on realizing nonduality

... neti, neti ...
-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.V.15

Just as Yadnyawalkya is ready to renounce his home, one of his wives, Maitreyi asks him about the means of attaining immortality. Yadnyawalkya explains that anything we do, we do it indirectly for the Self. All the scriptures (vedas, itihasa, purana, vidya, upanishad, slokas, sutras, anuvyakhyanas, vyakhyanas) also spring forth from the Self. It is this Self that is indestructible. He goes on to describe the non-duality (अद्वैत ) and that it is that which one should strive for. Losing ones consciousness in it is what immortality is.

Maitreyi is still bewildered, so Yadnyawalkya further explains it thus: if there is duality then one sees another, smells another and so on. But when the duality is gone, what can one see (outside the Self) and with what? What can one smell, and with what? Through what can one know that due to which all is known? It is not this, not this (that) (neti, neti). Realizing such a Self is the only way to immortality.

Thus we see how the scriptures shifted from hero worship to polytheism to monotheism and there are already strains of monism with hints that gaining immortality means becoming one with this self.


Precursors of the current Hinduism have always been in flux, ever changing like a flowing river, trying to grasp at the meaning and purpose of life. To "what is Hinduism" too we can easily reply "neti, neti". May be that also holds for many current questions like "what is the solution to the crisis the politicians - that we ourselves elect - land us in" or "what is the solution to the perceived and real religious strifes going on all over the world". May be we need to take a deep breath, look inside ourselves and try to draw an all-encompassing picture like Yadnyawalkya had in mind, rather than quick short-sighted solutions.

on multitheism

Sakalya: Yadnyawalkya, how many gods are there?
Yadnyawalkya: According to the "Hymn of all the gods" there are 3306.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: 33.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: 6.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: 3.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: 2.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: One and a half.
S: Yes, but how many gods are there?
Y: One.
(S: Which are those 3306 gods?)
-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III.IX.1

In the dialogue after this Yadnyawalkya explains that there are only 33 gods and the rest are their manifestations. He goes on to say what the 33 gods are:
8 vasus viz. elements in which the universe is placed (वसावः ),
11 rudras viz. 10 human organs and the mind, the loss of which leads the relatives to weep (रुद ),
12 adityas i.e. the 12 months that carry the whole universe (especially the sun) with them (आदादनाः ),
Indra, and Prajapati (the lord of created beings).

Then he explains that the 6 gods are fire, earth, air, sky, sun, heaven which encompass all the above gods and so on. Later in III.IX.9 he states that there is One god, Brahman.

The vedas started with natural forces as their objects of reverence. At some point gods proliferated. But these were still "natural" gods having to do with elements of nature or our own body (later many of these were personified). The conversation above shows the inclination towards monotheism starting from an internal hierarchy. Of course, once an idea is born, it never completely dies. Polytheism too continued in some form with some subsets and underwent further mutations with time.

Deep questions

Gargi: Yadnyawalkya, since all this world is woven on water, please tell me on what is the world of water woven.
Yadnyawalkya: On the world of wind.
G: And on what is the world of wind woven?
Y: On the world of atmosphere.
G: And on what is the world of atmosphere woven?
Y: On the world of sun.
G: And on what is the world of sun woven?
Y: On the world of moon.
G: And on what is the world of moon woven?
Y: On the world of stars.
G: And on what is the world of stars woven?
Y: On the world of gods.
G: And on what is the world of gods woven?
Y: On the world of Indra.
G: And on what is the world of Indra woven?
Y: On the world of Prajapati.
G: And on what is the world of Prajapati woven?
Y: On the world of Brahman.
G: And on what is the world of Brahman woven?
Y: Gargi, do not question too much about the divinity or else your head will fall off.

-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III.VI.1

Brihadaranyaka is one of the oldest Upanishads and certainly the most famous as well as the longest. It features various dialogues with the great philosopher Yadnyawalkya. Most of the women who find representation in the Vedic literature are represented in this Upanishad.

Brahman refers to the absolute (some translations use Hiranyagarbha i.e. the primordial material in place of Brahman and Virij in place of Prajapati in this dialogue). Clearly, questioning is allowed, even encouraged to an extent, but certain questions were taboo.

