Pakistanis Do Not Need To Study Relativity Pankaj#42:

Meme was a word coined by Richard Dawkins in his book `The Selfish Gene`.

Meme Link: http://maxwell.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/what.is.html

There is nothing latest about it. The `meme theory` is itself a resurrected meme!

Try the Abidharma-kosa by Vasubandhu (5th century CE) to get an idea on where `memes` come from without acknowledgement of course.

Abhidharma Link: http://www.bartleby.com/65/ab/Abhidhar.html

Harimau#50:

Not to take away from the rest of what you write, but some of the earliest works of the Kuruntokai are dated between 1st century BC and 1st century CE.

From: http://www.geocities.com/athens/5180/kamil.html

An Indian salute for President Musharraf Jagdep(#38)

The parable about the 2 cats fighting over the piece of bread with the monkey mediating has unfortunately never sunk in. The 2 cats were created by the Anglo-Saxon enterprise to keep them fighting, in a zero-sum game, which McCaulay`s children aka the brown Sahibs have carried on dutifully with due dilligence and never failing to call on the monkey to intercede!!!

One of the cats cannot make up it`s mind if it is a cat and so make common cause with the other cat, or if it is a desert fox, an altogether different animal.

Here is an analysis by Raja Mohan.

Anglo-Americans deliver Musharraf

By C. Raja Mohan

NEW DELHI, JAN. 13. The Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf`s decisions to declare a war against the `jehadis` in his country and suggest a readiness to discard the instrument of cross-border terrorism against India constitute a major diplomatic triumph for the United States and Great Britain.

The swift routing of the Taliban after September 11 and the management of the Indo-Pak. military confrontation since December 13 have made the Americans and their Anglo-Saxon cousins the most influential external players in the subcontinent.

For more check: http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002011401341100.htm

Jihad: Paradoxes and Defining Moments Urstruly says: ``Any social scientist and anthropologist will attest to this fact that imported ideologies almost always are doomed to fail. The demise of communist ideology throughout the world and pathetic condition of (Secular) Democracy throughout the third world attest to this fact.``

Explain how an imported ideology called Islam, which is native to Arabia, came to be seen as the hope of the people in a place called Pakistan and a number of other countries far removed from the Arab milieu of the 7th century.

Urstruly says: ``An adopted ideology only becomes imbedded in a society if it is already harmonious with its cultural norms or when it is modified as such. The foundation of any ideology always lies within the society and not without.``

Perhaps there is hope for Pakistani society after all. The nominally Muslim people of Pakistan will choose from Islam what is relevant and harmonius to their cultural norms and reject the regressive, radical and fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (as practised by the Taliban) that seems to be masquerading as the `real` version of Islam.

World of a Pariah Kinza,



Here is the origin of the word pariah.

pa·ri·ah (p-r)

n.

A social outcast: “Shortly Tom came upon the juvenile pariah of the village, Huckleberry Finn, son of the town drunkard” (Mark Twain).

An Untouchable.



[Tamil paaiyar, pl. of paraiyan, pariah caste, from parai, festival drum.]

Word History: The word pariah, which can be used for anyone who is a social outcast, independent of social position, recalls a much more rigid social system, which made only certain people pariahs. The caste system of India placed pariahs, also known as Untouchables, very low in society. The word pariah, which we have extended in meaning, came into English from Tamil paraiyar, the plural of paraiyan, the caste name, which literally means “(hereditary) drummer” and comes from the word parai, the name of a drum used at certain festivals. The word is first recorded in English in 1613. Its use in English and its extension in meaning probably owe much to the long period of British rule in India.



From: http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=pariah

In deference to the `paraiyars` of Tamil Nadu, who happen to be an existing community, I would hope we desis would desist from using the word pariah, even though `angrezi` has appropriated this word.

Regards.

Mocking the Frontier: The Baba’s Dargah and Chamaliyal SameerJB (123),

``....but there has to be some common conceptual bases among the diversity of beliefs in the name of Hinduism.``

Why? Who will codify a common minimum standard? There is not one individual or organization whose authority will be acceptable to everyone although there have been attempts to do so, especially by those who have had to explain it to the Judaeo-Christian religions. By circumscribing a circle around a set of beliefs are we not allowing a distinction to be made between those within and those without. Does it not limit the way or path to the`Supreme`, the `Truth`, the `Brahman`, the `God`, the `Unity` or whatever it is we want to call the quest? Does it not confine the universal or the whole to a narrow sub-set or a part? This codified part which is not the whole could in time lose its dynamic vitality and become stultified into a dogma.

