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).
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Friday, October 20, 2006
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.
-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.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
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"
-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"
Saturday, October 07, 2006
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.
-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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
