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.

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.

Today I have decided

Today I have decided
To dream no more....
To not let my mind dwell in the past or future...
To learn to be able to walk away from things that I desire...
To not find faults with people...
To not blame anyone for their actions...
To not let emotions cloud my judgement...
To nurture emotions which help me make the right choices...
To remind myself again that we are all but slaves of our nature...
That key is to free oneself from this nature...
To accept the frailities and fickleness of life...
To replace hate, anger, frustration with indifference...
To act with purpose not expectation...
To trust my judgement, to respect my choices...
Today I have decided to live life...
The way I think it should be...

Beliefs

I was reading an essay by Bertrand Russel and one of the assumptions he destroys is that people who are not very knowledgeable think that they have little idea about the world around them. On the contrary, these very people have a detailed set of beliefs which gives a structure to their world. They have a rain God who causes rain, the sun God which gives light, the moon God which gives light at night etc. etc.

There are people who do not see the pattern that these people see in the world. I guess the more mentally capable have a different structure that defines their world. Their need is much more than mere material. God, Reality, consciousness, Nature, Purpose, Cause and Effect - the list of mental constructions to give more structure to and hence more control on our world for them can go on and on.

And all these constructions are based on our need. There are people in this world, who only need good material things and their mental constructions of the world that they observe very much satisfy that need. So they create a God who takes care of the things around them that they can not control, and all they have to do is to pray once a day. They believe that doing what they do is the right thing, by word of God, at most times spoken by some spritual Guru they worship, and doing it will take them closer to their God. They have assigned moral value to loving their family, city and country, mostly in that order. I often find that a Guru or a teacher should be a facilitator in helping people think. I guess when we believe in whatever the guru says, it becomes the outsourcing of the highest order, where we have allowed someone else to do the thinking for us.

That was a slightly different tangent, but what I want to assert here is that most people will not essentially accept that their life is nothing but a random collection of molecules on a random planet in a random solar system in a random galaxy in the universe. This thought is quite depressing. But rather than 'depression' being the cause many people don't quite know world beyond the work that they do and the society that they live in. So experts might get quite frustrated at why do people who know little about about climate and care less to accept what the experts say about the way we are damaging our environment. After all they are experts and these people are ignorant fools. Shouldn't fools be listening to experts? Hardly do the experts realise that how inconvenient it is to for them to accept what they are saying. I find it quite frustrating talking to a devout people, about the inconsistencies in the their religous books, which were written a few centuries ago, at a time when our awareness of the world was a minute fraction of what it is now. But, the experts should view this problem in a different way as I found out in my interactions with deeply religious people. It is not that the devout do not see the inconsistencies, they do not want to see them.

I often say that every one has the right to be happy. And in their pursuit of happiness they make assumptions about the world and themselves which makes their life worth living and more happy. For example, armymen are often made to believe that they are morally and socially better than any civilian, including the politicians, because they are serving their nation, and it motivates them to even risk their lives. Terrorists are totally convinced about their version of the world where God has chosen them to fight the infidels for Him and if they do eventually die they will be taken care of in heaven. And at times when I find myself quite frustrated with my meaningless life, I often convince myself that there isn't meaning to life anyway and if there are people who think there is, they have only made assumptions and hence what they think is not essentially true. So if I seem to be wasting my life, so is the Prime Minister of India.

But all these beliefs are extremely important, because without them we would not be able take a step in any direction. I can still use skepticism to show that moving in a direction might not be in anyway better than not moving at all, but if disproving everything is good, then we are stuck in a situation where we can disprove the good in the policy of disproving everything. I mean skepticism can be turned on to itself. So what is good is what makes you feel better. If that is the case what right do we have to object to others beliefs. They are after all beliefs that make them feel better. If they are wrong aren't we guilty too?

Another view on Slumdog Millionaire...

