Monday, May 23, 2011

Volume-7: Summary of “Introduction to Vedanta” by Swami Dayananda

This document is a brief summary of the book titled "Introduction to Vedanta" with the sub-text "Understanding the Fundamental Problem" by Swami Dayananda. I have found the book very informative and deeply thought-provoking in certain sections, which I have captured in this document.

I have split this into two sections. The first section provides the main philosophical take-away from the whole book; while the second section summarizes the various other topics the book talks about.

Section-1: Main Message

Every human being experiences a sense of constant wanting. He tries to overcome it and achieve adequacy through various actions, which ultimately prove futile. There are two types of achievements: achieving those that are not yet achieved; and achieving those that are already achieved. The first category requires action and effort, which being limited, lead only to limited results. Therefore, limitlessness or moksha cannot belong to first category – it is in the second category – it is something that is already achieved, but we don't know. How can that be? Example is a pair of glasses perched on your head, but not knowing it, you look for them all over the house. It's the same thing with limitlessness – it's something we already have, but don't know because of our ignorance.

Ignorance can be shed by going to a guru who is not only fully aware of the nature of his true self, but is also knowledgeable about the right methodology to impart that awareness to you.

Section-2: Book Summary

The Four Categories of Human Effort

A human being sees himself as a deficient person. His constant, compulsive pursuits make his sense of inadequacy evident. To escape from this deficiency, he struggles for a large number of things in life which fall under four main headings:

  • dharma – ethics;
  • Artha – securities;
  • Kama – pleasures;
  • Moksha – liberation

All four are collectively called purushartha – that which is longed for by human beings. These are the goals purusha, the human being, struggles for.

The four basic human pursuits can be subdivided into two sets. One set, the pursuit of artha and kama is shared in common with other living beings; the other set, effort in accordance with dharma and the pursuit of moksha is peculiar to human beings. The second set of human pursuits arises because a human being is a self-conscious person. A self-conscious being is a thinker, with the capacity to reach conclusions about himself. This capacity has made possible the universal human conclusion: I am a limited deficient being who must struggle for certain things through which I hope to become complete.

The Endless Search for Security: Artha

Artha stands for all forms of security in life: wealth, influence, and fame. All creatures have a sense of insecurity. They, too, want to be secure. However, their attitude and behavior are governed by a built-in program. Their sense of insecurity goes so far and no further; the animal's struggle for security is contained, it has an end. For them no endless brooding over security.

For the human being, there is no end to longing and struggle. Because I am a self-conscious being, I have the capacity to feel insecure; I accumulate assets but the accumulation fails to make me feel secure.

The Mercurial Nature of Pleasure: kama

Kama stands for the many forms of sensual pleasure. All creatures seek what is pleasurable – through whatever sense organs available to them. For non-human creatures, the pursuit of pleasure is defined and controlled by instinct. They pursue what they are programmed to enjoy, directly and simply. Their enjoyment is not complicated by philosophy and self-judgment. Enjoyment beings, ends, and is contained in the moment, in accordance with an instinctual program.

Human pursuit of pleasures is more complex. Our desires are driven both by instinct and personal value systems. One's instinctual desires, as a living being, are complicated by the human ability to entertain wide-ranging, changeable personal desires. Every human being lives in a private, subjective world where one sees objects ads desirable, undesirable, or neutral – neither desired nor undesired. When I examine my attitudes towards these objects, I find that what is desired by me is not desired by me at all times, or at all places; nor is what I desire necessarily desired by others. What is desired, changes. Time conditions desire; place conditions desire; individual values also conditions desire.

Both animals and human beings struggle to obtain the pleasant and avoid the unpleasant. The difference is that the human struggle is not determined and limited by any set pattern, but is determined and limited by fluctuating values. These ever-changing values keep one ever-struggling.

Special Standards: Ethics

Because the struggle for artha and kama is not instinctually controlled but guided by changing personal values, it becomes necessary for the human society to have a set of standards, which is indepdent of any individual's subjective values that determine his likes and dislikes.

Since I have the faculty of choice, I must have certain norms controlling my various actions, karma. Not being preprogrammed, for me, the end cannot justify the means. I have a choice over both ends and means. Not only must the end chosen be permissible, but the means to gain that end must also conform to certain values. This special set of values controlling the individual choice of action is called ethics. The human struggle for security and pleasure must be in accordance with an ethical choice.

For animals, the question of ethics does not arise. They have little unprogrammed choice over action. Actions controlled by instincts, not subject to choice, create no ethical problems. Merit does not accrue to the vegetarian cow nor demerit to the tiger that eats the cow.

Source of Ethics: Commonsense

One discovers the source of ethical values by observing how one wants others to behave with reference to oneself. Ethical values are based on commonsense appreciation of how one wants to oneself to be treated. The ends and means I want (or do not want) others to choose because of the way such choices affect me establish a standard in me by which I judge the propriety of the goals and the means I choose myself – a standard which takes into consideration the impact of my choices upon others. Such values comprise commonsense ethics, which are recognized and confirmed scripturally in a more comprehensive ethical doctrine – religious in nature – called dharma.

A human being with his highly developed, self-conscious mind has the capacity to make unprogrammed choices and to reflect upon the consequences of hic choices. This capacity has given rise to ethical guidelines. To be fully human is to utilize these guidelines in the exercise of choice.

What Religious Ethics Add

Sometimes one can be clever enough to abuse freedom without transgressing man-made laws. At this point, religious ethics enter the picture. One must distinguish between commonsense ethics and religious ethics. The latter confirm the former and add a few more. Religious ethics also usually enjoin special duties and impose additional prohibitions, based not just on common sense, but on some religious tradition or scriptural revelation. It is not necessary to follow these special ethics to be a good citizen; commonsense ethics are good enough for that.

Falling into Place: moksha

Moksha is a conscious concern of only a few. These few recognize that what they want is not more security or more pleasure but freedom itself – freedom from all desires. Everyone has some moments of freedom, moments when one seems to "fall into place." When I "fall into place," I am free. These fleeting moments of falling into place are experienced by all human beings. Sometimes music causes one to fall into place; at other times it may be the fulfillment of an intense desire, or the keen appreciation of something beautiful. That everything is in place is evidenced by not wanting anything to be different in the circumstances of the moment.

