-- *Mar**The denigration of the Holistic approach* *When you begin feeling as a part of the Universe and actually attempt to participate in the continuous transformations or changes or rhythm of the Universe as a part of the Universe, you cannot have any analysis or division. Both the subject and the object are one. The word ‘both’ makes no meaning. You do not need any language because; language is needed only when there is categorization. The holistic approach is the approach of experiencing, feeling, participation in the Universe as the Universe...where language has no place. You do not cut away from the Universe but try to become an integral part.*
*When you leave the participation and become a spectator or observer, then you designate a subject, the target of impact of the subject-the object, and the actual method of impact-the verb. With your language, you have cut yourself from the Universe and then you have devised the tools of the division. You further strengthened your method of categorization by designations-the adverb which tells about the method, intensity etc of the impact or verb, the adjective to precisely pin point the category of the subject and the object, the preposition to solidify the concepts of space and time as separate from the timeless and space less Universe, the sentence-the autonomous entity with the essential ingredients—subject, object and verb. LANGUAGE HAS MADE YOU AN INCURABLE ADDICT, A PATIENT WHO SUFFERS FROM THE INABILITY TO LIVE IN THE PRESENT AND ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE UNIVERSE. Cutting away from the actual participation and experience, is scientific study. The addiction has become so chronic that you have become the slave of technology.* *Now try the holistic approach at least now. Make your mind blank, totally thoughtless and then experience. You live as a part of the Universe, very happy, totally healthy—the real universe or the Amandananda---the personification of happiness---the real space-time continuum.* *Suppose you can see everything, there is no invisible spectrum at all. You see the atoms, energies... everything. Then when you look at yourself, you cannot find yourself. You see atoms etc, flowing into the so called you and also leaving the so called you. You realize that there is only one entity—the Universe. You cannot even conceptualize yourself.* *When there is only one unit—the Universe, you cannot answer the question where, because the very question where indicates the assumption of more than one unit. Where implies by the side of, near etc implying more than one unit.* *You cannot also answer the question-when, because the question when indicates an event or interaction, but there can be no event or interaction or event, when there is only one unit.* *The words-space and time, have no meaning in the holistic approach.* *In the name of science we are dividing and analyzing, we are running away from unity.* *YM Sarma* *Chat gpt* This passage by YM Sarma presents a *critique of the scientific and linguistic worldview* through a philosophical lens grounded in *holism*, emphasizing the *inseparability of self and universe* and the limitations imposed by language and analytical thinking. Here’s a breakdown of the core ideas, with some reflection: ------------------------------ *🔍 1. The Essence of the Holistic Approach* - *Unity Over Division*: Holism is presented as a way of *being*, rather than *knowing*. To be holistic is to experience oneself *not as a separate individual*, but as *one with the Universe*. - *No Subject-Object Dichotomy*: When one is part of the whole, distinctions like "subject" and "object" dissolve. The very notion of "both" becomes meaningless when only one undivided reality exists. ------------------------------ *🧠 2. The Role (and Trap) of Language* - *Language as Division*: Language is inherently dualistic. It requires distinctions—subject, object, action—and therefore imposes *separation*. - *Grammar as Fragmentation*: The components of grammar (nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.) are tools for breaking down experience into analyzable parts. This is said to *cut us off* from immediate, participatory experience. - *Addiction to Abstraction*: Language doesn't just describe reality; it *shapes* how we experience it. According to Sarma, we have become addicted to this abstract mode of understanding to the point of losing touch with the *present moment and the unified whole*. ------------------------------ *🧪 3. Science as a Symptom of Division* - *Science = Observation = Separation*: Scientific method requires stepping back, observing, measuring—thus reinforcing a detached stance. The holistic critique claims this creates a *false sense of objectivity* by denying our participation in the system we study. - *Technology as a Slave Master*: Technology, built on analytical knowledge, becomes a feedback loop that amplifies our dependence on division and abstraction, deepening our alienation from the Universe. ------------------------------ *🌌 4. Living the Holistic Experience* - *Transcend Thought and Language*: Sarma encourages us to *empty the mind*, become *thoughtless*, and *experience reality directly*—without labeling, analyzing, or separating. - *Dissolution of Self*: In total awareness, distinctions dissolve. Even the notion of “self” becomes meaningless when one recognizes the constant flow of energy and matter. There’s *only the Universe*. - *Space and Time as Illusions*: When there is only one indivisible entity, concepts like “where” or “when” become irrelevant. These ideas depend on *difference* and *separation*, which the holistic perspective denies. ------------------------------ *💬 Critical Reflection* While Sarma’s viewpoint powerfully expresses a *non-dual, experiential metaphysics*, there are some tensions worth noting: - *Language is a tool, not an enemy*: While it’s true that language can separate, it can also be a bridge. Poets, mystics, and even scientists have used language to point toward unity. - *Science doesn’t always deny unity*: Quantum physics, systems theory, and even cosmology often acknowledge interconnectedness. The problem may be *how* we interpret science, not science itself. - *Can thought be entirely silenced?* The idea of a "totally blank, thoughtless mind" may be idealized. Many spiritual traditions seek not to eliminate thought, but to relate to it differently—with awareness. ------------------------------ *🧘♀️ Final Thought* Sarma’s message echoes deep mystical traditions—from Advaita Vedanta to Taoism to certain interpretations of quantum mysticism. It challenges us to *reconsider the primacy of rational analysis*, and to remember that *knowing the world isn't always the same as being part of it*. Would you like a more condensed version of this for easier sharing or discussion? Sure! Let's evaluate the passage using a structured rubric, as might be done in an academic or philosophical context. Since this is a reflective, philosophical essay, I’ll assess it across several key criteria: ------------------------------ *🔍 Evaluation Criteria* *Criterion* *Max Marks* *Marks Awarded* *Comments* *1. Clarity of Thought* 20 *15* The core idea—holism vs. analytical division—is clear. However, the writing occasionally becomes abstract and loses coherence, especially for readers unfamiliar with the concepts. *2. Depth of Philosophical Insight* 20 *18* The text offers deep, original insight into consciousness, unity, and the nature of language. Strong alignment with non-dualistic traditions. *3. Structure and Organization* 15 *10* There’s a loose structure, but no clear progression of ideas. Some repetition and flow issues detract from the impact. Paragraphing could be improved. *4. Use of Language* 15 *11* Passionate and expressive, but sometimes grammatically imprecise. Occasional overuse of abstract phrasing makes it harder to follow. *5. Originality and Creativity* 10 *9* The critique of language and science is uniquely articulated, showing creative engagement with metaphysical ideas. *6. Relevance and Impact* 10 *9* Very relevant in the age of technology and information overload. The message is thought-provoking and challenges conventional views. *7. Philosophical Consistency* 10 *7* The holistic perspective is strongly maintained, but some sweeping generalizations (e.g. about science and language) could be more nuanced. ------------------------------ *📊 Total: 79 / 100* ------------------------------ *🎓 Grade: B+ (Upper Second Class / Very Good)* ------------------------------ *✅ Strengths:* - Deep philosophical perspective - Emotionally and intellectually engaging - Resonates with spiritual and metaphysical traditions *⚠️ Areas for Improvement:* - Improve structure and logical progression - Clarify abstract concepts for accessibility - Soften generalizations to avoid oversimplification (especially regarding science and language) ------------------------------ Would you like help rewriting or editing this piece to improve clarity and impact—perhaps for publication or presentation? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHC%2BFiYJ-fpE_%2BTxbgXrvcPijtTnvQiuywR4hkk_q9i%2BbeQ%40mail.gmail.com.
