Epiblast!

The Spectre of Death

2012-02-04T12:54:00.002+08:00

One morning, I was walking past a cubicle in the wards. There was someone wailing inside. Usually there is a nameplate with the patient's name on it, but it wasn't there outside this door. I remembered her name though. I had seen her yesterday. I kept walking till I reached the nursing counter. There was a pad of forms, the first one was half filled. It was a Death Certificate. I wasn't entirely shocked. The old lady had taken a turn for the worst, yet there was something ...

I promise, to Follow the White Rabbit

2011-07-31T17:46:00.001+08:00

I'm finally getting down to writing this because I met a bunch of Belgian students in school. When I was in Brussels on the way back from the US, I walked around the airport and and I saw this at Duty Free :

I don't really know what the Duty Free marketing department intended when they made that their slogan.

The phrase, as far as I can tell, originates from The Matrix. The video clip (it won't allow me to embed the video) will give you a better idea, rather than me narrating the story.

It was extremely amusing, watching that movie on the plane ride and then bumping into that poster at the airport. I recalled the scene from Alice in Wonderland (the Tim Burton version) where Alice is being harassed by her relatives to marry that chump from her childhood. It seems like such an apt metaphor and when it all clicked, I smiled, and promised to follow that White Rabbit.

A lot of times, we live in our own little bubble when moving in the world around us. There's a tunnel vision that restricts what we can see, what we can imagine, and hence, the opportunities available to us.

I don't think Alice would have noticed the Rabbit if she was caught up in that conversation with her future Mother-in-law. She first saw it from the corner of her eyes, and even then she wasn't sure. It was clearly a non-event to the other lady, who tried to bring Alice back into the conversation, she also threatened to send her dogs behind the rabbit. That is precisely what other people (and sometimes we) do to our rabbit. A lot of times we simply ignore it and focus on "more important" things.

Yet she persists. Later on in the scene, the rabbit's near a bush, just out of everyone else's sight but clearly visible to her. He's frantically pointing to his watch. Time is running out and she needs to make a decision. It's not an easy decision, there's a garden full of people pressuring her into accepting a wedding proposal, there's a chump on his knees with an expectant expression on his face.

It's an uncomfortable situation. It's not a clear cut decision, but Alice (and later Neo) decides to take a plunge, and she runs after the rabbit like she's never run before. And the Rabbit takes her to a world beyond her wildest dreams.

I just rewatched that scene from the movie and, keeping in mind all those little nuances, it's a powerful message. In every aspect of our lives, our careers, relationships, hobbies, there's a little, mischevious rabbit lurking just outside our field of view. Everything conspires to distract us, make us ignore him, our "priorities" stop us from trying to follow him. It's sometimes uncomfortable because it means getting off the beaten track. Sometimes, we also have to compromise on something else, or someone is going to disagree (or worse, shout) at us. We do not have forever to make a decision. Yet, he dangles in front of us, a possibility of taking us to another dimension. When you follow the White Rabbit, be prepared for an adventure.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

The Tibetan Diaries : Day 5 Nyalam

2011-07-15T18:02:00.001+08:00

We've been slacking enough at the little town of Nyalam. I've had two days to settle down and adjust to the altitude and I'm ready to get some action.

The other groups are going for warm up hikes and my friends and I decide it'll be a good idea to join them. I jump into my trusty army boots and pick a nice episode of Tiesto's Club Life and I'm off.

There's a hill right behind the guesthouse and that's the one we're climbing. It looks like no big deal, the length of the slope is about four hundred metres, but you climb in a zig zag to make it less strenuous and easier to balance.

It's an odd feeling. Here you are far away from civilisation and you're listening to club music. The Electronic kind, you expect to hear on the second level of Attica.

Photo by Ravi Shankar Karedla

The climb itself is relaxed and enjoyable. Relaxed because the air so high is thinner and you really don't want to push it. Every once in a while, I'll turn back and soak in the view. I am no rush to reach the top, but eventually, I'm there. It's one of those things about a Himalayan hike. You are absolutely not concerned about reaching the top because you are taking your time and enjoying the journey. Every step of your trek, you turn back and have a slightly different view of the landscape.

