Mahaajanah?X: How scribes recognise and describe: Living Vs Development

All seventeen sustainable development goals identified by the United Nations may be summed up into two main universal human aspirations (UHA): the pursuit of happiness/fulfilment and well-being.

But, it is sustainable living that is an inescapable common factor in achieving these universal goals. That face of development alone may be termed as sustainable development, which is shaped by sustainable living.

If humanity tries to define universal human aspirations (UHA), keeping development first by exploiting or harnessing natural resources, then it is destined to fail miserably. Maintaining the order of priorities is essential. Humanity is not living for development. It is for humanity’s living that development is accommodated and promoted. Therefore, sustainable living must be put before sustainable development.

There is a proven possibility evidenced by eternal living guru-disciple parampara (and Sanskrit has a role in it) that human beings are capable of experiencing unparalleled bliss, peace and wonderment of higher consciousness. This means well-being and happiness are guaranteed, but humanity may experience something more profound if it lives the way those who follow eternal guru parampara live. And India is that cradle of humanity where eternal living guru-disciple parampara is still active. Therefore sustainable living and living with a worshipful attitude towards Nature is our forte.

What is proving a hurdle for the world to learn how to live from India openly? Leaders from all walks of life (Mahaajanah) must brainstorm and meditate over it. Why is the hesitation?

But, can one force the other to become blissful when the other is not willing and cooperating?

All of you keep hearing debates and discussion in the public domain day in and day out. The difference between incidental social instances of transcending and transgressing reason is quoted as belonging to one and the same class. And, such debate and discussions are termed rational debates. None sets the record straight by stopping and asserting this irrational instance.

A debate or discussion should be termed rational when some principle or its application is defined within the area of reasoning. Only in that confinement of reasoning it may be termed as rational. Below rationality, i.e. Doing something based on belief, is transgressing the reason. While those who work for the welfare of all transcend the world despite appearing to be very much within it, like the rest of us are, but they cease to be like us in reality. We begin to feel that we should be like them. These are Mahaajanah.

Higher consciousness is capable of vibrating and functioning in the human frame in much more coherence and harmony than the harmony and coherence it shows when functioning within the confines of rationality. So much so that seeing the extent of coherence, Mahaajanah (realised ones) term it as Layaawasthaa (constant communion). Rationality is a comparatively lower stage of consciousness when seen from the aforesaid state of being.

Will we as rationalists call this the human frame’s capacity or call it the capacity of consciousness operating in the human frame?

Either way, we as rationalists lose the argument. Because the primacy of consciousness is accepted, then the human frame becomes a mere matter/tool utilised by consciousness for its own sake. If the importance of human rights (frame &form) is accepted, then logically (rationally), humans and their rights become subservient and controlled by a phenomenon called consciousness. Because the role/place of consciousness is undeniable, the order of priorities means seeing everything’s right place/role.

First, we have to have consciousness of rationality. Then, only we can see the rational dimension of consciousness.

For a spiritual person, body, mind, self, and soul are only a single impulse/stir appearing to be there on different levels of consolidation of vibrations. Therefore, instances of rationality and irrationality are minuscule things in the vision of the absolute. They are capable of accommodating all opposites in their wisdom. Doesn’t Nature accommodate matter and anti-matter, dark energy, existence, and the universe’s inexistence spontaneously? And where does Nature nestle? In our living or development?