If your answer to the questions why, is...

``Otherwise, in effect, it will be considered a difficult or impossible to learn, even the basics of Hinduism because it is the agglomeration of too many local and diverse beliefs.``

...then it is not a good enough reason. If somone is looking for simple answers a set of simple principles can be given, but one would invariably have to dig deep to understand the complexities.

``Actually the Hinduism in any textbook of Asian Philosopies is not that difficult.``

Many such books restrict themselves to one or two strands of Hinduism, invariably Vedanta being one of them. If one were to read such books, one should be careful to realize that just like the blind men and the elephant, in that famous parable, one is only `looking` at the trunk or the tail and should not assume that to be the elephant.

``My interest is not only to know the basics but to know the essence and explaining the philosophy in practical terms, in addition to a comparison of its basics with western religions, Islam in particular-because both Hinduism and Islam are my undeniable heritage. ``

If you `know` the essence of any religion, then the names, whether Hinduism or Islam or anything else become mere labels and cease to have their particular existence for you. Explaining a philosophy to someone else is a different kettle of fish and is always limited by ones spiritual advancement and understanding, the limitations of language and the audience. Best wishes in your quest.

Mocking the Frontier: The Baba’s Dargah and Chamaliyal In reply to Sameerjb (86):

``2) I have noticed, here and previously, a desire on part of Hindus to be considered monotheistic. Is it because of more than 50 percent population of world believing in one God and therefore a desire to be, sort of, mainstream religion or being convinced of the superiority of one God concept? ``

Hindu is a label that applies to the people of India that do not subscribe to any organized religion that has a founder. So by definition Hindus come in all flavors, atheistic (no god), agnostic (don`t know if there is god/gods), monotheistic (there is only one god), henotheistic (believing in one god without denying the existence of other gods), polytheistic (there are many gods), theistic (with a personal god as a manifestation of the supreme), pantheism (God is everything and everything is God), monism (no mind-body dualism), charvakas (materialists),advaita-vadin (no atmam, brahmam dualism), dvaita-vadin (perfection of the atmam without its complete extinction in the brahmam), vishistaadvaita-vadin (qualified duality), buddhistic(irrelevant whether god exists or not) and on and on. Now you will find people holding positions that are a mixture of the above in various proportions and at various points in time in their evolution in life.

Beliefs are just like maps, they can chart a territory and show ways to achieve a destination. Ultimately it is action on ones part that determines ones evolution. Depending on a persons individual evolution different positions are valid. This allowance for individual diversity and an individual quest without force-feeding from above is what is valuable in `Hinduism` (whatever that may mean).

Perhaps your observation of some Hindus claiming monotheism for hinduism is their way of harmonizing with the monotheistic religions and removing the need to fight over `your god` vs `my god`, (a worthwhile goal). Perhaps some truly believe that. Perhaps some have been influenced by the monotheistic religions to hold that view for themselves and by extension to read that into `Hinduism`. Is it the majority view among hindus? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it matter? Perhaps not.

Mocking the Frontier: The Baba’s Dargah and Chamaliyal In reply to Sameerjb (86):

``2) I have noticed, here and previously, a desire on part of Hindus to be considered monotheistic. Is it because of more than 50 percent population of world believing in one God and therefore a desire to be, sort of, mainstream religion or being convinced of the superiority of one God concept? ``

Hindu is a label that applies to the people of India that do not subscribe to any organized religion that has a founder. So by definition Hindus come in all flavors, atheistic (no god), agnostic (don`t know if there is god/gods), monotheistic (there is only one god), henotheistic (believing in one god without denying the existence of other gods), polytheistic (there are many gods), theistic (with a personal god as a manifestation of the supreme), pantheism (God is everything and everything is God), monism (no mind-body dualism), charvakas (materialists), advaita-vadin (no atmam, brahmam dualism), dvaita-vadin (perfection of the atmam without its complete extinction in the brahmam), vishistaadvaita-vadin (qualified duality), buddhistic(irrelevant whether god exists or not) and on and on. Now you will find people holding positions that are a mixture of the above in various proportions and at various points in time in their evolution in life.

Beliefs are just like maps, they can chart a territory and show ways to achieve a destination. Ultimately it is action on ones part that determines ones evolution. Depending on a persons individual evolution different positions are valid. This allowance for individual diversity and an individual quest without force-feeding from above is what is valuable in `Hinduism` (whatever that may mean).