The Aryanakas and Upanishads tried to do away with the rituals and sacrifices stated in the vedic hymns (and often amplified by the Brahmanas). As a result Aryanakas and Upanishads tend to philosophize more, trying to get behind the reasons of whatever is talked about and done.

I find interesting similarities of this world-upon-world picture with Plato's association of the five Platonic solids with fire/earth/water/air/heaven (Timaeus ca. 350 BC). Incidentally the neolithic people of Scotland developed the five solids a thousand years before Plato (but I do not know of any associations they may have made).

The Hymn of Creation

None knoweth whence creation has arisen;
And whether he has or has not produced it:
He who surveys it in the highest heaven,
He only knows, or haply he may not know.

-Last part of naasadiiya sukta (Hymn of Creation) from Rigved's X.129
Translation quoted from Macdonnell's Vedic Mythology, 1897, as given in "A source book of Indian Philosophy"
Eds. Radhakrishnan and Moore. Full hymn with its translation can be found here

Rigved is arguably the world's oldest compilation of wisdom. Quoted above is the last part of the naasadiiya sukta from it. This is the best theory of Cosmology of any ancient civilisation that I have come across. It has many correct conceptions not unlike the current theories of simultaneous creation of space and time, the indifferentiability of truth and untruth (under certain conditions) etc. But what is more important is that it asks the right questions too. Gods themselves came after the creation. How could they then know about it? Rather than hastily attributing the origin to some super being, it has the right amount of doubt that perhaps even that high being may not know how the universe came into existence.

Such wonderful pieces are really a tribute to our ancestors catching their love for knowledge and learning. The Vedas and especially the Upanishads are full of such gems exhibiting the wonderful grasp of philosophy they had even then (and reflecting on the social circumstances as well).

on being a bomb

Never use one Hydrogen bomb when two are sufficient.
-Alister McLean in a novel

This is a fascinating statement that got tucked away in my mind as I was reading the book (I forget which). It is almost impossible to know what one could mean by such a thing unless you happen to be in a McLean novel where he could unfold the plot beautifully. I have not read any of his novels for several years now, but at one point I used to love them for essentially these kind of gems.

The sentence is a typical ploy Narad would have been proud of. Consider an entangled bundle of thread. If you ask one person to get it straightened out, that person eventually will. So will another person on her own. But ask them to do that together, and you have managed to keep the entanglement alive for life. So, to do proper damage TWO Hydrogen bombs are sufficient. Why use one?

Many of the problems we see around are quiet similar. Politicians can make use of various organizations as well as common people like they were H-bombs often pitting them against each other. People often do not realize that as some small immediate benefit is seen. In the long run all it does is keeping the entanglement alive.

That unfortunately applies to most situations since most issues are far from black and white and it is easy to get supporters for either side of an argument to keep it happy. One way to avoid it is to get to the base of the situation and try to evaluate it from grass roots - without any preconceived notions about society, culture etc., especially about traditions. Ask what it means to yourself, your family, city, country, planet and so on today, and one year, ten years, 1000 years from today. If only every person will think for herself, the planet will take care of itself.


Before taking sides on a topic that has a wide impact, make sure you are not being used as a weapon and get to the roots.

on harmonising extremes

Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true
-Joan Robinson (1903 - 1983)

An attractive statement, just because it is so bizarre. But this teacher of Manmohan Singh from Cambridge [1] had got it right in more than one ways. She spent three years in pre-Independence India with her husband, Austin, also an economist. She admired the Chinese leftist policies a lot and that clearly reflected in her teaching. Since reasoning is something all can do, and Manmohan Singh certainly did, that helped him get a nice balance between capitalistic and communist ideologies.

Nirad Chaudhuri wrote once that in India even exceptions run into millions. Thus what is true for the majority, for the exceptions the opposite is likely to be true. Also, in India, if you are one in a million, there are a thousand like you. Clearly it is important to respect the concerns and basic rights of
others, even if they are a minority.

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru had said in his "Discovery of India":
There is a tendency on the parts of Indian writers, to which I have also partly succumbed, to give selected extracts and quotations from the writings of European scholars in praise of old Indian literature and philosophy. It would be easy, indeed much easier, to give other extracts giving an exactly opposite viewpoint.

Amartya Sen [2] likens James Mill's depiction of India (compiled without visiting India) as a grotesquely primitive culture, and that of Hindu nationalists' depiction as a dazzlingly glorious culture. Both tend to magnify differences and thus tend to separate our humane commonalities from the rest of the world.

