Search Continues

“They say, I do not agree with them. Just want to say, give me reasonable arguments backed upon by “verifiable” facts and not surmises and conjectures drawn upon from “wild imaginations”. And you will see me agreeing with you.”

I thought, I finally had found a friend with whom I can discuss matters ranging from cricket, politics, and history to religion to sciences to spirituality, a friend who is clear-headed, calm, unbiased and ready to challenge his own beliefs, in order to come to the right path, and does not care about winning or losing the argument. But, I was disappointed when he exhibited himself as any other person, though his varied interests somewhat save him. I really feel disappointed. And, yes it is only my perception of his personality based upon the discussions we had. In case I missed something, which I genuinely hope I did, I would be more than happy to accept my mistake, for I don’t want to lose such a polymath, who indeed is a rare species.

Most of the people I meet and talk are suffering from following diseases ^[1]:-

1. Bias
2. Self-centered thinking
3. Group-centered thinking – Tribe, race or nationality.
4. Narrow-mindedness
5. Unwarranted Assumptions and Stereotypes - Unwarranted assumption is something taken for granted without good reason. Such assumptions often prevent our seeing things clearly. Stereotyping is something like, if we meet one Muslim who is rude, we might jump to the conclusion that all Muslims are rude. Hasty generalizations!
6. Wishful thinking - believing something not because you had good evidence for it but simply because you wished it were true.
7. They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
8. They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
9. They take their goal as the only valid one.

The problem with them is that, they don’t want to think with fair-mindedness. Their whole concern, whenever they enter into a debate is just winning and winning. It does not matter to them whether they come to a right conclusion or a wrong one. I don’t understand why they don’t want to question their already formed beliefs. Why? Why? How come they believe that whatever they have learned is one hundred percent true?

Take for instance this example. It is a talk between me and one of my friends, and he is not the one mentioned above…

Me: I think, by leaving of Mr. XYZ, our company has lost a good employee.

My friend: What? Boss, I am telling you he was a “badawaala”…Do you know what he said in a meeting…blah…blah…

[I listened to his story…and in between he said that he has only heard those things…and not witnessed…still such a strong opinion…I am surprised!]

Me: I don’t think so…I sa…(cut in between as usual, not even allowed to complete my statement or even the word).

And, he started telling me more and more defects of Mr. XYZ, based upon his “dubious” facts, which are nothing more than “hearsay”. Even when I told him that I actually “witnessed” a meeting of Mr. XYZ, in which he solved problems objectively and in a calm manner, he didn’t listen me. He just wants to talk, talk and talk, and as I have seen does not have even an iota of patience to listen to others. Well, what to do now, I think it is better to just walk away.

I truly admire people who have got following qualities (though they exist in my dreams or books only, and have never met any) ^[2]:-

1. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding. 
2. They are open to new ideas and perspectives.  They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.
3. They are good listeners (very important).
4. Recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view
5. Recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception
6. Avoid snap judgments
7. Challenge their own beliefs, each and every step, if someone presents suitable reasons (did I repeat this one?).

References:-

1. Critical thinking, A student’s introduction, Fourth edition, The Mcgraw-hill companies, Page 16 and 24.
2. http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm

Suchan and Geniuses

Genius

Who is a genius? In my friend Suchan’s views, he is someone having extraordinary and brilliant qualities, which he acquires by birth. To say it simply, he calls it “in-born” talent. Did he miss something? What do you think? Boy! Where the hell is hard work…!!!

Albert Einstein, the world calls him a genius and by doing so they unjustly put a blanket over his hardships and the pains that he went through, and the number of hours and years he pushed himself persistently to discover something, yes something, which he himself would have been unaware of.  And then, they easily ignore that how he put his career at stake by clashing with the authorities and the school's regimen and teaching method. And, had he been unfortunate enough to have not discovered what he was looking for, even after this much hard work, he would’ve ended up in obscurity and that too without any prosperous career to console with.

See sacrifice, that’s what it takes to be a “genius” and indubitably not “in-born” talent. But would Suchan know that, would he? He is happy, absolving himself of any hard work and persistence efforts, by comfortably attributing someone else’ to a mystifying term “genius”.

It takes everything, yeah everything to be called a genius; it takes five or may be fifty times more effort than an average mortal; and certainly not the so-called “in-born” talent.