When I do not want anything to be different, I know that I have fallen into place with what is. I know fulfillment. I need make no change to become contended. I am, for that moment, free – from the need to struggle for some change in me or the circumstances. If I should fall into place permanently, requiring no more change in anything, my life would be, fulfilled, the struggle over.

The pursuit of moksha is the direct pursuit of that freedom everyone has experienced for brief moments when everything has "fallen into place." How can that freedom be gained? What kinds of bonds deny such freedom?

The Fundamental Problem

The Locus of Error

Failure to see an object for what it is leads to a mistake as to the nature of the object. If the object is totally unperceived, there is only ignorance, but no mistake. A totally unperceived, unknown object never becomes the locus of error concerning its nature.

Highly conscious of himself, a human being has a locus in which to make a mistake about himself. If, in looking at himself, he does not recognize himself for what he is, he will make a judgment about himself that will be something other than what his self is.

The Self-Judgment of Inadequacy

One judgment that the human being makes about himself is: "As I am now, I am an incomplete being; I am deficient, inadequate." The evidence of this judgment is seen in the compulsiveness and constancy of the human pursuit of security and pleasure. The gain of security and pleasures assumes such importance because it is through their gain that one hopes to escape from want, inadequacy, and incompleteness and become a free, adequate person.

All struggles in life are expressions of the urge to be complete. The conclusion that I am an incomplete person either accurately reflects my nature, or is a mistake. This will have to be decided. If it reflects my true nature, there is no need to seek further knowledge about myself for the sake of changing my conclusion that I am incomplete. On the other hand, if it is an erroneous conclusion, then I need to know more about myself in order to discover the completeness that seems to be hidden from me. My attempt to change the situation is really an attempt to change myself.

Personal Values Determine Types of Changes

The types of changes one attempts to bring about in a given situation are dependent upon one's personal value system. Personal values are made up of subjective values and ethical values. Subjective values come from one's temperament, conditioned by one's own array of experiences of pleasure and pain. My ethical values are those guiding standards which take into consideration the likes and dislikes of others. I accept ethical guidelines either because I have not resisted their imposition upon me by society, culture, or some other authority, or because I see their value for myself. In either case, I follow them because I feel that I shall be more fulfilled by doing so rather than being guided solely by my personal likes and dislikes. Thus, ethical standards are also connected with the desire to court what is pleasant and avoid the unpleasant.

Attitude towards Change

There is no problem with change itself. Change cannot be avoided. Life is a process of constant change. What is being discussed is a certain kind of expectation centered on change. The changes being talked about are the changes one is driven to make for the sake of altering one's situation, expecting such change will make one more comfortable, more adequate, more complete.

Our topics is not simple, matter-of-fact changes, made simply because the given circumstances call for a change; nor is it the casual, incidental changes one makes for the sake of variety to which one attaches no particular importance. We are talking about changes towards which one has certain expectations liked with one's conclusions about oneself.

Most changes one seeks are not for the sake of the change, but for one's own sake. When I am comfortable I stop all compulsive change-seeking. The change I really want is the one that will make me comfortable in any situation – so adequate, so complete that no situation will bother me.

Gain through Change Always Involves Loss

Any gain that comes as a result of effort is not absolute. Every gain of security through effort involves a concomitant loss.

Fickle Pleasure

The gain of pleasure rests upon the convergence of three constantly changing factors, never fully predictable, nor ever under one's control: availability of the object; availability of the appropriate, effective instrument for enjoying the object; and presence of the proper frame of mind for enjoyment of the object.

The mind, being what it is – whimsical, capricious – gets tired of what it once eagerly desired and sought. The mind can discover monotony in objects.

Recognition of the Fundamental Problem

The fundamental human problem is to become adequate. The solution chosen is the gain of security and pleasures. The result is temporary release, if any, but not an end to the sense of inadequacy. The uncreated (limitlessness) cannot be produced by action.

Inadequacy is Centered on Oneself

One cannot solve the human problem by the pursuit and attainment of things in the world; nor does one solve it by renouncing worldly things. Gain or loss is all that can happen through action.

Through either gain or loss, the discovery is the same: I am still inadequate. With something gained, I do not become adequate; free from something abandoned, I do not become adequate. The discovery is made: inadequacy is something centered on me, not on the possession or dispossession of something. I am inadequate because I am inadequate. The inadequacy does not depend upon any factor other than myself. Neither pravriti, the positive pursuit of something, nor nivriti, the turning away from things, cures my inadequacy.

Insight into Inadequacy

One does not find it possible to accept inadequacy. The seeking of adequacy is not a cultivated desire. It is not a desire one acquires along the way, born of circumstances and conditioning. A cultivated desire can be abandoned, but a natural urge cannot be given up.

There seems to be an insight of adequacy, which comes whenever I have an experience wherein there is freedom from being an inadequate, deficient being. And such experiences occur in the lives of everyone. That experience of not wanting in anything becomes the norm by which the experience of being wanting in something is judged. One cannot consider something as bad unless one knows what is good. There is no dissatisfaction if there is no norm for satisfaction.

Direct Search for Freedom from Inadequacy

A mumukshu is one who desires freedom from all limitations. A mumukshu knows that his ethically guided, dharmic pursuit of artha and kama does not resolve his inadequacy. He is then ready to directly seek adequacy. Moksha means freedom from inadequacy.

Distinguishing Knowledge and Experience

Knowledge is the grasp of what is. Experience is the direct perceptual participation in an event.

Experience can lead to knowledge, but the impression of experience need not be knowledge. Experience has to be assimilated in terms of knowledge. This is so because one might experience something and still be ignorant of it. Experience is one thing; knowledge of what I have experienced is quite another. When I have knowledge it includes perception – it includes experience. For knowledge, what is experienced must be known for what it is. Knowledge is something that can both contradict experience and resolve the seeming contradictions in experience.

Any given set of perceptual impressions gained from experience may or may not conform to knowledge. To qualify as knowledge they must pass the test of inquiry.