The unfortunate part in all this is that there are many worthwhile achievements which get ignored because they do not fit the pattern that is being magnified. India's richness, nay, uniqueness, is essentially due to its occupying the entire spectrum of diversity in all walks of life. We need to not just preserve it, but encourage it. Only then can we evolve to a better state. Else we are likely to live the life of a kupamanduk sampling life in our narrow way.


While embracing Yin, be sure to embrace Yang too.


[1] Manmohan Singh
[2] Chapter 7 of "Argumentative Indian"

on living morals

'Thou shalt not' might reach the head, but it takes 'Once upon a time' to reach the heart.
-Philip Pullman, author of 'His Dark Materials'

The statement above is quoted in an excellent New Yorker article[1] on Philip Pullman, winner of various awards for his "His Dark Materials" trilogy. The statement appears in a slightly different form in the talk he gave while receiving the Carnegie medal[2]: Thou shalt not is soon forgotten, but Once upon a time lasts forever.

Philip is a great patron of morals, but he believes not in preaching them, but observing them, soaking them in and practicing them. Hence he believes that you can make rules and make children (or even adults) learn them, but if you tell those through a story, they are better understood. Mind you, he is not talking about stories that come with some moral as a tail-piece. Those are the worst kind (J H Frere illustrates this wonderfully in his poem "A Fable"[3]) - the morals have to implicitly come through examples/stories seen/heard.

Indian literature is full of fables where often a stereotype is pushed down the ears and eyes of all children and it is expected that they lead their lives like that. Experimentation and breaking of norms is not encouraged. Duty and obedience are the keywords. Children are brought up on Aesop's fables and panchatantra and kauche ghar sheNaache. No latitude in learning is taught.

In Pullman's trilogy the church and Christianity are described as a powerful and convincing mistake. In an interview Pullman said: "every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them because they don't accept him." He likens monotheistic religions to power seeking groups like the secret police. I like the Hindu philosophy better than most world religions. But I am afraid for the world when in the name of religion even these polytheists start acting like every other religion and calling everyone else communists.

At a recent talk Stephen Hawking asked a question in serious earnestness. Brilliant as he is, I do not like to go to his talks as due to his disability, he can not cover much. Due to the same disability he can not hit back when he is not understood properly. Due to their preconceived notions, much of the Christians in the audience took his question as a joke and laughed. He has been working on the origin of the universe and that of space-time. For convenience, he labeled as God whatever could have existed before the existence of time and asked what was God doing before he created space and time? Creating Hell for people who ask such questions? Indeed, to many the question itself is blasphemous and has to be discouraged. Why? That is another question to be discouraged. And so on.

One way to break out of this is to tell stories, image scenarios, and not attach morals to them. Imagine and let imagine.

Do not let others define your morals for you. Look around and you will be able to define them for yourself.

[1] Far from Narnia
[2] Carnegie medal acceptance speech
[3] A Fable

BTW, movies are being made on all three of his books in the trilogy: The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife, and The Amber Spyglass. I look forward to them. Until then, do read the books. They are wonderful.

on the necessity of voicing oneself

Silence is a powerful enemy of social justice
-Amartya Sen, in Essay 2 (Inequality, Instability and Voice) of "The Argumentative Indian", Penguin, 2005

In this book Amartya Sen deals with the great tradition of argumentation in India which flourished most during the reigns of Ashoka and Akbar due to the royal patronage it got. The argumentative heritage is an important asset, but its effectiveness depends on making proper use of it, and allowing its proper use. He rightly claims that acceptance of equality in our culture leans more towards acceptance (स्विकृती ) rather than recognition (मान्यता ). Acceptance implies that it can change from situation to situation and person to person. Even that has been waning of late.

Just like bad politicians are elected by good citizens who do not vote, many social evils are perpetuated by the silence of those whose voice can affect matters. It is seen at all levels, starting from small NGOs to the national level where well-trained pilots fall pray to tightlippedness. My own experience with small social organizations has reinforced my belief in the necessity of being vocal. Often because not enough of the other like-minded people are equally vocal, I do not succeed in my plans. But that is something one should be prepared for, and still continue being vocal. Be as logical as possible, try to take in as many circumstances and possibilities as possible, but always give your opinion on things that matter to you.

