957. The same calamity occurs when the reader or researcher is for the first time faced with the analysis of the I. The readers' mental attitude towards every problem or every investigation of a thing naturally involves weighing and measuring, and a consequent expectation of results based on weights and measure, or other expressions of the degree of limitation of the thing or its confinement to one place. And the researcher is also animated by this million-year-old, automatically functioning attitude when, in his spiritual research, he for the first time meets the I or the "divine something" and is brought to a standstill. For here he is faced for the first time with something that is different from everything else, in that it has no weight or measurement or is not in any way whatsoever "bound to one place" and consequently exists with the one and only analysis: "something that is". As he cannot ascertain any weight or measurement here, he simply cannot grasp this "something". None of his expectations about weights and measures can be satisfied. And this divine "something that is" or the I, the analysis of which is in itself the simplest and easiest of anything in existence – for nothing can have a simpler analysis than just this: to consist merely of "something that is" and at the same time have absolutely no other analysis – will at times seem to the one who is beginning to investigate these matters the most difficult and incomprehensible concept that he has ever come across. What is it then that makes this analysis difficult? Surely an analysis can be difficult only if it expresses a wealth of complex details. But as the reader can see for himself, the analysis of the I is in fact as simple and lacking in details as an analysis can possibly be of a thing that in reality exists. It is in fact so simple that absolutely nothing else can exist with anything approaching such a simple analysis. Absolutely everything else not only exists but also reveals degrees of energy expressed as measurement, weight, volume, colour etc., and therefore appears in a multiplicity of phenomena that react on certain senses specifically adapted for the purpose, which the researcher possesses, and through these reactions the thing becomes palpable to the senses. But as the I in itself is totally devoid of any such phenomena it cannot directly bring about any reactions in the senses of the researcher, with the result that, compared to all other things, it is "impalpable". And it is the process of adapting to this "impalpability" that is sensed as difficult. Having to accept the existence of something that has nothing other than its very existence as its analysis, but that is totally devoid of everything with which one otherwise characterises a thing's existence, such as energy expressed as measurement, weight, bulk, volume, colour etc., is in direct opposition to the traditions of the senses that go back thousands of years. The individual is for the first time standing with his senses directed towards "something" that cannot react on these senses. He has directed his eyes towards "something" that he cannot see. He has directed his ears towards "something" that he cannot hear. He has directed his feelings towards "something" that he cannot feel, and so on, thereby revealing the situation as one in which he has not found and will not be able to find satisfaction through the ordinary sensory reactions. Over hundreds of thousands of years and very many terrestrial lives the individual has through his senses met or experienced millions upon millions of sensory reactions (experiences and impressions), and has analysed things and his environment, but life itself or "that which is alive" within himself still remains – despite these millions of experiences and his co-existence with Nature, the environment and fellow beings over these thousands of years – an unanswered question or a mystery. And the individual now begins to sense that these many terrestrial lives and countless sensory reactions are pointing towards something other than answers in terms of weights and measures, and that his hunger to solve the mystery of life can be satisfied only by meeting this other something. This other something cannot be sensory reactions, energies or movements, for if that were the case the individual would not have come one single step nearer to the solution to the problem, and his question "what is life?" would remain unanswered. And it is the inadequacy of these sensory reactions or ordinary experiences in answering the question that inevitably leads the researcher towards the existence of the "impalpable" "something", giving him no satisfaction until he has with his senses come into complete contact with this "something". This in turn means that no research into the mystery of life can be brought to a perfect, satisfactory solution until the researcher has got used to the existence of the "divine something" behind things. This "something" is therefore in reality the unknown and invisible goal of the researcher. It is absolutely necessary to reach this goal in order to receive the revelation of the solution to the mystery of life and for the individual to experience his own highest identity as an immortal son of God and to have the sense of being "one with God". And as this goal can be reached only by acknowledging the existence of the "divine something" behind the experiences, there is therefore no avoiding its existence, even though it is "impalpable" when compared with matter and the things that are made out of matter. As long as one denies the existence of this "something", the solution to the mystery of life will remain unattainable and the being will not sense that it is "one with the immortal Godhead", but it will to the highest degree sense that it is "one with matter, destruction or death", clearly a philosophy of life that cannot possibly be satisfactory as the conclusive analysis or ultimate purpose of the living being. There is no avoiding the "divine something", no matter how "impalpable" it may seem to be. But it is true that, as we have already said, the analysis of this "something" is far too simple to be understood using an attitude based on weighing and measuring. And it is the fact that the ability to weigh and measure is superfluous in accepting or acknowledging the very existence of this "impalpable something" that confuses the researcher. He is used to asking: what does something weigh, what wavelength, what colour, what speed, what stage of development etc. does it represent? And this habitual consciousness or habitual attitude sets the pattern for the way he forms his questions, even though it is in fact absolutely not these kinds of results he is looking for. For if he is given answers in terms of weights and measures, degrees of colour and speed etc., he would certainly have got an answer that would appear even very "scientific", but it would not be a solution to the question that deep down he is asking. He would merely have added new material answers to the other millions of answers that he already had. And as in principle they give an account of or express only exactly the same as these material answers, the question about "life" will remain an unsolved riddle.