Foolish Paradise: An Exploration of Illusion and Consequence
The idea of a "foolish paradise" speaks to the tension between idealism and
reality, between the pursuit of utopia and the inevitable consequences of
human folly. At its heart, a foolish paradise is a dream, a vision of an
idyllic world that is based on naive assumptions or misguided beliefs,
which, when actualized, reveal their true nature as unsustainable or even
harmful. It symbolizes the dangers of chasing unattainable perfection and
the false hope that a perfect world can be achieved through reckless or
shortsighted means.
In literature and philosophy, the concept of a "paradise" often represents
an idealized state of happiness, freedom, and fulfilment. It’s a realm
where suffering is absent, desires are fully satisfied, and people live in
harmony. However, this paradise is rarely as perfect as it seems, often
built on fragile foundations or unrealistic expectations. In the case of a
"foolish paradise," this paradise is not just flawed, but it is the result
of misguided intentions or unwise actions. It is a warning to those who
seek utopia without considering the human flaws that inevitably mar even
the most noble of dreams.
The creation of a foolish paradise can often be traced back to an
over-simplified view of human nature or a failure to understand the
complexities of society and the human condition. Whether it’s in the form
of political ideologies, economic systems, or cultural movements, the
pursuit of a flawless existence is frequently doomed by the lack of
foresight and the tendency to overlook the inherent contradictions and
limitations of the world. For example, the idea of creating a "perfect"
society by imposing rigid rules or idealistic principles often disregards
the diversity of human needs, desires, and values. It ignores the
complexity of emotions and relationships, as well as the necessity of
struggle and adversity for growth and self-realization.
In the realms of politics and economics, the pursuit of a "foolish
paradise" has historically led to disastrous consequences. Utopian
movements, driven by the belief that the world could be made perfect
through revolution, ideal policies, or technological advancements, have
often ended in oppression, destruction, and inequality. Communism, for
instance, is based on the idea of a classless society, where wealth and
resources are shared equally. While the dream behind it was noble, the
implementation in various countries led to totalitarian regimes, economic
collapse, and widespread suffering. The attempt to create a paradise by
force, by eliminating what was deemed as "imperfections," created a hell of
its own.
On a personal level, a foolish paradise can manifest as unrealistic
expectations of happiness or fulfilment. People often build fantasies
around the idea that they will find perfect love, achieve boundless
success, or live a life free from pain or challenge. These fantasies can
lead to disillusionment when reality inevitably intrudes, revealing that
true joy and meaning come not from the absence of struggle, but from
engaging with it constructively. The pursuit of constant pleasure, the
avoidance of discomfort, or the obsession with external markers of success
can result in a hollow existence, where one is constantly chasing an
unattainable ideal.
In a more metaphorical sense, the "foolish paradise" represents any
situation where one sacrifices the present for the promise of a better
future, without understanding the cost of that sacrifice. Whether it’s
waiting for the "perfect moment" to start something or putting all hope
into a distant goal, this mindset often prevents individuals from
appreciating the present and from finding contentment in the small
victories of everyday life. The foolish paradise, then, is not only a flaw
in grand ideologies, but in personal aspirations as well.
Despite the inevitable shortcomings of the foolish paradise, it serves as a
mirror to humanity's deepest desires and ambitions. It reflects the innate
human yearning for improvement and transcendence—whether personal, social,
or spiritual. The pursuit of a better world, even when misguided, speaks to
the inherent belief in possibility and transformation. The idea of a
paradise—however unrealistic—reveals a deep hope for a world free from
suffering, injustice, and limitation. This hope is powerful, but it must be
tempered by wisdom and an understanding of human imperfection.
Ultimately, the lesson of the foolish paradise is the necessity of
balancing idealism with pragmatism. The desire for a better world, a better
life, or a better self should not be abandoned, but approached with a
grounded understanding of reality. It is only through the recognition of
imperfections, flaws, and limitations that true progress can be
made—whether in the world at large or in the individual soul. While a
foolish paradise may offer a temporary escape, it is in the real world,
with all its complexities and contradictions, that true fulfilment can be
found.
In the context of Vedanta, "fool's paradise" (or a state of illusory
happiness) refers to a temporary, superficial state of contentment based on
false beliefs or desires, ultimately leading to suffering when the reality
emerges.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Vedanta and the Nature of Reality:
Vedanta, a school of Hindu philosophy, emphasizes the concept of Brahman,
the ultimate reality, and the illusory nature of the world (maya) and the
self (ego).
