July 05, 2006   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).

July 09, 2006   Gargi: Yadnyawalkya, since all this world is woven on water, please tell me on what is the world of water woven. Yadnyawalkya: On the world of wind. G: And on what is the world of wind woven? Y: On the world of atmosphere. G: And on what is the world of atmosphere woven? Y: On the world of sun. G: And on what is the world of sun woven? Y: On the world of moon. G: And on what is the world of moon woven? Y: On the world of stars. G: And on what is the world of stars woven? Y: On the world of gods. G: And on what is the world of gods woven? Y: On the world of Indra. G: And on what is the world of Indra woven? Y: On the world of Prajapati. G: And on what is the world of Prajapati woven? Y: On the world of Brahman. G: And on what is the world of Brahman woven? Y: Gargi, do not question too much about the divinity or else your head will fall off. -Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III.VI.1 Brihadaranyaka is one of the oldest Upanishads and certainly the most famous as well as the longest. It features various dialogues with the great philosopher Yadnyawalkya. Most of the women who find representation in the Vedic literature are represented in this Upanishad. Brahman refers to the absolute (some translations use Hiranyagarbha i.e. the primordial material in place of Brahman and Virij in place of Prajapati in this dialogue). Clearly, questioning is allowed, even encouraged to an extent, but certain questions were taboo. The Aryanakas and Upanishads tried to do away with the rituals and sacrifices stated in the vedic hymns (and often amplified by the Brahmanas). As a result Aryanakas and Upanishads tend to philosophize more, trying to get behind the reasons of whatever is talked about and done. I find interesting similarities of this world-upon-world picture with Plato's association of the five Platonic solids with fire/earth/water/air/heaven (Timaeus ca. 350 BC). Incidentally the neolithic people of Scotland developed the five solids a thousand years before Plato (but I do not know of any associations they may have made).

July 10, 2006   Sakalya: Yadnyawalkya, how many gods are there? Yadnyawalkya: According to the "Hymn of all the gods" there are 3306. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: 33. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: 6. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: 3. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: 2. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: One and a half. S: Yes, but how many gods are there? Y: One. (S: Which are those 3306 gods?) -Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, III.IX.1 In the dialogue after this Yadnyawalkya explains that there are only 33 gods and the rest are their manifestations. He goes on to say what the 33 gods are: 8 vasus viz. elements in which the universe is placed (वसावः ), 11 rudras viz. 10 human organs and the mind, the loss of which leads the relatives to weep (रुद ), 12 adityas i.e. the 12 months that carry the whole universe (especially the sun) with them (आदादनाः ), Indra, and Prajapati (the lord of created beings). Then he explains that the 6 gods are fire, earth, air, sky, sun, heaven which encompass all the above gods and so on. Later in III.IX.9 he states that there is One god, Brahman. The vedas started with natural forces as their objects of reverence. At some point gods proliferated. But these were still "natural" gods having to do with elements of nature or our own body (later many of these were personified). The conversation above shows the inclination towards monotheism starting from an internal hierarchy. Of course, once an idea is born, it never completely dies. Polytheism too continued in some form with some subsets and underwent further mutations with time.

July 17, 2006   ... neti, neti ... -Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, IV.V.15 Just as Yadnyawalkya is ready to renounce his home, one of his wives, Maitreyi asks him about the means of attaining immortality. Yadnyawalkya explains that anything we do, we do it indirectly for the Self. All the scriptures (vedas, itihasa, purana, vidya, upanishad, slokas, sutras, anuvyakhyanas, vyakhyanas) also spring forth from the Self. It is this Self that is indestructible. He goes on to describe the non-duality (अद्वैत ) and that it is that which one should strive for. Losing ones consciousness in it is what immortality is. Maitreyi is still bewildered, so Yadnyawalkya further explains it thus: if there is duality then one sees another, smells another and so on. But when the duality is gone, what can one see (outside the Self) and with what? What can one smell, and with what? Through what can one know that due to which all is known? It is not this, not this (that) (neti, neti). Realizing such a Self is the only way to immortality. Thus we see how the scriptures shifted from hero worship to polytheism to monotheism and there are already strains of monism with hints that gaining immortality means becoming one with this self. Precursors of the current Hinduism have always been in flux, ever changing like a flowing river, trying to grasp at the meaning and purpose of life. To "what is Hinduism" too we can easily reply "neti, neti". May be that also holds for many current questions like "what is the solution to the crisis the politicians - that we ourselves elect - land us in" or "what is the solution to the perceived and real religious strifes going on all over the world". May be we need to take a deep breath, look inside ourselves and try to draw an all-encompassing picture like Yadnyawalkya had in mind, rather than quick short-sighted solutions.