Hitguj is an interesting mixed example. Thanks to the mods and admin, it provides a platform for argumentation. Many users do not care about various matters so long as they can while away their time. Many others make use of the argumentative tradition to its full, if not beyond. While the good part is that the tradition is alive here, we do see that many prefer to stay tight lipped rather than argue. That is exactly what tilts the balance towards those who are more vocal. It is important to keep on saying what you feel is important no matter how futile it may seem in the face of opposite numbers. Their numbers are made because of those of us who do not stand up to be counted.


Silence may be golden, but argumentativeness rules.

on discretion

Discretion is not the better part of biography.
-Lytton Strachey (1880 - 1932), in Michael Holroyd Lytton, Strachey vol. 1 (1967)

In school we had an English lesson titled "Discretion is the better part of valour." That is a paraphrased version of what Falstaff says in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part One. Not being the adventurous type, I used to love it. I also fell in love with the above sentence when I saw it a few days back as it catches very well the fact that people present the lives of other people in a rather manipulative way.

Sometimes it is better to have discretion in what you say as in "you should always say the truth, but you do not have to say all the truth." Even in a biography, you may not want to go beyond facts as Laine did in fantasizing who Shivaji's biological father may be.

But if you claim you are presenting a biography then it is best to present all the facts and let the reader/viewer decide about it. When a documentary was made on "Cheaper by the dozen" they made fun of the family without showing the intent of the people. That was bad.

History is written by the victors. So they choose what to tell the public, and more importantly, what not to tell the public. Bhagat Singh was a brilliant person who sported a socialistic attitude and was very widely read in that subject. All you see about it in RDB was his closing a book titled Lenin when the jailor summons him. Of course RDB is not about him or about socialism, so an artistic license there is understandable. But even in text books, it is mentioned in passing and rarely are there teachers with a penchant for history who can tell the middle school students what socialism is and what it meant in pre-independence days when Russia was going strong.

A typical Hindi movie has many temple or mosque scenes. Ever wonder why there aren't any in the Bhagat Singh movies (they did have a couple in the older B&W one). That is because they at least try not to show what he was not. He was an atheist to the end*. He in fact gained his strength from his conviction about it. He fought for the country's freedom because he could not have done otherwise. Unlike some scenes shown, he never had any intention of leaving the jail as he knew his case would take their cause to the masses. The letter he wrote to his father makes that quiet clear. But you don't learn about any of these because "clearly" he was not a "model" son in that sense**. Here is one of my favourite Bhagat Singh quote: "Organised religion is the prop of a man who has not yet found his Self/God within".

Charvak's case is slightly different and hence interesting too. Charvaks are atheists and hence religious establishments were against them and did not let their literature survive***. So, it is the other religions that have saved their arguments against the first religion. Thus all their work is saved by third parties.

All records over long periods are thus a compendium of fact and fabrication. It is many times difficult to make out the difference. The good thing is that often you do not have to care.

* Brief note on Bhagat Singh
** Writings of Bhagat Singh (20 - also 26 for atheism)
*** Charvaks


Take history texts with more than a pinch of salt. Enjoy them, but keep your eyes on the future and learn from the present.

socialism versus capitalism?

I believe that only socialist man is truly human because only socialist man dominates things, while in other regimes, things dominate man.
-Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 - 1980)

It is not very well known that Karl Marx was well aware of the power of capitalism to break down barriers and that he knew that one day capitalism will win over socialism. He just wanted to delay it since the world did not seem to be ready for capitalism yet and because among other things national and religious boundaries would be overrun too*.

Socialism/communism/Marxism was adopted by a few Eastern block countries, it thrived there for a while, and crumbled partly due to the artificially rigid structure given to it and partly against the capitalistic forces of free trade. Countries like China, India and Brazil are reaping rich rewards of the globalised markets. Notice that these three countries are as different in their temperaments as can be. Yet, they are all gaining due to the flattening of the world. India as a country stands to advance through this process of openness.

Globalization is in fact a global process of socialism. Earlier only a few western countries controlled the wealth of earth. That is now spreading to many countries. It is not spreading to all countries just because the populace or leaders there are not taking the right steps e.g. some Islamic countries still choose to look at non-muslims as
infidels and would want to eliminate them rather than collaborate with them for mutual good.