The Illusion of the Self:
Vedanta posits that the individual self (Atman) is ultimately identical
with Brahman, but the ego, driven by desires and attachments, creates the
illusion of separateness and suffering.
Fool's Paradise as a State of Attachment:
A "fool's paradise" represents a state where individuals cling to temporary
pleasures, possessions, or beliefs, mistaking them for true happiness and
fulfilment.
The Path to Liberation:
Vedanta teaches that true liberation (moksha) comes from realizing the
unity of the self with Brahman, transcending the illusion of the world and
the ego's attachments.
Examples of Fool's Paradise:
Seeking happiness through material possessions or external achievements.
Being attached to fleeting relationships or experiences.
Holding onto beliefs that are not grounded in reality.
The Importance of Self-Inquiry:
Vedanta encourages self-inquiry and the examination of one's beliefs and
attachments to discern the true nature of reality and to break free from
the cycle of suffering.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE JAGRADHA AND THE SWAPNA THE FOOLS’
PARADISE IN HINDUISM:
In dream {FOOLS’ PARADISE} we see objects like mountains, rivers,
persons, etc. But they are not there. Things which are not there become
visible in dream. Now, did the mountain you saw in dream exist? It did not.
But did you see it? Yes, you saw it. How did you see, when it was not
there? Is it possible to see a non- existent object? How can non-existent
things be seen? It is contradictory statement to say that non-existent
things can be seen. What do you see when things are not there? You will be
wonderstruck! What happens in dream is that there is an alienation of the
mind into the objects of perception; and the mind itself becomes the
mountain there. There is tension created due to the separation of a part of
the mind into the object and a part of it existing as the perceiving
subject. That is why we are restless in dream. We cannot be happy. It is
neither waking nor it is sleep. It is very difficult to be happy in this
condition because a tense situation of consciousness is created. What
happened in dream, the same happens to us in the waking condition also.
Just as the mind in dream divided itself into two sections, the perceiving
subject and the object that was seen, in the waking state also, it divides
itself into the subject and object. It is like a divided personality. It is
as if your own personality has been cut into two halves, of which one half
is the ‘seer’ and the other half is the ‘seen’. It is as if one part of
your personality gazes at another part of your own personality. You are
looking at your own self as if you are a different person. You are
objectifying yourself; you alienate yourself. What can be falser and more
undesirable than this situation? It is a mental sickness.
Now we are able to understand this situation in dream on account of the
comparison that we make between waking and dream. When you wake up, you do
not see the dream objects and then you begin to analyse the condition in
which you were when you were dreaming. We say, when we are awake, we are in
a world of reality, whereas in dream we were in a world of unreality. How
do you know that the world of dream was a world of unreality? Merely
because, we compare it with the waking condition which we consider as real.
How do you know that the world of waking is real? You cannot say anything
about this, because there is nothing with which you can compare it, as you
did in the case of the dream. If you can know another standard of
reference, higher than the waking condition, you would have been able to
make a judgement of it, whether it is real or unreal, good or bad and so
on. When you are dreaming, you do not know that the objects are unreal. You
consider them as real and you take it for granted. The comparison between
the dream and the waking world, is responsible for our judgement of the
unreality of the dream world. But with what will you compare the waking
world? There is at present nothing to compare it with, and therefore we are
in a condition which is self-sufficient, self-complacent and incapable of
rectification. When you feel that you are perfectly right, nobody can teach
you. Nobody can set you right, because you think that you are right. The
question of teaching arises only when you feel that you are ignorant and
you need teaching. The waking world is only an indication to us as to what
could be happening or what is perhaps happening. We cannot know what is
happening actually, unless we transcend this condition, which we have not
done yet. But, by the conclusion that we can draw from an analysis of the
dream-condition, we can conclude to some extent that in the waking state
also we are in a fool’s paradise. What is the guarantee that we will not
wake up again from this waking world, into something else? As in dream you
did not know that you were dreaming, in this waking also you do not know
that you are in a state similar to dream. You think that this world in
waking is a hard fact and a solid reality, just as you believed the world
of dream also to be. Now to the senses an absence of perception is, equal
to darkness, the darkness that we experience in deep sleep. {krishnananda}
अविद्यायामन्तरे वर्तमानाः स्वयं धीराः पण्डितंमन्यमानाः ।
जङ्घन्यमानाः परियन्ति मूढा अन्धेनैव नीयमाना यथान्धाः ॥८॥
8) They who dwell shut within the ignorance and they hold themselves for
learned men thinking, “We, even we are the wise and the sages”—fools are
they and they wander around beaten and stumbling like blind men led by the
blind.
