The word mystery itself derived from Greek "Mysterion", meaning secret knowledge where lips and eyes are closed from the non-initiated. Only the initiated can see the truth, which is hidden from the outsiders. Nothing is sinister about the mystery. The mystery does not mean nonsense, pseudoscientific new age cultic doctrine. It is a simple yet profound truth that the outsider cannot see and hence hidden from them, and hence called a secret or mystery. But it is a truth, nonetheless, for those who are rightfully initiated by self-discipline. For example, in case of a miraculous/(?virgin!) birth of a child, its is a mystery for us to ponder who was the real biological father but for the mother of that child it is not a mystery. She knows who is the real father but her lips are closed, hence it is a mystery for the outsiders. Similarly, the word myth derived from Greek "Mythos", simply means a thought or story delivered by the word of mouth. Myth does not automatically mean something false. It simply means a story, but the real rationale behind the story is not immediately visible. Let's analyze a simple, modern myth that says "Diabetics should not eat sugar". Doctors and educated people would immediately label this statement as a myth, because they will say, even the diabetics need some sugar or carbohydrate in their diet, with or without insulin. The diabetics actually need to take a modest amount of carbohydrate in their diet. The lay people will accept the expert's opinion when they declare "Diabetics should not eat sugar" is simply a myth and hence false. But did you realize what truth you just missed, if you label that statement as just another myth? When people originally discover the disease diabetes mellitus, they came to realize that the diabetics cannot handle the sugars in their diet and excessive sugar is definitely bad for diabetics. In order to alarm the people the danger of diabetes and prevent harm, they overstated the truth as "Diabetics should not eat sugar". They knew that any food you eat, even the vegetables or meat has carbohydrate in them in modest amount, so apparent sugar-free food would be just fine for the diabetics, based on their long observation of diabetic people. Additionally, if you warn the danger of sugar for diabetics lightly, people will take it lightly. So the effective way to communicate the truth of the relation of the diabetes and the sugar for the lay people can be expressed simply by overstating it, in the pithy format of "Diabetics should not eat sugar". This is the real truth behind this myth. But you have to deconstruct the myth and analyze the hermeneutics to see the truth and why the wise people in the past have created the "myth" in first place. This is how myths are always developed around a tiny nidus of truth, but often overstated or embellished. Over time, people's fantasy and cultural garbage that deposits on top of that nidus have become so large that now it is hard to find the underlying core truth that drove the original mythogenesis. In fact, some of the underlying wisdom is so important to communicate and to disseminate that the authors resorted to add even false stories, allegories and fantasy to embellish the message, palatable for the time and culture where it was started. They just want to express the core idea, even at the cost of being obviously fantastic. 

The next word that we need to focus is Mandala. The Mandala is a symbol representing an abstract, profound concept that cannot be expressed in words. The word mandala comes from Sanskrit, which means a geometric construct involving a circle that typically includes one or more squares and triangles to represent the universe in context of macro- and microcosm relations. In the deeper level, it is a way to express an ineffable idea with the help of geometric patterns. Symbols are ubiquitous from ancient to modern time. Even the mathematics, equations, and physics are all full of symbols. There is nothing occult or sinister about the mandala. It is simply a tool to express the idea beyond the words. People will often dismiss a Mandala immediately as a "Woo" or "pseudoscience" but they have no problem in accepting a similar symbolic expression like E = mc^2  as a concrete science. The only difference among them is your level of understanding. Just because, you cannot understand something does not mean that you need to reject them as untrue or utterly bogus. When you really see the meaning behind those Mandala/symbols or the equations, you will perceive the idea what they represent. The next comes the word mathematics, which is derived from Greek "Mathematos", from root *mendh- which means "that which is learnt". So mathematics is a tool for learning, not the knowledge itself. It is a tool to help you think clearly, which will lead you towards learning. So the mathematics is a faithful "tool" or "slave" to do the job of "learning", but not the Master. If you make the "slave" into the Master, everything will go awry. The Numbers and Symbols in mathematics are the Mandala for the Science. So, do not treat the mathematics unduly as the master. Instead, mathematics is just like the tools of a Master Carpenter or a Master Mason, NOT vice versa. A symbol can be a number, an alphabet, a geometric shape, an inanimate object, a living creature or statute of it. Thus, focus on the meaning behind those symbols, not the symbol/mandala per se.

