Saturday, February 25, 2006
Ponty Manesar
While on hilarious posts, here is one rib-ticklingly funny post on Ponty Manesar. For those of you at Rutgers, this is somewhat like a cleaner version of Liquid Kids Classics.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Yoga
My mind recently went back to the Guru Ramdev - Brinda Karat affair. Guru Ramdev is the champion of yoga who sees it as a technique which will lead to a healthier lifestyle, while Karat is the typical Communist - anti-Hindu, and salivating at the feet of multi-nationals medical companies who see Guru Ramdev as a threat to higher profits.
This whole affair got me thinking (and this also follows from a discussion with my father). Millions of people in India have benefited health-wise from Guru Ramdev's yoga. Many people claim to have been cured of long standing illnesses, while many others have declared that they have felt no need for medicines because of their regular practice of yoga. So many people cannot be wrong about the health benefits of yoga, and it only serves to strengthen Guru Ramdev's claims.
Modern medicine has one problem. If the problem is diagnosed to be in A, modern medicine will treat part A, while the effect of the cure on other parts is not known. Conversely, if the problem lies in A, B and C, all in some proportion, modern medicine has not advanced enough to detect that (there may exist some specific instances which can be so diagnosed, but in a general sense, they cannot be). It only attempts to cure part A or B or C, which really is not enough, because all 3 parts must be cured simultaneously.
The solution is a holistic approach, that takes into account the natural tendencies of the human body, rather than trying to force a solution. Yoga is one such holistic technique. Other techniques are psychological influence (using a placebo instead of an actual medicine has provided the desired results in some cases), use of music (or sound frequencies) to effect a cure, etc. It is this holistic approach that Guru Ramdev is advocating. Yoga has another advantage - its legitimacy has been well documented over the ages. It is traditional wisdowm that is as of now beyond the reach of modern medicine (the irony!).
What would be a good idea (IMO) is to introduce yoga as a compulsary subject in schools across India. In the longer run, this would lead to an entire generation of Indians being familiar with yoga and its health benefits. And this regular practice of yoga would also render any sort of medication unnecessary, which would greatly reduce health-related costs. The value of this cannot be underestimated in a developing country such as India. This is somewhat similar to the Japanese initiative to help prevent malaria in Africa (with US funding) using low-cost techniques.
However, I have my doubts as to whether this idea can actually be implemented. Political motivations fueled by profits, gross ignorance, and maybe even religious opposition (Christians and Muslims see yoga as blasphemous) would mean that this idea will face stiff opposition.
This whole affair got me thinking (and this also follows from a discussion with my father). Millions of people in India have benefited health-wise from Guru Ramdev's yoga. Many people claim to have been cured of long standing illnesses, while many others have declared that they have felt no need for medicines because of their regular practice of yoga. So many people cannot be wrong about the health benefits of yoga, and it only serves to strengthen Guru Ramdev's claims.
Modern medicine has one problem. If the problem is diagnosed to be in A, modern medicine will treat part A, while the effect of the cure on other parts is not known. Conversely, if the problem lies in A, B and C, all in some proportion, modern medicine has not advanced enough to detect that (there may exist some specific instances which can be so diagnosed, but in a general sense, they cannot be). It only attempts to cure part A or B or C, which really is not enough, because all 3 parts must be cured simultaneously.
The solution is a holistic approach, that takes into account the natural tendencies of the human body, rather than trying to force a solution. Yoga is one such holistic technique. Other techniques are psychological influence (using a placebo instead of an actual medicine has provided the desired results in some cases), use of music (or sound frequencies) to effect a cure, etc. It is this holistic approach that Guru Ramdev is advocating. Yoga has another advantage - its legitimacy has been well documented over the ages. It is traditional wisdowm that is as of now beyond the reach of modern medicine (the irony!).
What would be a good idea (IMO) is to introduce yoga as a compulsary subject in schools across India. In the longer run, this would lead to an entire generation of Indians being familiar with yoga and its health benefits. And this regular practice of yoga would also render any sort of medication unnecessary, which would greatly reduce health-related costs. The value of this cannot be underestimated in a developing country such as India. This is somewhat similar to the Japanese initiative to help prevent malaria in Africa (with US funding) using low-cost techniques.
However, I have my doubts as to whether this idea can actually be implemented. Political motivations fueled by profits, gross ignorance, and maybe even religious opposition (Christians and Muslims see yoga as blasphemous) would mean that this idea will face stiff opposition.
Friday, February 03, 2006
A sense of perspective
Two different incidents, yet with a strange parallel.
Incident 1:
Last year, a Danish newspaper published a caricature of Prophet Mohammad. Actually, it is a bunch of cartoons (12 in all), as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-sensorship and freedom of speech. One of the drawings depicts the Prophet with a bomb as his turban, and the comments accompanying the cartoons are not complimentary either. A Norwegien newspaper reproduced the cartoon, with various newspaper across Europe following suit.
Suffice it to say that these cartoons are in extremely bad taste. For one, Islam prohibits any image of the Prophet, even if it is in a positive manner, lest it amount to idolatory. Furthermore, these images are disparaging Islam in the crudest manner. While freedom of speech and expression is a noble ideal, it ends either when it infringes upon insensitivity to the feelings of a people, or if it is intentionally ridiculing a person or community.. The cartoons in question fail on both counts. While such analysis is obviously subjective, common sense dictates that these cartoons not be published.
Which brings me to the question, why were the cartoons published? The Danish newspaper, obviously from its perspective, sees nothing wrong in publishing the cartoons, and it might be justified in its stand. However, with the larger Muslim population likely to take offence at the cartoons in question, it would have been prudent to not publish the cartoons. The other reason would be purposeful incitement of the mass protests and violence that has arose over almost all of the Muslim world. Or it might just be that the newspaper simply did not have a sense of perspective when it published the cartoons.
