would be because things are susceptible to change. A table, for example, is causing as much as it has been caused by all the other matter that coexist with the table in the cosmos. The subtle non resistant connector is the vyaapak  itself which is static. If there are laws of nature, then vyaapak is “the reason for the laws being enforced” in so much that it is not determined to be in a fixed particular way. Every thing is entangled and connected by the principle of coexistence. That means we’re free in this sense too. Our life atom lives forever and in this bodily journey resides and enlivens the physical body made up of physical matter. The conscious soul/life atom uses the body to interact with the external world and with other human beings to establish the legacy of an enlightened society that will be in order by its own free will and not by force or compulsion. The natural laws will be understood and harmony with nature practiced to ensure regenerative coexistence of the life atom and the physical body in perpetuity. The restrictions and incorrect laws of society will be edited and corrected to align with the laws of coexistence. Instead of being forced to adhere to them it will be a pleasure to be the natural way of being benevolent, useful and productive for one's own fulfilment. We will all be free to be humane in conduct.Neither be forced to exploit nature or other human beings and nor oneself be exploited by other human beings. That natural state of being for one and all is the objective of the homo sapiens species on this planet. The freedom will be the happiness in continuum. What is good for the well being of all will be our own well-being — health, exuberance, comfort and security. All the bad that has been only man made will be absolved and blend into the good that is the only existential reality. We ought to experience all that exists and all delusions will just vanish. Freedom is the greatest good because freedom is what we all cherish. Being rid of the pull or pressure of external factors is real freedom.The self regulated resolved homo sapien free from all delusion having a clear alignment between the perceived reality and the existential reality will always be in bliss. He will find all the free time to experience the pure bliss that is his purpose of being. There will be nothing out of order and harmony. The restrictions that we feel from not understanding the existential reality as it is, is all the delusion and misery. Since every life atom/soul has the potential that is equal and as a human being using the physical body to understand the existential reality Resolution is what each one of us is seeking. As we move towards resolution we understand coexistence and existential reality. The useless negative words that are present in the language become futile and meaningless. Every positive word becomes a mantra to see reality. Every thing that exists in reality like love, respect trust, justice become the permanent feelings that we enjoy and cherish. The negative words move out of the realm of our vocabulary and life. We tend to have full freedom and yet always enjoy being in order by self regulation and not by any societal pressure or delusion in the self. We can find peace of mind if we align our desires thoughts and aspirations in alignment with the coexistence and existential reality. WE have absolutely no need to curtail or suppress them but allow them to flower and discharge our relationship with each and every element in existence in gratitude and bliss. What is truly good for others is the good for us.. This is because when we are free we are reasonable, we understand that coexistence is the only Reality. Experiencing it is the only path to happiness. The more free other people are, the more free we are. Therefore, it’s our imperative to be in order to help others be in order. There is only one way of being and no choice is needed. The rational choice is required only we have confusion and do not understand Existential reality. ONce we are resolved then we have only one the choiceless choice of being in order being free to have all the wants and desires that are aligning to coexistence. We are free to choose in all situations, but only one choice is the freest choice, that is the rational choice. It is the choice that is best for us — best for our freedom and the freedom of everyone that coexists with us. We must therefore become what we are humane, since there is a predefined “what” that is to be sought after. We must become as we are — rational and free.

Gratitude:-

I am very grateful to Steven Gabriella whose article became the catalyst for me to start off and soon I was just flowing and from 80 pages went to over 400 pages..

Explanation for Children vyaapak that coexists — from you and I, to worms to stars, and spider webs and grains of sand — are part of a big Existential reality that is, that was and that will be forever in order. The continuum has within it all the little stories of our lives. And our stories combine with others to make up bigger stories. The reality turns by the strength of these stories. The reality isn’t turning all these things because all these things ARE the reality. Because the total reality changes by the strength of all the little interlinked stories that make it up, we’re in complete control of the story of our life. The way we behave affects the way the reality forms. The best story is the story of joy and happiness because what’s best for us is what makes us feel most happy. To obtain joy, we need the freedom to find it. But for as long as some people aren’t feeling joy and happiness, we won’t feel it as much as we could. Why? Because when people who are deluded make the incorrrect choices for themselves, they affect the whole coexistence. Helping the last man on the planet find resolution is the best thing for us to do for our own happiness. The only way to do it is by setting up an example by finding resolution and living accordingly for others to see, observe experience and enjoy the same. . So it’s up to us to help others feel joy and happiness so that we may all feel it together all the more fully. Knowing this, you’ll feel joy helping others too.

Aphorisms

Know what you believe in and believe in what you kow

One planet many countries

One species( homo sapiens )many ethnicities and religions

Unity in purpose (fulfillment) infinite professions

All activity is to attain the purpose that is universal being resolved

All activity is towards a state of rest and alignment and the soul uses the physical body to reach that state. No way of life that can not be enjoyed with others is of any use to a human being.

All of humanity will be in agreement if right or in disagreement if wrong.