अविद्यायां बहुधा वर्तमाना वयं कृतार्था इत्यभिमन्यन्ति बालाः ।
यत्कर्मिणो न प्रवेदयन्ति रागात् तेनातुराः क्षीणलोकाश्च्यवन्ते ॥९॥
9) They dwell in many bonds of the Ignorance, children thinking, “We have
achieved our aim of Paradise”; for when the men of works are held by their
affections, and arrive not at the Knowledge, then they are overtaken by
anguish, then their Paradise wastes by enjoying and they fall from their
heavens. {Mundaka Upanishad}
Thus, Avivekis (अविवेकिन्).—a. 1) Undiscriminating, inconsiderate,
thoughtless. 2) Superficial, short-sighted, ignorant.
In the Kevala-Advaita-Vedanta-philosophy, in the opinion of Shankaracharya,
the whole world appearance is illusory. It is not a real transformation of
its cause, namely the Brahman. It is imposed on the Brahman due to the
avidyā, just as a snake on a rope. Thus, the world is an illusion appearing
on the Brahman. In this connection, Shankaracharya puts forth the
illustrations of the dream etc. The creation of the chariots etc. in the
dream does not harm the nature of the individual soul. Moreover, it is seen
in the world that the illusory creation of the elephant etc. does not
change the nature of its creators, namely the magicians or the gods etc.
Similarly, the creation of the world takes place without changing the
unified nature of the Brahman.
Owing to the acceptance of the Satkāryavāda, i.e. the doctrine regarding
the existence of the effect in its cause, Śaṅkarācārya denies the abrupt
rise of the world. He admits the latent existence of the world even before
its creation. Shankaracharya further says that the association of the soul
with actions, their instruments and results is produced owing to its
contact with the adjuncts of the names and the forms. This association is
superimposed on the soul by the avidyā. Owing to this association with the
limiting adjuncts, the jīva experiences the saṃsāra. The saṃsāra is of the
nature of agent ship and enjoyer ship. It is related only with the jñeya
(things to be known) but it is wrongly imposed on the jñātā (knower) due to
the avidyā. Therefore, the perceiver does not get contaminated by the
saṃsāra, just as the space is not affected by the qualities such as the
concave or the dirtiness etc. imposed on it by Ignorants. In a similar way,
the Īśvara exists in all the kṣetras viz. the fields or the adjuncts, not
getting affected by the saṃsāra. In the common experience too, it cannot be
seen that anyone is benefited or ruined by a certain quality imposed by the
avidyā. In this manner, the Brahman, on which the names and the forms are
superimposed by the avidyā, can never get contaminated by them. Therefore
the duality is none other than the imagination of the mind. Further, Ācārya
says that the mind is also sat (existent), when it is seen not to be
different from the Self. A snake imagined on a rope is regarded as
existent, when its substratum viz. the rope is considered. Similarly, the
mind is existent, when its substratum viz. the Self is thought over.
Although Śaṅkarācārya has always declared the falsity of the
world, he has accepted the temporal existence of the world in the sphere of
avidyā for the sake of explaining the vyavahāras (empirical or worldly
usages). So, the scriptural and the empirical viewpoints are respectively
based on the knowledge and the ignorance. Further, using the dream analogy,
he asserts that all the empirical dealings can be regarded as true before
attaining the knowledge of the unity of the jīva and the Brahman, just like
the dealings in the dreams are not suspected as false before one wakes up.
As long as one does not experience the unity of the Self, he cannot
consider the empirical dealings such as means of knowledge, objects of
knowledge and results etc. to be false. In this way, Shankaracharya accepts
the continuation of all the empirical dealings before realizing the unitary
experience of the Self i.e. the Brahman.
SO MANY ARE LIVING IN THAT FOOLS’ PARADISE LIVING AN UNENDING BIRTHS
AND DEATHS AND STILL PORTRAY AS IF KNOWLEDGEABLE WHICH IS THE BIGGEST JOKE
OF THE EARTH.
K RAJARAM IRS 21325
--
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 thatha_patty+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZooHS1wdkzQJx5EQ_NhrXSaY0T1owM6G%3DF3f_X6KGH6Z9A%40mail.gmail.com.