Perhaps your observation of some Hindus claiming monotheism for hinduism is their way of harmonizing with the monotheistic religions and removing the need to fight over `your god` vs `my god`, (a worthwhile goal). Perhaps some truly believe that. Perhaps some have been influenced by the monotheistic religions to hold that view for themselves and by extension to read that into `Hinduism`. Is it the majority view among hindus? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it matter? Perhaps not.

Let’s talk about Bollywood Reply: 101

He has a Gujarathi father and an English mother and brought up in England.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Wasiq,

Correction: Einstein was talking about Reality as perceived by the senses.

Regards

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Wasiq (47)

`` I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`.``

I am not sure. Perhaps, it may be just quibbling over semantics.

``The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. ``

Origin implies a beginning and an end, which I refute. I suggest a changeless reality as the `seer` that is the background over which plays this ephemeral, everchanging life. Correct me if I am wrong, but you suggest that we are ephemeral to our core, with no underlying reality. The nature of `seer` can be only inferred by the dialectics of language, which is what we are engaged in. We could probably sketch an elaborate cosmogony but that would only be a pale shadow of the reality. To paraphrase,(Rig Veda?), it is neither this nor that, neither not-this nor

not-that, neither this and that nor not this and that, neither this or that nor not this or that. In other words, the negation of logic which is the highest form of dialectic of the intellect, as a tool in comprehending the `seer`. As Einstein said, `Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.` He was talking of reality as perceived by Science.

`` However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves. ``

We delude ourselves every minute we live, by being the slaves of our minds, rather than controlling it and directing it. So that much, we should be able to agree on. As to the path beyond that, if it is not persuasive enough from the core of our being, then I say desist, for it will lead nowhere.

Regards

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Wasiq (43)

`` I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself.``

The `experiment` (more precisely, the way of living) needs sustained, dedicated, persistent and intense effort. Even as marathon runners, weight lifters or body builders need single-minded devotion and long hours of practice, to hone their physique in their pursuit, a seeker has to be much more persistent. Best Wishes.

`` I have tried meditating, for many years of my life, but I have never been able to see the `seer`. But then you would say that I was not clearing my mind enough. ``

The endeavor is to reduce the fluctuations of the consciousness and still it. Meditation involves control of the mind, reducing its fluctuations, focusing and concentrating it and finally emptying it. The other part involves weakening the hold of the ego (our identification with the psychophysical system) and its eventual dissolution. You may be interested in looking into the eight-fold path of yoga. Any good translation of Patanjali`s Yogasutra (aka `Raja Yoga`) may be a good place to start. But ultimately practice is the only path.

`` My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? ``

WHO wants to know???

``I have personally concocted many things in some episodes of my life, and they are every bit as real as anything else. Godot asked a question, and a part of my reply to it was: ``If a lunatic in an asylum thinks that he is the king of the land, is he really so?`` I know that I have the capacity to be a lunatic, so how do I know whether the `seer` actually exists or is a figment of my overactive imagination?``

WHO IS the possessor of this overactive imagination???

WHO can control and rein in this overactive imagination???

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Wasiq (41)

`` Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.``

I understand the need for precision in definitions and need for rigor. The allusion to entrophy was an attempt to convey a certain idea rather than the use of the term in its strictly classical thermodynamic sense. Maybe I should have clarified that before using that term, so as to avoid misunderstanding.

``Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument.``

If that helps in better understanding, I will desist from using scientific terminology that has a precise meaning and not transpose them into a different context:)

Regards.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot (36)

As I reiterated before, I agree with you that a debate that does not lead to action and practice is pointless. But even debates leave their imprint on the mind and hence on the consciousness. They can stay in the subconscious for long or sometimes they can come to the surface and push one to action. Of course, this action could be progressive or regressive:)

Re: Wasiq (35)

`` (a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice? ``

Re: (a)