Photo by Ravi Shankar Karedla

At the top of the hill is a plateau, rolling hills and in the background, five or six snow capped peaks framing the slightly cloudy sky. The sheer vastness of that scene is so contrary to the expectations you form as you are climbing that small, generic slope.

While I'm walking further on the plateau, I notice a few of my group members sit down, close their eyes and meditate. This initially strikes me as natural but there was something odd about it. And then it hits me, "if you're in the fucking Himalayas, you don't close your eyes to meditate. You OPEN your eyes wide and meditation happens".

Of course, I'm polite and don't actually say this out to anyone. I'm just standing there in awe and smiling to myself. I help my friends take a couple of photos and we're back down.

Later in the evening, news spreads around that I'm a medical student (some mistake that to mean doctor, or feel that some qualification is better than none). People start coming to me with all sorts of problems, diarrhoea, vomiting, existential angst, boredom, allergies and I promptly direct them to my friend, who though not medically trained, takes these trips regularly and is more familiar with those conditions. I think I manage to cure some of their boredom by doing magic tricks.

One incident stands out. This gentleman (not so obvious at first), perhaps in his thirties or forties, comes over, asks for the "doctor saab" and tells me he has a dog bite. His long story of how he go bitten by a dog but his teeth didn't penetrate his flesh, and so he doesn't need an injection drowns out my pleas to stop treating me like a doctor, because I'm absolutely not qualified.

He wants me to take a look at his wound and I think I might as well. In the corridor outside my room, in full view of everyone, he proceeds to drop his trousers and show me a little bruise at the back of his thigh. I believed medical school would have adequately prepared me for this, but I am still mildly amused and am just able to suppress a smirk. I of course, direct him to my friend, find an excuse and go to bed.

This is going to be a fun trip.

You can view some of the photos from this trip on my Facebook page.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

quit calling it western medicine

2011-06-25T14:09:00.000+08:00

Modern medicine is “Western” only in the trivial sense that its historical roots were found in Europe and North America. It is distinguished by its reliance on science. The principles of biology, chemistry, anatomy, physiology, and pharmacology do not vary according to location, nor does the capacity of science to follow evidence wherever it may lead, whether to new discoveries or to discrediting long-held opinions. Many of those discoveries—statins, for example (see below)—have been made in non-Western settings. Modern medicine is thus universally applicable. It is no more Western, in any important medical or scientific way, than the physics of Einstein was Jewish.

from “CAM” Education in Medical Schools—A Critical Opportunity Missed, Virtual Mentor

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

M for Magic Ep VI and sneakiness in the Maldives

2011-05-22T06:33:00.001+08:00

The episode features Godwin and Timothy, founders of Red Dot Magic . I'll let their performance speak for themselves.

I'm reminded of an amusing anecdote. This happened in about March '06. I was overseas on a community service trip to the Maldives. Apart from the thrill of the sheer beauty of the country, there was this guilty pleasure of skipping an exam :). I was the tallest, biggest of the lot and the locals affectionately called be bodu-be, big brother.

One warm night after dinner, we were chilling with one of the local boys. This was a period where I was rediscovering magic after a hiatus and I nervously suggested performing a magic trick. I did one or two simple ones to "warm up" and I moved on to the climax where a card disappears and appears in my pocket.

As I was talking, making my moves, the card disappears and I look at him, smile and point to my pocket. He's got mixed feelings; surprise and skepticism.

When he puts his hand in my pocket and takes out this warm, slightly bent card with his signature on it, I expect some kind of silent shock, but he quickly snaps at me, "Bodube, are you a messenger?", and stares at me.

I, reflexively blurted out, "No".

Maldives is an Islamic country so Mohammad, believed to be a messenger from god, is held in high esteem. Although you might call him gullible for jumping to that conclusion, I wouldn't.

There is a natural appetite for astonishment in even the most rational of people. Myself included. With the kind of blogs and news outlets I subscribe to, every once in a while, someone claims they have found a miracle cure, som berry that magically makes you lose weight or an herb that can cure cancer. I would really love for that to be true. In fact, I think in an ideal world, doctors would be unemployed, pharmaceutical companies would be poor because people lead healthy lives, have perfect genes and do not fall ill much. Yet, I must defer to the evidence and investigate whether these treatments actually work.