And in the end, I do hope that this “good” friend of mine has got some good-sense of humor.   

My Reply

Black and White

What I posted earlier seems to have generated a lot of friction among some of my friends and I have been insinuated of partisanship, of taking sides with a particular religion.

Following is a comment which I received for my earlier post and here I am sharing the same with you all. Even though this comment had been sent by only one person but almost everyone else seems to in sync with this. I will try my best to answer or should I say, put myself in right perspective.

“I take a different view on this. You are right that we are not what we are by choice. Its the way we have been raised. yes the people may have different ideology and everyone is entitled to hold to his view point. but we are also left with no choice when something is foisted upon ourselves. history will tell you that the civilisations which did not stand and fight for them got razed from the face of the earth. hinduism is a wonderful ideology and i am proud to be one. we were brought up with the virtues taught to us like patience and pluck. we have always been accommodating to all the religions. the fact that proves is the contrasting studies of the minorities. you dont need to look miles. just a glance across the border will tell you that. hindus bore the brunt of brutalities for centuries and said nothing (we were busy fighting ourselves), this is the repercussion of the anger and frustration that has festered the generations. every elastic body has its limits. i know as always you wont agree, but even a mild creature like cow will hit you back if you pester it beyond limits. and if you think again that no ideology is bad, i wud like to see following islam yourself. we practice before we preach.”

Before I answer, I would like to thank you for taking out your time to read and then still having the patience to comment, and that too on a subject which not many people find interesting. I sincerely appreciate your effort. 

My opinion (without associating myself with any identity)

The way the above comment has been made, gives us a clear impression of the state of mind of the person who actually wrote it. For to use the words such as, ‘we’ and ‘they’, easily suggests his chauvinism with his own developed sense of identity, which if called in proper sense, is nothing but “deluded sense of belongingness”. It seems apparently true that he had judged the case before-hand.

I agree with him unequivocally for the first three lines of his comment (nullifying the very first line). Then suddenly in his fourth line, he says, “but we are also left with no choice when something is foisted upon ourselves”. As much as I can infer from this statement, he is here justifying the demolition of Babri Masjid itself based on his belief that "something was foisted upon ourselves". What that was he does not make it clear.

And, in his sixth line he exhibits himself as a history student by making a comment about the conflict of civilizations, that those who did not fight got razed. I seriously do not understand this conclusion of his; being applied for the situation which was prevailing then, for it had been almost 45 years since we have been constituted as a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and the general ideas of justice, liberty(of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship) and equality were present at that time. I do not understand this theory being used here. Were we living in a monarchy where religion was sanctioned by the King? And, when kingdoms fought each other for the sustenance of their religion, culture, customs, belief, etc. No, we were not. 

In rest of his lines, first he celebrates the virtues of Hinduism, and then forgetting the same ‘virtues’ he manifestly justifies the demolition as the “repercussion of the anger and frustration that has festered the generations” for the brutalities that, in his opinion, only Hindus bore for centuries meekly. He clearly seems unaware of the atrocities which were committed by both sides on each other during the partition, with a larger share of that crime falling into the hands of the larger party, I need not mention that.

And, then is there, this “contrasting studies of the minorities” being evoked, again in order to celebrate the ‘virtues’ of Hinduism. Is he unaware of the carnage that followed, in Gujarat, after the Godhra incident, which might well have been an accident as suggested by the forensic evidence available at that time? More than 2000 Muslims were killed, and at least 50 times that number (feel it, it is 1, 00,000) rendered homeless, forced to live in refugee camps under pitiable conditions. And the conditions are no better even now.

And, did he forget the Hindu-Sikh riots of 1984, in which innocent Sikhs were butchered. And that too, who were in no way connected to the Sikhs who killed Mrs. Gandhi.

Anyone who is intelligible enough will see that minorities (not only Muslims or Hindus) are not safe in any country. Be it largely Hindu populated India or predominately Muslim populated Pakistan.

The last lines again seem to have been spoken out of a mind which has lost all its equanimity and tranquility, for making personal accusations only suggests that. The statement, ‘i know as always you wont agree’, speaks a lot about his frustration of having not been able to convince me, to his viewpoint, on previous occasions. And to vent that frustration, he comes up with a statement, ‘i wud like to see following islam yourself. we practice before we preach’, which to him appears as an ace argument.