The controversy rages on!
Incident 2:
The Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation have have petitioned the California Department of Education suggesting improvements in the school textbooks' treatment of Hinduism. The two Foundations suggested a total of 170 corrections. Nothing wrong with that, one would suppose. Except, Dr. Michael Witzel, among others, of Harvard University deems fit to oppose 58 of those corrections (the CDE calls them edits), especially those dealing with the Aryan Invasion Theory, which he terms as fact. The curriculum commision went through the 58 edits, and accepted about a dozen of them.
What I find perplexing, is why Dr. Witzel wants to dredge up the AIT, which has been proved comprehensively to be a myth. No neutral scholar accepts the AIT as anything more than a fanciful invention of the British East India Company to create an excuse for the colonization of India, and to convert the entire populace to Christianity. Dr. Witzel's petition was neither based on reason nor on any factual and scholarly information. As some observers have pointed out, it is indeed a sad day for Harvard University that one of its "esteemed" professors is involved with such unscholarly activities.
The main issue of contention here is that while Christianity, Islam and Jewism are all potrayed in a positive light with absolutely no mention of their negative connotations, the text on Hinduism focusses more on its negative aspects, while the aspects of Hinduism that matter most are hardly given a passing mention. Furthermore, while the texts relating to the other religions are written by a person of that religion, the text about Hinduism is written from a non-Hindu perspective. Neither does the section on Hinduism confirm to the Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content, as set by the CDE. All that the two foundations are asking for is a fair potrayal of Hinduism in Californian textbooks.
What is the reason for this unfair potrayal? This theory ascribes the controversy to political issues, while this website summarizes the entire controversy. Further links are found here and here. Thanks to this article, which itself is worth reading, for the links.
Whatever be the reason, I am in favour of asking Dr. Witzel to shove it and for the CDE to get on with the proposed corrections.
Incident 1:
Last year, a Danish newspaper published a caricature of Prophet Mohammad. Actually, it is a bunch of cartoons (12 in all), as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-sensorship and freedom of speech. One of the drawings depicts the Prophet with a bomb as his turban, and the comments accompanying the cartoons are not complimentary either. A Norwegien newspaper reproduced the cartoon, with various newspaper across Europe following suit.
Suffice it to say that these cartoons are in extremely bad taste. For one, Islam prohibits any image of the Prophet, even if it is in a positive manner, lest it amount to idolatory. Furthermore, these images are disparaging Islam in the crudest manner. While freedom of speech and expression is a noble ideal, it ends either when it infringes upon insensitivity to the feelings of a people, or if it is intentionally ridiculing a person or community.. The cartoons in question fail on both counts. While such analysis is obviously subjective, common sense dictates that these cartoons not be published.
Which brings me to the question, why were the cartoons published? The Danish newspaper, obviously from its perspective, sees nothing wrong in publishing the cartoons, and it might be justified in its stand. However, with the larger Muslim population likely to take offence at the cartoons in question, it would have been prudent to not publish the cartoons. The other reason would be purposeful incitement of the mass protests and violence that has arose over almost all of the Muslim world. Or it might just be that the newspaper simply did not have a sense of perspective when it published the cartoons.
The controversy rages on!
Incident 2:
The Vedic Foundation and the Hindu Education Foundation have have petitioned the California Department of Education suggesting improvements in the school textbooks' treatment of Hinduism. The two Foundations suggested a total of 170 corrections. Nothing wrong with that, one would suppose. Except, Dr. Michael Witzel, among others, of Harvard University deems fit to oppose 58 of those corrections (the CDE calls them edits), especially those dealing with the Aryan Invasion Theory, which he terms as fact. The curriculum commision went through the 58 edits, and accepted about a dozen of them.
What I find perplexing, is why Dr. Witzel wants to dredge up the AIT, which has been proved comprehensively to be a myth. No neutral scholar accepts the AIT as anything more than a fanciful invention of the British East India Company to create an excuse for the colonization of India, and to convert the entire populace to Christianity. Dr. Witzel's petition was neither based on reason nor on any factual and scholarly information. As some observers have pointed out, it is indeed a sad day for Harvard University that one of its "esteemed" professors is involved with such unscholarly activities.
The main issue of contention here is that while Christianity, Islam and Jewism are all potrayed in a positive light with absolutely no mention of their negative connotations, the text on Hinduism focusses more on its negative aspects, while the aspects of Hinduism that matter most are hardly given a passing mention. Furthermore, while the texts relating to the other religions are written by a person of that religion, the text about Hinduism is written from a non-Hindu perspective. Neither does the section on Hinduism confirm to the Standards for Evaluating Instructional Materials for Social Content, as set by the CDE. All that the two foundations are asking for is a fair potrayal of Hinduism in Californian textbooks.
What is the reason for this unfair potrayal? This theory ascribes the controversy to political issues, while this website summarizes the entire controversy. Further links are found here and here. Thanks to this article, which itself is worth reading, for the links.
Whatever be the reason, I am in favour of asking Dr. Witzel to shove it and for the CDE to get on with the proposed corrections.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
In Mumbai
Two incidents at the Inorbit Mall in Malad, Mumbai.
Incident 1: I am on the escalator, going up. I am walking up the escalator to get to the top faster, and this security person stops me from doing that, saying its not allowed. Earlier, I noticed that when a bunch of people were coming down on the escalator, the people who wanted to go up were made to wait till all the people coming down had come down. Well, what exactly is the point in having 2 escalators if you are going to operate only one of them at a time?
Incident 2: I walk into the Adidas showroom when this chap asks me if I need some help. I tell him I'll let him know when I need his help and start looking around. The guy follows me everywhere. I don't say anything. After a while, I spot a pair of Levi's jeans that I like, and I check out its size. The guy again asks me if I need any help. He is still standing behind me as if I need some chaperoning. The following ensues.
