Brexit and other things.

Brexit

UK is going through the buyer's remorse or rather the decision maker's remorse after the Brexit referendum. The decision seems patently wrong (if the experts are to be believed) and it is very tempting to point it out as a limitation of democracy. It is important to understand that democracy is the best system humans have invented and the ability to self correct is its biggest strength. Blaming the demographic who voted for 'leave' is easy, but who doesn't make wrong decisions in their life (if we assume for a momen that the decision is wrong). I guess, we need to let democracy and the ability of people to assess their understanding of the world and as a result change their decision, take its course. I guess democracy is way better than the rule of organized religions where the scope of analysis and self correction way limited. 

Other things

A few days back I made the attempt to explain Advaita Vedanta (AV) in a half written draft blog which I will probably never publish. It was purely an exercise to figure out whether I had understood it. I used the self-invented 'Conception-Death' analogy (CDA) and the 'wave' analogy (WA). The CDA is simply that whatever was present at 'conception' and isn't at 'death' is you. 'That' is manifested consciousness. 'You are that' (Tat Tvamasi). WA in its pure form says that the wave is akin to the manifested consciousness while the overall cosmic consciousness is akin to the ocean. The wave is the ocean. The WA covers the second statement of AV - 'I am Brahman' (Aham Brahmasmi). Interestingly I took ages to come to the CDA and WA as the essence of AV and it only occurred to me as I write the blog that they correspond perfectly well with the two profound statements of AV. Reinventing the wheel, eh?

I now find myself in the position of a person who has just won a massive lottery and has not idea how to spend the money. Because winning the lottery doesn't give you a clue about what to do with the money. I can let my limited brain try and figure it out and eventually reach a conclusion which probably has been preached for thousands of years, or show some gumption and try the methods being suggested by the brains-trust of AV, who have invented various ways of living the AV way. The brains-trust is in no way unanimous about their conclusions and therefore it is slightly harder to decide who to follow. The best way is to probably adopt the common methods which your brain agrees with too and prod your brain to work through the rest of the methods. 

The teacher who has probably best helped me take that final bridge towards a clear understanding of AV is FH and it is might not be a bad idea after all to give FH a chance to help me live the AV way. AV way is not easy. A lot of AV way is trying to beat the intuition and the natural inclination of the mind. You are trying to row against a strong current and if your muscles are not stronger you get tired pretty quickly. Most important is that it is not fun. And most importantly (again) if it is not your natural tendency to persist, it is pretty hard to keep rowing. But rowing you must. Because there is no other way. If the muscles get tired rest and keep going. If it gets boring, and your brain seeks interesting short term pleasures, let your brain enjoy them for a short while and then keep rowing again. It takes a while for the brain to enjoy the boredom or enjoy the rowing. There probably is a destination, probably not. I don't know. The rowing might get easier as I develop some muscles and the brain might eventually find the rowing more addictive than the little pleasures. 

The question that often distracts me from the AV way is the 'WHY?'. Unfortunately the question has been strongly embedded in my brain since childhood by my grandfather, along with a strong skepticism about everything, I am quite incapable of motivating myself to whole heartedly pursue pretty much anything. I guess in this case I might have to at least give the brains trust a chance. And I mean a really good chance. In the words of Morpheus 'You take the blue pill and the story ends- you wake up in bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes'. I guess I need to take the red pill. 

first blog with my keyboard.

Just bought a new Microsoft bluetooth keyboard for the IPad. My first blog with the new keyboard. Heaps better than laptop. 

One day

One day, out of the blue, life taps me on the shoulder, and tells me to pause. And when I look around I see nothing but beauty. But then I look at the time and get on with whatever I am supposed to do. And it all disappears, as quicly as it had appeared. Reminded me of Leisure by W.H. Davies - What is life if full of care, we have no time to stand and stare.

Absolute morality

Philosophical skepticism is an extreme where no stand is valid. It leaves you in a permanently suspended state. The skepticism I have been thinking about is more a practical one. A skepticism which allows you to take a stand and then defend it. It allows you to do whatever you like. It takes away the burden of right and wrong.