True, the advantages of this globalization, socialism is not reaching all strata of our society (yet). But the raised standard of living of the select few who are benefiting does allow them to spend more and the benefit of that reaches other trades and occupations. Within the country too it becomes important for people to collaborate and open boundaries rather than look at their neighbors through tainted glasses. That will help everyone progress. Socialism is like utopia. You have to want to get there. You need to compete. You must need to want a car,
a new house, habits that you could only dream of earlier. Everyone must want that. Then we will approach the global socialist dream asymtotically (the beauty being that it will never be reached).

All this seems to contradict what Sartre says above about humans dominating things in a socialistic world. But what is important is to be able to buy things, but not be dominated by them. It is perhaps owing to such inherent contradictions and possible Utopian predicaments that many intellectuals turned towards socialism for a time and then turned away. These included such names as Sartre, Vinda Karandikar ** and Bhagat Singh.

In our current situation I will equate our local/regional governments to the anti-progress Islamic governments (e.g. they remain stuck in partisan politics for petty gains) and the muslim/christian haters in India to people in those countries who hate non-muslims. These are the people who seem to miss the bus, stay stuck in a rut and also try to pull others with them.

* From the Communist Manifesto, 1848
** See, for example, बहुपेडी विंदा by Vijaya Rajadhyaksha

Whether you choose to be a socialist or a capitalist (both are the same) try to be a humanist.

majority rules?

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.
-Michael Crichton (1942 - ), Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003

I recently found a very telling example of this in an article trying to separate Indians as Hindus and non-Hindus and trying to increase the social evil of superstition in Hindus by trying to glorify it.

QUOTE
Satya Sai Baba cannot have millions of disciples from the most humble to the Presidents of India without 'something' which is beyond superstition.
UNQUOTE

I have nothing against Satya Sai Baba here in particular but the notion that because millions of people, and their president, do something, it must be right. This is clearly an appeal to leave your own thinking backstage and move around intellectually naked. People are being told that they do not have to think for themselves, it has already been done for them. They can just go and watch the k-series on idiot boxes and be happy and take "Hindu"stan forward.

Even our own Sanskrit has a famous quote that people ignore when they say such things:
युक्तियुक्तं वचो ग्राह्यं बालादपि शुकादपि
युक्तिहीनं वचस्त्याज्यं व्रूध्हादपि शुकादपि


i.e. whatever is consistent with right reasoning should be accepted even if it comes from a boy or a parrot, and whatever is not, should be rejected even if it comes from an old man or the sage Suka himself.

Feynman had said that you should never repeat something someone has said unless you understand it yourself. He even said that one should be able to derive everything from first principles. That may be a tall task for mere mortals but we can at least take a vow not to aid superstitions by spreading second hand stories.

Especially now that any बाळु can write anything on a webapge we have to be wary in what we believe. We have to use our judgment.


Believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you read.

on the spirituality of science

Spirituality is the quest to know the place of our essence within the deep time of evolution and the deep space of the cosmos
-Michael Shermer, Scientific American, Dec 2005

Being spiritual is an in thing today if you note the number of Indian TV channels which start their day with this Baba or that just like the channels here start the morning by getting people to watch others exercising. In the US too many Indian (and other) movements have ample followers.

Spirituality is about the soul - about its origin. Getting to know the "creator" of our soul, of getting close to Her. Most people take this in a very theistic fashion. In his "skeptic" article Michael connects our ability to make, listen to and believe in extravagant claims about arbitrary things (including but not limited to Divine and Satanic encounters) to a large cortex coupled to a fertile imagination - both of which are clearly the outcome of a long evolutionary process.

Following Carl Sagan from Cosmos he then goes on to say how atheists can be (or, really, are) spiritual to the dot as they too are after origins, trying to decipher who we are and where we came from with an unwavering faith in the methodology they follow and answering all questions that are thrown at them.

In Sagan's words, it is a congregation of billions upon billions of atoms contemplating on exactly what made them conscious ... star stuff wondering about stars .... The important thing is that all assumptions get tested for their truthfulness with the bare minimum kept. One day we will get there. We all need to strive for it. We owe it to the ancient and vast cosmos wherefrom we have sprung.

Normally people keep their spirituality to themselves as they slowly advance in their quest. However, unfortunately, today there are so many spiritual sounding movements that are out there which are really after the blood of those who do not follow their methods - not literally, but practically. If one pauses for a moment and reflects upon it, one will realize how very anti-spiritual it is.