July 24, 2006   ... tat tvam asi (तत्वमसि ) ... -Chandogya upanishad, VI.VIII ... Chandogya Upanishad is also one of the oldest ones and perhaps the best known. It belongs to Saamveda, the veda with metre. It has many very interesting passages in which we learn - of the knowledge that Kshatriyas had but Brahmins did not, - of Satyakama's story about how its not your birth that decides if you are a Brahmin, - of Aruni's statement about the origin of the universe from sat which in the same breath challenges another theory of origin, - of the extremely ascetic teaching exactly opposite that of the much later Bhagwad-Gita about duty (but the same as what Buddha said just before the rise of Bhagwad-Gita). It is stated that to obtain Moksha one has to give up ordinary life and stay in the forest, - as to why dead bodies are burnt (rather than, say, buried), - what and why are the five libations (Agnihotra), etc. But certainly the most famous part is where uddaalaka aaruNI teaches his son Shvetaketu how he - Shvetaketu - and Brahman are identical. This is where dvaita (a common aspect of most religions) becomes advaita. VI.VIII: The source of food is water, of water the fire, of fire it is sat (सत or Being or Brahman). That which is the subtle essence, that is True, that is the Self. That art thou (tat tvam asi), Shvetaketu. VI.IX: Just like bees mix nectar of different flowers and then all the nectar is one, so also all beings are one with the Being. tat tvam asi. VI.X: Just like rivers become one with the ocean and lose identity, not knowing "I am this river", "I am that river" etc., so also beings can't tell themselves from Being. tat tvam asi. ... This is Vedic monism at its peak. No external gods needed, not even the One, because you are it. Quiet a few analogies have been used, but so be it. Just like we are one with the Brahman, we are also one with the problems that surround us. We are also the solutions. Not just charity, but everything begins with ourselves.

September 13, 2006   The heights of popularity and patriotism are still the beaten road to power and tyranny; flattery to treachery; standing armies to arbitrary government; and the glory of God to the temporal interest of the clergy. -David Hume (1711-1776) David Hume was a Scottish philosopher with naturalist and skeptical overtones. His famous works include: A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740), the Enquiries concerning Human Understanding (1748) and concerning the Principles of Morals (1751), as well as the posthumously published Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779). His sentence quoted above is a precise summary of rise and fall of empires over eons, right from the time since humans continued the animal instinct of staking territorial claims, but with external weapons (and followers to boot). The current non-issue of singing (or not) of Vande Mataram is an excellent example. A song which originated when almost no one alive today was born, suddenly becomes a deciding factor as to weather you love your country or not. People from all walks of life are debating both sides (which in itself is a sign of a healthy democracy). What is interesting is that both sides have people who can not recite the song. As usual, all kinds of extraneous claims are brought in. Somewhere, someone said to the Indian Americans commenting on the issue: "will you dare to not sing the American anthem in the US"? A fact that not many may know is that in the US burning the US flag as part of a political protest is not a crime. Democracy here, at least so far as such basic issues are concerned, is still alive and doing well. The rhetoric in India, on the other hand, has increased manifold. What could the causes be? The unsustained growth in public media resulting in unethical oneupmanship, the extreme competitiveness due to increasing population, the plethora of political parties ready to take advantage of this, and the religious underpinnings of a typical persons life concoct a deadly cocktail that sometimes explodes and sometimes gets puked on to everyone around. If only people understood the following three principles: (1) one's love for one's nation can simply not be decided by what (s)he says or does not say (or whether (s)he accepts or not what the majority does) [freedom of expression], (2) the love for humanity should be at least as strong as the love for one's nation (and its people) [freedom of thought allowing one to not do something if it hurts humanity even if it is good for the country], and (3) in the eyes of the one God all religions ought to be the same and so one can practise any religion [religious freedom]. Democracy will be dead when one has to give up any of the above three. The trouble of course is that everyone wants everyone else to start practicing this first and hence they themselves do not. Be it the temporal interest of the clergy or territorial interest of the standing army, it sows seeds of hatred in the mind of commoners, dividing them unnecessarily. What Blaise Pascal said is a perfect statement to summarize the situation. Can anything be stupider than that a man has the right to kill me because he lives on the other side of a river and his ruler has a quarrel with mine, though I have not quarreled with him? (Quoted by Tolstoy in Bethink Yourselves)