Next comes the concept behind the word itself. The most evolve form of the symbols are the Alphabets/Letters, Phoneme, Morphemes, the Words and the Language, either oral, written or conceptual. Words that carry an abstract idea is the most primordial of all concept that we can imagine. This is why the concept behind the Word has been also been known variously as the "Buddhi/Nous", "Poimandres", "Logos", "Rta/Asa", "Ma'at", "Tao", "Aql/Kalima" etc. But over time, the corrupted minds of the people failed to see the original meaning and hence they started to add additional corruption. If you do an archaeology on any words, even the nouns will show some beautiful meanings. In those times, it was never just a noun or name as we used to think in modern days of nominalism. Originally, every noun represented an idea or a story, composed of subjects, objects, adjective and verbs. The Ancients did not treat a noun as meaningless nominal words as it is today. Actually, at that time there were no nouns or grammars to make the separation of inseparable meanings. We separated those and now blame the ancients for their meaningless "Babel". On the contrary, names or nouns are the most virulent agent in modern English language against understanding. Originally, the ancient people under different kings used different words to convey same meaning or even same deity, but in modern worlds, things gets more confusing. Today, even if you try to change a word instead of another to preserve the original meanings, people will start to protest vehemently, so the "public relation" agents nowadays do not change the words. They just change the meaning, keeping the words the same. This pollutes the original meaning of the words, even further and people even do not know, what are they missing and hence more tamed! And the last and most vicious attack on the words comes from the general public who either by the virtue or vice, start to corrupt the words so much that the original meaning is almost entirely lost. Even if somebody had deciphered the meaning of some words in the past, people will eventually start to call it by a mere name or noun in their own preference, thinking that "what difference does it make". They thought they are just playing an innocent act of naming and calling things according to your own will and preference. Most rampant of those examples are the abbreviations, those are treated as a simple noun like, AIDS for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Or "Yolo" for "You Only Live Once". The outsider will not understand the what the words AIDS or Yolo actually means. Unwittingly, day by day, we are just adding additional layers on words that creates extra burden against understanding the original meaning of those words. We are not aware of how much havoc we are setting up for the posterity. Unless you are very careful, you will not see the fact that almost all nouns, especially before the advent of modern language, were concepts from either adjectives, adverbs, verbs, an event or occurrence. Only a few can see the original, but hidden meanings behind the mystery of Words. For example, the name "Isis" represents the empty throne from where you come to know the real and secret Names of all things. The name "Baal Shem" means the Master of Names. Knowing the real Name of anything [i.e. the concept behind the name] is the Mastery of that Name itself! But the names can be also a trap if you are not extremely careful. If you accept nouns as meaningless names, then you will be lost in the labyrinth of language like the story of the tower of the Babel. Additionally, names can also create the opportunity of playing the "semantic game" by any other people. On the other hand, the same Name/Word can liberate you from ignorance. You are in the driver's seat!

Having discussed the preliminary concepts behind Mystery, Myths, Mandala, Mathematics and the Words, now you can see the fact that, just like myths or mandalas, the higher mathematics and equations are the placeholder or symbols to communicate a concept that does not have a physical representation. A concept that is inexpressible by words can be still expressed with the symbols of mathematics. For example, let's consider the imaginary number i. What a monster it is! We know there cannot be a complex/imaginary plane out there in space-time, but we have no problem in accepting it as if a "real" thing. We consider i as real as an apple or a cow that we can do arithmetics with. But if someone introduces a myth to express the inexpressible in ordinary language, people will automatically and instantly reject it as if they are devoid of any intrinsic scientific value. They forgot, i is a kind of myth just like Zeus. Myths start with some assumptions that cannot be proven. For example, Zeus is the immortal and this assumption you have to accept in toto. Similarly, you have to take the dogma of science and mathematical axioms without questions. The mathematical axioms, like the i, are very narrow, hence, typically their flaws are hidden from unsuspecting eyes, hence more believable, but the Zeus myth, which is broader and blatant but qualitatively they are still assumptions, nonetheless. Myths try to tell you the idea behind the story. Mathematics is also telling you a story behind the equations and numbers. As mythic stories cannot be proven by another story, similarly mathematics cannot prove by mathematics itself. As long as you cannot prove the mathematics, it is still a story, albeit a much sophisticated story, but a story nonetheless. Just as science and equations are trying to improve human conditions, myths were also designed to improve the human conditions because all of the myths have a teaching for the betterment of the individual and the society of that time. In the similar lines of reasoning, myths or the symbol i both are trying to do the same things. They are trying to deal with the paradox, just like we are trying to deal with the paradoxical nature of reality with science. Unfortunately, we think myths are just a bunch of bulls, but equations are the cosmic truths written in stones. Actually, myths are full of the Bulls (Ptah/Osiris, Shiva/Nandi, Rishabha, Vishnu/Prithu/Govinda, Gautama [The Best Ox]/ Buddha, Marduk, Tammuz, El/Elohim/Baal/Yahweh) but those "Bulls" actually mean something far more powerful than any equations that scientists have ever come across. There is no way you can show that the equations are better than myths in expressing the concepts that does not have a physical representation. Both the "Bulls" or Bull slaying has some important meanings. Just because Theseus (Minotaur), Mithras (Tauroctony), or Gilgamesh (Gugalanna) killed the Bull or Moses broke the Golden Calf idol does not automatically mean that the Bull is the Demon. Actually, it means something far deeper. If you train your mind, you will see what those almost ritualistic bull slaying really means.

Finally, let's consider the case of Numbers, the "Sacred Cow" of science and mathematics. Originally, the numbers were introduced as a symbol of certain abstract concepts and their relation to one another. You will see soon that the whole business of numbers are cram filled with mythical relationships between other numbers. For example, every number theorist will appreciate that the number one is the beginning of all numbers and 1 is inside all other numbers. 1 is like the abstract concept of a point in geometry. Dimensionless, non-space consuming, indivisible entity. But, how 1 comes into the existence out of nothing is not explained at all! You have to blindly and obediently accept the creation myth of 1. If you accept this myth, there comes another paradox out of that mythology of 1. If 1 is really dimensionless, non-space consuming, indivisible entity as described, then how can you accept anything less than 1, like 1/2 or 1/4 or 0. But they have made you swallow that unreasonable myth that you never argued against. The next case about number 2 also needs another supernatural/preternatural mythological explanation. How the number 2 came out of 1 as a next number? Nobody explained that miracle to me in my schools or universities. Because they cannot explain how 2 popped out, they proposed that when 1 and another 1 get united it becomes 2. Now where does the other 1 found another identical 1 for the purpose of becoming 2? Did it come from the heaven? How mythic is that?! Now you can appreciate that when you do any math you already swallowed some gigantic creation myth (even worse than Sumerian or Biblical creation myth) but you are going to deny it because you already bought into the myths that created the science. If the First spirit principle is the Purusha of Hinduism, Buddha of Buddhism, Ptah of Egyptian religion, Phanes of the Greek/Orphic tradition, Adam Kadmon of the Jewish Kabbalah, Elohim of Mormonism, and Adam of Abrahamic Monotheism, then in the similar way, the Spirit child of the Religion of Scientism is the Number. If you believe in Purusha etc, you will be considered as just a superstitious dumb, but if you accept the Numbers, you are just smart! How ironic it is! Please, do not give your bull of mathematical equations to people as being superior than the myths of the real "Bull". However, I am not saying that number, mathematics and science in general are not powerful and useful, but I am saying they are not infallible and not particularly superior in expressing "the ineffable" that the words, symbols and myths.  Consequently, instead, one should try to find what is the secret mystery hidden behind in the deepest recess of those words and mythic stories, expressed in symbols, mandala and mathematical numbers.