All it says is that because nothing is right, everything is wrong. And because nothing is wrong, everything is right. Any kind of morality is based on assumptions which in turn are based on your choices.

Common sense and acceptable current norms determines the morality of the day. Absolute morality does not exist. Therefore guilt is an emotion of fools.

Losing ideas

A philosophy has to stand on its feet. It need not depend on the person who propounds it. If an assumption need be made, the assumption should be the most credible and best suitable option. And that is why Vedanta makes sense. When you read through the pages of the 'Vedanta treatise' by Swami Parathasarathy, you wince sometimes at the simplicity and naiveness of the ideas. Nevertheless, in all, it gives a good idea of the philosophy.

But a philosophy in a book is worthless, unless it translates into thought and action. And this is where I fail. I have the right ideas, but fail to act on them. Actually, it has been such a while since I spent some real time thinking, that I have even forgotten the ideas. Ideas of how 'Aggressive Good' needs to be achieved, and how only the 'Right' needs to be upheld. I have forgotten that in order to strengthen intellect, you need to work on it. That in order to strengthen the body, you need to work on it. And both of these are key to my existence. And I have forgotten that.

Argument from morality and existence of God

Wikipedia says

In its most general form, the moral argument is that:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. (Moral realism)

2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.

3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives

Basically, the argument for the existence of God is that “If there is no God, there are no morals”. Or in other words, “If there is no God, everything is permissible”. For me, it is akin to saying that if there was no police and legal system we would live in a chaotic and a lawless society. Which means that people abide by the laws, merely because they are afraid of being punished. When I first read it I thought this was a very cynical view of humanity.

I believe that a majority of the people majority of the time know what the law is and abide by it, irrespective of whether someone is watching over them. That definitely does not preclude the importance and role of the police force. There is still a small minority who do not understand the importance of upholding the law, or even if they do, break the law anyway. We need the police, so that what is generally understood as lawful by the society is enforced.

There is a difference between laws and morals. I think, the legal system is an interpretation and implementation of morality. When a car dealer or a real estate agent lies to the customer to sell a car or a property, it isn’t illegal, unless it is written. No one can hold them accountable for it. But, it is still not what the society believes is moral behaviour.

The question is, how do you enforce morality. A democratic society gives a person right to choose to whether or not believe in God. The parallels in the legal system is giving people a right to choose to stay within the legal system. This will allow people to opt out of the legal system. When such a person commits an unlawful act, the legal system can not hold him accountable, because, he/she did not accept the validity of the legal system in the first place.

I am in no way suggesting that belief in God should be made mandatory. I was an atheist 12 years ago, but I had a good idea of what was moral and I lived by it. On the other hand, I know people who would seem to strong believers in God, but wouldn’t mind accepting bribes. I think they believe it to be either less immoral, or even completely moral, and hence not punishable by God. If we allow people to decide what is moral and what is not, the line between the both will eventually completely disappear.

Law requires evidence, and law can not be everywhere. Moreover, the legal system can not ensure morality. But neither can religion, unless there is a clear and rigid set of moral codes and everyone is bound by their belief in a God who rewards adherence to these codes and punishes any straying away from them. Moreover, define these laws as being passed down by God, and it kills any argument against them. This is what dogmatic religion is all about, and this is a bigger problem. What happens when our understanding of the world changes, and what is truly evident goes against this very religious dogma? No, that isn’t acceptable as well.

What we need is belief in a democratic God. Morality is determined by majority, which takes into consideration any changes that might occur as a result of an improvement in our understanding of the world. God can be given the role of enforcing this morality. That seems to me the best solution to this morality argument. The solution is to create a belief in a God who enforces the moral code of conduct determined by humans.

'TAT TVAMASI' & 'AHAM BRAHMASMI'

The above two statements represent the metaphysical basis of all Indian thought. Some days back I found myself looking at the Bhagwad Gita and wondering whether it is really as divine as it is claimed to be. I had concluded that, like the Quran and the Bible, the Bhagwat Gita was a book written around 200 yrs ago (may be even more) and finding it relevant to our lives today, and that too in totality, would be too much to ask for. There will always be parts in it which you will not agree with.