September 20, 2006   The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it. -Terry Pratchett Discworld fame Terry Pratchett is one of my favorite authors. Not all his books are equally funny, but some are amazing with insights and humour thoroughly mixed to great effect. "Truth" is by far one of the best I like. This tongue in cheek remark of his is much more subtle, and very true. It is not an argument against having an open mind but just showing the pitfalls. Nature gives us our genes, but it is nurture (i.e. people around us feeding our open or in-the-process-of-forming minds with their biases and prejudices and likings and theories and what not) that determines our nature. This includes your parents, siblings, teachers, friends, politicians, spiritual gurus, cartoon heroes, sports idols, filmstars and filmstaresses and who ever you care to listen to. That is the reason people who listen more than they speak end up learning more (junk) [people who lurk on sites like maayboli without ever writing, please take note]. That does not of course mean that it is better to be a chatterbox [people insisting on making their opinion on everything known, please take note]. No, definitely not. The middle ground of digesting the sermons is better. One should create a set of filters (a very personal one by selectively choosing only those biases which make personal sense). One should then verify all incoming garbage with existing checks and measures and only separate the useful stuff thereof. If everyone did that, many strifes about such subjects as religions, historical figures etc. will not arise and people will be free to stay in the present and do what is best for themselves as well as for those around them. One simply cannot help being biased due to the essentially selective "nurturing" one gets, but one should try to ensure that one's biases are very unique.

December 28, 2006   He was a proud man, with that peculiar pride, not of achievement, not the pride of the well-born or of the rich, but the pride of an ancient race, of the representative of an ancient tradition and system of thought and morality which, actually, had nothing whatever to do with what he really was. -J Krishnamurti, in The only revolution Jiddu Krishnamurti was brought up as a prophet but he gave up the position thus created for him and became a freelance philosopher and a very good one. Much of his teachings are agreeable almost to their last part where he, magically, and unfortunately like most other spiritual leaders, connects it all to something supernatural making a mess of it. He was very perceptive and understood the human condition and predicament very well. In his book The Only Revolution he takes up case studies of his visitors, their thoughts, intentions and questions. It is about one such person that the quote above appears. One can immediately envisage such a person. Though this happened in India, there are many civilizations around the globe which harbor such people. India is likely to have the most because our tradition IS ancient, and because we love harping on it, often at the expense of the current and future and irrespective of our worth in the scheme of things, exactly as stated here. Rather than being content on what our ancestors did under the prevalent models and conditions, we need to reexamine all traditions and values and keep only those which are still relevant. Then we can afford to be proud of those. It will be even better if we add to the past developments. Many of us are already doing that. In the least we should recognize their contribution in helping make India modern - not necessarily in the sense of making it Western which many seem to loathe, but just making it so that the latest technology can be used by all and the minimum needs for most can be satisfied in a straightforward manner. A healthy skepticism combined with a faith in the bold ways of the current generation will go a long way in doing that. Rather than just being proud of whence we came, we should try to make our ancestors proud of being our ancestors. That is unlikely to be achieved by blindly trying to imitate them.

March 05, 2007   Recognize the fly, even love it if you want, but don't marry it. -Natalie Goldberg, in Writing down the Bones Natalie is describing how a writer, in a restaurant scene, can mention a fly, even the particular sandwich it walks over, name its species, but if she digresses too much in discussing the patterns of its wings and a mathematical discussion of its trajectory and such details unconnected to the scene where the reader is expecting the waiter to arrive or something else related to happen, how it can be a put-off. While I believe that digressing is a fine art that is not very well explored yet - at least to my knowledge - let us leave it to another time. The reason I thought of bringing in the fly in the ointment is its inappropriateness elsewhere. It is analogous to the mindless use of analogies. Suppose a great unnamed spiritual leader - or one treated as such - is describing the theory of unity of souls and how there is one big soul and all our souls merge with it once we die (or may be are one even when we are alive). A typical example he would take (I am giving up my political correctness by not saying she here. Howmuchever I would like to see the equality of sexes in the arena of priesthood, the males have unabashedly taken control over it, and the women should really do something abut it. But they should replace some rather than add to them) is to say that JUST LIKE sugar dissolves in to water and becomes invisible, unidentifiable, so also our soul becomes one with the ultimate one. This is an analogy. The sugar and water are tangible substances and have nothing whatsoever to do with the souls. Their physical properties in this case are based on the intermolecular spaces as well as the structure, composition of the molecules. But in one stroke that is equated with the soul which can otherwise not be decomposed in to any structure. When others seem to believe it, the guru starts believing it himself (in case he did not earlier), and all this has a very positive effect and it becomes a fact (just like ganesh idols drinking milk is a fact). Oh, the power of analogy. Poor Einstein, he once said: Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler. If only he could use analogies, everything would so much simpler. Love the analogies, even marry them, so long as you know how to evaporate the water and reclaim the sugar. PS: budding authors may find some good pointers in Natalie Goldberg's book. Her website is: http://www.nataliegoldberg.com