There exist some fashionable intellectuals who concluded in their final analysis that there is no meaning of life, after all. However, they failed to realize that the proposition they are propagating "Life does not have a meaning" itself convey a meaning [Via Negativa still paradoxically conveys a meaning]. So if you are a Nihilist or Existentialist or Absurdist, and claim that life has no meaning, then you are just trying to escape the fact that you could not find the meaning of life by yourself. Stop fooling yourself and especially stop fooling others. When you start talking about meanings, you already acknowledge that life has a meaning but you are not aware of it. This is because you have forgotten it in the long chain-of-thought processes. Before claiming that life has no meaning, you need to work on your memory skills and recover what are the facts that you have forgotten. As a matter of fact, you cannot escape the need for meanings. The need for meaning is the birth of pattern seeking phenotype of beings which is deeply embedded and entangled to their own existence. The most primitive [if not The Primordial] pattern recognition ability is manifested as mimicking. Mimicking aims to capture what is really happening out there [Mimicry is the first sign of Love, remember?]. In fact, the Effects that we can perceive are just faithfully mirroring the Cause and expressing itself as, what we call, Mimicry. What is happening out there comes to you through the organs of perceptions. When there is a way to represent the external stimuli, as captured, albeit imperfectly by the organs of perceptions, by mimicking with the same kind [i.e. Sound by Sounds, Light/Vision by Light/Vision, Touch/pain with Touch/pain, etc.] which is also recognizable by others, it carries a definite advantage over other modes of communications based on mimicking than those perceptions that has to involve other modalities [i.e. Mimicking sound by vision, mimicking touch/pain by sounds etc.]. In fact, mimicking by the same kind is minimalist, self-contained and more likely to be successful in probabilistic terms because only the minimum numbers of variables involved. The joint probability of successful events involving few participants or variables is always higher than many variables or participants, remember?

What are the sense organs that can assess what is happening outside or inside? Vision is the most obvious organ of perception, but those visual perceptions cannot be directly communicated by the same kind easily. We do not have any organ that can produce light like a projector or hologram generator. So our Light/visual perception cannot be communicated directly by mimicking light that can be recognized by others. You cannot project your imagination on air [like a projector or hologram generator] captured by visual organs! The only way you can communicate your visual perceptions in visual ways is by drawing which is grossly imperfect. Again the other person has to be close by to see your drawing and you have to have a suitable tool and surface to draw it correctly in order for any meaningful communication. Additionally, it takes a lot of time and you cannot do it if there are some considerable distance, or there is some barrier [such as, you are on the other side of a wall or a room] obstructing to display your drawing to others. Time, distance, obstructing barrier, need for drawing tools, your skill of drawing and efficiency for communicating a wide variety or visual perceptions makes the vision of lights not the best of every day mode of communication by mimicry. With skin, you can only partially mimic what is happening to you by skin stimulation to others. Only limited things can be communicated this way. You can express your pain by inflicting pain on others by skin stimulation or in other words hurting others, which your fellow people will not like. The other person has to be physically close enough to you so that you can communicate this by same kind, i.e. mimicking it. The number of situations you can communicate, such as pain, touch, proprioception, vibrations by similar mimicking skin stimulation is extremely limited. Anything outside your body surface, i.e. skin, you cannot communicate with mimicking with same kind. Suppose you need to communicate that you want to go for hunting. Can you mimic that by skin stimulation, especially if someone is located not so close by? Not quite possible. So, touch is not a good way of communication by mimicking the same kind. Smell and taste have very limited value in communication by the same kind because they are mostly chemical signals that does not have any physical representations to be mimicked. You cannot produce a taste of chicken to communicate the taste of chicken to others. You cannot produce a smell of flower from your body to communicate the smell of flower to others. So taste and smell sensations are not designed to communicate with same kind efficiently in the first place. They are just for your own personal [may be some other intimate/sexual] use. They play a very limited role for communication in everyday life.