Me: Dont you leave your customers to look around by themselves?
Him: We are required to assist the customers.
(Fair enough!)
Me: But if someone wants to be left alone, why do you have to stick around making him uncomfortable?
Him: You touched the jeans like this (proceeds to touch the jeans) and this clearly shows that you need assistance.
(Einstein himself couldnt have come up with something better!)
Me: I was just checking out the size, I can do that myself and I do not need you to tell me the size.
Him: That is not the way to talk to a CSR.
At this point, I just walk out of the store.
In both incidents, the people working at this mall behave as if people visiting the mall are totally dumb and need to be told what to do. Like how to use the escalator, and how to check the size of a pair of jeans.
I tried to think of reasons for this behaviour. I remember reading a report about how a child's shoe got stuck at a Delhi mall and the child was crushed to death. Then there was this incident at Heathrow where a woman's sari got stuck in the escalator and the sari just came off! Its understandable if the people at the mall are worried about such incidents. But it still felt like an over the top reaction.
As for the second incident, there are no electronic checks to make sure people cannot simply walk away with stuff from stores without paying. But then the security guards are placed at the entrance precisely for this very reason. The other thing is that despite the prices and sizes being put in prominent labels, many people prefer to ask the employees the very same details. No kidding, I have seen that happen quite a few times. But the continuous monitoring from close quarters was still uncalled for.
Basically, I still have not understood what caused that behaviour. Is it simply a policy of not letting the customer be? I have heard from others about similar experiences, though none of them really minded it. Maybe I am just used to the chilled out behaviour at the US malls. But then again, such incidents did not occur at the other malls in Mumbai that I went to.
Incident 1: I am on the escalator, going up. I am walking up the escalator to get to the top faster, and this security person stops me from doing that, saying its not allowed. Earlier, I noticed that when a bunch of people were coming down on the escalator, the people who wanted to go up were made to wait till all the people coming down had come down. Well, what exactly is the point in having 2 escalators if you are going to operate only one of them at a time?
Incident 2: I walk into the Adidas showroom when this chap asks me if I need some help. I tell him I'll let him know when I need his help and start looking around. The guy follows me everywhere. I don't say anything. After a while, I spot a pair of Levi's jeans that I like, and I check out its size. The guy again asks me if I need any help. He is still standing behind me as if I need some chaperoning. The following ensues.
Me: Dont you leave your customers to look around by themselves?
Him: We are required to assist the customers.
(Fair enough!)
Me: But if someone wants to be left alone, why do you have to stick around making him uncomfortable?
Him: You touched the jeans like this (proceeds to touch the jeans) and this clearly shows that you need assistance.
(Einstein himself couldnt have come up with something better!)
Me: I was just checking out the size, I can do that myself and I do not need you to tell me the size.
Him: That is not the way to talk to a CSR.
At this point, I just walk out of the store.
In both incidents, the people working at this mall behave as if people visiting the mall are totally dumb and need to be told what to do. Like how to use the escalator, and how to check the size of a pair of jeans.
I tried to think of reasons for this behaviour. I remember reading a report about how a child's shoe got stuck at a Delhi mall and the child was crushed to death. Then there was this incident at Heathrow where a woman's sari got stuck in the escalator and the sari just came off! Its understandable if the people at the mall are worried about such incidents. But it still felt like an over the top reaction.
As for the second incident, there are no electronic checks to make sure people cannot simply walk away with stuff from stores without paying. But then the security guards are placed at the entrance precisely for this very reason. The other thing is that despite the prices and sizes being put in prominent labels, many people prefer to ask the employees the very same details. No kidding, I have seen that happen quite a few times. But the continuous monitoring from close quarters was still uncalled for.
Basically, I still have not understood what caused that behaviour. Is it simply a policy of not letting the customer be? I have heard from others about similar experiences, though none of them really minded it. Maybe I am just used to the chilled out behaviour at the US malls. But then again, such incidents did not occur at the other malls in Mumbai that I went to.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
The Rig Veda
The Rig Veda is a perfect example of a hologram. The Rig Veda is divided into 10 Mandalas, each of which has 192 suktas. Each sukta is further divided into 24 sandhis, each sandhi into 24 padas, and each pada into 24 richas or verses. This circular structure is an indication of the intricately interlocked structure of the Veda.
The first letter of the Rig Veda is A. A is considered to the the primordial sound from which all other sounds (and frequencies) are generated. A therefore indicates everything that is present in the universe. The first syllable Ak is a combination of A - everything, and k - nothing. The k sound is a constrictive sound and it ends the presence of all sounds, and is considered nothing. Thus Ak is everything and nothing, which is the entire universe. The first word is Agnim. Agni is the God of Fire in Hinduism, and is supposed to be the representative of everything in the universe. Agni is also the messenger between man and God.
Thus, the first letter, the first syllable, and the first word all contain the same information. This concept is further expanded over the first sukta of the first Mandala, and so on; making the Rig Veda a perfect example of a hologram. It is said that no human brain can think of such an intricate structure of verses, and is supposed to be devine knowledge that can only be realised.
The first letter of the Rig Veda is A. A is considered to the the primordial sound from which all other sounds (and frequencies) are generated. A therefore indicates everything that is present in the universe. The first syllable Ak is a combination of A - everything, and k - nothing. The k sound is a constrictive sound and it ends the presence of all sounds, and is considered nothing. Thus Ak is everything and nothing, which is the entire universe. The first word is Agnim. Agni is the God of Fire in Hinduism, and is supposed to be the representative of everything in the universe. Agni is also the messenger between man and God.
Thus, the first letter, the first syllable, and the first word all contain the same information. This concept is further expanded over the first sukta of the first Mandala, and so on; making the Rig Veda a perfect example of a hologram. It is said that no human brain can think of such an intricate structure of verses, and is supposed to be devine knowledge that can only be realised.