In order to answer above, I have to resume my Identity of being a Hindu

Let me be honest here, I am an imperfect Hindu and he is asking me to practice Islam. Let me follow one religion first and perfect it. As for practice of Islam, let me ask him one question, has he heard of Ramakrishna Paramhans? Hmmm…..

I can only advise him to abandon this thinking of Black and White.

P.S: Though I have only used, ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’, in above statements, my opinion presented here, is for everyone who preaches parochialism.

Mandir aur Masjid

HOPEFULLY THEy WILL NOT ASK ME…

“Without this planning how do you think we razed the [Babri] masjid in six hours? Do you think a group of frenzied kar sevaks could have gone about it so systematically?”

-         One VHP leader, boasting that engineers had been asked to identify the structure’s weak spots and volunteers trained on how best to bring it down.[1]

Though I do not hope such a situation will ever arise but what if someone comes up and asks me, “What do you think; Babri Masjid or Ram Mandir should be erected in Ayodhya?”

For, I will look at them derisively and would say, “Go play with your toys. For how does it matter whether there’s a Mandir or a Masjid, you still will not leave your hypocrisy, you still will worship stones, and you still will trample living humans under your feet. Ah! Such is your appalling condition. You call yourselves a Hindu or a Muslim, but little do you know that you are so by accident and not by choice. They are all ideologies, that is what you fail to understand. Was there some kind of stamping done on your forehead by God when you were born? No, but you still behave so rigidly. You were told, did you get me “told” and put this carefully in your head that you did not choose. Am I right or wrong? Just because you learned something initially does not mean that it was correct. Now, if someone comes up and tells you about “their” faith, “their” practices and asserts themselves to be true. I know what you will do; you will pick up a sword and behead him, instead of resorting to reason. That’s how stupid, ignorant you are, for you have lost all your intellect of reasoning and logic to parochialism. That’s why I am saying to you; just go away, for you do not deserve my attention.”

Ref:-

[1] For first quote: - “India after Gandhi” by Ramachandra Guha, p640, taken obviously without permission.

My Reply - Posting in Blog only because it got very large

Sorry, Shivang but you seem to be completely out of context here. Why? Because I didn't say that men are fools to believe in cause/faith/religion/god/human, you interpreted that by yourself or more plausibly misinterpreted...What I wanted to say was just that WE SHOULD BELIEVE IN RELIGION BUT WITH REASON, WE SHOULD NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW ANY IDEA OR THOUGHT PROCESS. And, thereby those men who believe in religion, here I mean "true religion" and follow "true saints" not the saints (or crooks as you said) "who speak utter non-sense", are not fools.

Did it never occur to you that a man who once performed heinous crimes, suddenly takes a plunge in Ganges and then is proclaimed by those saints(or crooks) to be free of all sins, to be senseless and irrational. Then how in the world do you tell me to leave my power of reasoning behind.

And, when did I say "looking for the causes and rationality of every action". Here again you interpreted or misinterpreted by yourself...I only talked about religion and not every other action(of course, I won't reason whether I should brush my teeth or not, etc)....Religion surely deserves to be followed with reason.

"wouldnt have survived this long if we questioned our parents when they first fed us or clothed us whn we couldnt make sense of its utility" - Here again you wandered away from the topic, from where did the role of parents entered into play.....only religion and saints are in limelight...and not reason-ability of common actions....

"same is the case with the path that leads to truth" - Unreasonbleness, I don't think so. Why? Ramamkrishna parahamsa questioned about the viability of "bread-winning" education (moment of rationality) to his parents and then went on to learn vedas(that includes Upanishads-contains non-dual principle-that is, what was quoted by Vivekananda in earlier post), Puranas, etc....Buddha questioned his charioteer about old age, death and then he developed distaste for this life and finally became a monk (again arising from rationality and faculty of cognition)....look into autobiographies of everyone with minutest details...it will become inescapble for you not to find reasonable and rational approach of all these "true saints"....

"vivekanada was the chief disciple of ramakrishna paramhansa.to train the eye to see something that is esoteric one needs a guide." - Not agreed. Why? Buddha, Jesus found truth by themselves, didn't they? Yes, you might now say that they were extraordinary but that doesn't deny the fact that truth can be searched alone, if you have the will to do so....

