'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.

Problem solved.

There is this interesting thing that came to me today. The thought was of replacing the word 'quality' in Pirsig's metaphysics by 'consciousness'. Pirsig says that everything can be called a pattern of quality. I say everything in this world can be called 'consciousness'. There it is. Finally, Pirsig meets Vedanta.
Now if quality of Pirsig is the same as consciousness of Vedanta, then there should be two types of consciousness - static consciousness and dynamic consciousness. Dynamic consciousness is at the cutting edge of the knife. It determines what path consciousness takes.
With this world view I tried hard to figure out what should be our purpose in life. After a while it all got lost in ambiguity. The problem is that when I tried, I could not define what is life in the first place. If the distinction between living and non-living is not clear, then how can we determine what direction life, or for that matter anything should take?
Pirsig and Pyrrho come to my rescue here. I will discuss Pyrrho first. Pyrrho was a skeptic. And I find his concepts more suited to my nature. I think deeply about any issue and even if there is a single proof against an assumption, I will not adopt it. And here lies the problem. Most initial assumptions will always have at least one argument against it. According to skepticism, everything is ambiguous and hence the inability to make that initial assumption is but natural and not one's fault.
And hence, using reason alone, one can never form a metaphysics. And hence I am back to the same conclusion that I made some time back. Dump reason in the bin, when you are working on that first assumption. That first assumption is the 'seed crystal' (the concept of seed crystal is courtsey Prisig) from which the whole metaphysics is derived. And hence assumption ZERO (before the first) is that the 'first assumption' is whatever you like.
An interesting tangent from assumption 'ZERO' is that what you like is dependent on what you are, and what you are is dependent your genes, upbringing, experiences etc etc. Thus though what you like is something you decide, it is mostly predecided. Hence if you do not chose your metaphysics, do not derive your own philosophy, and do not control your own actions, how is it that you are responsible for your actions.
The fact is that the whole concept of 'responsibility' is also a ghost of one's mind. There was no 'responsibility' before humans evolved. And hence, to get bogged down by something that is nothing but a few electrical signals in the mind would be stupid. But stupidity was something which did not exist before humans arrived. Stupidity is relative. An intelligent person considers a lesser intelligent person stupid. If this intelligent person comes across a person more intelligent, he/she will be the stupid.
I will leave the tangent there for now, as tangent is a line and it can go on forever. So I make assumption ZERO because the cosmic play has caused me to do so. You are now in the vicinity of the Bhagwad Gita. From assumption ZERO I derive my first assumption that all there is, is consciousness. Why? Because it like it. Why? Because the cosmic play causes me to do so. Why? No one knows. Go ask the cosmos if you can. But as Vedanta says, it is the sport of the Brahman, the pure consciousness. Which means for no reason whatsoever.
There we go. Now we have a solid base to stand on. Now we can go ahead and embrace Vedanta and the Bhagwad Gita. Now we can look at others, who have differing philosophies, with indifference. It is the same cosmos that has caused them that has caused me. It is the same Brahman that is them that is me. I am them. They are me. There there. Problem solved.

Religion (an old write-up that I forgot to post)

There have been things that have happenned around me lately which have clogged the mind and the ability to think clearly has been lost. The last few days Pradnya has been reading to me a realistic version of Ramayan (my Hindi reading is awful). My thinking is still muddled, but like any new thing, it has made me wonder the relevance of the form of religion we follow today.

It takes me back to the line of thought that I had been following a few months back. There is a concept in computers called 'legacy system'. The following is a description of 'legacy system' by wikipedia.

"A legacy system is an old computer system or application program that continues to be used because the user (typically an organization) does not want to replace or redesign it. Legacy systems are considered to be potentially problematic by many software engineers (for example, see Bisbal et al., 1999) for several reasons. Legacy systems often run on obsolete (and usually slow) hardware, and sometimes spare parts for such computers become increasingly difficult to obtain. These systems are often hard to maintain, improve, and expand because there is a general lack of understanding of the system; the staff who were experts on it have retired or forgotten what they knew about it, and staff who entered the field after it became "legacy" never learned about it in the first place. This can be worsened by lack or loss of documentation. Integration with newer systems may also be difficult because new software may use completely different technologies.

Despite these problems, organizations can have compelling reasons for keeping a legacy system, such as:
The costs of redesigning the system are prohibitive because it is large, monolithic, and/or complex. The system requires close to 100% availability, so it cannot be taken out of service, and the cost of designing a new system with a similar availability level is high. The way the system works is not well understood. Such a situation can occur when the designers of the system have left the organization, and the system has either not been fully documented or such documentation has been lost. The user expects that the system can easily be replaced when this becomes necessary. The system works satisfactorily, and the owner sees no reason for changing it; or in other words, re-learning a new system would have a prohibitive attendant cost in lost time and money, compared to the anticipated appreciable benefits of replacing it (which may be zero). If legacy software runs on only antiquated hardware, the cost of maintaining the system may eventually outweigh the cost of replacing both the software and hardware unless some form of emulation or backward compatibility allows the software to run on new hardware."

I find most religions are 'legacy systems'. Antiquated systems of beliefs and customs, which were perfect for their times and since have long lost their relevance. Our understanding of the world and social structure is akin to the hardware. While there is a need to start from scratch, there has been a huge investment in terms of money, effort and lives on these systems and doing so will make it irrelavent. The difference is that while most people believe that the legacy systems are obsolete and should be replaced and do not because they are compelled to by monetary considerations, most people in the world have not realised that the religious beliefs that they so passionately adhere to are outdated. Many software professionals who have little idea of how the legacy systems work, spend years writing code to somehow make it still useful. This is very similar to people who have tried hard to reinterpret religious texts, stories or even history to reflect the current realm of knowledge.

Immanuel Kant said that the idea of God is important from a moral perspective. He is said to have supported the idea that if there is no proof of the existence of God, we might need to invent one, because the world would be immoral if it did not believe in God and fairness. It is the fear of hell and the desire for heaven that can only make a man moral according to quite a few philosophers.

I hope that the legal systems of the world could suffice for this purpose, but the practitioners of this art are at most times are most immoral.

Back to Pirsig

I have picked up Pirsig again. Lila this time. It is like meeting a good old friend. There is a sense of predictability, but it is not boring.

I think there is something in the concept of friendship. Even the people we hate have good friends. It just proves that we all look for something different. We can not force ourselves to befriend someone. It just comes from within. It is just what we are.

And I like Pirsig. And Swami Parthasarathy of course. I met Swami Parathasarathy a couple of years back in Perth and attended his talks. Wasn't quite impressed with him. But I like his book on Vedanta. Once you get past the preachy style it does present some interesting concepts. And I like these concepts. They make me think. They make me feel better. And hence I am not quite sure whether I would like Pirsig as a person. But his ideas, I do.

I tried reading Amartya Sen. Read 'Argumentative Indian', 'Identity and Violence' and started reading 'The Idea of justice'. The first two were interesting. The third is a bit tiring. The style of writing is very academic. The purpose is to be correct and seem objective. There are many places in the book when you feel 'Ok, is that all what you want to say? You could have said it in lesser words, simpler sentences and an interesting manner'. But that is what academic writing is all about. No wonder academicians scorn at Pirsig.

But Amartya Sen did not make me think or make me feel better. He did not make me write something on my blog. Pirsig did. And I have just read 30 odd pages of Lila.