An example of the forms of government might be appropriate here. Democracy, communism, dictatorship, theocracy or monarchy are all different forms of government, each with its own set of pros and cons. Another relevant conflict is the one between capitalism and socialism and which one is a better society. I think this conflict should be resolved on a case by case basis. Different systems suit different countries. Different systems suit the same country at different times. Different systems suit different people in the same country at the same time. And we can go on endlessly. Hence, it would be futile to argue that one system is exclusively and in totality suitable for a group of people would be inappropriate. Hence I guess, most democratic countries have two parties: a left leaning party and a right leaning party.

So now we again find ourselves in ambiguity, wherein there is no single magic pill for the whole world. This is why the Vedantic interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita is better. It does not challenge this ambiguity. It tries to work around it. I am sure similar attempts have been made regarding the interpretation of the Bible and the Quran, but they find themselves hard to present as a philosophy for today times, because of the absoluteness and exclusiveness of truth that these books propagate. But more importantly they challenge and contradict that system of belief and knowledge which is widely accepted today as truth –SCIENCE.

This is precisely why the two statements succeed. They present a construction of the world that does not challenge this ambiguity. Moreover, they provide a metaphysical basis to derive our philosophy from. And most importantly they do not contradict science. All they tell you is that everything is God, or nature, or universe, or whatever you may call it. It brushes aside the “theism vs. atheism vs. agnosticism” debate by not necessitating the existence of a conscious God or Creator, a belief which goes against the objective evidence based understanding of the world that is science.

Thus if everything is God, so are you. That you see as distinct from you is God too. Hence ‘you’ and ‘that’ is same. Hence You are That (TAT TVAMASI) and You are God (AHAM BRAHMASMI).

The ‘big bang theory’ (not the TV program) is today considered, by most scientists, to be the best cosmological model of the evolution of the universe. If it were to be believed, then everything must have originated from one source. If that source itself became the universe, the creator and the creation are same. Everything that we see around is that creation, and also the creator. Thus we all are the creation and hence the creator too. We all are God. We all are different manifestations of God.

The concept of the big bang and the universe’s evolution are recent additions to human knowledge. Vedanta had a similar concept which it explained with the dream analogy. It can still be used to explain to people who are not quite acquainted with science. Let us take an example of a dream. One night I dream that I am walking in a garden. Now the garden is not separate from me. It can not exist without my mind. The kids playing in the garden, the trees, the swings, the grass, the birds the couple walking hand in hand, everything is me. If I dream that I am speaking to people, the people are me. Though I see everything distinct from me in my dream, it is still me.

Thus, I am both the creation and the creator. At least a part of it. Is there a conscious God that listens to us? May be there is. We try hard, but there are still many manifestations of the universe we are ignorant about. So maybe, one of these manifestations is a conscious God. I think it is all based on personal need and experience. If you have experienced a conscious God and you need this belief of a conscious God, then this conscious God exists for you. If not, then it doesn’t.

I have experienced a conscious God in my own way, and it can be argued against. But I believe in my experience. And I am not ashamed to say that I need this belief. I also have been through a phase where I have felt the need for this belief but I did not have an experience to support this belief. I being a firm believer of evidence based understanding, rather than solely faith based understanding, found myself incapable of just believing. But now I have both.

Hence, the Vedantic concept is the most conducive for me. It neither contradicts my belief in a conscious God, nor does it challenge my belief in science. I guess at some point in life one has to make a choice on which philosophy to follow. Some use tradition to make that decision, while some reason and/or emotion. My choice is partly based on tradition (being from India), experience, reason and belief in evidence based scientific understanding of the world.

Indian scriptures are massive pieces of literature and people over the years have lent their own interpretations of them. I think that’s why a basis in some philosophical inclination is necessary to begin the study of scriptures, if one choses to do so. Because it is these mental inclinations which determine our understanding of these scriptures, or for that matter the whole world. Hence a background of Vedantic way of thinking is important for me before I proceed to study any of our scriptures. I don’t think though that I will really study many of these scriptures in detail. It would be futile to study ancient books, when there is new knowledge being developed everyday. But I will definitely try to adopt the Vedantic approach in my life. Because I am made that way.