"quote buddha and vivekanada without checking twice on their integrity/holiness bcoz u believe that they can guide u to the answer to ur dilemma." - How did you presume that I didn't check? From where did you deduce this statement? Did you perform extraction of stealing my ideas from the deepest hidden corners of my subconsciousness like that guy Dom Cobb did in the movie Inception? I seriously doubt this....As a matter of fact, I did check...but not now, it started when I first read of Buddha in 6th-7th of our NCERT book....and since then have been reading about him and others...And, now you tell me to check their integrity/ holiness...Well, I bet you, if you ever find something erroneous about them, please do tell me....

"it is our psyche/pride at work when we look to find means to demean others as it is hard to acknowledge that there do exist those who know/understand more than we do." - Please do tell me whom did I demean. And, where did I claim in my post that I am the most intelligent or for that matter wrote anything that made you interpret this....please do quote any sentence from my post....

"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant." plato - Agreed one hundred percent....But this has nothing do with what I posted...Yet again comprehensively out of context...

And, once again I want to say this:-

WE SHOULD BELIEVE IN RELIGION BUT WITH REASON AND WE SHOULD NOT BLINDLY FOLLOW ANY IDEA OR THOUGHT PROCESS.

Why have I been so much concerned about reason can made more clear once you read this. During my childhood years I mostly lived with my granparents in village, did my schooling there till class-III. That must have been around 1991-92, good enough age to remember little bits of information. What do I remember? Once my grandparents or  parents, I don't remember whom, once informed me that there is a house of "bhangee" over there, and reprimanded me to never ever go near them, exhorting that God will punish me. Of-course, without any power of  reasoning then, I would've believed them, But, when I read of Buddha and works by others, as well as mathematics (practice of reasoning), I started to exercise my power of cognition. And, then what do I see now, what my grandparents/ parents were telling me was rubbish all the way, and had this power of reasoning and the urge to search & find the truth on my own, not taken place in me, I would've been blindly following what they call as religion, which in actuality is not. How the hell is that person whom they call "bhangee" or by any other name which they can pick up to make it sound more derogatory, be anyhow different from us? Does he not eat, sleep, drink as we do? Does he not has flesh, bones, hairs as we do have? To hell with all those irrationalists and fools, I pity them, for how long will it take them to realize the truth only the almighty knows. "A person with even an iota of rationalism would not believe in such non-sense."

"Where shall we go to find God if we cannot see Him in our own hearts and in EVERY LIVING BEING. To me God exists in everyone as much as He does in me, for we are nothing but self-multiplied, just for ever once try to visualize yourself in that thoughtlessness state, which would have existed at the time of our births, before all this rubbish was forced into our minds, JUST TRY ONCE"

Religious superstition

Why do we believe in these saints, who often speak utter nonsense with no reason whatsoever? The answer to this question lies in the fact that we are fools or more appropriately we want to be fooled. Why does not even an iota of doubt arise in our minds when they say, "Perform this or that ritual, you will get to God." ? Here I would like to quote a dialogue from one of my favourite movie The Prestige, it says, "Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled."

 

With above question in my mind, I turned to one of the greatest Indian philosopher to look-out for an answer, and as usual he didn't disappointment me. This is what he had to say about God and Priests.

"We want to worship a living God. I have seen nothing but God all my life, nor have you. To see this chair you first see God, and then the chair in and through Him He is everywhere saying, "I am". The moment you feel "I am", you are conscious of Existence. Where shall we go to find God if we cannot see Him in our own hearts and in every living being? "Thou art the man, Thou art the woman, Thou art the girl, and Thou art the boy. Thou art the old man tottering with a stick. Thou art the young man walking in the pride of his strength." Thou art all that exists, a wonderful living God who is the only fact in the universe. This seems to many to be a terrible contradiction to the traditional God who lives behind a veil somewhere and whom nobody ever sees. The priests only give us an assurance that if we follow them, listen to their admonitions, and walk in the way they mark out for us — then when we die, they will give us a passport to enable us to see the face of God! What are all these heaven ideas but simply modifications of this nonsensical priestcraft?" - Swami Vivekananda

And there's more, this is what he had to say about miracles:-

"I look upon miracles as the greatest stumbling-blocks in the way of truth. When the disciples of Buddha told him of a man who had performed a so-called miracle — had taken a bowl from a great height without touching it — and showed him the bowl, he took it and crushed it under his feet and told them never to build their faith on miracles, but to look for truth in everlasting principles. He taught them the true inner light — the light of the spirit, which is the only safe light to go by. Miracles are only stumbling-blocks. Let us brush them aside." - Swami Vivekananda

And this is what Buddha himself had to say about the need for rational approach:-

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” - Buddha

Now, it is upto us whether we want to believe in God, the way we have had for years or we want to apply our rational mind and search for the truth, the way we should. I bet the latter one is a better option.