We are both agreed that we want to break from the

bondage and the limitations of the mind. Yet, we rely on the mind for observation in our daily life. Take absent-mindedness as an example. Your eyes may see and the ears may hear, but if your mind is not attached to these senses, you go `What was that again?`, since you really don`t see or listen. We are all familiar with the complaint that we are not paying attention, meaning the mind was not focused. The senses are thus necessarily the instrumnets of the mind. But mind as I said is the closest to the object, the external world. It is not the subject, the seer. If we use the mind to observe the seer, we are treating the subject as on object and we won`t observe anything since the mind is inadequate. So we come away with the conclusion that there is no seer. The issue then is to bring the mind to rest, absolute stillness, well-controlled and restrained. Try emptying your mind of any thoughts, including thoughts about no- thought! That takes enormous effort and practice. Once we master the mind and it is subdued, and the ego is also dissolved (the endeavor of every religion - humbleness and humility are half way stations to the eventual dissolution of the ego) the consciousness is still and the background, the void, the subject emerges and is aware due to its own effulgence, without the filter of conditioned existence. That awareness of the seer, by the infinite power of its own light, is what I am calling `direct observation`. You see, our resort of the mind to explain this phenomenon causes us to call it an `observation`. These are all merely words.

Re: (b)

Let`s take your proposition and belief (yes, despite or rather due to your arguments, it is a belief) that consciouness emerges from matter. You would say, just as fragrance emerges from a flower, even though the individual ingredients (carbon, hyrogen, oxygen, atoms, molecules etc) that make up the flower do not have the fragrance, just as the `intoxicating quality` of wine arises from grape juice fermented with yeast, even though that quality is not present in the individual components, so too consciousness emerges when matter is mixed in the right proportions to form the human body. If consciouness is an essential property of the living human body, then it should be inseparable from it. But it is not. When one faints or goes into deep sleep, the living body is seen without consciousness. And on the other hand, in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. When a dreamer awakes, he disowns the dream-body, but owns the dream-consciousness. The dream objects are sublated in the waking life, but the dream-consciousness is not contradicted even in the waking life. When a person wakes up after seeing a tiger in a dream, he realizes that the tiger is unreal, being only a dream-tiger, but the fact that he saw a tiger in a dream remains a fact even in the waking life. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of waking life, dream life and deep sleep life, and is much superior to the material body, which is its instrument and not its cause. As I said before, the subject, the knower cannot be reduced to the object, the known, since all objects presuppose the existence of the subject. Hope this explains better.

Regards.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Wasiq (33)(31)

Wasiq,

Don`t worry:) Abolutely no offense taken! I agree with SR`s characterization of the fundamental difference in the underlying basis of our respective arguments. I understood that from the very beginning and tried to work with that limitation. The fundamental centrality of matter or object from which emerges everything else, is at the core of your worldview. The fundamental centrality of `spirit` or subject from which emerges everything else, is at the core of my view.

`` I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`. ``

It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation. When there is testimony from authoritative sources, we can do one of two things. We can ignore it or we can setup the necessary experiments to prove it for ourselves. Any scientific theory that has been proved by a small group of scientists remains a postulate to the rest of the laypeople, until they are willing and able to prove it for themselves. In the realm of the born-blind, if a person with vision were to arrive and describe the different colors, two different people can differ in their responses. One person can say it is all mumbo-jumbo and carry-on, while the other can say, maybe it is true and work towards gaining vision, to be able to see the colors for oneself.

``But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.``

As I said, the evidence is present, if only one is willing to look for it. That willingness can only come from within oneself. So I can perfectly understand your above standpoint.

``It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.``

The difference is not in the way of expression but the path to it. You are trying to get to perfect objectivity with the hope that, that`s what holds all the answers. Whereas what I am advocating is getting to the source, to the absolute subject. And then harmonising and merging the object and the subject into a unity that transcends this duality of our existence.

Re: SR (32)

`` The trouble is that the human imagination is far more powerful than the neo-cortex based `intellect`. (Thus the rampant pervasiveness of what you call `pseudo-intellect`.) Thought, itself being an ethereal entity, easily succumbs to the temptation of the ethereal. Matter and logic easily get demoted to a lower tier of acceptability. ``