This leaves us to our last and 5th conventional sense organ, the hearing. Hearing has a unique vantage point for communication by mimicry. In the macroscopic [Non-Quantum] physical world that we live in, is full of mechanical events. Many of them produce vibrations in the medium that can be sensed by hearing apparatus. The Proto-Hominids were bombarded with sounds from all kinds of sources. They listened songs of birds, roaring of lions, the sounds of leaves of trees, distress calls of other animals, mating calls of birds, sounds of thunders, sounds of water drops of rain and so on. Natural sounds that enter through the ears can be easily mimicked by the gift of vocalization. Although this vocalization is no way close to perfect, but this quasi perfect tool of vocalization can mimic to reproduce the sound that they just heard! This is the minimalist approach for communication by same kind which is also inbuilt and self-contained. This is analogous of frying a fish with the oil that fish already has! What a delicious recipe! The inbuilt Hearing-Vocalizing apparatus complex that we have is the unique tool of communication by mimicry that other sense organs [such as vision, touch/pain, smell and taste] lack which I have explained earlier. By the principle of Ockham's Razor and Bayesian probability, this is the best minimum set and self-contained. You perceive things that you can produce with very close approximation, without the need for any external tool. Additionally, it can be used to mimic a wide variety of situations that other organs of perception cannot do. Suppose you want to communicate that you heard a sound of a tiger, which is of utmost importance and time constraints to produce the distress-call is also extremely important. Best way to go is vocalization. You can communicate at a distance, quickly, without any external tool, even against a barrier [like wall/fence/trees] with high fidelity to be understood by others [The fellow people have the receiver of the thing that you can produce!] and everything is in built. This is why hearing and vocalization exerted a potent evolutionary selection pressure to be kept and utilized over other sense organs for communication. This way of reasoning also strongly suggest music and songs are more primitive than language and words. Experiments from neuroscience also corroborate with this view because people with Medial Temporal Lobe (MTL) lesions who display impaired memory and word use, as in cases of semantic dementia [all of which are examples or manifestations of language], still retain their ability to understand, recognize, recollect and reproduce music, songs and poetry. Additionally, without hearing ability your vocal ability is also severely impaired, suggesting a strong functional connection between these two systems. This can be illustrated by the fact that congenital or early childhood acquired deafness inhibits the ability to speak naturally and to acquire verbal language, which again validates this concept. Embryologically, Hearing [Middle ear] and Vocalization [Larynx] apparatus, develop from same Foregut and neuroanatomically, Auditory cortex, Wernicke's area and Broca's area in the cerebral cortex [the critical areas for language], are all located in close proximity than any other sensory cortical areas and heavily interconnected by axonal projections. All these evidences strongly point to the fact that the language and thought process itself, in general, is intimately connected with hearing-vocalization apparatus complex. This can be further strengthened by the fact that the distorted thought process of Schizophrenics typically includes auditory hallucinations rather than other sorts of hallucinations. So, it is no surprise that the language is dominantly based on hearing-vocalizing apparatus complex, which in turn have an Evolutionary and Probabilistic selection pressure because of its efficiency and superior utility in communicating about what is happening out there. Your thought and language [i.e. Your Mind] is heavily dependent, composed of, and a derivative of the organs of perceptions at the very root. So when you say “I think, therefore I am", your "I" who is claiming to be independent and superior of your body [i.e. Organs of perceptions] is grossly misleading. The "I" that you know of, cannot exist without your organs of perception or your body. The "thou-ness" that exist prior to this false "I" will not claim anything because at those levels such claiming is meaningless. Hence the Cartesian dichotomy of mind and body and superiority of this false "ego" or “I” is unjustified. However, this perception-derived language or "ego" or "I" cannot explain the original need for meaning or pattern seeing behavior in the first place, which is many, many levels or layers before the emergence of language or "ego" or "I". The true nature of the existence of the original need and the ability to seek pattern by mimicking remains "Esoteric" in nature which is beyond the scope of this "Exoteric" Webbook essay.

In summary, what you perceive, you mimic [Monkey See, Monkey Do]. This is the most primitive pattern seeking drive. You continue to mimic and retain the useful and meaningful mimics even without conscious awareness of their meanings. Hearing-Vocalization pair is the minimalist, inbuilt, efficient, quick, wide spectrum, can act-at-distance, can be transmitted against the barrier that other perception cannot, all of these create strong evolutionary and probabilistic selection pressure to make it thrive. Your mimicked sounds that others can understand and can act upon adds additional meanings. Those mimics now have their own meanings and hence retained. Those sounds become words. Words represent encoded information coming from the organs of perceptions. This is the birth of language. This Language engenders self-awareness and "ego", which in turn can produce problems, especially if you do not understand the "why". So even language is not intrinsic [in contradiction to Chomsky's theory], instead it is perception-derived. They just serve a very useful purpose to communicate what you are perceiving which in turn has a survival benefit. So even the Cartesian "I" or Vedantic "Self" is not intrinsic, but what is intrinsic is the need and ability to be aware of pattern recognition. In general, Words, and Language arose out of that need and ability to seek meanings. Words and language evolved out to describe the external world and what is actually happening as captured and encoded imperfectly by the organs of perceptions. Those tools of perception exist not to describe what is unreal or for lying. From the very beginning of your existence, the need and ability to recognize patterns and their meanings, exist. They are as deep as your own existence, long before your so called “ego” emerged. So the formula of existence to seek meaning which in turn created you, cannot have no meanings, i.e. Existential nihilism is a false concept. By the same token, you cannot escape from the need for, either positive or negative, meanings [which is itself a meaning, nonetheless].