August 10, 2007   Hell is full of musical amateurs -George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950) The Nobel winner Shaw was a critic and dramatist (not necessarily in that order) among other things. He was not a musician of note, but he did criticize, or favour, certain musicians in his column. His view of hell would be a good indication of what he treated as good music. Yesterday I watched an episode of the original star trek where Kirk and co. go to a planet which is like paradise except that the humanoids are under complete control of a machine living peacefully. Spock even remarks how serene their lives are without the human envy, anger etc. But when threatened, they end up destroying the machine and causing the humanoids to start living like humans. Back on the ship, Spock semi-accuses the captain of giving them the knowledge of the apple and thus destroying Eden. The captain is quick to remark that before calling him Satan Spock should take a look at himself. People do create hell and heaven in their image of bad and good. That is part of the drive of seeing things in black and white. Once you label things, life becomes easier to cope with. Squash complex dimensions by making projections on to familiar ones and keep treading there. Life is simpler and stays in a rut. Helps make one a kupmanduk. On the other hand, if you attach new connotations to the old, you can get to higher dimensions. See the world in a whole new light, different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Get a wing, so to speak. Rather than defining hell and heaven, how about converting the Earth in to the best it can be?

August 17, 2007   Nostalgic Kitt Peak While getting to Tucson yesterday there was a strange nostalgia. Only 2 months back I had been there as also 3-4 times in the last few years. But this was different. I was going to Tucson to go to Kitt Peak. Tucson was the first place I had been to in the US and that was because I was to observe Sersic-Pastoriza galaxies at a 1-m class telescope. I had encountered many surprises there. Taxi-drivers discussing law; being given the keys to the dome and asked to observe all alone; the variety filled dishes etc. As it happened I was fogged out then. When the fog did clear a bit I tried to open the dome and immediately got a call from another dome that we should not open yet as there was thunder far off in the valley. Like it rains everyday in a rainforest, Kitt Peak has its share of thunderstorms. All these memories came flooding, or rather trickling, as I completed my airtravel to Tucson. Getting to NOAO was straightforward. A dozen years ago I could not drive and had taken their bus from there to Kitt Peak. Now I drove their hybrid shuttle towards the observatory. The 40 odd miles upto the turn-off went by quickly. The only notable event being the passing of the sun behind a very dark cloud and creating the illusion of twilight. After that straight bit comes a 12-mile stretch when you climb a few 1000 feet to reach the summit at 6750. In the bleak desert the only companions were cacti, ocatiio and occasional hare. By the time I was at 5000 feet I started sensing a cool breeze. It was clear that a thunderstorm had passed by drenching the dry earth and leaving it refreshed. The sun was really setting now and it was spectacular. The colorful sunset clouds as you rarely see in California adored the upper horizon leaving the sun a clear area to set majestically between very rocky mountains. During the day there are a few visitors to Kitt Peak. Like Palomar it is off bounds to public after 4 PM. As it is, the mountain is only now waking from its summer slumber. WIYN, the 3.5 m telescope where my run is, is the only telescope doing science and ours are the first nights on freshly aluminised mirrors. Even the birds are accustomed to being left undisturbed. Near the summit a hawk flew ahead of me and settled on a tree top by the side of the road. I drove slowly to within several tens of feet of it. Cars seem very inhuman and don't bother them. It was dark by the time I reached the administration building. They had kept the key to my room there. But my reserved dinner was missing. I had to help myself to stuff at the kitchen. This is the kitchen that had impressed me with its dishes. Now I found it to be rather run-of-the-mill. With my vegan disposition, it is, in fact, almost impossible. Had a good rest and strolled a bit looking at the astronomy industry here. That was another thing that had impressed me then. And it still did now. So many telescopes in one place. It is awesome. If you don't count the radio dishes, and the huge solar telescopes, the telescopes are not extra-ordinary, but they serve a large number of universities. The gift shop is relatively small and as far as shirts go, only had extremely long ones. Outside, many turkey vultures were soaring on the drafts. They were either just having fun or also looking for rabbits,squirrels and the plentiful rattlesnakes. A few bush-tits and chickadees were also seen, but not too many other species were on display. The telescope became available a little late as the first day blues tormented the keepers. As the evening approached, a storm came and left without shedding its water. It was never completely clear. We took a few flats during which the software aborted twice and we learnt the use of the acquisition software. If you have seen one, you have seen them all. And now here we are practicing the virtue of good astronomers, waiting for it to clear up and deliver us our lenses.