Monday, December 19, 2005
More links
All links in this section have been obtained from here.
A fitting reply to the con-men from Nigeria. I tried my own technique once, I emailed them back saying I had some money of my own to transfer, and wondered if they could help me with it. They never got back to me, and I think they had enough transfers on their hands anyway without having to worry about more.
Another quiz, a quickie this time! (All ye dirty minds, thy shalt frieth in hell for a long time!) I got classified as - hold on to your hats - a centrist. Does that mean I am doing nothing better than sitting on the fence? Or does that mean I'm trying to strike a balance between a blind rush to a completely liberal society and a need to retain our traditional values by being conservative? Tricky issue this. I think its the second, more of this in a later blog.
Finally, I cannot believe people actually read and comment on this blog. Is it because people actually believe there are some profound insights to life in those posts? Or is it because people just love to read a parody on the blogs that can be best described as (Kane's words) current affairs blogs? Either way, I don't get it.
Here is an idea that one would initially tend to dismiss as too simplistic. But the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that it might just work.
PlanetRead is an organization that has decided to introduce same language subtitling for Hindi shows in India. For those who are in USA, this is the same as closed captioning you get on TV, except that it is in Hindi. This way, PlanetRead hopes that the people who watch these shows will read the subtitles, and thus improve their reading abilities.
The reason why I think this will work is that it does not require the target audience to do anything out of their way to read. They just have to continue doing what they do, and read the text that appears on the screen. This idea is not going to make scholars out of the entire workforce, but, over time, is sure to improve the reading abilities of these people.
To read more about this idea, see this link on the official Google blog.
As usual, comments welcome.
A fitting reply to the con-men from Nigeria. I tried my own technique once, I emailed them back saying I had some money of my own to transfer, and wondered if they could help me with it. They never got back to me, and I think they had enough transfers on their hands anyway without having to worry about more.
Another quiz, a quickie this time! (All ye dirty minds, thy shalt frieth in hell for a long time!) I got classified as - hold on to your hats - a centrist. Does that mean I am doing nothing better than sitting on the fence? Or does that mean I'm trying to strike a balance between a blind rush to a completely liberal society and a need to retain our traditional values by being conservative? Tricky issue this. I think its the second, more of this in a later blog.
Finally, I cannot believe people actually read and comment on this blog. Is it because people actually believe there are some profound insights to life in those posts? Or is it because people just love to read a parody on the blogs that can be best described as (Kane's words) current affairs blogs? Either way, I don't get it.
***
Addition on Dec 19, 7:00 pmHere is an idea that one would initially tend to dismiss as too simplistic. But the more I thought about it, the more I was convinced that it might just work.
PlanetRead is an organization that has decided to introduce same language subtitling for Hindi shows in India. For those who are in USA, this is the same as closed captioning you get on TV, except that it is in Hindi. This way, PlanetRead hopes that the people who watch these shows will read the subtitles, and thus improve their reading abilities.
The reason why I think this will work is that it does not require the target audience to do anything out of their way to read. They just have to continue doing what they do, and read the text that appears on the screen. This idea is not going to make scholars out of the entire workforce, but, over time, is sure to improve the reading abilities of these people.
To read more about this idea, see this link on the official Google blog.
As usual, comments welcome.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
What religion are you?
Check out this link. It tells you which religion your views are closely matched to. My score as a Hindu was 96% and as a Buddhist, 88%. I cannot verify the accuracy of the results, but it will be interesting to see how everyone scores. Why don't you take the test and leave a comment? And if people are really in the mood for it, we can discuss the results too! Just kidding. Not.
***
Chelsea on the cheap here.Saturday, December 10, 2005
A light (sic) post
Going the exact opposite way, here is a not-so-recent conversation I had with my roommate, Mridul Balaraman.
(Note: I here is me, and M is Mridul)
I: How many springs does a basketball have?
M: A basketball doesnt have springs in it.
I: Sure it does, how else does the ball bounce?
M: That's because it has air in it.
I: This room has air, how come it ain't bouncin' around?
M: That's because it's stuck to the ground!
I: I can pin this ball to the ground, and my hands bounce off it!
M: The room has doors and windows that the ball doesn't.
I: If I make a tear in this ball, my hand still bounces off it!
Mridul then went off about elasticity and rigidity to prove that I was wrong. I countered by claiming that a spring is a form of elasticity as well.
Without going off into scientific principles, and by simply making some dumb (but seemingly logical) arguments, how far can you take this debate? Anyone brave enough to further an argument?
Edit:
Lines 1 to 5 in the conversation were obtained from something that came on the TV (dont remember what), and the rest was made up by me and Mridul.
(Note: I here is me, and M is Mridul)
I: How many springs does a basketball have?
M: A basketball doesnt have springs in it.
I: Sure it does, how else does the ball bounce?
M: That's because it has air in it.
I: This room has air, how come it ain't bouncin' around?
M: That's because it's stuck to the ground!
I: I can pin this ball to the ground, and my hands bounce off it!
M: The room has doors and windows that the ball doesn't.
I: If I make a tear in this ball, my hand still bounces off it!
Mridul then went off about elasticity and rigidity to prove that I was wrong. I countered by claiming that a spring is a form of elasticity as well.
Without going off into scientific principles, and by simply making some dumb (but seemingly logical) arguments, how far can you take this debate? Anyone brave enough to further an argument?
Edit:
Lines 1 to 5 in the conversation were obtained from something that came on the TV (dont remember what), and the rest was made up by me and Mridul.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Logic and Science
Advisor: This is my blog, hence everything thats written here are my thoughts. You have the job of separating the wheat from the chaff.