But you have the freedom to use your language accordingly or on your own wish or caprice. Just because that you have the ability to lie or deny, doesn't invalidate the power of hearing-vocalizing complex based language to capture and encode the reality. Indeed, pure, unadulterated, pristine, honest perceptions as captured by these sense organs are trying to tell you something useful. They are not there to fool you, as many deluded philosophers or scientists claimed, although there can be some false alarms, but in the majority of cases they are serving you well. Think how you can walk [Propioceptions] most of the time without falling. Think how can you see [Vision] food and can take them [Touch] for your lunch. Think how you used your ear [Hearing] to escape the car behind you. How you avoided some unhealthy place full of putrid and poisonous gas [Smell] because you perceived it. How your taste guided you most of the time about the wholesomeness of the food [Taste]. Your sense organs are your best friends and they are helping you to survive. Just because they are not always perfect, you cannot abandon them altogether, just like the mothers who cannot abandon their babies just because they are crying. That cry might mean something important. Listen patiently and carefully, you will know the meanings of your perceptions. Those are the only tools you have for your mind or thought! A master mason or master carpenter will not complain about their tools. If they feel they are not working properly, they will sharpen it, instead of complaining about them. Only the novice apprentice will complain about their tools. Stop blaming the tools when you chose not to use them according to its original purpose, i.e. to capture the meanings that they can provide. Perceptions and Language exist to help you find the meaning of life, but they will not take you there. You have to go there with their help. When you have found the meaning, discard perception and linguistic intricacy [poetry], bureaucracy [grammar] and their limitations [Wittgenstein’s Limits]. Keep the meaning that you have found so far. Do not allow the tools of perceptions [The Servants] to be the Master and do not allow them to over-analyze the meanings. If you allow, they will distort the meaning and there will be the existential crisis ad absurdum. Remember, you are free to argue over anything, even the obvious truths. Do not misuse your intellect. Try not to be puppets of the perceptions. Be the Master of the puppets. Keep the Meanings, hold onto it, nurture it and it will show you the next Door.

Digital vs. Analog

Why do people like shortcuts?

Are they just some kind of nuts?

Why do they need so many gizmos?

Are they trying to hide their sorrows?

They want something but Time is ticking,

"I have no time" keeps them going.

Breaking things into pieces, taking the least,

This is the birth of shortcuts and their unrest!

Digital are the shortcuts people like the most,

It brings easy success which they can boast.

Analogs are long, tedious, and need much time,

Naturally, nobody is willing for that arduous climb!

How easy is it to count your finger?

Five is the easy and digital way to answer.

Ask the analog the same question,

He finds no finger as a valid starting option! 

Where is the beginning of a circle?

Point A is the digital way to localize the particle.

Analogs will say "where do I start?"

Every starting points can also be the last! 

Science, Number,  Body,  Land, Atom and Logic all are digital,

Separations and fragmentary thinking is putting us to this lull.

Thought, Geometry, Wisdom, Intuition, Ocean, Fields all are analog,

Finding a sweet spot among them is the Master Key to see beyond this fog!

Science starts with observations and studying the empirical results. Observation of the whole thing or any peculiar phenomenon is the initial stimulus for pursuing the particular subject. But the real science typically involves dissecting the problem and examining the parts to have the idea of nature and working of the things of interest. This is the standard approach of science and biology. Although this seems to be very successful, at least on the surface and for the lay people, it has its own limitations. If your experimental design, even in theory, cannot explain the nature of the phenomenon that you are studying then how you can expect that approach of studying will give you the answer. If a particular theory cannot logically proceed towards understanding of the nature of things then what is the point of exploring that field of study based on science which in turn based on logic. Some scientists, seeing the experimental results getting illogical and often self-contradictory, are trying to patch the problems by introducing additional dogmatic assumptions like "Something coming out of nothing principle", "Time contraction or dilatation", "Extra Dimensions", "Dark matter and Dark energy", "Every Biological Phenotype have Genetic or Epigenetic origin", "Only brain has the capacity to think and store memories" and so on. When nothing seems to work, then the resort to probability theory, uncertainty principle and the system of fuzzy logic. And with all those, they claims to know everything, at least in principle. All that remains is to do more experimentation. At the end they gives us some answers based on their theory and experiential results. Finally they think they have solved the problem but there is only one problem. The answers that science so far has provided, have not satisfied our thirst for understanding. It is like drinking a salt rich soda that people think will quench their thirst but after drinking the soda they are even more thirsty than before! Thirst needs pure water, not junk like salt-rich soda. Similarly we are now more perplexed than ever before science took the project of understanding. Our mind and true-self, at the core, yearns for understanding, not just a probabilistic interpretation of relativistic many world multiverse string theory. What we want is Certainty, which is analogous to pure water to quench the thirst of our mind. This is irony of "contemporary" science. It looks like that science itself is a potential trap against the tangled journey for the understanding the nature and its relation with ourselves. This does not mean that science has no value in this journey. In fact, science is the starting point but definitely science is and will not be enough to go to the next level of understanding, i.e. Wisdom.

