Is man the universe’s centre or Truth the centre of man?—that’s the only real question. Or, may it be the truth of the universe and the truth of man coincide, cancelling each other out, as it were, taking us vertically to the supreme non-dual affirmation. The non-dual is also the non-causal. The great Vedantic philosopher Gaudapada (fourth century AD?) says, cause and effect are like proving the father is the son of the son, or the son is the father of the father, thus there is neither father nor son. For wheresoever there is causality, this being so, that is so, satisfies the biological and moral categories we live by. It gives meaning to man’s daily existence. (And all language, remember, is born of this category.) It works. But be it true?—that’s the main epistemological query. Is man then a predictable instrument—like any other mechanism, or is he intrinsically different. What makes the difference then? Knowledge, understanding (Prajna) makes that difference, as the early Buddhist philosophers discovered. ‘No elementary phenomenon,’ said Niels Bohr, ‘is a phenomenon unless it is a registered (observed) phenomenon.’ If however, you decide to abandon the cause and effect universe, you should, logically, abandon your biological self as well. Thus you rise vertically to the alogical universe, which is freedom, freedom beyond all contingencies, sequences—yet, you suddenly discover you are already there. It is like leaping from prose to poetry. It’s Ilya Prigogine’s ‘ecoute poetique’.1 Yet the language you use is the same. Who is there? No one. The ‘I’, the ‘I’ of I, Knowledge itself, which is the knower, as Vedanta explicates, where the object dissolves unto me, is ‘I.’ There the universe is nothing but the projection of me, so the extension of me, it is itself, the universe itself, the ‘I’. So, now I play.