In light of the above and Wasiq`s question (Re:20) on the soul-intellect-mind-body connection, let me elucidate where I am coming from. Soul is the seed of conscience. Conscience is the source of consciousness. Consciousness is an aggregate of intellect, mind and ego. Normally it exists in 3 states, the `waking state`, `dream state` (REM- Rapid Eye movement sleep) and `deep sleep`. The fourth state `the super-conscious state` is what we strive for. The mind has the power to imagine, think, attend to, aim, feel and will. The mind`s continual fluctuations affects the inner sheaths namely the ego and intellect and hence consciousness. It is the faculty that can see within and without, though its natural tendency is to involve itself with objects of the visible. In collaboration with the senses, the mind perceives things for the individual to see, observe, feel and experience. These experiences leave impressions. Thought is a mental vibration based on past experiences. Memory is an unmodified recollection of words and experiences. These imprints generate fluctuations, modifications and modulations of the consciousness. The seer identifies with this fluctuating consciousness and gets drawn to the object seen and identifies with it. Then the seer becomes engrossed in the object. This becomes the seed for the diversification of the intelligence, and makes the seer forget its own radiant awareness. When the waves of consciousness are stilled and silenced, the true expression of the seer is revealed. The mind thus needs to be restrained, disciplined and stilled to reduce and eventually stop the fluctuations of the consciousness in the `waking state` to reach the `super-conscious state`. Mind is the most subtle form of matter. `Deep sleep state` is the non-deliberate absence of thought waves and knowledge, and the mind and consciousness are at rest. Deep sleep gives one a glimpse of the seer, but only indistinctly because the light of discrimination is clouded. Simulation of this state of sleep when one is awake and aware can give the glimpse of the seer. Intellect is concerned with the knowledge of facts and the reasoning faculty and is closest to the seer but non-manifest in it. So the microcosm can be visualized as the soul as the core, with the intellectual, mental, physiological and anatomical as the external sheaths in that order. I hope I have given a glimpse of the inner worldview as I see it, even though it is somewhat long-winded and cumbersome.

Re: Kafir (31)

``I would have liked to participate in this debate...``

You are still welcome to.

``However, having read the replies from you and Wasiq, it`s quite clear that Wasiq has won his arguments. He has backed up his statements with logic and reason, whereas you have repeatedly obfuscated the issues with ill-defined terms, unsupported assumptions, and circumlocution. Be a dear and admit defeat!``

It`s not about winning or losing the argument, for they are two different worldviews and the proof of it will lie with the experience of the `practitioner` as opposed to us windbags!

``As for your philosophy of the `seer,` sorry friend, but it holds about as much water as bucket riddled with holes.`` ``...Likewise, I have confidence that we will one day understand the physical basis of consciousness and cognition. The `seer`, as poetic as the concept is, will one day be regarded in the same light at the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Boogey man, i.e., a simplistic explanation of the world meant for a child`s understanding.``

That is just your viewpoint and you are welcome to hold it. Viewpoints, may I remind you, by nature are subject to change and further change and further change and....

``I suggest you direct your sentiments into poetry or fiction and leave rational discourse to others on this matter.``

Hmmm, poetry and fiction, now that`s one area where I would really be hooted out of!!! As for rational discourse on this matter, we don`t want certain ideas to putrefy into group-think and then dogma, now do we?:) The least that a true scientist can do is stay agnostic and be willing to test any theories sincerely. Perhaps on the above ideas, it will take someone or some circumstance more persuasive than me, for you to test.

Best Regards,

Venki

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Wasiq (28)

``How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature? ``

From the testimony of the wise ones and from inference. Just as, say a layman in a remote village, relies on the scientist and from inference to know that the earth is a sphere. Of course, he can be adamant and maintain that the earth is flat even after listening to all the arguments that are proferred to him. The only option left then is to say, that he has to see for himself (perhaps by launching himself on a spaceship and seeing the earth). We all know how difficult that would be for him to put his efforts towards that end, if he even chooses to do so. Only if we accept the idea of the presence of the `seer` would we be willing to seek. If we deny its existence then there will be no effort to seek.



``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

Consider the following case: X is a person in top physical condition. Now Y holds X`s breath long enough for X to suffocate to death. What is the difference between X as a `live person` and X as a `dead person`? Note: X is still in top physical condition. What is it that can revive X? What is missing from X? What happened to the `life-force` in X? Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed. But even if you don`t accept the `life-force`, which seems obvious, where is the mind, where is the intellect? Clearly if X were a car, a replacement part would bring the car back into driving condition. Why do I get the feeling that we are going round and round on a merry-go-round:)

`` Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms. ``

In light of the above example, I don`t see how. But if one wants to bury ones head in the sand like an ostrich, then I say more power to you or should I say more matter to you:)

Regards.

Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder Re: Godot, #24

``However, if the ``intellect`` is not the ``seer`` than this whole discussion is, as Weinberg says, pointless.``

I agree, the discussion would be pointless if there is no progression. But if the discussion leads to right understanding by the intellect, and to further quest for the `seer` then it would have achieved something. What`s that saying, `Every journey of a million miles starts with a single step....`