From dictionary.com:
Logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Reasoning: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence
Scientific principles rely on logic and reasoning for their support. Throw away those two, and the entire structure crumbles. The term logical sense in the definition of reasoning is important here. It means what appears logical to us, what seems to be common sense. But, as we know from a century (or more?) of upheaval of our understanding of physics, what appears to be common sense need not be true.
A couple of thousand years ago, common sense dictated that the earth was flat. Till about a hundred years ago, common sense told us that speeds of two objects approaching each other should simply be added to each other to obtain relative speeds. Einsten proved that it is only an approximation at low speeds, and the correct equation is a little more complex.
Many a times, a radical approach at thinking, which does not confirm to common sense, fits our observations better. Quantum physics is a continuing example of this. The point I am trying to make here is that simply because certain ideas do not appeal to common sense, one must not disregard them as ridiculous. They might just turn up to be one of the more profound ideas that have been tought of. Science, as it describes the universe, is not perfect. It is not wrong, rather it is incomplete. There are still huge gaps in observable phenomenon that have not yet been explained. But science will get there, one baby step by baby step. Eventually.
Unobserved phenomena. If it's not seen, it's not true. Right? Not necessarily. Consider these examples. The so-called "primitive tribes" have a very close association with nature (in my opinion, that in itself is enough to make them more advanced than us modern beings, considering our near total lack of understanding of how nature works). Some tribes claim that they "talk" to animals, other claim that they "talk" to plants. Of course, it is a silly notion, how could we ever talk to plants or animals? Or can't we? The point is that we do not know. It may well be true, and in our arrogance and belief in our supposed superiority, we cannot believe that the "primitive" people have a more intimate knowledge of nature. These people have entire belief systems that worship nature, and make the best use of what nature has to offer to make their lives easier. The Hindus have a religion that has a very close association with nature as well. Consider the neem (tulsi) for example. Some Hindus worship the plant. I do not see what is wrong in that. We know that the tulsi has many medicinal properties that the medicinal community has acknowledged. But these properties can be easily verified. The practices of many tribes are, at worst, obscure, but that is no reason to dismiss them as superstition.
The Dogons are a tribe in the Republic of Mali that worship the star Sirius. They are believed to have been in existance from about 3000 B.C. Every 50 years, they celebrate a festival and pray to God (the star) that it be freed from the clutches of evil (I am not sure about the exact details of the celebration here). Superstition, you say! In fact, Sirius has a companion star, Sirius B, which orbits Sirius every 50 years, and the timing of their festival coincides with (you guessed it!) the eclipse of the companion by the main star. And we advanced people obtained this knowledge only in the 1970's.
On a more grandoise scale, Hindu stories are full of descriptions of warfare using weapons that can be initiated with a mantra. The ancient people had weapons that had nuclear radiation (sic) in them, weapons that could accurately track their victims (by following the energy signature of a person, which as a concept, is absolute magic to us!), and three-storied vehicles that could fly, and resembled entire cities, with vertical lift-offs, an invisible mode, et al. Today, we are quick to dismiss these stories as mythology*.
But remember that in those times, humans had a much closer association with nature. Today, we are almost hopelessly out of tune with nature (although that is changing for the good). We cannot believe that such claims by the tribes and such things as described in the texts are possible. We have imagined technology (and our intellect) to have always advanced as time progressed.
Have you even entertained the idea that our paradigm of technology progess may not true, that mankind once possessed such knowledge as we can only dream of today? That perhaps, at some point in time, something happened and a whole knowledge system was lost, save in bits and pieces that we see as practices by primitive people? We should step down from our high pedestal, and objectively look into the reasoning behind practices of the tribes. There is a whole wealth of information in there, more than you can imagine. And yes, this includes Hindu scriptures, whose knowledge we have been quick to disregard with the advent of the colonial conquest of India.
Give "primitive practices" a chance.
* Mythology means "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." (again, from dictionary.com) I believe it is really unfair to call Hindu stories mythologies, especially when Christians call theirs as history! (or am i getting paranoid?) Of course, not all Christians call it history, those involved in scholarly research call it mythology, but the difference is that all Hindus call their stories mythology (another colonial initiative).
From dictionary.com:
Logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
Reasoning: An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence
Scientific principles rely on logic and reasoning for their support. Throw away those two, and the entire structure crumbles. The term logical sense in the definition of reasoning is important here. It means what appears logical to us, what seems to be common sense. But, as we know from a century (or more?) of upheaval of our understanding of physics, what appears to be common sense need not be true.
A couple of thousand years ago, common sense dictated that the earth was flat. Till about a hundred years ago, common sense told us that speeds of two objects approaching each other should simply be added to each other to obtain relative speeds. Einsten proved that it is only an approximation at low speeds, and the correct equation is a little more complex.
Many a times, a radical approach at thinking, which does not confirm to common sense, fits our observations better. Quantum physics is a continuing example of this. The point I am trying to make here is that simply because certain ideas do not appeal to common sense, one must not disregard them as ridiculous. They might just turn up to be one of the more profound ideas that have been tought of. Science, as it describes the universe, is not perfect. It is not wrong, rather it is incomplete. There are still huge gaps in observable phenomenon that have not yet been explained. But science will get there, one baby step by baby step. Eventually.
Unobserved phenomena. If it's not seen, it's not true. Right? Not necessarily. Consider these examples. The so-called "primitive tribes" have a very close association with nature (in my opinion, that in itself is enough to make them more advanced than us modern beings, considering our near total lack of understanding of how nature works). Some tribes claim that they "talk" to animals, other claim that they "talk" to plants. Of course, it is a silly notion, how could we ever talk to plants or animals? Or can't we? The point is that we do not know. It may well be true, and in our arrogance and belief in our supposed superiority, we cannot believe that the "primitive" people have a more intimate knowledge of nature. These people have entire belief systems that worship nature, and make the best use of what nature has to offer to make their lives easier. The Hindus have a religion that has a very close association with nature as well. Consider the neem (tulsi) for example. Some Hindus worship the plant. I do not see what is wrong in that. We know that the tulsi has many medicinal properties that the medicinal community has acknowledged. But these properties can be easily verified. The practices of many tribes are, at worst, obscure, but that is no reason to dismiss them as superstition.