Let us examine how contemporary science works in practice. Science divides the problems in parts and then they examine and manipulate the parts to see what the parts are doing. Then they induce or deduce the interpretation about the whole, which in turn heavily dependent on logic. So if your experimental results becomes illogical and you use logic to justify your results, then it becomes literally an oxymoronic endeavor. Examining the parts to understand the whole is a tricky business. You might miss the beauty of a flower and its role in nature while you are dissecting the petals and examining the parts! Even those dissections and examinations are fraught with fallacies. First of all, you have to know all the constituents [which you do not know] to understand the function of the whole. Then you have to know the sequence of those known and unknown interactions among the constituents, because uniting Hydrogen and Oxygen before (which makes water, H2O) the third item such as Carbon, it will become unmixable but uniting Hydrogen, Oxygen  and Carbon together in right order creates carbohydrate, which is entirely a different thing! Even in those individual steps of the long long series of events, you do not know what co-factors, facilitators or modifying factors are involved. To make the situation even worse, some of the events are unique and happens only rarely when everything (you do not know what those everything were!) is in right time and proportion. If you dig deeper into the subatomic and quantum realm, you will be utterly lost. Additionally, some of the emerging phenomenon is only clearly measurable at respective level of complexity but not in more basic or lower levels. Even at more macroscopic level such as those are routinely used in neuroscience to study the function of the different parts of the brain, the problem remains. For example, resecting a part of the brain and trying to see what deficit it produced does not give you the real function of that part in situ. There are some studies that have demonstrated that removing some part of brain can impair some forms of memory, recollection, calculation ability, music sense, social appropriateness, and so on. But none of them can tell us why we enjoy the music, why we feel nostalgic about our childhood memories and so on. Examination of the parts can help you understand the whole, only with the aid of reason. That means you are taking absolute reliance of your reason to connect gaps of the understanding the parts with the whole. How do you know that your reason is valid across different levels of complexity? Have you done any experiments to prove that? If yes, then what is the rationale of that new experiments. Have you proved the rationale of the rationale? It is an infinite regress where you have to rely on your reasoning power without any further experimentation or proof, because your reason precedes any experiments that you can devise. So if you just analyze the constituents, do not assume that you know what is happening above the level and below the level. If you do or pretend to understand, then you are fooling yourself (acceptable) and fooling others (not acceptable).

If you believe in the theory of relativity, aren't you saying everything is relative? Then why you are not treating one levels understanding as a relative and hence limited degree of understanding of the next levels? Why are you treating your understanding at one level as infallible evidence for the next level? This is an absolutism of reason, which is itself a paradox. What gives your reliance of reason the absolute validity over the principle of relativism? Why understanding at one level can explain the other levels below or above? Do you really know? In contrast, if you examine the whole then you have a better chance to understand the whole and if you are lucky, may be part of the constituents too, by extension. This is the real reason behind the power of phenomenology and behaviorism. But phenomenology and behaviorism is just the beginning and it is really powerful only for the same level of analysis. It will help you understand what the entire individual organism is doing, but it still fails and will fail to give you the "why". The ability to see why is contingent upon your degree of need and how much you really want. This is the only secret formula of knowing the "why" part. This can be illustrated by the following analogy. For a general audience all the crying of the babies sounds the same and all of you can recognize what is a baby's cry, but only the person who really needs to know and wants to know will know the "why" behind the cry. Hence the mother of the baby can see why the baby is crying. She knows and can distinguish what cry is for hunger, what cry is for diaper change, what cry is for emotional attention and what cry is a danger sign of something else. She not only knows the "what" but also the "why". On the surface it looks like a miracle, or instinct of blind gut feelings from the mother but if you observe carefully you will see the mechanism. The secret is that the mother needs to know and she wants to know. She is not going to compromise on that. When you really want something that genuinely, your ears, eyes, sense organs of perceptions work more sharply than the ordinary situations and you begin to see the subtle differences in the cry, the facial expressions, the tone of the cry, the context, the environment etc., which are otherwise unnoticeable. This the way and there is no other way. You have to have the wanting for knowing the "why" that solemnly even at great cost. Intense wanting, devotion and attention will show you the "why". This is the real meaning and goal of traditional Bhakti Yoga, Buddhist Dhyāna [Zen], Prayer/Ṣalāt in Monotheistic traditions and Meditation in general. It will take you to the next level of understanding, your eyes will be opened and you will begin to see the world better than earlier. Reason and experimentation are good for same level analysis but to understand why at the level above and below, reason and experimentation is powerless because they will take you towards infinite regress which is a no no for science, mathematics and logic (reason). You need something beyond all those "Sciences", such as desire, devotion and attention. This will open the opportunity to understand what is below and what is above which in turn started from the examination of the parts. If you can discover this secrete by yourself then you will not only see what "is" but also the "why" in the below as well as above. Only that perspective gives you the validity of cross-/trans-levels of "Why".

In theory, there should not be any hierarchical order among human but in practice hierarchy is everywhere. In theory there should not be any caste system but in practice there are. In Hindu culture of India, there are four district classes based on functional role and respectability/nobleness for thousands of years, until relatively recently with the infiltration of India by the East Indian Company. Those caste were the Brahmins [the Elite, High Priest], Kshatriyas [the Kings and warriors], Vaishyas [the merchants, artisans, farmers and the "producers"] and Shurdras [the manual workers]. Similarly, in western world, there are also four distinct castes: the Lower class, the Middle class, the Upper class and the Elite/Business class [1%] based simply on money. This hierarchy model is not only limited to human society. It is also active in our body. Although theoretically all cells of the body have the potential to do any function, especially when they are young [the pluripotent stem cells], in practice, not every cell can produce insulin and not every cell can fire action potentials like neuron. A neuron does not make Keratin like the epidermis and epidermis does not have myelin sheaths. Even within the families of neurons, not everybody are equal in function. Although theoretically any neuron can do the function like other neurons, especially if the situation demands to compensate, but in practice, hippocampal neuron typically behaves dramatically different than spinal cord motor neurons. This pattern can also be found even in different proteins, RNAs and DNAs or other molecules. The whole universe can be seen as a series of hierarchical beings/materials but deep down they are all part of the same universe. But when you claim that everybody is equal [relativism], even though you know that they are not equal in practice because of their own efforts/devotion/sincerity, you are just inviting discontent. In absolute sense, there should not be any relativism and in relative terms, there should not be any absolute moral values. This is the paradox of relativism. The evil is to push one view superior than others and pass on any predefined judgment/legislature, whatsoever. Relativistic views should not be treated absolutely and the absolutes views need not to be treated relatively. It is foolish to try to categorize either relativism or absolutism as Truth. Trying to make relativism as the only truth (quite paradoxically, this relativistic view itself is an absolutism) is the perennial evil of the world. The Truth is bigger than either of those.