September 06, 2007   If you [are] a real seeker after truth, [you must,] at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, all things. -Rene Descartes (1596 - 1650) I recently met a few people who used to doubt the existence of God and then turned to Him. I have also met people who used to believe in God (or at least believe in the belief in God) and then started doubting it. It is often these issues around which debates on doubts revolve. Thankfully not many doubt the scientific methodology though they do doubt its being able to grasp all truths. Quoting Godel's logic to extend to non-formal systems, the reachability of truth is put beyond not just logic, but also thought. The ancient Indian cosmology, as opposed to most other western religious cosmologies (for instance the ones that claim that the universe, or the earth is 6000 years old) was aware of the vastness of space and time and had become aware that to understand the hierarchy is a rather daunting task. They decided that until telescopes are invented we better turn to nuclear physics. As a result, they turned their attention inward and discovered the vastness inside. It should be possible to gaze at the truth by getting closer to zero than to infinity, they concluded. The Greek philosophers (and then western in general) shot down the sometimes imaginative but often more holistic stuff of older philosophies replacing it with hard logic that is slow in moving outward (as also inward). But, combined with other branches of the sometimes stuttering, sometimes rocked by fraud, science, it does make definite progress throwing out everything that is not really needed. Scientists are often like horses tied to a cart, with their eyes seeing only what is in front of them. But if there are enough of them, one ends up covering all directions. Descartes belonged to the rationalist school (in fact he was one of the founders) as against the empiricist school that included philosophers like Hobbes whose thoughts, to an extent, paralleled Indian philosophy. It is Descartes' Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am) that tells us if we do really exist (or rather how do we know we do exist). The confusion often is about the purpose of life. Why do we exist? Or even, why do we need to exist? THAT is what sends people scampering off in search for truth, or Truth, or even truths. This generally gets entangled with Right and Wrong (ethics, morality and all that) too. Along that path people doubt many things, including the reality of it all. Descartes would have been partially proud. Unfortunately, they do not heed him to the T. They forget that they should also doubt that there has to be a, some, definite truth. May be there isn't any. If you are a real seeker, you must, at least once in your life doubt, as far as possible, that a specific truth or purposefulness can be ascribed to the universe. The creativity that will then flow will really be your own.

November 19, 2007   Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for future generations. - 5th commandment of the Ethical atheist from http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/ten_commandments.html I bumped in to this interesting website recently and the 5th commandment in particular caught my eye. What they mean is that your facts are based on facts discovered by others (just like a dwarf on a giant's shoulders sees more than the giant). You should make a note of those and leave a legacy behind so that generations that follow may be able to make use of them. That is all very well and very positive advice to provide and is indeed worth emulating. However, the reason it caught my eye was the very quirky interpretation it launched somewhere deep within me that made me inwardly smile. Having seen so many claims from people at all levels about how all knowledge future and past is contained within religious sacred books (e.g. vedas, bible etc.) I was immediately convinced that what the author meant was that do not be oversmart and do all the work yourself, but leave some contributions for future generations. What point is there if you do all the fun stuff and leave the others to have no "aha" moments of their own? All work and no play make Jack rather dull even if Jack be the master of all trades.

tumacaI dad Aaplaa saMvaad

Archive through April 20, 2006

Owner aschig Type HTG0001