Be spiritual to the core. Let others practice their dharma too.

on recognising what freedom is

Freedom is the recognition of necessity
-Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), German social philosopher

Engels based his statement on Hegel's (1770-1831) philosophy that "in this world freedom presents itself under the shape of necessity." Both forms clearly tell us that if you want to be free, recognize what is necessary. Looking at it in the context of social reforms that are being debated in many places, one can see that if only one recognizes what we *really* need or should be doing, it will set us free.

In particular, when it comes to traditions, no matter how longstanding these are, if one asks the following questions: "do we need these traditions? Are they relevant for our lives?" and then based on the answer chooses to keep only those that survive, we will be able to live a fuller life. More importantly, we will be able to let others lead a more fuller life as well, since many traditions also affect people around us whether they like it or not.

Just like the traditions of "sati", "bal-vivah" are gone (legally) so also should many other which undervalue the life of others.


To be free, do only those things you can reason as being meaningful. More importantly, do not let others do unto you what you think is not meaningful.

on thinking about life

One must live the way one thinks or end up thinking the way one has lived.
-Paul Bourget (1852-1935) in 'Le Denom de midi' (1914)

Nature versus Nurture is a popular debate that goes on all the time in many different walks of life. Irrespective of nurture, every individual is unique with their own thoughts. Perhaps these are shaped by their nurture, yet they are distinct. For some it is possible to live according to their thoughts. For the rest it is also possible to do that. However they convince themselves that it is the situation that has the upper hand and they better bend down in front of these gales. Many even start believing that they like the kind of life they live. They in turn start affecting others around them with similar thoughts.

This process can be stopped by asking questions. Especially by questioning authority. Ask yourself if you are living the kind of life you really want to. Stand up and make changes if needed. The world does not care if you do not.

Mistakes may often be made in following this route, but it is through these variations that the world advances. Mutations are the spice of evolution, and mutative thinking is no exception.

It is okay to think wrongly, but important to think for yourself and take control of your life as you wish.

on programmed thinking

Once men turned their thinking over to machines in hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.
-Reverend Mother in Frank Herbert's Dune

While the statement is in the past for the fictitious year in which it is uttered, we are not yet at the stage where we have realized that trying to mechanize everything is not the answer to (life, universe and ) everything. It will work up to an extent, but not beyond a certain point.

Turing test, Godel's theorem all seem to be screaming at us that there is more to this world than pure logic (that does NOT mean it is emotion!). Things like identity thefts are but the tip of an iceberg. The spiraling wave of better encryption and more intelligent hacking will keep escalating until more non-mechanistic (fuzzy? probabilistic?) steps get incorporated. As our dependence on machines grows, we will start having to do everything in C++ in stead of Perl i.e. declare everything, make it strongly typed and completely non-intuitive. Human thinking will get encased in narrow dimensions.

That also reminds of what Arno Penzias, the Nobel Laurette once said: If you do not want to be replaced by a machine, do not act like one. One's mentality does get narrowed down to thinking down to the level of machines (but not at their speed) and gets frozen there.

Every now and then do random acts (of kindness). Try not to live a life that is run by the clock (among other machines).

on being dictated laws

Good men should not obey the law too well
-Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1872)

Emerson has managed to put here very succinctly a tongue-in-cheek remark I like to make every once in a while: if rules were not supposed to be broken, they would have been natural laws. But of course Emerson being what he was, in a sentence of the same length he has managed to also qualify it by saying who should break laws (good people) and, more importantly, when (not always, nor when it suits them, but when it is clear that the law is counter to the overall "good").

In a limited way, the law does have such provisions (e.g. citizen's arrest). It has a long tradition starting right from manusmriti which is a huge web of rules and exceptions. But this is meant more in the sense of "Civil disobedience" that Thoreau preached (and practiced). It was from there that Mahatma Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King drew their inspiration.

The written word (or the spoken word) is not above everything, especially not above a good purpose.

Feyn achievements

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there.
-Richard Feynman (1918-1988), in a letter to Armando Garcia J,
December 11, 1985

This quote is seen on the commemorative envelope released along with the Richard Feynman stamp on May 20. (The stamps are currently available at post offices across the US. Be sure to get your copy). Dick Feynman, undoubtedly the most brilliant physicist in the second half of the 20th century, makes it quiet clear as to how much we understand the universe.