Inquiry into the Nature of Oneself: Atma-Vichara

The inquiry necessary to resolve the particular question of self-adequacy is called atma-vichara, through which I find that adequacy is not an object in relation to me; inadequacy is centered on me.

The Nature of Achievement

Achievement falls under two categories: achievement of the not-yet-achieved – apraptasya prapti; and achievement of that which is already achieved, praptasya-prapti.

What is not yet achieved is achieved in time and space by effort. Being dependent upon efforts, these achievements are limited by those very efforts. A given effort, being what it is, is limited in nature. It begins and ends. It is so much and no more. Efforts being limited, the results of efforts are also limited. The bringing about of a new condition through effort at the same time causes a change in the old condition.

Therefore the achievement of adequacy cannot fall under apraptasya-prapti. The adequacy one seeks is nothing less than limitlessness. One seeks to discover oneself as a full, complete, adequate being without even any hint of limitation. This discovery does not – cannot – take place through a process of becoming. A limited being through limited action gains a limited result. A series of limited results do not add up to limitlessness. Anything that is separated from one in time or space is limited – wanting. That which is limited and wanting, will remain limited and wanting. Change of situation, change of place, and passage of time are all relevant only to something which is limited.

The Gain of the Already-Achieved

Achievement of the already-achieved becomes possible when ignorance prevents one from knowing the fact that the thing is already there. E.g.: a guy with glasses on top of his head looking all over for those very glasses. The distance between me, the seeker of the glasses, and me, the sought, the possessor of the glasses, is ignorance alone. One's ignorance creates an apparent distance.

The Informed Seeker

When I, a seeker directly pursuing freedom from all inadequacy, discover that what I seek is not something apart from me, something yet-to-be-achieved, but is something separated from me only by ignorance, my goal becomes the destruction of that ignorance: then I seek knowledge. An informed mumukshu is called a jignyasu.

A jignyasu seeks not to do something, but to know something. The problem is to dispel self-ignorance. The solution is to gain self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is what is called liberation. For self-knowledge, self-inquiry is necessary. This atma-vichara leading to the discovery of the nature of oneself, is called Vedanta.

Ignorance and Knowledge

The apparent difference between the seeker and the sought is brought by ignorance. Ignorance is shed as one gains valid knowledge. Perception, the use of senses supported by the mind, gives rise to a valid working knowledge. Perceptual knowledge is the "working knowledge" of the world, valid in its own sphere. Through more perceptual knowledge, one is able to perceive certain connections between different things. From these relationships, we are able to make certain inferences. Such inferences are called vyapti-gyaana. Vyapti means invariable concomitance. I see smoke and I infer fire. This is vyapti-gyaana, or inferential knowledge of fire. Inferential knowledge is perception-based. The validity of perceptual-knowledge is established by its practicability in the world.

All increase of knowledge as a result of enhanced perception, bringing increased opportunity for inference, still remains no more than knowledge about things which can be objectified. Perception is always of an object. Inference is based upon perception. Therefore, all inferences (and presumptions), being what they are, are about objects alone.

Even the so-called "intellectual knowledge" is nothing but inferential knowledge. It too has its basis on the perception of objects. There is no intellectual knowledge which is not, finally, based on objects.

Knowledge is not created

The gaining of knowledge is nothing but the shedding of ignorance, agyaana-nivriti. The gain of knowledge is not a creation, srishti. The gain of knowledge is only a negation – negation of ignorance. Knowledge is covered with ignorance; all one does is remove ignorance, then knowledge, so to speak, is gained. Knowledge is not something produced or created. Knowledge always is. Knowledge is what is.

Perception is Useless for Knowing Oneself

I am the subject. I am the knower. Perception and inference do not reveal the subject. Perception and perception-based inference are useless for knowing the subject – they work only for things which the sense organs can objectify. When it becomes clear to me that the adequate being I want to be cannot be produced by a process of becoming, I realize that to gain the limitlessness I seek, I must already be that fully adequate being whose adequacy is hidden by ignorance. I need a means to shed that ignorance.

The Means to Gain Knowledge of Oneself

Per the Mundaka Upanishad, a jignyasa should go to a guru. A guru is one who dispels darkness. Gu stands for darkness; ru means the one who dispels darkness. A guru then, is a dispeller of darkness. He doesn't produce anything. He doesn't even produce knowledge. Nobody can produce knowledge. Knowledge is the accurate appreciate of what is. A guru simply throws light on something that is already there.

A teacher with appropriate knowledge is needed to throw light on my nature. If the teacher has knowledge about his own nature, is that appropriate knowledge to illumine my nature? A guru with self-knowledge can throw light upon his self; but does that light give him knowledge of my self too? If my self and his self are the same, he will know my self if he knows his own. However, if the guru's self is peculiar, differing from mine then, perhaps, his knowledge will be of no use to me.

The possible peculiarity of the guru's self is not a problem because the adequate self which one seeks, the adequate self which the guru knows, cannot have any peculiarity and yet be the adequate self. Adequacy has no peculiarity. Adequacy is totality, completeness; adequacy is without any limitation; adequacy is limitlessness which can suffer no duality. Adequacy can only be one; oneness without a second. There cannot be two limitlessnesses. Where are two, each limits the other.

And what does the teacher do? He teaches. Teaching is nothing but words. Words are a means of knowledge. They are dependent upon perception, but it is the informed mind that turns sound and form into words. Words also haven independence from their simple perception as sound which allows them to give rise to knowledge that the simple perception does not reveal.

Words can give indirect or direct knowledge. If the object is away from the knower's immediate experience, words can only give rise to indirect knowledge; if the object is within the range of the knower's immediate experience, words can bring about direct knowledge.

The Words of the Guru give Direct Knowledge of the Self

What kind of knowledge can the Guru's words give about oneself? Indirect or direct? I seek knowledge of myself, of "I". Where is this I? Is it near me or away from me? It is neither. It is I, immediate. Words throwing light on oneself will direct knowledge of "I". Either they must give direct knowledge or no knowledge at all.

The guru will throw light on the me which is here, now, the available, immediate me; the knowledge will be direct, immediate knowledge.