I haven't seen the movie but every day I read about a raging debate on its potrayal of India. Most Indians are irritated that the movie shows everything that is worst in India. And what is the chance that it all happens to one person? They say it is not a balanced view. I have a slightly different perspective.
Will start with an excerpt from rediff.com

Shyam Benegal [Images], veteran film maker who is credited as the pioneer of art house cinema in India refuses to take sides and says "I have not seen the film but answering the question from a theoretical point of view, as a foreign director filming in India, Danny would view his surroundings as a foreigner would and that is natural."
"Richard Attenborough made a film on Gandhi in 1982 and it went onto win eight Oscars; I too made a film on Gandhi but it did not get that sort of response. That is because Attenborough could place Gandhi in a cultural context that could be easily understood by a western audience," Benegal says.
"But an Indian film made by an Indian director is different because he brings a completely different perspective to the table, one that might not be well understood by a foreign audience," Benegal told PTI.

Benegal has put it perfectly. We keep complaining about west's potrayal of India but forget movies like 'Purab aur Paschim' or even 'Pardes' which were both immensely successful, and I believe even won awards in India. I haven't heard of an American or a British complaining of these movies showing the western culture in a bad light. Up until Aamir Khan started taking some real actors from the west and giving them some real roles, most goras in Indian films were dumb side-kicks (Remember the 'hawa hawai' song from Mr. India). Tom Alter made a career playing such roles, speaking Hindi in a so called British accent. I also don't hear the Americans or British complaining when our directors make movies 'inspired' from hollywood movies. But the minute some guy uses a part of an Indian song, our fat music director complains. The reason is the west doesn't care about what we think of them.

My point is, why do we care about what they think of us? India churns out more films than hollywood. More people watch Indian films than they watch hollywood films. Indian economy is doing well. Indian army is one of the strongest in the world. Indian cricket board has more money than any other cricket board. Indian cricket team among the top teams. Then, why be defensive? The only thing that our irritation at this western potrayal of India shows is, as my wife would say, our lack of confidence. India is now among dominant forces in the world. It is high time it should start feeling like one.

Love

I wrote this blog some time back, but did not post it. Thought I might as well do it now.

I sometimes find the term 'innocent civilians' naive. I mean, if India is waging a war against the believers of a certain ideology, your Indian identity makes you a participant in the war. It is the taxes you pay that are being spent on the army which is fighting against them and this gives them right to try to kill you. They call it a war of civilisations, I call it a war of ideologies (the difference being people and ideas). Religious freedom vs religious fundatamentalism. Freedom of speech and thought vs adherence to a single ideology. Love of life as we know it vs contempt for it. And we all are soldiers in this war.

Long time back I posted on my blog that reason can not answer everything, and emotion or personal likes and dislikes, are a major determinant of ones decisions. It was a major milestone for me because until then I had been made to believe that reason or intellect is the end all of human thought. I have since not been able to write anything worthwhile.

My point is that one can argue for argument sake about different ideologies and religions to prove which is better. Ultimately the decision we have to make is which ideology appeals to us. Hence our motivation can not stem from the fact that we are right, because that is impossible to prove, but simply from our love for an idea. I love the idea that I get to determine the course of my country by voting. I love the idea of being able to protest and make my voice be heard when my government does something I dont agree with. I love the freedom of thought, expression and belief that a democracy offers me. And love needs no reason. I love my wife and I don't care about proving that she is better than anyone else.

And quite similar to us, the terrorists too love an ideology. The belief that one's life has a purpose which is higher than fulfilling the daily needs of oneself and family, is intoxicating enough to die for. We too need to be intoxicated by our love for our beliefs and rather than be 'innocent civilians' we should all be 'active soldiers', not weilding guns, but armed with our zeal to protect and nourish our idea of a good life. Not by shooting people but by being socially active to make our opinion count. Because, by not having an opinion at all against terrorism or being ambivalent in our views, we are actually being complicit in terrorism. Hence people who died in Mumbai during the three day hiest, were martyrs for one cause or the other.

Seeing the way the whole of India came together after the attacks, and the way different countries are standing behind India, it is heartening to know that people do stand for what they love.