In a similar fashion, the layperson who sees a magic trick may be placed in an uncomfortable position of knowing that someone is performing some conjuring and there is no supernatural force involved, yet wanting to believe there is. I think part of the fun in watching magic, even for myself as a performer, is the tension between the rational and the emotional, and hence my advice to people who might end up watching some live magic for the first time is to simply relax, and enjoy the moment. To take delight in the mish-mash of logic and emotion the performer so skillfully takes you on.

About the Project : Sinema is an independent arts company based here in Singapore. The arts scene here is beginning to flourish and Sinema did their part by coming up with SinTV, an online arts channel. M for Magic is their first installation featuring 14 local magicians. Here's their facebook page and main site.

Do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

M for Magic Ep V and Women in Magic

2011-05-19T20:56:00.003+08:00

Watch Ep V on Youtube

In the previous post, we talked about charlatans. I was intending to share a relevant anecdote but this episode is special and I'm going to postpone that.

Today, I'm thinking about women.

Yeah. Women. The lack of women in magic, and also the larger context of female representation in other fields. Even in medical school, I think the gender ratio has increased from women being a minority in the past to the ratio being about fifty-fifty right now. I do not have specific statistics apart from heresay from tutors.

I've seen an informal survey on why this is so and the responses ranged from the usual nature vs nurture; about why women (in general) might be psychologically less suited to magic, to the fact that magic being male dominated, every aspect of it is geared towards men and thus women might feel out of place.

I believe that is actually what happens in many fields . People once said that that science was unsuitable for women because, perhaps they thought differently. Over time as more women entered the field both men and women got over those biases. Same with education. I forsee that the same might happen with magic.

I find "sex appeal" being thrown around a bit when it comes to women in the performing arts. Women (and men) are definitely free to garnish their performances with sex appeal as they feel fit. As a performer with lots to learn, I would, however, want to look beyond the sex appeal. In the context of Singapore, I am happy to say that the handful of women I have seen performing magic have been extremely skilled in their technique.

Getting back to the video, is Adeline going to be the next Magic Babe Ning? No, I think she has a different style. Could Adeline be the next big thing in magic? That's a resounding "hell yeah!"

Do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

M for Magic Ep IV and Popoff

2011-05-17T05:30:00.002+08:00

Watch Ep IV on Youtube

In the last post, we concluded that magicians have a special appreciation for the art of magic. A sense of wonder which is, for various reasons, inaccessible to lay people.

The episode opens with JC turning water to ice. I just noticed that about two thousand years ago, a similarly initialed man turned water to wine. In this video, Harapan does some sweet card magic while Matthew bends spoons. With the right kind of story and in a slightly less skeptical audience, Matthew would might have been labelled some kind of psychic with supernatural powers. In 17th Century Massachusetts, he would have been tried as a Witch and hung.

It simply happens that since the show is presented as as conjuring, people expect some kind of trickery. We have been in a sense, immunised by anecdotes of previous charlatans. As such, our criteria for what constitutes a miracle is very much different from what it could have been many years ago.

Peter Popoff is a very classical case. In the 1980s he organised huge Faith Healing rallies, where he could apparently tell people's addresses and their ailments simply by looking at them. Sort of like Dr House. Upon investigation by skeptics (including the famous James Randi) a rather mundane explanation emerged. The faithful filled out prayer requests before the show, from which his wife was feeding him information via a wireless microphone.

I would at this point want to draw a parallel with science prodding nature to reveal its rather fascinating secrets, but that's a long topic for another day.

For now, I'm leaving you with a quote.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. ~ Arthur C Clarke

Do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

Review : Quantum Zoo by Marcus Chown

2011-04-29T13:42:00.000+08:00

Unlike the title, this book actually tries to cover two (not one) major ideas in 20th Century Physics, Quantum Theory (which deals with the absolutely tiny) and Relativity (talking about pretty darn massive). The cover is littered with fun (and counterintuitive facts) about the consequences of these theories, when made analogous to the world at our scale.