In theory, everybody can be anybody but in practice, anybody is only himself. So there is simultaneously a possibilities of relativism and absolutism depending on perspective and depending on the situation, here and now. Relativism only exist in future and future does not exist yet. What exist is only present and this present is not relative. What ever happened, happened and it is no longer relative to you! It is absolute. But was it good or bad? Again this is relative because you have examine it to know [in future] and that examination resides in the future [have not occurred yet], which is again by definition relativistic. It is happening out of a relativistic possibilities but once something happens that is the only thing exist [out of the field of its mutually exclusive competitors], others option were only past probabilities without any reality. If you want to change it, try or do it again and with different choices but do not complain about why others options are still there. They only exist in your/our minds and it is for your future use if your current choice turns out to be not the best one. Relativism is only true and valid for this esoteric reason but if you know that reason, you will immediately drop the relativistic view in favor of a holistic view. Your Relativism is perfectly alright with you but imposing your relativism to others or even imposing any generalized philosophy or ethics of relativism is unjustified. So relativism is and is not valid depending on background of the perspective just like an unopened box of "Schrodinger Cat" is both alive and dead at the same time. Do not try to make relativism generalized like what Einstein did. Quite paradoxically, Einstein's relativism start with an Absolutism-i.e "Speed of Light is Constant". No wonder relativity theory only lead to paradox like grandson killing grandfather and other nonsensical conclusions. For example, if there is any creator, before creating the world he had only 2 options- 1.) Creating the world and 2.) Not creating the world. But today that relativistic perspective at the time of creation is no longer valid. The world already exist and there is no option for it to not exist at the same time. Similarly before doing something, you can have a relativistic perspective for the future but once you have done something, it is no longer relative. You have to take responsibility of the consequences or enjoy the fruitage of your decisions. If you do something but simultaneously think the other way, it generates the conventional "relativism" but in reality it is still in the future and it is not settled yet, so in absolute sense, you do not know if it is relative or absolute. You are just fooling yourself. Simply put, it is an invalid/illegal/unscientific question. In ordinary language, it is simply your hypocrisy for which you are making the relativism argument as scapegoat. Before your action, things were relative but after you have done it, it is no longer relative for you. It is the reality.

For the other people who are not in position of doing something or not to become a victims of other people’s action, are not in position even to ponder the relativistic view point for that particular situation. This is because that you are not the part or center of that relativistic potential field. The person who is in the position of deciding is in the center of that relativistic potential field that will become a concrete non relative reality by his actions or choices. Do not judge him unless his interest is in direct conflict with yours and if it is in direct conflict, do what you think right for you without ever thinking what is right for him. Because if you try to impose your correctness to other people that is the birth of relativistic worldview again but in disguise. Just do what you ought to do. Do not give verdict onto others like theologian, a relativistic ethicist or scientist. Even the verdict that relativism is the truth is an absolute statement! What a paradox it is!! Only the Unknowable can know what is right and what is relative. We know it not. We can decide what is right for us. If we really know ourselves well and when we know what is right for us, we will automatically know and do right things onto others which is beyond both relativistic and absolute world views.

In some third world countries, where household maids are still common, there is a common pattern of hunting for a maid. It is still entirely voluntary from the maid's part, but they are typically recruited by lies and false promises. You, as a maid Master, will approach them, the prospective maid, with your best offering, luster and charisma. You will promise them success, prosperity, good life, security and financial freedom. Initially many of them will accept your offer and become your maids. But later, almost all will override you. They will leave you for a better option that they have learned while there were under you. They are using the knowledge gained from you, but this time against you. And, most of the time, you cannot prevent them from leaving you because, their free will have equal strength of yours. If you are not actively thinking like they are thinking with their "Life", you will be eventually subdued by them. If you analyze the situation from other way, from the maid's perspective, you actually did not have the controller position, ever. They chose you to use you for their own benefit according to their own agenda from the very beginning, but you didn't know it. You are just a vehicle for them for the purpose of transportation across the barrier (this case poverty/ illiteracy). After achieving their goal, they will throw you away just like a used toilet paper, just like a captive song bird that always leaves you, the earliest they can.

The question here is the following: can you use other people against their will for a long time? The answer seems to be no and it is proven again and again throughout the history. The African-American slaves showed it nicely to the world that no matter how big the odds are, you cannot muzzle the free will of other people for your own use for a long time. The "think tanks" today know it very well and they now use an entirely new paradigm for enslaving people. It is called "Enslaving by the Mirage of Empowerment and Freedom” or EMEF. Sounds paradoxical, right? Actually, it is not a paradox. It is a very novel, modern and effective way of enslavement. If the slave does not know that he is a slave, then he will never try to be free from it! Additionally, in terms of productivity, a free man works and produces more with enthusiasm of empowerment, a sense of progress and best of all, freedom. So the best way to enslave people is to use invisible shackles so that the slave will think he is free and hence becomes more productive [just like a cow who will give more milk if you allow her gaze into the field (limited field, off course), instead of standing in the same place for the entire time]. Additionally, they will not disrupt the slave colony and the establishment with attempts of liberation. What a ingenious alchemical attempt it is!