Moment

It always happens in a single moment. Suddenly you see things clearly. The fog of confusion dissappears and judgement becomes decisive. You wonder what triggered it. You wish that moment lasted forever, but it doesn't. Slowly you sink back into your slumber, become comfortable in your life and take everything for granted. You lose that sense of intrigue at the very awareness of oneself. And then you begin wondering whether that moment was real because you don't see what you saw then. Until that moment happens again. That moment for me happenned today, again.

US Elections

When I heard Sarah Palin's speach it didn't really feel good. Those sarcastic under the belt statements reeked more of theatre than good politics. What gave me that sinking feeling is that she was good on the stage, and unfortunately, that is all what most people see. I have never lived in the US and for that matter never wish to if the Republicans win this time too. But I like the battle of ideologies that is played in the US elections and like most academically qualified people, I support the Democrats.
Obama in one of his TV interviews said that Republicans don't govern the country that well but are good campaigners. And that is a sad fact, which Obama, inspite of being aware of, proved yet again. I fail to understand why he didn't choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate. I guess with the kind of wave he was riding on, he felt he didn't need her. And that is the problem with these Ivy League educated people, they underestimate the uneducated masses. Biden is a non entity when compared to Clinton. People were already calling the Obama-Clinton a 'dream team' and I believe Palin would have had no chance against her. But what is done is done.
I had read an article which said that people vote for politicians who inspire them. Politicians with whom they can identify themselves. They vote solely based on emotion. And the failure of Democrats to appeal to people lies in a lack of understanding on the part of the Democrats, while the voters have failed to understand that just because a politician can make a dramatic speech and hunt moose does not mean that he/she is a good administrator. People look at personality and not policies. Unfortunately 8 years of Bush rule hasn't made the Americans any smarter. With the 4 point lead that McCain has now, it seems they are ready to vote for him (actually her).
Though the situation is not new for an Indian. The Congress still finds it hard to get votes without a Gandhi at its helm and the south is known to have film stars influence elections. Sometimes I feel democracy overestimates the intelligence of the people.

Identity

Cable TV came to Baroda in early to mid nineties. So I basically grew up watching Doordarshan. The state decided what I watched on TV, what I read in my text books and what should be shown in the movies. So I like everybody felt proud to be an Indian, proud of India's diversity, culture, religions, mountains, rivers, valleys, languages, food etc etc. The usual bad guys against India in movies and some TV series were either the British (read Tom Alter) and Pakistanis (How could I forget Mogambo here?). Every Independence Day I like most Indians felt proud for the years of struggle against the British and believed strongly that Indian independence was a good thing.
Did we ever think that we have been brainwashed into believing all this by a nation whose survival depends on such a belief. How else could it send people on a battle front to die for India. Recently Kashmir has seen a lot of unrest and it would be difficult to find a single person who shared this concept of India with me. For a Kashmiri he/she is a Kashmiri first (read Muslim first) and then anything else. I often ask myself whether their belief in a Kashmiri identity is in any way different from my concept of an Indian identity. What I mean is that Kashmir for most part of history was at least one nation, while India never was. Taking a step further, it would not be unfair to say that India, before it came into existence on 15 August 1947, had never existed as a single entity. It would not be wrong to say that there existed nations within what is now India and they were fiercly nationalist and fought against each other. Now the Indian government has made us believe that the concept of India is nobler, better, but do we ever question that whether it actually is? I can already see myself as being branded as an anti-national.
I had read in a book there was only one way of creating a completely fair society. Get a group of people to design it, such that the people know that after they have designed the system they will die and and will be reborn. What they don't know is which section of the society they will be reborn in. This will ensure that they create favourable conditions for every section of the society. I am an Indian and understand that Kashmir is important for the concept of India and support the government in its policies there. But what if I was a Kashmiri living under the shadow of the gun, under the fear that I could be the next victim? Would I still want India to exert its control over Kashmir?
It is not for Indians to realise but for Kashmiris to understand that in this clash of identities India is a stronger power and that it is impossible for Kashmiris to exert their concept of nationhood. But for that every Kashmiri has to let bygones be bygones and look at the situation objectively. Every Kashmiri has to realise that Kashmiriyat is similar to Indianism, just a concept in our minds. India has never asked Kashmiris to give up their identity. It actually gives them special rights under the constitution. Every person has an identity and if we keep segregating people, at one extreme end we could have each individual representing one country. It is not difficult to find things that make Kashmiris similar to the rest of India. Start from there and make the most of what the world order has to offer. True freedom is to break away from these predefined concepts and to be able to determine ones own identity.

