You are the word, the word is Brahman, as revealed by self, Brahman himself so you don’t have much to opt out of what was heard from your mouth, beware what you speak! The knowledge could be believed to be revealed by what was heard and nothing remembered. So it implies anyone could be a Brahman who reveals what actually is heard from inner self Brahman through direct experience. The knowledge in ancient India began through hearing called Sruti when everyone was a Brahman revealing to others the divine knowledge for Brahman was a seed of self in everybody. So there is no need for any deity, God or a human to reveal things to Brahman but the Brahman himself. So there is no author of Vedas as revealed to sages in direct contact with nature. It was Rishis perfecting everything and were careful as such in revealing to others for what was heard was Shruti.
Shruti is a Sanskrit word meaning what was heard or listened to. Memory as such has no role to play in the revelation of nature. Hence all earlier Hindu Philosophy has emerged from the Brahman or the word that appears in a textual form in the Upanishads.
Between two undetermined possibilities, we exist, before and after, though both are infinite in quantities. What is after the present moment is unknown so is what was the before, what was there well prior to the existence of a fact? Like what was before I, is undetermined for me so is what was before the beginning of the universe is indeterminate for the universe. So everything in the universe has definite beginning beyond which it is undetermined for the entity in question and what it is going to be after the present moment for the entity is equally undetermined.
Between this incertitude, we live believing the present to be of some consequence which it is not.It is the subject of the thinking being that he understands the objects in becoming certain for a moment something that actually he was not before and he would not be the same after and that is fictional existent for the substance and cannot be known but is the fiction of thinking substance as it deems fit. Likewise, an electron becomes a particle when observed otherwise it is a wave, thus prooving the particle is the fiction of the mind. Now all the minds in the universe produce an image of an electron means the fiction is coming from the common consciousness of the universe from where is abstracted everything the mind believes in.
The will determine the world as an end for itself and this end is ‘love essence’, love, for which the intellect pursues anything it fancies.
The free will is there though fictional existent demands it is difficult to know the fictional substance as a thing-in-itself. The free will works at the macroscopic level when I need to determine the end of my will and I am free to choose what I fancy especially in the political climate that endorses democracy. The free will in the universe arises from indeterminate beginnings and ends for the objects. If I cannot determine before an event then I am free to choose what I will and similarly if I cannot determine what is after an event, I opt for an end.
It’s the intellect and will that determine the taste we engender in terms of aesthetic judgements we form in society. The current Bollywood art doesn’t show much intellect as was the case with Avante-Garde Italian cinema where intellect significantly influenced the will to form a taste that would be an epitome of artistic endeavours.
As German philosopher, Kant would say about artistic experiences that they suggest purposiveness without purpose. In the Bollywood, there is though purposelessness but it is not with any purposiveness that we could consider the film as a work of art. The problem inherently lies in the Indian Vedic culture which though brilliant in its trappings but has hardly evoked an overwhelming response from the people to be comprehended since India became independent. Moreover, the Vedic system is rigid and unable to incite a spark among the film directors or actors that the intellect has receded in the films.
Likewise seeing dud Bollywood films which lack technique and execution of thought, the taste of the people has not refined enough to accept the films based on cataclysmic theatre like ‘Waiting for Godot’. Nor does the taste have refined enough to accept any ideology like Naturalism, Realism, Existentialism etc. This has been due to the fact that films are produced for the sole purpose of profit and as such the will is more objectified to recognize the universe as an entity that supports the matter to be endured and enjoyed rather than to be thought or discoursed about.
No wonder the bollwood is ugly art in retrsopect of the cinema influenced by Satayajit Ray which though was realsitic yet showed the poverty affecting India. There have hardly been works that required overwhelming subject matter and likewise, there has been hardly an oeuvre with a little effluent and extravagant treatment of the subject.
Once a rebel is always a rebel but when there is no cause behind rebellion it almost becomes more important for society to label the rebel as without a cause but why? A rebel is concerned with norms that is a rebel wants to upstage the current norms and society counteracts by saying the rebel has no cause.
What are norms then the society is more concerned about defending? It is the aesthetic taste that society wants to defend or it could be the society wants to upturn any aesthetic taste whatsoever the current prevailing milieu endorses. The taste the rebel endorses creates conflict between intellect and imagination. So the society fears the intellect would be upstaged by a more populous taste that exists in a raw matter in much the popular sentiment in the society.
The rebel, on the other hand, wants to preserve the beauty hence the fears of society are roused that a narcissus state might prevail in society in which the whole society is obsessed with a narcissistic idea of beauty that God is a narcissus having a schizophrenic disorder and as such the God possesses an alter ego of a narcissistic disorder and thus the organized religion fails.
Just to preserve the status quo of organized religion the rebel is usually dubbed as without a cause for the religion is compelled to pass an aesthetic judgement on narcissistic tendencies which might be otherwise attributed to the God. The religion usually ignores rebel unless the rebellion is against religion which in this case makes the rebel having a worthy cause.
But rebel without a cause is laudable on the grounds it allows harmonious play of intellect and imagination.
There is self-love that makes us want things for ourselves and this self-love might make us escape aesthetic judgements as to whether a certain person is beautiful or not. If he /she is really beautiful we might escape passing a judgement for we love ourselves. Self-love is an impediment to loving others.
In art, we attempt to define what is beautiful and we want to communicate that feeling of beauty to others. But what we might communicate is trivial and hence many beautiful works of art could belie the art itself as they fail to communicate what is inherently contained in nature, the love for others. It is self-love that we encounter which makes us fail to communicate anything significant. Why we would deny ourselves in the first place for we love ourselves more than is necessary. The works of art which fall under mediocre fail to communicate for the artist loves himself/herself more than the work of art could permit.
We cannot reason the work of art for we cannot compel the onlooker to like the work of art on other than merits that a work of art must constitute like fine execution, bold symmetry, empathetic choice of colours etc. By employing self-love as a tool in the art as propagated by cinema, is more like a phallus worship for it engenders love for the self rather than others so cinema is destroyed by a constructivist mind that wants to build a montage rather than a film.
The existence need not be dependent on any transcendence to take place so that it could find meaning. We could find meaning in any forms that might represent existence. The forms must be coherent shapes that must invoke a non-determinant or reflective judgement as to the aesthetic sense is concerned which subsumes the whole picture into a cradle of nothingness. Yes, we begin with nothingness in art till it acquires some volume of colour and tone of light to show what the artist needs to show an influx of emotion.
Transposing the existence through the immediate substance that lends its colour to the represented substance that artist wishes to explore. Could we negate the nothingness, to begin with, so that we could end up with some coherent form? We could move through the other way also by viewing the canvas as something and then negating it to be nothing and end up with a form that shows passive indifference like any existence.
So we have two ways something or nothing to view all art. The art could be a vigour force of life to show us meaning or it could be passive indifference to show us nothing. In either case, the art object is a complete work of art irrespective of the artist’s skill which has got more to do with execution and beauty than the thought and truthfulness that makes an object of art, art in the first place.
What in the end an art object is a familiarity with nothing or knowing or being of something. Both these elements exist in a great work of art leading art into undetermined. Both are the doors of knowing, the activity of thinking substance.