A similar sentiment is expressed in the following quote:
As the radius of the sphere of our knowledge grows,
so does its contact with the unknown.

However, many people confuse these humble statements to mean that we know nothing about the workings of the universe. THAT is certainly not true. With the discoveries made on each passing day, we have been learning a lot and have been gradually strengthening our basics. Though an individual may not learn much in a life-time, there is amazing power in collective and cooperative ventures. Scientific studies provide a wonderful model for documenting and sharing our knowledge/work so that we all can forge ahead in whatever our domain.


No matter where you stand, remember that there are still miles to go.
At the same time trust the miles that have been covered.

on behaviour - belief connection

You can see the other fellow's behaviour, [but] cannot see his beliefs.
-George Polya, in Induction and Analogy in Mathematics

Polya is amazing at explaining something like Math which many think is one of the most complicated anything that anyone has created. His book "How to solve it" (which later triggered the unrelated but reasonably good "How to solve it by computer") is a must read. He asks (or makes you ask) questions like: Have you seen a similar problem before? Can you break it down? Are there any parallel situations? And so on.

He brings in the study of animal behaviour in the study of analogy: Experience modifies human behaviour as well as human beliefs. Both are related. While behaviour is manifest, beliefs are not.

This has become truer today when most people change masks as they would change clothes. Masks mask - or try to mask - behaviour. But underlying beliefs can not change so frequently. It is important to see through these bahaviours. Often beliefs are directly related to intentions. Watch for behaviour and you could guess what the underlying intentions could be.

So, instead of: never judge a person until you have walked in his moccasins for a mile, one may want to rephrase it.

Never judge a person's beliefs (or intentions) until you have analyzed his behaviour (and even then you could be wrong)

on life

Life! Don't talk to me about life!
-Marvin, the paranoid android, in Douglas Adams' Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy

Marvin is a robot, the first one to be given a human personality (GPP - Genuine People Personality). It is no wonder that he does not think very highly of life, or of humans who are clearly intellectually inferior to him. He brings that out time and again in a series of equally tactless ways earning him the "middle name" paranoid.

Life, loathe it or ignore it, you can't like it.

I won't enjoy it.

Wearily on I go, pain and misery my only companions. And vast intelligence, of course. And infinite sorrow. I despise you all.

Despite that he is a lovable character. Or may be he is lovable because of that. He has summarized the very essence of life so beautifully! Often we are full of life, and then before we know something seeps it out of us. Life is proceeding smoothly and all of a sudden the rug gets pulled. If not today, tomorrow. But we experience this sentiment several times before physical life gets seeped out. Poor Marvin, he stands no such chance.

Life is what we make of it.

on understanding nonsense

I could not trust one who could understand nonsense
-Nessus, the puppeteer, in Larry Niven's Ringworld

Nessus says this when Luis says that he does not believe in telepathy or some such superstition. Puppeteer's are ultimate cowards surviving due solely to their survival instincts. How right he is about trust and its dependence on one's ability to believe nonsense (or put otherwise, ones gullibility).

There are so many of us who learn one thing in books, use it to earn daily bread and then get out of the workplace and trust all kinds of rubbish without, for a moment, using the principles learnt and trying to test the truth in the rubbish (thanks for this angle Anu).

Unfortunately, it is the deceivers who are learning the scientific lingo and using it in a very subtle manner to in fact make the gullible believe that what they are being told is science (sometimes ancient, and sometimes even timeless).

It is important especially for the young amongst us to see where they take this world.

Keep your mind open, but also your eyes, and think things for yourselves

out of context

God does not play dice with the Universe
-Albert Einstein

This is an oft quoted statement which was originally in Deutsch (but of course):
Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, dass _der_ nicht würfelt.
[At any rate, I am convinced that _He_ [God] does not play dice.]
---Einstein, Letter to Max Born, 4 December 1926 in _Einstein und Born Briefwechsel_ (1969) p. 130

In the context of the letter, it is thought better to translate it is:
God may be subtle, but He is not malicious.

Einstein's photoelectric effect which won him the Noble prize was one of the cornerstones of the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. However, Einstein did not like the probabilistic interpretation of QM (uncertainty principle).