Morality???

Robert Pirsig (I do admire the way he thinks) in his book Lila describes an incident where he and a colleague are walking with the chief of a native American tribe. After some time a dog starts walking beside them. Pirsig's colleague thinks that the dog looks weird and asks the chief,” What kind of dog is that?". The chief thinks for a while and then says, "That is a good dog". The answer surprises them both because what they are referring to is the breed of the dog. This is what Pirsig describes is the dichotomy between the western culture and Native American culture. The western culture has devoted millions of dollars, human effort and huge universities to help humans understand what is what, while very little effort has been spent on finding out what is good. The problem according to me is not whether a government should try to imbibe good among its populace, rather than spend millions on academic institutions to understand our world. The problem according to me is whether the government or any other body has a right to determine what is good for its people.
I guess, the only country today which does that unabashedly is China, and also a few religious countries. What I will discuss is whether it is good for a government or a social organisation to enforce its view of what is right. The world has been evolving and in the process has seen various philosophies gain strength at different times. I will classify each of these philosophies into two categories: philosophies allowing individual freedom of thought, philosophies enforcing one view of the world. The world, and more so India, will be analysed with respect to four phases it has been through:

1. The golden age of Indian philosophy - The time of Buddha, Mahavir, Kautilya and many other schools of thought
2. The advent of Islam and Christianity its successes
3. Communism
4. Western Democratic Tradition

The first phase was when India was culturally and socially dominating the world. It was the time of intense thought and also freedom from dogma. The people were trying to escape from only one view of truth and as I have heard it was very common for people to adopt different schools of thought at different stages in their lives. Greece was going through a similar period with the great philosophers deviating from prevalent concepts of what is right and wrong and redefining morals. India and Greece were the success stories of that time and I believe their successes defined the morality of those times which allowed people to think for themselves.

The second phase defines the spread of Christianity in Europe and Islam from the Middle East to north India. Now both the Abrahamic religions are quite conformist. The church ruled over most of Europe through the middle ages while Islam kept making its conquests into Europe on one hand and eastern Asia on the other. Both the philosophies have a predetermined morality and both have enforced their concepts at times by use of violence. So while they succeeded, conformist thought became the norm while individual freedoms became old fashioned.

The third and the fourth phases almost came together. The freedom from the church created the renaissance and eventually led to the industrial revolution in Europe while the resulting inequalities led to the birth of communism. While democracy was adopted by most of west Europe and America, communism became the ideology in Eastern Europe and then China. Communism was definitely conformist, while pure democracy allowed individual the right to think for oneself.

My analysis brings me back to the same result I had come to when I was trying to analyse skepticism. Indian and Greek cultures progressed not for some inherent quality in them but essentially because at that time the two countries were socially, militarily and economically stronger. Islam and Christianity spread because the people who adopted them exercised significant control over the world affairs. Democracy and Communism had the world polarised because they were both supported by two very large and influential countries.

I will take the example of the concept of celebrity here. When Shahrukh Khan wears a certain kind of clothes, talks in a certain kind of way it becomes widely accepted. You look at the 60s clothes and find them funny. 15 years down the line our children will find our clothes in our old pictures funny. The point I am trying to make is that the concept of right and wrong keeps changing and hardly do we realise how we get influenced by personality (read celebrity) and society in our definition of what is acceptable and what is not.