The Dogons are a tribe in the Republic of Mali that worship the star Sirius. They are believed to have been in existance from about 3000 B.C. Every 50 years, they celebrate a festival and pray to God (the star) that it be freed from the clutches of evil (I am not sure about the exact details of the celebration here). Superstition, you say! In fact, Sirius has a companion star, Sirius B, which orbits Sirius every 50 years, and the timing of their festival coincides with (you guessed it!) the eclipse of the companion by the main star. And we advanced people obtained this knowledge only in the 1970's.
On a more grandoise scale, Hindu stories are full of descriptions of warfare using weapons that can be initiated with a mantra. The ancient people had weapons that had nuclear radiation (sic) in them, weapons that could accurately track their victims (by following the energy signature of a person, which as a concept, is absolute magic to us!), and three-storied vehicles that could fly, and resembled entire cities, with vertical lift-offs, an invisible mode, et al. Today, we are quick to dismiss these stories as mythology*.
But remember that in those times, humans had a much closer association with nature. Today, we are almost hopelessly out of tune with nature (although that is changing for the good). We cannot believe that such claims by the tribes and such things as described in the texts are possible. We have imagined technology (and our intellect) to have always advanced as time progressed.
Have you even entertained the idea that our paradigm of technology progess may not true, that mankind once possessed such knowledge as we can only dream of today? That perhaps, at some point in time, something happened and a whole knowledge system was lost, save in bits and pieces that we see as practices by primitive people? We should step down from our high pedestal, and objectively look into the reasoning behind practices of the tribes. There is a whole wealth of information in there, more than you can imagine. And yes, this includes Hindu scriptures, whose knowledge we have been quick to disregard with the advent of the colonial conquest of India.
Give "primitive practices" a chance.
* Mythology means "A body or collection of myths belonging to a people and addressing their origin, history, deities, ancestors, and heroes." (again, from dictionary.com) I believe it is really unfair to call Hindu stories mythologies, especially when Christians call theirs as history! (or am i getting paranoid?) Of course, not all Christians call it history, those involved in scholarly research call it mythology, but the difference is that all Hindus call their stories mythology (another colonial initiative).
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Clarifications on my previous post
Since my response to the first two comments cannot fit in the comments section, I am adding them as a separate post.
A few clarifications here. First, I do not believe in the concept of intelligent design. This means some external God creating the universe, which, as I submitted, does not make any sense. Instead, the God I am talking about is the "consciousness" that permeates everything in the universe. This energy is called differently by different people. I don't know if the scientists have a name for it, but I do know the Buddhists call it Reiki. It is this consciousness that "runs" the entire universe, intrinsically, as part of it. I believe this is what Nikhil talks about in his post. Same idea, different words.
Secondly, I am not trying to prove the philosophies of Hinduism by scientific techniques. That is just not possible, because science develops theories by only looking at the material universe, whereas to understand Hindu philosophy, you have to transcend the material universe to the deeper consciousness thats present everywhere. The reason for mentioning the implications of quantum mechanics was to show that the Hindu philosophy of oneness is not as outlandish as it would have sounded otherwise. The idea is not easy to understand in the first place; I just did not want it to appear as if it is some religious dogma.
I understand that the theories of science are just "best-fit" models to explain observable data, and can be superceded by better theories. But I never was using that as a "proof" of any Hindu concept, just as a tool to buttress the mind for the philosphies. The ideas I present here are purely from a Hindu perspective, and NOT from a scientific perspective. It has a two-fold purpose - to educate others about Hindu philosophy, and to help me understand them better. I do realise there may be some errors in my posts, and I'd be grateful if they are corrected, or if some comments further my understanding.
The idea of a higher dimensional universe is just a reference to the complexity of the universe. The key point is that the universe appears different to us simply because we see a very degenerate form of it. What the pure form is, is something that cannot be realised by just looking at the material universe; meditation alone will get you there.
People commit the mistake of assuming that science and religion are contradictory. They are not. An example is the theory of evolution. Hinduism also supports this theory. Dashavataram of Vishnu is a symbolism that alludes to this. But this does not mean that science and religion talk about the same things. Science talks about the material universe, and religion transcends that and talks about what goes beyond that. Eventually, both will meet. But we are a long way from that, and for now, they are both complimentary.
To really appreciate the philosophies of Hinduism, you need to consider its correct name - Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana means eternal, and Dharma means the higher truth. Sanatana Dharma means the laws of the universe that have always existed. Thus, it is not a religion created by human minds, but rather a religion of the essential truths that have been "realised" by sages. You are, of course, welcome to either agree or disagree with it.
What is, however, true is that an increasing number of scientists are beginning to appreciate the eastern philophies, and are willing to consider the possibility that they might be true. A few of them (not a significant number, though) look at eastern philosophies and try to use that as a "best-fit" to observable data. It can be viewed as an early attempt to link science and spirituality. Science must, however, follow its own path to arrive at the truth, and eastern philosophies can only really serve as a directional beacon in that quest.
A few clarifications here. First, I do not believe in the concept of intelligent design. This means some external God creating the universe, which, as I submitted, does not make any sense. Instead, the God I am talking about is the "consciousness" that permeates everything in the universe. This energy is called differently by different people. I don't know if the scientists have a name for it, but I do know the Buddhists call it Reiki. It is this consciousness that "runs" the entire universe, intrinsically, as part of it. I believe this is what Nikhil talks about in his post. Same idea, different words.