That is why the teacher of self-knowledge and the teaching are regard as sacred; they are a direct means of knowledge of oneself. The teaching is a body of knowledge in the form of words and sentences – known as Vedanta – which throws light upon oneself. Vedanta is called a sabda pramana, a verbal means of knowledge. Through words, it is a direct means of knowledge of oneself.

Gain of Adequacy Requires Knowledge, not Action

The subject cannot be known through the objectification of perception and inference. A "subject", when objectified becomes an object. It is not possible to objectify oneself and still look at oneself. If I become the object, I The subject-I cannot be the object-I.

The act of seeking denies that the sought is in the presence of the seeker. A search in which the seeker and the sought are identical is inherently likely to fail.

The guru, by promising to reveal the self's true nature, frees the shishya from the status of the seeker. That mind, even though it hasn't yet discovered the true nature, becomes imbued with a faith, shraddha, that the discovery would be made, allowing it to abide in a certain freshness and receptivity.

A teacher who does not know himself teaches from indirect knowledge. He will say things like "the scriptures tell us that there is a complete, adequate being hidden within whom must be uncovered by the practice of austerities – who will be discovered in the light of meditation". Such statements mislead the seeker. The complete being can never be covered, because it is the complete being. Just as space cannot be covered by the things in it, so completeness cannot be covered. The only thing that can cover the complete being is ignorance. Just a dash of ignorance can cover the complete being.

Sunday, May 22, 2011

Volume-6: What does it All Mean to Me?

So, at the end of it all, here’s a summary of my (dis-)beliefs. I don’t believe that:

  • There is a 3-O God.

  • Even if there is one, he’s not sitting there:

o judging me,

o telling me right from wrong (there’s no such thing in His creation, right?),

o waiting for me to worship him so he can give me the goodies, OR

o punishing me for not worshipping him

  • There are paapa/punya concepts.

  • There is absolute morality

I do believe that:

  • Science, while at the end of the day is still based on belief system and is not independently provable, is an inherently consistent framework. While the specific theorems get proven and disproven time to time, the philosophical underpinnings of science are inconvertible.

  • There is something about levels of our consciousness and mind and spirit that is beyond science’s explanatory powers. But that is temporary. A time might come when science might be able to explain the sense of deep meditative state I feel.

  • There is relative morality. This nature-evolved, social contract-based moral framework is quite adequate and I don’t need a God to represent absolute morality in order to lead my life morally or to judge a fellow human being).

  • I don’t need a God to deeply appreciate and fall in love with the beauty that is all around us. Why do I need a God to be simply awed ‘beyond belief’ when I look at nature’s paintings?

Volume-5: On Rationality

In continuation of the tone set in my previous volume, I've written this too in a debate style. In this, I further explore the question of rationality, which I briefly brought up in Volume-4.

Scientist: You know, I’d sort of accepted your statement that the rational method of evidence-based-progression-of-arguments was particular to science and that to use that method to evaluate the validity of a religious/God framework may not be appropriate. But I am now not sure why that method wouldn’t apply for all frameworks.

Skeptic: It wouldn’t apply because the method is unique to science and the theistic framework has a different set of methods and assumptions. You can’t cross-proliferate.

Scientist: Well, that’s where I am having a little bit of an issue. I can argue against this via three fronts:

First of all, I don't think anyone can pose the question of 'why rationality'. That's an oxymoron. When you ask 'why', that itself implies rational thought. Why else would you ask it? Suppose in response to that question I said "Because this laptop is a 200-year old Dutch princess". What would you do? Besides scratching your head and asking yourself if I should be admitted somewhere, you'd probably ask "What are you talking about? You are not making any sense." And, that's exactly my point. Sense-making implies rationality. You can't ask a 'why' without a fundamental belief the response has to make sense, has to be logical, and has to be convincing. All of which implies that you actually believe in rationality anyways, even before you posed that question.

Two, reflecting back on my Meandering Musings Volume-2, a 3-O God (especially an Omniscient one) is necessarily rational. As I’d mentioned in that volume, an omniscient God knows not only what would happen, but also why. He can give a proper explanation, not something like ‘because it happened magically’. The very fact that He can give a cogent explanation for why something happens means that He is rational; forcing theists to believe in rationality as well.

Third argument is this: Isn’t rationality a way of life? Rationality is nothing but noticing the cause-and-effect nature of things in our observable universe and deriving general principles from them. You put your foot on fragile glass…it breaks. Cause and effect. You clap your hands, it makes a sound. Cause and effect. Why wouldn’t this natural phenomenon be applicable to the God-framework? Many of the so-called definitive proofs of God rely on observing nature and using such observation to prove God. One of the strongest such arguments – Presence of Design – is based on being awestruck with the complexity of the universe and claiming that only an external agent can conceive of such complexity.

Well, if theists can offer nature observation as proof of God’s existence, shouldn’t they be equally open to accepting the cause-and-effect nature of the universe? And cause-and-effect with the principle of generalizing such observations is nothing but rationality. In fact, if you think about it, the so-called scientific rigor – where every scientific theorem is subject to proof by observation of nature and/or proof in the world of mathematical concepts (i.e., rely on the bedrock of basic assumptions and subsequent derivations built on that foundation) – is but an extension of the principle of rationality.

So, the question is why can’t at least the concept of rationality be applicable? The day we have inexplicable phenomena happening all around us, mysteriously, without any rhyme or reason, then, we can do away with the notion of rationality and of cause-and-effect and just accept that things happen simply because they do. We can then possibly accept that such magical things happen because God made it happen, even if God, as a construct, is as or more difficult to explain than the observations the construct is supposed to explain to begin with.

Actually speaking, that’s the world our ancestors inhabited, isn’t it?. Things happened magically. Lightning struck indiscriminately; rains were unpredictable; people got sick; etc. So, it is not all surprising that the concept of God evolved in such an environment. Even there, you can see that God came about to explain the phenomenon – we saw some effects and looked around for causes. When we didn’t know what the cause was, in order to not leave a vacuum, we created God to be that cause. So, the entire concept of God arose to satisfy the principle of rationality.

Then, why can’t we use the same principle of rationality and ask questions of the God framework?