There are two incidents I would like to describe here. James Watson (of the Watson and Crick DNA model fame) some time back made a statement which in essence meant that Africans had lesser intelligence. I was discussing this with some of my friends who were appalled at the statement saying that they were quite disappointed with him. The reaction to the statement was so unanimous throughout the world and he became a pariah and I believe he had to later take the statement back.

The second incident relates to Salman Rushdie and his book the Satanic Verses in which, I hear, he wrote something against Islam. A fatwa was passed against him as his life was at risk. Now though the western world's reaction was more social and political rather than actual physical violence but in both cases, non adherance to a particular point of view was not accepted.
What I essentially mean is that though the western culture seems to promote individual freedom it finds itself at times incapable of accepting difference of thought. The problem that I am trying to solve on a personal level is to find out whether I am right in supporting democracy and opposing intolerance. If success is the criteria then it would be impossible to determine. I guess this decision too like most has to be a personal one, which means less rational and more emotional.

Yet....

A child that hasn't grown yet.

A journey that hasn't started yet.

A thought that isn't complete yet.

A life, that hasn't been lived yet.

The wait is not over yet.

Ideas

Ideas only exist inside the brain. The only time these ideas exist outside it is when they reside in someone else's brain. The reason most people don't realise that ideas are just mental constructs, is because they live among a group of people with similar ideas. It is quite obvious that if an idea exists in everyone's mind then it must be real. I remember when on our honeymoon we made a stopover at Chamba, a small town in Himachal Pradesh. It is located in a valley and if you ignore the crowd and the chaos, the surrounds and specially the Shiva temple are quite beautiful. While walking back from the temple we stopped over at a shop to buy some shawls for our mothers, and a conversation started with the shop owner who was a lady. She started telling us about how lord Shiva came and resided on the peak near the town once a year and how there was a big fair conducted during this period. Her excitement was quite infectious. Now, no one has ever actually seen lord Shiva sit on that peak and it is just an idea. Even if we consider that lord Shiva represents the cosmic entity not the personified form, then it can be argued that He exists everywhere and not just on that peak. But this idea or folklore was so widely accepted in the town that I believe the woman thought it was real. Even if the woman thought that it was just a myth, the fact that the whole town celebrated the myth shouldn't seem surprising to an outsider.
I once had a discussion with my colleague, who was once a Hindu and has recently adopted Christianity, and as is with any new convert, his beliefs are very strong. Now it is widely accepted that the Bible was written by different people at different times. I just asked him whether it ever occurred to him that the Bible might not actually be God’s own words and be just written by well-intentioned human beings. And he said he believed the Bible is entirely passed on to humans (he uses the word ‘man’) by God himself. Faith and logic are so completely contradictory. Similarly, no one can ever know whether the Koran is Allah's will. And hence the fact that you never see anyone actually sit on the peak, is something no one in the town notices, should not sound out of place even to westerners. After all many of their kin believe that God created light and then He created the sun. The sequence might seem wrong to most people but the belief in a God that takes care of them is so comforting that they choose to ignore these small aberrations.

Pirsig in his book Lila wrote that if we don’t see something it does not just imply that it does not exist, but also that maybe we have never been looking for it. Most people have ideas of how the world is and will only see things that confirm to that idea while totally ignoring things that don't. I have made a journey from being an idealist atheist to a skeptic agnostic who wants to be a believer. Ten years ago I would have dismissed that shop lady as being stupid and superstitious. Today I see her as an equal, just distinct from me. Because I understand that I think in a certain way because I have experienced life in a certain way. Had I been living in that town and selling shawls, maybe I would have thought exactly like that lady. I now understand that what genes we inherit is not in our hands and what experiences we will have is to a large extent beyond our control. In claiming credit for a success or blame for a failure this thought should always be at the back of our mind. And also remember that any idea in our brain is just an idea, how much ever passionate we are about it.