Secondly, I am not trying to prove the philosophies of Hinduism by scientific techniques. That is just not possible, because science develops theories by only looking at the material universe, whereas to understand Hindu philosophy, you have to transcend the material universe to the deeper consciousness thats present everywhere. The reason for mentioning the implications of quantum mechanics was to show that the Hindu philosophy of oneness is not as outlandish as it would have sounded otherwise. The idea is not easy to understand in the first place; I just did not want it to appear as if it is some religious dogma.
I understand that the theories of science are just "best-fit" models to explain observable data, and can be superceded by better theories. But I never was using that as a "proof" of any Hindu concept, just as a tool to buttress the mind for the philosphies. The ideas I present here are purely from a Hindu perspective, and NOT from a scientific perspective. It has a two-fold purpose - to educate others about Hindu philosophy, and to help me understand them better. I do realise there may be some errors in my posts, and I'd be grateful if they are corrected, or if some comments further my understanding.
The idea of a higher dimensional universe is just a reference to the complexity of the universe. The key point is that the universe appears different to us simply because we see a very degenerate form of it. What the pure form is, is something that cannot be realised by just looking at the material universe; meditation alone will get you there.
People commit the mistake of assuming that science and religion are contradictory. They are not. An example is the theory of evolution. Hinduism also supports this theory. Dashavataram of Vishnu is a symbolism that alludes to this. But this does not mean that science and religion talk about the same things. Science talks about the material universe, and religion transcends that and talks about what goes beyond that. Eventually, both will meet. But we are a long way from that, and for now, they are both complimentary.
To really appreciate the philosophies of Hinduism, you need to consider its correct name - Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana means eternal, and Dharma means the higher truth. Sanatana Dharma means the laws of the universe that have always existed. Thus, it is not a religion created by human minds, but rather a religion of the essential truths that have been "realised" by sages. You are, of course, welcome to either agree or disagree with it.
What is, however, true is that an increasing number of scientists are beginning to appreciate the eastern philophies, and are willing to consider the possibility that they might be true. A few of them (not a significant number, though) look at eastern philosophies and try to use that as a "best-fit" to observable data. It can be viewed as an early attempt to link science and spirituality. Science must, however, follow its own path to arrive at the truth, and eastern philosophies can only really serve as a directional beacon in that quest.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
Religion and Science
Discussions with a couple of friends have inspired me to write this post.
The question of God seems to bring about a lot of controversy these days. People who strongly believe in God are dubbed conservatives, and in some cases, prudes. Others proudly proclaim that they do not believe in God as "the concept is not based on logic and requires blind faith". Then there is the question of religion, with every person claiming that his religion is the only "true" religion (eastern religions are an exception here).
When we speak of God, the image created in most people's minds is of some wise person who sits outside this entire universe and controls it, right from creation to destruction. This, however, is not the way God is described in all religions. The above concept of God certainly seems contradictory to logic, and with every passing day, science is a step closer to actually proving that such a God cannot exist. The proponents of this image of God would have us believe that science is a creation of the devil to lead us astray. I will not argue with them on their beliefs. My purpose in this post is to present an image of God that is in tune with the beliefs of eastern religions. An image that will appeal to logic.
Now, I claim that I am a Hindu and I feel strongly about it. So if you feel any bias in this post, it is probably true.
Hinduism claims that this universe is a hologram (hence the name of this blog). A hologram is something that has a unique property. Each and every part of the hologram contains the same information as the entire hologram itself. If you break a hologram into a thousand pieces, each piece has the same information as the whole. Quantum mechanics, as a result of Bell's theorem, confirms the fact that the universe is a hologram. What this means is that every point in this universe is the same as every other point. Now, this in itself is an astonishing property. What is more so, is that Hinduism, which is over thousands of years old, claims the same thing.
Thus, clearly, there is some form of consciousness that is present all over the universe. This is the only thing that exists throughout the universe. This consciousness is what Hinduism calls God. God is present in everything, and we are all one. (This is not quite the same thing as saying that I am God!)
The question arises - if everything is the same as everything else, why do we see the universe as a collection of different objects? The answer to that is that we see the universe in only three dimensions. The actual universe is present in a much higher dimension (11, 24 or infinite, according to various theories), and we only see a projection in lower dimensions. This is something like a picture, which is a projection of the 3D world into a 2D image. It is in the higher dimensional universe that all points are the same as every other. It is the projection that makes us see the universe as different.
Further, Hinduism claims that the entire universe is only an illusion that has been created by your mind (Hinduism is not alone in this, Buddhism claims the same thing). The absolute reality is, in fact, unchanging. This reality is called Brahman. The universe that we see is only a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma) is also known as Nirguna Brahman - without any personal attributes - and is without beginning or end. It is indescribable, omniscient, transcendent, incorporeal and the absolute infinite existance. In other words, it is absolute "nothingness". Imagine that the universe did not exist. Imagine that nothing exists at all. This state is called Brahman, and this is the God that Hinduism worships.
The different Gods that we see in Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) are just symbolic representations to present God in a more tangible form. All the Gods that are described are just aspects of a single God, Shiva-Shakti, which is the Saguna Brahman, or God with personal attributes.
Now these are extremely deep (and fascinating!) philosophical ideas. Understanding the concept of Brahman is supposed to be the ultimate aim of a human. It is called attaining Moksha (Nirvana in Buddhism). In Hindu philosphy, the ideas of the universe being a hologram and truth of the unchanging reality are interchangable ideas. Each implies the other. If the unchanging reality is the truth, why would the manifested universe be different at different points? If every point is the same as every other, the single point is everything in the universe, which is the same as saying that it is nothing. I do not pretend that I understand these ideas fully, but I personally think that they are not far from the truth.
The question of God seems to bring about a lot of controversy these days. People who strongly believe in God are dubbed conservatives, and in some cases, prudes. Others proudly proclaim that they do not believe in God as "the concept is not based on logic and requires blind faith". Then there is the question of religion, with every person claiming that his religion is the only "true" religion (eastern religions are an exception here).