Skeptic: That’s a good point. Should we revisit our previous discussion and make changes?

Scientist: No, I am too tired for that. Let’s just say it’s interesting and leave it.

Skeptic: I was hoping you’d say that...I too am a bit beat.

Volume-4: Skepticism about Science - "Point Counter-Point"

In the past volume, I debated the validity of belief in existence of God; now, I extend the same sense of skepticism to science as well. To make the reading tone a little different, I am going to write this in the form of a debate – a debate between a Scientist who obviously believes in science and a Skeptic who questions the validity of science itself. In fact, when I think about it, this sort of a debating writing style more accurately reflects my own thinking paradigm – because, when I cogitate about these topics, it’s actually a back-and-forth dialog between two people that happens in my mind. After all, as Dumbledore said to Harry Potter (one of the best lines in the whole seven-volume series), “…of course it’s all happening in your head, but why in the world should that mean it’s any less real?!” So, anyways, here’s the debate:

Skeptic: You know, it’s not as if science is beyond reproach either. If you think about it, science is as much a system of blind beliefs as religion. Take the simple number ‘1’. Can you show me ‘1’?

Scientist: Sure, I can. Here. (And he writes the number ‘1’ on a piece of paper.)

Skeptic: No, that’s just a symbol of ‘1’; a depiction of the concept of ‘one’. There isn’t ‘1’ to begin with in this universe. It’s a mathematical construct to represent and simplify the world. Similarly can you prove that 1+1=2?

Scientist: No, not quite.

Skeptic: Exactly right. 1+1=2 isn’t a given. It again is a base assumption. So science, taken as a whole, is not completely provable through an independent system of verification. It is not absolute truth. Do you agree with me so far?

Scientist: So far, yes.

Skeptic: Now, extend that argument a little more. The very concept of sequential progression of arguments (simply called logic flow) toward proving something as being necessary is itself an unproven assumption, isn’t it? It’s simply the definition of rationality. It’s just a method adopted as being justified and necessary within the framework of science – if someone asks a why, there isn’t any answer. It simply is. It’s the definition and hence beyond questioning. If one does question, one is questioning rationality itself and is therefore deemed irrational.

Scientist: True. Ok, let’s accept the fact that science is built on a set of fundamental assumptions. But what science has going for it is that having once established a set of base assumptions and clearly calling them out as such, the rest of the derivations are internally consistent. That is to say that all statements of science are consistent with the initial set of assumptions that cut across concepts, methods, and values. For example, the method of using observation to validate a hypothesis is itself an assumption of a valid method. But once that assumption is made, all subsequent points of view science adopts are consistent with that and other such assumptions. So, science, as an overall framework, is internally self-consistent.

Skeptic: Hmm…go on…

Scientist: This is unlike the case of a typical religion, in which simultaneously a 3-O (omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) God exists and also allows for God’s punishing/rewarding bad/good human behavior. As I demonstrated in the previous musing, a 3-O God and freewill cannot coexist and therefore the question of reward/punishment doesn’t even arise. That is the fundamental difference between science and religion. Both make assumptions, but the former is a rational framework that is intrinsically consistent, while the latter seems like it makes stuff up as it goes along.

Skeptic: You see, right there, you have a problem. Your whole thesis is based on subjecting the God/religion framework to methods of analysis that are in the domain of science and therefore is not justified. Let me say that again: you are sitting within the science framework and taking the tools, techniques, and assumptions of that framework (including the critical assumption that things need to make rational sense and/or rationality is better than non-rational) and evaluating the merit of a completely different framework, namely God and religion. Each framework is different. Just as ridiculous it is to ask the science why God created an electron (it’s ridiculous because the question of God doesn’t even come up within the science’s lattice of assumptions and definitions and methods), it is equally ridiculous to evaluate religion by using scientific methods.

Scientist: Ok, that’s a valid point. Then, tell me, what are the methods by which we should evaluate the religious framework? I used scientific tools and techniques because they are well-publicized and I know them. What are those of religion?

Skeptic: There aren’t any. The whole basis of belief in God is exactly that – belief. You just believe in God and no questions are allowed, at least not in the usual way that science allows. You just have to believe.

Scientist: Thank you so much. That’s exactly what I am saying as well. Belief in God is just is. That’s what theists must say to a non-believer like me. Don’t try and make it a rational argument, because the moment you do so, like you yourself said, you are starting to use techniques from a different framework. It is just blind belief, isn’t it? (Best said in a satirical, condescending tone.)

Skeptic: Yes, but not in the bad, belittling way you put it. Tell me something, Siva, you meditate, don’t you? (It’s a rhetorical question since you are my alter ego and when I say ‘you’, it’s also ‘I’. But answer, nonetheless.)

Scientist: Yes.

Skeptic: When you meditate, you sometimes go into a deep sate, don’t you? You have had the experience of unbelievable-freshness, of a state of supreme relaxation, right?

Scientist: Yes.

Skeptic: Now, if someone had told you about this whole meditation thing and told you about this possible experience, would you believe it?

Scientist: No. I wouldn’t. I’d probably ask for proof of such a state.

Skeptic: And if I had said, there’s no such proof because science hasn’t evolved sufficiently and doesn’t know that there are other states of consciousness which science hasn’t discovered yet?

Scientist: Then, logically I shouldn’t believe in meditation or, at least, suspend judgment (both belief and disbelief) till such time that science can prove it.

Skeptic: But here we are, where you (we) meditate, know the benefits, and know that we sometimes get lucky and transcend into a level of consciousness that’s simply an indefinable state of contentment. So, you had to first do it, experience it for yourself, and then establish the belief. You had to first believe that in your (our) Guru and believe that what he was saying is truthful, although there isn’t logical proof for it. From that belief came the action of undertaking meditation, after several months of practice of which, you (we) had our first transcending experience. For each of those initial days, you went on blind belief. How’s that any different from my telling you to believe in God, do it for several months, or even years, and you’ll see what it means?

Scientist: It’s no different. So, if I now say that it’s better for God-believers to simply say they believe and ask others to believe without questions, than to argue using techniques that are more suitable to the realm of science, would you agree with that? (Now in a slightly more respectful tone than above.)