Summing it up with one more quote from the same movie, it is, "But if you could fool them, even for a second, then you can make them wonder, and then you... then you got to see something really special... you really don't know?... it was... it was the look on their faces... " 

Arbitrary thoughts: Religion and Osama

Hello Guys....seems like an epoch since I posted last...Any-ways I hope you all are having a good time.

Today at lunch, one of my friends went berserk while explaining to us each and every aspect of the mission in which Osama Bin Laden, world's most viscerally loathed terrorist, was killed by United States Navy SEALS in a covert operation authorized by President Barrack Obama, in a way nothing short of a Hollywood movie.

While, discussing or for the most part of our listening, he told us that Osama was buried with proper funeral rituals as per Islam, although in Ocean. And, since then I have been contemplating about the concept of religion and its significance, especially for terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden.

What is religion? In my reckoning, it is a set of ideas, principles or rules, laid down before you or more plausibly fed forcibly into your immature and naive mind which is able to accept anything at that time, by your parents, grandparents, teachers, relatives, friends and so on. But why would you believe them? It's simple, because you see them from the time of your birth, you trust them, for they protect and love you. And, love is the only language that a human or a living creature is able to understand right from their birth. But, what if your "well-wishers" were themselves ill-informed and ignorant. Did you ever doubt them? No, why would you, for you didn't even knew how to doubt or even the definition of doubt.

And, then comes the revelation of your association with a particular tribe or race, nationality, all these notions being continually inscribed deep into your personality during your initial years, by the so called "wise-people/ well wishers". After conditioning of your mind for years with such thoughts, you develop a strong or unmovable sense of belongingness as if it was existing primordially. Now, if someone asks you your religion, tribe/ race, nationality, you would without any second thoughts, say at the top of your voice, " I am a Hindu/ Muslim/ Christian......" or "I am an Indian/ American/ German......". TO ME EVERY HUMAN BEING IS SAME SKELETON OF BONES WOVEN AROUND WITH FLESH & NERVES, AND NOTHING ELSE, IT'S JUST THIS DELUDED SENSE OF BELONGINGNESS WHICH DIFFERENTIATES US, AND WE FOOLISHLY FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER OVER PETTY ISSUES, SHAME ON US.

Religion, in my opinion, meant to be a set of ideas, principles or rules laid down to lead a proper and purpose-driven life, a way of life. All the world's greatest religions, in a nutshell, only teach you all these rules and principles, some of them being "Universal Brotherhood", "Tolerance", "Non-Violence*", "Truth", "Honesty". But, observe yourself honestly, are you really following these teachings in all sincerity. Here, I can emphatically say "No. you are not nor I am". So, can you still say you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian... etc, I doubt... (To be Continued... for now ending with following final thought...)

Hello everyone...I don't know if anyone in my lifetime would ever read this.

Congratulations! to team India for bringing up the world cup home. The world cup final as it happened on 2nd of April, 2011 will remain forever embedded in our memories. Mr. Captain Cool played innings of his lifetime scoring 91 off 79 deliveries, a steady and gradually paced innings, a masterclass worthy of being put for display in a final. Supporting him was brilliant but volatile Gautam Gambhir, scored 97 runs, could have easily converted it into a superb 100, had he not lost his mind. The winning shot was as exciting as one can ever expect, Dhoni smashed kulasekra for a glorious six with his remarkable helicopter shot. Today's newspapers were filled with articles over yesterday's victory in the ICC WC2011 final over Lankans. And news channels were no exception as they constantly showed images & videos and spoke of our win in the final. They even got hold of player's family members and conveniently asked them as to how do they feel, as if they would say something very different from expected.