According to Einstein, ‘We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest’, and this is ‘a kind of optical delusion of consciousness.’  

He goes on to explain that ‘This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us.’  

His solution to escape this prison consists of ‘widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty’.  Once we have achieved this state of compassion, Einstein postulated that, ‘The true value of a human being (will be) determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self’. (Source: http://www.spaceandmotion.com)

As the father of the ‘relativity theories’, Einstein had an excellent grasp of the physical laws of the universe.  Using mathematics to determine the predictability of things in nature, even Einstein himself found the unifying theory of all existence an unpredictable mystery.  Although he was able to attribute certain mathematical certainties to space, matter and time, even he could not put the why into the how.

In my own estimation, borrowing a bit of Einsteinian logic, I think a nice summary to human existence could be:  ‘It’s all relative.’ 

Life, in general, is a subjective experience.  Depending upon your own personal perception, life will exist as similar to, or different from, the way I experience the same reality.  Similarities of our experiences will be recorded as ‘statistically significant’ or ‘scientific’ observations, and our differences will be recorded as ‘opinions’.  However, in both instances, each experience still constitutes what we can describe as ‘life’.  It is only perception that lends greater significance to one experience over the other.  And, personal perception is life’s subjective judge and jury.

When we observe things, we can attribute properties to them based upon our observations of them.  However, what if I was to interpret something in a manner that was different than the laws of repeated observation?  Would you then say that I was not observing ‘reality’?  What makes the common observance more important than the individual observance?  Repeated observation may lend some predictability to nature, thereby alleviating a certain degree of uncertainty, or fear.  This is valuable, in and of itself.  However, if we limit our life experiences to only the most familiar ones, doesn’t this lead to a life of boring predictability?

I have often postulated that the common purpose to life is to move towards a state of enlightenment — defining ‘enlightenment’ as the state of consciousness where we experience a connection with all things, and a ‘letting go’ of worldly needs and desires.  A Buddha-esque suggestion.  However, what is the value of this success, when to understand the nature of all things, and to be connected to our ‘source energy’ would result in an omnipotent state of being that is theoretically devoid of relativity – thereby devoid of the contrast that allows us to appreciate great works of art, and provides for the roller-coaster ride of emotional experience?  If the goal of life is to achieve connection to collective consciousness, why do we exist at all?  Why didn’t we just remain in spiritual form, and skip the ‘lower levels’ of consciousness altogether?

Can we have our cake and eat it too?

My seven-year-old son probably answered the question of ‘why do we exist’ the best, when he told me that “Human beings exist to give God something to do – and God exists to make human beings feel better.” 

He got me thinking.  Why do we have to keep trying to figure out the ‘why’ of human existence?  Why don’t we just focus on enjoying the ride?  We will probably never answer the chicken and the egg question of existence.  But what if we chose to enjoy our relativity-based human existence, relishing the roller-coaster ride of contrasting emotions, and also included the concept of a collective consciousness to allow us to feel better in our day-to-day reality?  According to this perspective, we would then be allowed to oscillate between the realms of ‘separateness’ which defines human ego and the collective concept of ‘unity with all things’, at our own free will.  In essence, when we surrender to the co-existence of non-duality and duality philosophy, we get to have our cake and eat it too!  Heaven on Earth, in my estimation.

To accomplish this, we must admit and accept our human vulnerability and tendency to err – our imperfect nature – all the while embracing the perfect nature of our Source, from which we have never been separate. 

Bottom line:  enjoy the journey.  And, when you realize that you are not enjoying yourself, enjoy that too – for that experience of ‘not enjoying’ gives you something to compare the experiences of joy with, thus allowing for the variable intensity of your experience.  To have no contrast means to exist as only one thing.  No change.  Steady state.  When there is no relativity, or comparison to other ‘things’, everything is monotone.  Booooring.

It’s all relative.  And what you make of life itself will dictate how you feel about it.  I choose to feel good about it.  What do you choose?

Your comments are welcome.

Sincerely,

The Common Sense Coach^TM

(website coming soon!)