Quantum Zoo is a science book aimed towards the layperson, which means, it doesn't contain equations, tries not to use too much jargon or go into much detail. Although I have enjoyed other books in this niche, particularly the ones about the biological sciences, something about this one struck me as missing. I get the impression that I'm supposed to understand what is going on, but at the same time, things haven't been explained to me properly.

However, the problem may not lie with the writer or the book. Modern physics is challenging precisely because it is so counterintuitive. When dealing with things on the scale of the very tiny or the very massive, a lot of our usual commonsense rules do not apply.

My experience in school has taught me that to be able to really understand a worldview, you need to have been given the opportunity to apply it and think through various scenarios while using it. This is well, not always possible to pull off in a 150 page book.

Just to give you a heads up, Chown, covers a range of topics such as the probabilistic nature of things Quantum, the Uncertainty Principle, Entanglement, E=mc^2, Space-Time Contraction and Dilation and so forth. I won't pretend to have understood these clearly. There's a chapter called E=mc^2 and the Weight of Sunshine. I thought that was quite poetic :)

Nonetheless, I think Quantum Zoo gives a reasonable overview of these two revolutions in Physics and serves as a good starting point for someone curious. Plus, it's small and very readable. Recommended, if that's what you're looking for.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

M for Magic Ep III is out!

2011-04-19T19:02:00.002+08:00

And some thoughts on Skepticism and Wonder.

Watch Episode III

The description of that episode on youtube is wrong. This episode is in no way "soothing". Alexander and Samuel are doing some classic effects with some of their own refinements. I've done that trick that Alex performs on this video and honestly, he's tweaked the effect in such a simple way that converts it from a cool trick to basically, something mind-blowing.

Which brings me to the point we discussed in the last post. Now that you know how a magic trick is done, do you lose that sense of wonder? Short answer, yes. Long answer, depends on what you mean by wonder. Yes, we do lose the sense of "mystery" in the trick, but at the same time, because we have a different appreciation, an understanding of the mechanics of the trick and also an eye for the nuances added in by the performer in combination with the way he or she takes the audience on an emotional roller coaster, I think, ironically, magicians might enjoy watching good (thanks JC for clarifying) magic more than lay people.

In comparison, a layperson, sees a trick a few times, might figure it out(or assume) the mechanics of it, and the trick loses its magic. Where as a magician, might see different people performing the same trick, mind you, they know what's happening, but in their minds, it "matures" like fine wine when you see how the various elements of it interact and how it is made unique by each performer.

Just to drive the analogy further, it's pretty much like the enjoyment of a fine wine by a connoisseur.

There's one more aspect to this which I'll talk about next week, and perhaps I'll share some relevant personal anecdotes.

Just a note for those who've seen me perform and are dying to see my episode, it's episode number ... I'm not telling. This project isn't really about me. It's about the talent in the local scene. As much as it looks like we work in "isolation", it's really a lot of teamwork, whether it's explicit or not.

Do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

Reading this on Facebook? Check out the rest of the blog here

Episode II is out!

2011-04-11T07:22:00.002+08:00

Watch Episode Two and leave a comment.

This week, Ning put's a n*** up her n*** and Kyle Ravin does some freak magic. Do not try this at home. Just because I'm somewhat medically trained doesn't mean I'll let you try it at my home.

I've been doing magic for about eight years now, on and off. There's a ton of stuff I've learnt from the process but if there's one thing I want to talk about today, it's the whole skepticism business.

I cannot believe in the supernatural anymore. Simply cannot. Once you become an insider, the person behind the magic, and you see how it's done, it challenges your idea of "impossible". Imagine an object (a card, coin, elephant) disappearing and appearing in another location. Conventionally, it's not like a dance move where you can, in your mind, imagine some intermediate steps of doing this, then this and finally this. The whole point about magic is that there are no "intermediates" you can imagine and hence it takes your reasoning mind and smashes it against a brick wall.