When we speak of God, the image created in most people's minds is of some wise person who sits outside this entire universe and controls it, right from creation to destruction. This, however, is not the way God is described in all religions. The above concept of God certainly seems contradictory to logic, and with every passing day, science is a step closer to actually proving that such a God cannot exist. The proponents of this image of God would have us believe that science is a creation of the devil to lead us astray. I will not argue with them on their beliefs. My purpose in this post is to present an image of God that is in tune with the beliefs of eastern religions. An image that will appeal to logic.
Now, I claim that I am a Hindu and I feel strongly about it. So if you feel any bias in this post, it is probably true.
Hinduism claims that this universe is a hologram (hence the name of this blog). A hologram is something that has a unique property. Each and every part of the hologram contains the same information as the entire hologram itself. If you break a hologram into a thousand pieces, each piece has the same information as the whole. Quantum mechanics, as a result of Bell's theorem, confirms the fact that the universe is a hologram. What this means is that every point in this universe is the same as every other point. Now, this in itself is an astonishing property. What is more so, is that Hinduism, which is over thousands of years old, claims the same thing.
Thus, clearly, there is some form of consciousness that is present all over the universe. This is the only thing that exists throughout the universe. This consciousness is what Hinduism calls God. God is present in everything, and we are all one. (This is not quite the same thing as saying that I am God!)
The question arises - if everything is the same as everything else, why do we see the universe as a collection of different objects? The answer to that is that we see the universe in only three dimensions. The actual universe is present in a much higher dimension (11, 24 or infinite, according to various theories), and we only see a projection in lower dimensions. This is something like a picture, which is a projection of the 3D world into a 2D image. It is in the higher dimensional universe that all points are the same as every other. It is the projection that makes us see the universe as different.
Further, Hinduism claims that the entire universe is only an illusion that has been created by your mind (Hinduism is not alone in this, Buddhism claims the same thing). The absolute reality is, in fact, unchanging. This reality is called Brahman. The universe that we see is only a manifestation of Brahman. Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma) is also known as Nirguna Brahman - without any personal attributes - and is without beginning or end. It is indescribable, omniscient, transcendent, incorporeal and the absolute infinite existance. In other words, it is absolute "nothingness". Imagine that the universe did not exist. Imagine that nothing exists at all. This state is called Brahman, and this is the God that Hinduism worships.
The different Gods that we see in Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva) are just symbolic representations to present God in a more tangible form. All the Gods that are described are just aspects of a single God, Shiva-Shakti, which is the Saguna Brahman, or God with personal attributes.
Now these are extremely deep (and fascinating!) philosophical ideas. Understanding the concept of Brahman is supposed to be the ultimate aim of a human. It is called attaining Moksha (Nirvana in Buddhism). In Hindu philosphy, the ideas of the universe being a hologram and truth of the unchanging reality are interchangable ideas. Each implies the other. If the unchanging reality is the truth, why would the manifested universe be different at different points? If every point is the same as every other, the single point is everything in the universe, which is the same as saying that it is nothing. I do not pretend that I understand these ideas fully, but I personally think that they are not far from the truth.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Some interesting blogs
Ever since I started my own blog, I've been overcome by this craze of reading other blogs. Blog hopping, I call it. Start off with a random blog, then onto some random blog from among those that the person writing the first random blog reads, and so on. And its amazing the kind of blogs that you find. Some make you think. Some are simply too hilarious. And some make you go wow!
A bra flinging story, a post on perspective and a story about a unique statue of the four-armed Vishnu are some postings that I really liked (and they have no relation to each other). I liked the one on perspective the most. The idea is somewhat obvious, but still required someone to write it. I could summarise it in one line - एकम् सत्, िवप्र बहुध वदंती (sorry that didnt quite come out right), translated as "The truth is one, but the wise see it in many ways" (from the Rig-veda). And if that seems too philosophical and esoteric, how about "Open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters"? (Thank you Koxy!)
Finally rounding off today's post is a picture of Bay Area in San Fransisco. Looks so similar to Mumbai, and so refreshing that it makes New York look artificial. The pic made me want to cry. Nostalgia?
A bra flinging story, a post on perspective and a story about a unique statue of the four-armed Vishnu are some postings that I really liked (and they have no relation to each other). I liked the one on perspective the most. The idea is somewhat obvious, but still required someone to write it. I could summarise it in one line - एकम् सत्, िवप्र बहुध वदंती (sorry that didnt quite come out right), translated as "The truth is one, but the wise see it in many ways" (from the Rig-veda). And if that seems too philosophical and esoteric, how about "Open mind for a different view, and nothing else matters"? (Thank you Koxy!)
Finally rounding off today's post is a picture of Bay Area in San Fransisco. Looks so similar to Mumbai, and so refreshing that it makes New York look artificial. The pic made me want to cry. Nostalgia?
Sunday, November 20, 2005
The first one
Q: How long does it take one to start a blog?
A: A couple of minutes on blogspot.com in general, a couple of years if you are me!
Well finally I have a blog, after my cousin remarked that it improves ones creative writing. I'm only here to test the hypothesis. I already think that it might be true, after all I never thought I could start a column (or a blog, for that matter) with a Q and A! General survey question to anyone who, having nothing better to do, or alternately, having some pity on me, finds him/herself reading this excuse for a blog - does blogging improve your creative writing?
A: A couple of minutes on blogspot.com in general, a couple of years if you are me!
Well finally I have a blog, after my cousin remarked that it improves ones creative writing. I'm only here to test the hypothesis. I already think that it might be true, after all I never thought I could start a column (or a blog, for that matter) with a Q and A! General survey question to anyone who, having nothing better to do, or alternately, having some pity on me, finds him/herself reading this excuse for a blog - does blogging improve your creative writing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