Skeptic: I agree. So, can you summarize the whole point of this debate?

Scientist: Sure. The major eye-opener in this Meandering Musing volume is that science too is not beyond belief. It too relies on fundamental, unproven assumptions that cannot be questioned. But to its credit, once it makes and states those assumptions, the foundation is very strong. The rest of the house of knowledge that’s built on the foundation is all intrinsically consistent and ‘logical’.

The other part is that belief in God is ‘blind’, but in that respectful sense of belief in meditation, not in a condescending tone. Theists must be candid enough to admit that they believe in God simply because they do. No rational justification must be offered since the tool/technique of rationality is pertinent to science. The only tool theism has is ‘belief’. That’s all. Concur?

Skeptic: Concur.

Volume-3: My Response to "The Problem of Evil"

“4-year-old girl gang raped…”; “7-year-old stepson is beaten to death…”; “Thousands face starvation amid racial-purge turmoil in Africa…”

Are we not sick to our stomach when we see those headlines and read the victims’ stories? Doesn’t something reach deep down and tear up your soul (whatever that means)? Doesn’t even the question — “Hey God, how come you didn’t do anything to stop this massacre?” — pop into your mind?

Atheists are generally content with simply debunking the positive proofs that theists put up to prove God, and I must say I agree. The burden of proof is with theists. However, not being content, atheists do put up positive proofs of their own to disprove God’s existence. One such proof is commonly referred to as “The Problem of Evil”. It is along the lines of “If God were to exist, would He permit as much evil in this world as there is today?”

In this volume, I examine this atheist’s challenge and prove that this challenge does not have merit. I have come to realize that while atheists have put up effective responses to theists proofs, this particular problem of evil does not constitute positive proof that God does not exist.

My response to this challenge comes along two different paths—“the rising sensitivities” and “the necessity of evil”—that converge at some point. Let’s go down one path at a time.

The first path is somewhat obvious to most of us. Most of us intuitively answer this with “…that depends on the definition of evil.” For example, a few thousands of years ago, it would have been perfectly natural to engage in cannibalism. Only a couple of millennia back, it was socially acceptable to throw a man into cage filled with hungry lions and have thousands of people watch and cheer as the lions tear the man apart before devouring him. Today, both of those extreme examples are unheard of. What changed? People, in my opinion, are becoming more and more ‘sensitive’ as generations pass and become more ‘sophisticated’. Why, even just a hundred years ago, we had generations of bonded slavery, and today in most of the civilized world that would be completely unacceptable.

For all we know, what we today consider to be acceptable, such as boxing, hanging as capital punishment, etc. would all shock our future generations. I can certain imagine a thousand years hence a Doctorate student of Sociology submitting a thesis paper on the fascinating subject of “barbaric ritual of boxing through the early 21st century”!! So, as we continue to evolve and make what we call ‘scientific and social progress’ and remove much of the ‘barbaric practices’, other forms of behavior take on that mantle.

Where am I going with all of this? Let’s for now park this path, and explore the other one—“the necessity of evil,” which I think is the more philosophically-rich of my two counter-arguments.

Now, imagine you are seeing a red cloth. Did you ever ask yourself how do you know it is red in color? I am not looking for the scientific explanation here (about white light, color absorption, optical nerve, synapses, cognitive pattern recognition, etc.). Nor does it have to do with basic definition (‘this’ is what I define as red, and hence this is, by definition, red). I am asking something slightly more deep. How do you it’s the color red?

Actually, part of the reason you notice the red color is that you know it’s not yellow or blue or white or black or any of the hundreds of colors the human eye is able to discern. In other words, you know all these other colors and you know what you are seeing now is not one of them, but instead is red.

It is the same thing with the smell of moist soil on a spring morning after a rainy night or the taste of coffee or the sound of a drum. You recognize each of these sensations precisely because you know other smells, tastes, and sounds. How about other non-sensory feelings? It’s the same thing. Each feeling has siblings that we are aware of. You know both love and hate; gentleness/rudeness; hard/soft; happy/sad; and so on and so forth.

In fact, can you name a single ‘thing’ that does not have corollary siblings (or an opposite)? Pause and think about it. Think hard to see if you can come up with anything. You cannot.

But the interesting question is how much is this a function of the entity versus a limitation of our ability to sense such information?

Before we continue and get ahead of ourselves, let’s define some terms: an entity is something that could be either an event or a living being or non-living object in the past, present or future. Such an entity has several attributes or properties. Each attribute of a particular entity has one value at a given time. Let’s put this in simple terms. Roses, sofas, planes, earth, clouds, wine, etc. are all entities. They all have multiple attributes such as smell, color, softness, bloom quality, shape, taste, etc. The same attribute can belong to multiple entities and vice-versa (an entity can have multiple attributes). So, it’s a many-to-many relationship between entities and attributes. Each attribute has several possible values. For example, the color attribute has several possible values, such as pink or yellow or red or a mixture.

So, back to our discussion above: the question I was exploring was, and now put in slightly more formal language using our definitions above, can there exist an attribute whose universe (set) of possible values is only one? To that end, I was asking how much is that a function of us versus the universe of entities that possess that attribute.

“If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around, does it still make a sound?” This is a well-known proverb/philosophical-riddle (from Chinese?). It’s actually quite deep. Our intuitive answer may be an obvious ‘yes’; but on cogitating this a little further, the answer may not be so obvious after all. We can say with some measure of confidence that if a tree falls in a forest, and whether or not there are people around, it creates vibrations in the surrounding air medium. And we can say this since we have observed millions of times that those vibrations are created and there is no convincing reason why it wouldn’t repeat when there are no people around (refer to the “law of conservation of belief” that we discussed in the first volume). So, while it’s not 100% guaranteed, we can say with a high degree of confidence that those vibrations are created in the air medium surrounding the falling tree in the deserted forest.

However, we can equally confidently say that there is NO sound created as a result of that falling!! How? Because in order for there to be sound, a living being capable of sensing those vibrations and converting them into a audio input to the brain has to be present. After all, what is sound, if not a perception by a human or some such living being? In order for there to be a perception, just an event or an entity is not sufficient, there has to be a perceiver as well. A perception can exist only at the intersection of an entity and a perceiver.