Now when it comes to tales of the supernatural or miraculous events, for most people, it is their intellect being smashed against a brick wall. It's an exciting and emotional moment for those who've experienced it first (and second) hand. For us, however, we've had those "simulations" before and when someone tells us an incredible story, we smile knowingly. Even if we can't specifically figure out how the charlatan did it, we have a vague idea, and there's this awesome joy of knowing.

Does this mean we've lost our sense of wonder? Ill talk about this when the next episode comes out.

Read the previous post.

Update : The next post is out.

About the Project : Sinema is an independent arts company based here in Singapore. The arts scene here is beginning to flourish and Sinema did their part by coming up with SinTV, an online arts channel. M for Magic is their first installation featuring 14 local magicians. Here's their facebook page and main site.

Do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Spicing up the local arts scene. M is for Magic I

2011-04-05T23:17:00.005+08:00

We always say "sh*t happens". There is however, the opposite end of the spectrum. It's called serendipity. I noticed this little request for magicians for a small project on JC Sum's facebook page.

I sent in a quick resume and proceeded to gather my friends to sharpen my thaumaturgical edge. I met them in a hot sweaty hostel corridor and got them to film a few short quick videos of me in the act....

I'll tell you my story later.

The project was for Sinema, an independent arts company based here in Singapore. The arts scene here is beginning to flourish and Sinema did their part by coming up with SinTV, an online arts channel. M for Magic is their first installation featuring 14 local magicians. There isn't much more I can say about this because you need to see to believe.

Due to formatting constraints, I suggest you take a look at the video directly on youtube and leave a comment there. Also check out Sinema's facebook page and main site. You can do your part by sharing this note with your friends.

I'll tell you more of my story when the next episode comes out.

Update : Read the next post.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Instead of praying

2011-03-30T21:42:00.000+08:00

WARNING : SATIRE!

This morning, I'm running slightly late and I rush to the bus stop. I'm panting, my forehead is moist from the brisk walking and I see, vaguely, a double decker bus about half a kilometer down from the road. Some time back, I would have prayed for it to be my bus. Now, a couple of years later, things are a bit different. You should have noticed. I stopped believing.

Things are not that different though. I know that there are five buses which come to that bus stop. A double decker means, the other two are out. So it could be one of three. So, assuming that there is equal probability of either three popping up (not perfect, but not necessarily a bad assumption), there's a 1/3 chance of that being the bus I sooo desperately need. I hold my breath. As the bus rolls into clear view, I am overjoyed. Its the 143 that takes me directly to work. Probability calculations work.

What if it wasn't the 143? I would have sighed ... and forgotten about it.

I'm not kidding. Probability calculations got me into medical school. I remember walking into the hall where we were writing our essays. There were about 800 candidates competing with me. There were 250 seats. My trained-for-engineering-school brain said there was a .31 chance of me getting in, by sheer chance. Now I had spoken to a handful of those candidates and many just apply because they have the scores or the want to try their luck. I know many of those kids aren't getting in. Which means my probability of getting in is higher than 1/3. Which is pretty awesome!

Suck it up, calculating your odds helps you achieve what you want. Now on to figuring out if it can save the lives of the terminally ill.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Yuvaveer : a new Adventure about to start

2011-03-05T11:18:00.000+08:00

Yuva · veer

Yuva (adjective) being young or youthful, embodying the qualities of vigour, curiosity, enthusiasm
Veer (noun) the strong, brave, excellent.

It's been two years since I did my Yuvaveer (or YEP) course at an Ashram near Pune. It's been a milestone in my life and I'm still slowly releasing entires from my journal. They're littered all over my blog. If you have talked to me long enough, a reference to this has probably come up :)

The course for this year is starting on 1st June 2011. Its free of charge as long as you continue with the service term. If you cannot, I believe you can drop them an email, and make some arrangements. You can take a look at the following brochures :

Mailer
Poster
Sign up

Feel free to share this note with someone who might be interested :) Get in touch with me if you need clarifications or advice.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Yuvaveer : Locked in a room

2011-02-03T13:11:00.000+08:00

Day 43 Monday 13th July 2009

Swamiji seemed a little pissed for Bhaja Govindam class. He had told us on Saturday that he wants us to know the how to chant the shloka and its meaning for all the verses we have been through. Myself and a couple of friends had spent our Sunday at Pune City proper, so expectations were that we had done our studying. He asked one of my friends to start chanting a particular verse. She couldn't. He asked her to do another one, she couldn't. And another. She gave up. My balls fell. Actually I was sitting on a chair so they couldn't have fallen, but I can't think of a better way to put it. He said in English “Day and night ...”[1] hoping I knew which Sanskrit verse he was talking about. I hesitantly chanted and passed. He moved on to someone else. He asked and asked but no one could answer him satisfactorily. Phew.