For that he (and Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen) gave the world the EPR paradox which, as a quirk of fate, allowed Bell and Aspect to in fact prove that our universe is indeed run by probabilities (or quantum entanglement or stuff like that) and that Einstein was in fact wrong.

Einstein struggled through the second half of his life to eliminate the uncertainty from QM but never could.

Theists often use his statement to underline his belief in God. However, Einstein was an atheist and the use of the word God was only in a proverbial sense:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

-Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein's secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press

It is unfortunate that statements made by great minds are quoted out of context and used by people for their own purposes.

Also, many of the great minds were great when the bodies that held those minds were young. But age and beliefs catch up, and the statement that Einstein made reflects more his beliefs about how the universe runs than how science believes it does. So, even if it comes from one of the greatest minds from the last century, it is something that most rational, scientific minds reject.

The following applies to many of our personal and day-to-day situations too.

Try to understand the context in which statements are made, as also the mental make of the person making it when it is made

does blogging need a reason?

[When I started blogging] I felt like a mosquito arriving at a nudist camp - not knowing where to start. There is so much to be written.

But never look a gift horse in the mouth (if you do not know thats because you can say how pure the breed of a horse is by examining its teeth). So I decided not to let there be any teething troubles and quickly fired off two salvos.

I know that like so many other bahaddars, the pace here will slacken as well. The race ka ghoda will start trotting, and stumbling. But I will try to get back every now and then and type my thoughts on this and that.

Anyway, that brings me to the quote of the blurb (as I henceforth - at least temporarily - christian these, as Jay would call them, thingies):

If you do not believe my words,
You should not believe my silence
-Ashish Mahabal aka aschig

(So many people are ready to believe
your silence, but not your words).

This was prompted by
(1) seeing the picture of the famous roaring Niagara falls with the following quote:
If you do not understand my silence,
you will not understand my words
and,
(2) seeing too many gullible people and too many overcautious people (incidentally both creeds share the amazing quality that they fear the compassionate God).

So, for those who do not believe my words, even if you do not see any new postings from me (equivalent to my silence), you should not believe the silence and assume I have posted something and not believe THAT and ... (I lost track).

PS: I recently read Ray Bradbury's "Zen in the art of writing" and decided its a worthy thing to experiment (and since I have guinea horses, I took the bait). Read the book. Its great.

Write at least a page a day (well, may be a page a week).

on protecting fools

Gods do not protect fools.
Fools are protected by more capable fools.
-Luis in Larry Niven's Ringworld

This is another sentence which took a few minutes to register. But once it gets into you, you can not forget it. It seems to be analogous to the The Peter principle formulated by Laurence J. Peter which states: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence." Larry of course goes one step ahead and states why that is so.

The incompetence is patronized by the clients - us. Various social evils are a direct consequence including, but not limited to bribery.

Whenever you let go a foolishness under the name of compassion or whatnot, you are being a greater fool. A positive and gentle criticism may go a longer way in avoiding further foolishnesses.

By no means should you be not forgiving or protecting. Just ensure it does not lead to a higher order foolishness.

BTW, Ringworld is a wonderful sci-fi novel.

timelessness

The times came as a result of a particular human culture.
The timeless came as a result of any human culture at all.
-Walter M Miller, JR, in The Darfstellar

I came across the sentence above in a science fiction story. It took me a few minutes to understand what was being said. But once I did understand it, I spent several minutes marveling at how accurately it captures the history of humankind.

Look at any of the movements we have seen: Hippie, Hare Krishna to name two diverse ones. Like a meme jumping from one brain to another, such movements quickly gather followers, but in a few years just join the ranks of other cults. That is true with fashions too: minis, and balds, and hair colors, and piercings, and what not. Different fashions belong to different cultures and are a sign of those times (and regions). Partly these are driven by peer pressure.

On the other hand are the features of humanity that transcend all cultures and regions. These can be said to include love, hatred, and basic needs for survival. But also the love of knowledge, curiosity and such.

When we look at happenings around us, we are generally able to analyze them based on the criterion above: their timelessness. If an issue does not seem to be timeless (i.e. has its relevance only over a few years or decades) it is likely to be of limited importance. I would put most feuds in this section. Especially those perpetuated by peoples who enclose themselves in artificial geographic boundaries, or hide behind Gods of small causes.

Be purposeful.
Let at least part of that purposefulness be timeless.