So, to repeat, the shape of world is something like this: there are bunch of entities; and there are a bunch of attributes. Each attribute can take on several values. And there is a many-to-many relationship between the entities and attributes—i.e., an entity can take on many attributes and the same attribute can be attached to multiple entities.

Now, my contention is that an attribute can exist in our (‘our’ meaning ‘our human-perceived’) universe only if we are able perceive more than one possible value for it. It has nothing to do, in my humble opinion, with the entity that’s being defined. In fact for all we know, a rose could have other attributes that a visiting alien might be able to perceive. We are limited to our five senses, but what if the alien has other forms of sensory perception? What if the rose is emitting a ‘thought’ or something else that we are not able to sense because we don’t have the sensory organs to detect such an emission?

This actually brings me to one of my pet peeves. We all used to learn when we were kids that water has no taste and air has no smell, etc. What a load of crap! How do we know that water has no taste? In fact, water or, for that matter, anything else has no taste by itself. It’s a reflection of how we, as humans, sense it. It could be that water tastes like coffee to an alien; or even at our earthly level, do we know for a fact that a horse (or some other earth-bound creature) also does not feel the taste of water? Do we know for a fact that for that creature, water actually tastes salty? We don’t. It’s arrogant to say that water has no taste. It would be more precise to say that water has no taste for humans and that air has no smell for humans. But of course, the trouble with that approach is that everything is a function of human perception. As such, if we follow the above principle, every one of our statements has to begin or end with the phrase ‘for humans’, which is truly irritating. So, let’s accept that we don’t need to add this phrase to everything we describe about the universe, but let’s not forget the fact that every one of those observations is true with respect to a human perception only.

So, back to our original example, we know the color red because we know (or are aware of) other colors such as blue, grey, brown, etc. Same thing with other senses as well—smell, sound, touch, and taste. Just to ponder: do you know what it feels like to be you? I don’t want an elaborate description about your feelings, personal philosophy, political thoughts, etc. Just see if you can find a single word to describe your whole you—your thoughts, character, personality, beliefs, etc. You can’t. I can’t. And no one else in this world can either. And the reason is that the ‘feeling of you’ is an attribute for which there is only one possible perceived value as far we are concerned—“you.” You can’t sense what it is to be me and vice versa. You can only sense yourself. As such, the word to describe the ‘feeling of you’ does not even exist in our awareness and, as an extension, is not present in any of our languages.

Another point to ponder: we all know that we can only detect a change in perception of smell, taste, and touch. If you are left in a room full of roses, after a while, you can’t smell the roses. There’s a physiological explanation for this as well. You can only feel something if a different smell enters the room. It’s the same thing with taste and touch. In fact, that’s the explanation for why we feel that water has no taste and that air has no smell. It’s because air is ubiquitous that we can’t smell it. Similarly, water or saliva constantly on our tongues has saturated our sensory cells such that when drink water, our tongues don’t register the water. So, something else to think about is if the whole universe had a constant audible hum about it, would we even have a word for it? We all know that there is microwave radiation that permeates the entire observable universe, but it’s beyond our auditory range and so can’t hear it. But I am talking about a hum that’s within our hearing range—would we still register it and would we have had a word to describe it in our language? Why would we? It is part of the world in which we’d be born, it’s something we’ll talk on top of and communicate with each other; we wouldn’t be aware of a world without that hum. In such a mindset, would we have had a word for it? I don’t know.

Anyway, let’s go back to our very first genesis of this discussion: the necessity for evil. Using the just-discussed logic, can one recognize happiness without sadness to go along and provide us with the necessary contrast to make that cognition? Can we have goodness if we don’t also have evil in this world? I humbly submit that it’s not possible. In order for us to recognize ‘God’s goodness’ or ‘God-given happiness’, it is logically necessary for there to be evil and sadness in this world. Otherwise, there would be an attribute with only a single value like ‘goodness’, which as we observed above, renders the attribute as non-cognizant to us humans.

Let’s now tie back this line of thought of the necessity for evil with the first line of thought, the rising sensitivities, and see how we can merge them together.

Through either method, we’ve seen that evil must exist, because it’s just a perception of the perceiver. Even if God were to remove all those that we today perceive as evil, by the principle of rising sensitivities, other things will take on the mantle of ‘evil’, and it will continue to exist, albeit in a morphed form. Equally, as a form of perception, evil must exist in order for there to be a sense of goodness.

But let’s just for the sake of exploration assume a world where God listens to us and starts to remove whatever we define as evil. How would that go? First, we’ll ask Him to remove the obvious candidates—killing of the innocent, child abuse, famine, disease, etc. Let’s say a thousand or even five thousand years pass hence, by which time all memory of a world where those existed are gone. They may exist as historical records, but that’s it. No one will know what it felt to have those ‘evils’. What then? A person will then ask ‘How come God allows poverty?’. So, God removes Poverty.

Then, another five thousand years pass. Will not a person who poses the same challenge of evil not say ‘hey, if there does exist a God, how could he permit a world where there are people with disabilities?’? S/he will absolute say so and her/his peers will acknowledge as those being evil, because by that time, the definition of evil will change, people will become more sensitive, and things that we today consider to be mundane will all of a sudden take on a new meaning and be considered evil.

So, what does God do again? He blesses all of us to be free of all disabilities. Another five thousand years pass. Then, the definition of evil will change to the inequity in mental prowess. How can God, in all His Goodness, give someone lower intelligence? God removes that as well. We become more sensitive as a species. The evil definition changes again—from skin color to physical prowess to life expectancy to whatever-we-hold-in-high-esteem-that-we-perceive-differences-among-people. This need not be restricted to humans only. Conceivably, the same logic can then extend to animals, plants, insects, and to the whole ecosystem for which we develop feelings and sentiments. This cycle of defining-evil --> God removing that evil --> Human redefining evil --> God’s removal will continue as long as people continue to see differences between themselves and others.