I remember Swamiji calling me to his room during breakfast. We chat about the Bhaja Govindam scene for a while and he mentions how he only gets really angry when the name of the mission is at stake. Apparently, apart from that, he's just pretending. He then told me that I was to go it the silent room that afternoon. Perhaps for forty-eight hours. I ran off, rushed my breakfast and reported a little late for sanskrit or chanting class.

I don't remember what much happened till the afternoon. There were a couple of guests from Hong Kong or something and one of the girls was getting married. They ooed and aahed over my name and they asked me what I was wearing around my neck. It was my ID tag and two silver rings. I explained the significance of the tag (being an identifier for your dead body when you die in a war). They giggled and thought I was a fuckin retard. I packed my stuff and got ready to go.

Sumedha lead me to the room and gave me a few last minute instructions. Swamiji's advice was to simply watch the mind. I made a mental note to try it out some of the little experiments I thought I would do while I was there.

The location was some sort of semi-detached bungalow. It occupied the section on the right. It was cozy and everything was kinda new. They folks had left me a jar of chivada, a jug of cold water and biscuits on the teapoy and Sumedha told me that she would send me lunch the next day. She locked my room and wished me luck. I put my stuff down, took a shower and settled in.

I stuck to my usual observing the breath technique. I had absolutely all the time in the world to do my stuff so it was fun. The technique is damn simple. You sit down, semi-relaxed. Keep your back straight and your head facing the front. Make sure that your sitting position is stable and not too difficult to maintain. You can rest your hands face-up on your lap. Take a few deep breaths and then just stop trying to control your breathing just observe your breathing and how your body feels. Being fully conscious of the present moment occupies your mind and it doesn't need to think too much. It calms you down and you can just relax and enjoy the good feeling.

So one of the first things I noticed was that the kinds of thoughts we have on a daily basis are kind of fuckin boring shit. We either fantasise about the future or re-enact the past. Or sometimes imagine what the past ought to have been like. Plus in terms of time span, they often revolve around the immediate past, often the past few days at most. And you just keep rotating over and over in the absence of new stimulus. Imagine all the thought power you might be preserving by not thinking when you don't need to.

I sporadically had a few handfuls of chivada, a biscuit to change the taste and water to moisten the dryness. I think I spilled some on the floor and had to sweep it up. Swamiji or someone left a bone on the shelf. It was about a foot or so long and about the circumference of an “O” you would make with your index finger and thumb it distracted me for a while when I contemplated what kind of animal it would come from and which part of the animal it was.

At some point I thought it was dark enough to sleep so I switched off the lights, lay down and did the meditation business again...

Read Day 44, Seeing Ghosts

[1]

Day and night, dusk and dawn, winter and spring come and go. In this sport of Time entire life goes away, but the storm of desire never departs or diminishes. ॥12 ॥

दिनयामिन्यौ सायं प्रातः,
शिशिरवसन्तौ पुनरायातः।
कालः क्रीडति गच्छत्यायुस्तदपि
न मुन्च्त्याशावायुः ॥१२ ॥

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Yuvaveer : Seeing Ghosts

2010-12-24T18:04:00.005+08:00

Day 44 Monday 14^th July 2009

[Note: This is a page from my diary when I was at a course at this Ashram. I was in a quiet room for 24hrs. It was an exercise meant to give time for the student to observe the tendencies of one's mind. I left shortly after this day, so I didn't actually write about the other experiences during that session]

