So as we've been seeing, our nature is dubious according to our own ideas. We aren't sure what we are - we have never really looked into it. That means we've taken what we have been told as gospel without much challenge. And even then we aren't sure what the nature of that idea is, after all these years.
We really take ourselves to be an entity, something which exists, something which was not there before, then something happened - the parents got together and mixed cells - the cells sprouted more cells - the cells kept doubling and doubling - until that mass of cells - until that pattern of cells - begins to look like a fetus, with a head, arms, a little face, little feet... we might even give it a name. So it's a form with a name, a bundle or mass or pattern of cells. Is that you? Are you there immediately, or does consciousness need to arrive first?
If you are there immediately, then you are saying that you arrive with the matter, with the cells, with the form - obviously you don't arrive with just the name! Therefore in this case you are just matter, just a certain mixture or pattern of cells. In the latter case, you arrive with consciousness. This is closer to actuality. This means you arrive with the arrival of the ability or capacity to experience, yes?
The first thing to see here is that your idea is that you did not exist prior, either way. You believe that WHAT-YOU-ARE is something which wasn't there, then began, goes on for a while, then ends. We'll talk about the ending part soon. But it's critical to see that this is definitely your idea about yourself. IS it or is it NOT? Get a real good grip of this idea - really understand that it's the root idea you have about yourself.
That means you believe that existence is divided - you believe - because you are the PROOF of it - that existence is something which comes in individual servings - that means existence must be divided - split up - a new existence comes and and old existence ends, yes? That means your idea of existence is division - separation, yes? Now you are here trying to either find HOW existence is whole, or how to MAKE existence whole, yes?
So we must absolutely see that the second item is completely futile. We can never make existence whole. If you are divided, nothing you can do can MAKE existence whole. Are you trying to SEE reality AS whole? What exactly are you trying to accomplish in spirituality? It is this muddyness which is very frustrating. Clear out the mud - get to the bottom of it - come to this certainty - no limited entity - no limited action can ever MAKE existence unlimited or whole, yes? Can you meditate it away? Can you make yourself whole where you are now separate? By what means would that happen? So notice it's a fantasy and be done with that.
The other alternative is - what we're saying is that reality or existence is ALREADY whole. If that's the case, then that root idea I have about what-I-am is false, and always was false. I didn't do anything to make myself whole - I just AM. Yet I have an incorrect idea that I am an entity, a separated individual existence. So what do I need to do? If we can really get to this point - that's the prime door opening for Vedanta to flower, for a realization of what you are to happen.
If this latter instance is true, then we must revisit the idea of that fetus - where did we go wrong in our analysis of what we are? We don't have to question the scientific facts of procreation - we just need to question whether or not a new existence was created in the process, or if it is only pattern or forms which are created and destroyed. So for this part in the series, dive into the reality of any form - it makes no difference what that form might be - a tree - a flower - a fetus - a bowling ball - just ask - what IS it? If you don't take that seriously you aren't hurting anyone but if you do take it seriously, dive into the form - see what it's made of.
Like the pot - pot is a concept - a name for a particular form, shape. When we shape clay in such a way as to hold and pour water, we call that a pot. But is pot a new existence? Does pot exist alone? Did pot come into existence? If so, at what point on the sculpter's wheel did it begin to exist? Even at it's final shape, is it a different existence from clay?
In fact aren't pot and clay the exact same thing? Isn't it clay-shaped-and-painted? Isn't clay just given a new name based on it's new expression? If pot breaks, can we say Pot Died? What happened to clay? Can we then melt down the pieces again and make another pot, or a bowl, or a cup?
Consider these things deeply and we'll return soon with part 3.