So, when will it all stop? It will stop when one stops seeing differences between oneself and the rest of the world. It will stop when we see ourselves in others and we see others in ourselves. But, hey, wait a minute, don’t we already know this? Isn’t this just a different way of saying aham brahmasmi, the age-old Sanskrit philosophical adage, which means “I am Brahman”, Brahman here indicating God?

The so-called problem of evil will continue to exist so long as we see us as being unique and distinct from the rest of the universe. The moment we perceive it all as being the same, emanating the same Om, things fall immediately into place. Everything becomes nothing, and that nothingness is the essence of Brahman.

May be, the aham brahmasmi is just a way of a wise sage thousands of years ago summarizing all of this 4-page essay. May be, pithy was the rule of the day those ages, and that wise sage made that saying as a way of addressing what we today call the problem of evil. May be. Who knows?

All I know is that the atheist’s challenge via the problem of evil is not valid. Evil must exist in order to provide the necessary contrast to see goodness. God may not exist, but atheists have to offer other proofs to prove so.

Volume-2: God and Free Will

More than the question of whether God exists, I am more piqued by the implications of the acceptance of God’s existence, the most interesting one being “Can the concept of God and free-will co-exist?” In this volume, I choose to explore this line of thought.

For this exploration to be meaningful, I shall first assume that God exists and that the standard definition of that God applies—omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-moral. I will not get all caught up in the proper definitions and their implications as in the last volume.

Before we go any further, let’s first describe what we mean by free-will. Basically, it’s one’s ability to define one’s own destiny. In other words, was it pre-destined that I will be here sitting in a plane at 10:59 AM on December 20, 2006 in seat 49C and start composing this document? Or does the credit go to my spur-of-the-moment thinking when I decided to open up laptop and start typing?

In my opinion, the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God cannot co-exist with the concept of free-will. Here’s my reasoning.

Let’s make sure we understand something here: we all know that God, by definition, knows that I shall be doing this activity at such a time. The question is does fore-knowledge imply pre-destiny? I think not. God may have chosen to grant us self-determination and the capacity to make such decisions (namely large brain, rational thinking, etc.) and could still have known about what exactly we’d do, think and feel at each moment of our lives.

Some might argue that if God knows I would do ‘A’, did I really have a choice to do ‘B’ instead? And the answer is that it’s an incorrect question. God knows that I’d do A because he knows that of all the choices available to me (A, B, …), I would select A. So, in that sense He didn’t pre-destine this for me; he merely knew me and knew the choice I’d make. This dichotomy is logical and these two concepts can certainly co-exist. My line of argument for believing that God and free-will cannot co-exist is different.

So, what does free-will mean again? It means that I, and only I, have made the decision to do so-and-so thing a such-and-such time. There will certainly have been psychological, sociological, brain-capacity, mood, and a host of other factors that influenced that decision—no doubt about that; but the important point to note is that God should not have made that decision for me before I was born. That’s the key here—was this decision to compose this document at this time made before I was born? If it was, then there’s no free-will; otherwise, there is.

To answer that question, we need to dive only a little deeper into the concept of omniscience. We all know it to mean that God knows everything including what we’d do; but remember it also means that not only did God know we’d do something, but why we’d do that. Again, that’s the key phrase—“why we would do something?”

By definition of omniscience, God not only knows what would happen, but also why it would happen.

In exploring this line of thought, let’s conceive of an imaginary being called God-Minor (“G-Minor”). Assume G-Minor has all the intelligence of God, but has none of the 3-Os (omnipotent/ omniscient/omnipresent). Here’s a snippet of a conversation between those two:

G-Minor: “what would Siva be doing at so-and-so time?”
God: “Siva would be typing his thoughts on my existence.”
G-Minor: “But doc, why would he be doing that?”
God: “Because his neuron #365 would be firing along synapses #78, which would cause a chain reaction in his left-hemisphere in …” [too complicated for me to write]
G-Minor: “OK, but why?”
God: “Because…”
G-Minor: “OK, but why?”

By now, you get the drift. G-Minor can keep asking the question “why” a zillion times. God can, in answering those questions patiently, talk about how something was caused by Siva’s Dad in his childhood, which was in turn caused by something that happened to Dad while he was in his mom’s womb…and so on and so forth.

But, let’s now turn to the end-game of this line of questioning:

God: “…”
G-Minor: “OK, but why?”
God:Because this imaginatron and that hypothitron are in these places and their interaction makes the above possible.” [I am making up these two terms to signify that our current building blocks of matter (electron, neutron, proton, string theory and others that are being discovered) may not be the real building blocks. There may be others that I am denoting as imaginary and hypothetical particles called those terms above.]
G-Minor: “OK, but why?”
God: “That’s because I am placing those two in these places at the time of ‘big-bang’.”
G-Minor:OK, but why?”
God: “That’s because I choose to.”

That’s what it comes down to, doesn’t it? At the end of the day, the reason I am writing this memo at this time is that God had placed the imaginatron and hypothitron particles in those specific locations 14 billion years ago when the big-bang happened (or whatever time God considers as the start of this Universe of ours). If He had placed them a trillionth of a nanometer apart than He had, I might not be writing this essay, or for that matter this Universe may not even exist. Who knows? But the point is that the decision for me to write this piece now was taken not by me, but by God before I was born, which, by definition, is the absence of free-will.

And hence, I submit that the concepts of God and free-will cannot co-exist.

A coupe of interesting observations may be derived from above comments: First, the above series of dialogues between God and G-Minor may seem to imply that I support the view that our universe is based on a causal-effect model in a linear-time basis. I don’t…or more precisely, I don’t know. For all I know, during the series of answers God provides G-Minor, God could quote a cause in the future and relate it back to an effect in the past. I simply don’t know. All I know is that He somehow, at the end, has to relate it to that instant (not necessarily back) in time when He decided to create. In any case, it doesn’t really change the crux of my argument.

Secondly, and this is more interesting, it seems to imply that God is a rational God. [I define Rationality as the belief that there exists a logical explanation (except for the prime cause) for everything.] He cannot be irrational. He knows the “why” for everything and can explain it to anyone with the capacity to understand him, which is the very definition of rationality. Of course, it doesn’t mean that He has to be linear…he may make non-linear explanations for certain phenomena, but there exists an explanation nevertheless.