What is the invisible shackles that enslaves people? It is simply the Monetary Policy. Please notice that it is not the money per se. Money is around us since the antiquity and I understand that money is an essential necessity. But it is the monetary (monstrosity) policy based on debt (Insurance companies) that is systematically enslaving people. How? It is the greatest modern or post-modern alchemy. Printing money based on public faith on it, which in turn maintained by a display of "scientific progress", political promise of better future (if not the utopia), a sustained release doses of social "medications" [alcohol, drugs, football and rock 'n' roll] and a continuous propagation of sub- and supra-liminal messages in the mass media in favor to gain the faith on the authority and hence on its monetary (monstrosity) policy. This is the alchemy of Federal Reserve. But the question is how long you can use this tool for enslaving people. Will it work indefinitely? History begs to disagree, as explained before. You cannot muzzle the free will of people, indefinitely. They will find a way to override the system which either you cannot prevent and foresee. In their perspective, people are actually using you (the Federal Reserve) for their own benefit from the beginning, but you did not know it! Just like the maids in third world countries, when they will be done with you after they have sucked all the juices out of you, they will throw you away exactly like a used toilet paper or a used condom. What will you do? Have you thought about your next move or new strategy yet? Is it another war again? Is it another great Depression/Recession again? What is it? Whatever you do, please do your job more humanly this time and onwards. Think about it, oh dear, before it is too late. 

The Buddhist middle way is in between 1.) Extreme Action/Karma Yoga of Vedic Hinduism and 2.) Extreme self-renunciation of Jainism. The middle in between these two ancient Indian ways is the "Middle Way". Gurdjieff suggested a fourth way (fourth means being outside the way of fakir, monk, yogi, all of them are actually are the ways towards the same goal) but that fourth way cannot be other than the 3rd or middle way of Buddhism. Because there is no fourth way other than the middle way.

Mathematically when you collect a large groups of data you will see most of the data will tend to aggregate around a central mean. Outliers are only few and far in between. The tendency of the individual data points to go towards and merge with the middle, i.e. the average line has long been recognized by the statisticians and the scientists. This is the Juggernaut of "Regression Line". The average or the middle is the Grand Regression Line, acting just like the dark energy. You cannot see it but you can see its effects all the time and it will make everything conform to it. The middle way is the "The Way" because it conforms to the regression line of Grand forces of the nature, instead of fighting against it. The middle have the essence of both extremes. Middle is the perfect representation of the overwhelming majority. The middle is most common, like the data of normal distribution curve that have a central (middle) tendency. Middle is normal and normal is the norm or the standard. Normal is normal because they occurs more often, because they survive more, because there are the fittest, because they have the best functions. They are the perfect epitome of balance. They display the best of the both extreme worlds and hence best functionality. They are the representative ones because they are common, have the best of both worlds and they function the best, like ambidextrous craftsman.

The dream and the psychedelic induced conscious states are the examples of the opposite extremes. In your dream, the logical structures breaks down, time becomes asynchronous, and things becomes cloudy. The meaning itself mostly ceases to exist. No wonder, why we do not remember those dreams for long time. Because most of the dreams are self-inconsistent, logically contradictory and jumbled. Human brain cannot handle the meaningless, patternless, jumbled events for long time. The magical number is seven, plus or minus two for the number of independent data you can consider simultaneously, even consciously. During dream, it become even worse for sure. So, if you cannot understand and remember what is happening in the dream then who care about the meaning of and interpretations of dreams? If you base your life by the dream analysis (Freudian or Jungian psychoanalysis) it will not take you anyway until the end of time. Additionally you are awake more times than you are sleeping. So forget about dreams and pay more attention to what is happening here and now while you are awake during the day. In sharp contrast, if you try to artificially enhance your alertness with psychedelic/stimulant drugs, it will in fact work against you. You will never be sure what is real and what is unreal. You will mix up dream, hallucination with your real life experiences. At the end, you will stay confused, except few moments of ecstasy under the direct effects of those drugs. It will cost you in long run. The drug free intervals (which will be the most of your time, if you want to be functional) will be the living hell. The bottom line is the fact that the normal day-to-day, unadulterated/non-retarded/non-steroid boosted consciousness, reason or intellect is the best representative of both worlds.

After traveling all of those you are still stuck with old, ordinary, powerless you. The only tool you have against all those odds are your reason and intellectual power if it is unadulterated. You already have everything that you will ever need. So what are you waiting for? Jump in and explore the world to find the meaning of all these. You do not need any special power or revelator to guide you. You already have your best guide, which is your-Self. Do not pollute your thinking and reason by believing other peoples (including scientist's) claim without examination it independently, especially if that this is important to you and needs your attention. What are the things you ought to examine carefully? Don't worry, you will know. Just be honest with yourself and keep preparing yourself. When the student is ready, teacher will always appear and this teacher had always been sleeping inside you all these years because you never called him for assistance. Do not try to ask help while you have distorted your intellects either by sedative/hypnotics drugs or by CNS stimulants/psychedelics. If you do, they will teach you distorted truths. Use your usual day-to-day reason, observation, intellect, logic and intuition "normally" to start seeing things "as they are". This is "the middle way". There is no need to a fourth or fifth or any other way. Trust your middle self. Truth is not only the body, not only the mind but the Truth is your middle self. This is the only way, in the middle, you will ever need. And the good news is, you already have it. So, use it, wisely.

Who am I?
How am I be who I am?
Why am I be who I am?