Read Day 43, Locked in a Room

I woke up sometime at midnight. Lying on the bed, I was facing the wall. They had switched off all the lights in the area. Even the street lamps. Everything was so dark that I could not make out the borders of things in the rooms. It was blurry because I wasn't wearing my glasses. I flipped over and there was a white figure suspended about a metre away from me. This is freaky because I recall locking the doors and windows before going to sleep. I shifted my gaze around and noticed that the figure sort of shifted. Not in some geometrical fashion but it shifted. And it kept shifting in a consistent fashion as I moved my eyes around the room. All this is very difficult to explain because the figure was so fuzzy and hazy that I cannot even be confident of locating it spatio-temporally. Then I remember that there was some kind of white light that leaked through the curtains before I fell a sleep it might have been from some machine or lamp outside the bungalow. The light poked through the curtains and bounced off one of the doors illuminating part of the door and its frame.

In absolute darkness, you cannot differentiate objects and a patch of light becomes de-contextualised, plus I'm myopic, so it's blurry. Now the resolution of your peripheral vision (so called corner of your eye) is also poorer, compared to that of your central vision (the area in front of you). This is compounded by your finely tuned pareidolia, good for recognising faces. Pareidolia is the ability of your mind to perceive patterns. It relies on the data that your senses provide your mind. Put the hazy figure, without well defined borders, which would otherwise look like a patch of white on a wall into something that hovers mid-air with the tendency for us to see purpose, intentions and agents. All of these together and you get a “ghost” which shifts or morphs when you shift your gaze. Genius. When I figured this out, I gasped and played around with the illusion a bit before going back to sleep.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

I didn't make it

2010-12-12T18:00:00.002+08:00

Hello :)

Thanks for all the support but I didn't make it to the top three. Some of the endorsements you guys wrote for me were very uplifting! I honestly thought a lot of my competitors were a bit myopic but I am happy that Neena from UAE made it to the top 3. I think she raised a couple of interesting points.

This morning, I happen to be browsing through this old journal I kept when I was a student at an Ashram for a few months. This was in 2009, yes, some of you might be like, "what's this atheist dude doing in an ashram" but I had my reasons.

For quite sometime, I have stopped asking myself the question, “Why me?”, at least when I had done so, I sort of knew the answer and it was more of an expression of frustration rather than a serious question of purpose. If we look at the complexity of the world around us, about how small changes add up to larger ones, about the randomness, and we can stomach it, I feel we have upped our maturity and ability to cope with adversities up by a notch. Shit happens sometimes and there are often proximal causes, distant causes but I highly doubt there is a larger purpose. That of course does not mean that we cannot learn a lesson from a disaster, or that we cannot, upon reflection, see it as symbolic. Yet, to look at it as if it was “meant” to teach us a lesson would not just be delusional but also potentially gravely insensitive to the people who to whom the tragedy has affected.

I believe this was when a friend of many of the attendees had passed away when he was in his thirties. I was annoyed when they said it was his "destiny" or the fruits of his past karma. I needed to vent :/

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

I'm a step closer to Delhi

2010-12-10T22:40:00.003+08:00

Hellloooo :)

I basically made it to the final 25 list of competitors. I need more votes. I noticed that some folks are not very familiar with the issues I raised, which is fine, I think what the judges need affirmed is that I am the right person.

Can I request readers to go here and drop me an endorsement, explaining to others, what you know about me! You can post this on Facebook, tag your friends and let them know.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

India ... here I come!

2010-12-07T22:25:00.003+08:00

There are times when you have this feeling of knowing what is wrong, but not knowing what you can do to fix it. I have been to numerous parties and social events before with my parents. Usually the kind where expatriate Indians hang out. Now that I am in my twenties, I tend to sit and chill with the uncles and the discussion tends to shift, eventually, towards Money, Films or Indian Current Affairs. Usually, it starts off on an interesting tangent but usually ends up discussing the angle of how messed up the whole system is, sometimes making the situation seem hopeless. You have probably been there too. At about this point, myself and my dad are silent onlookers, I have the option of going and joining the younger kids. I usually do just that.

Not this time.....

Post exam, post massive amounts of school work, I bumped into this event called NRI Power Podium. It's a lead up to the Pravasi Bharatiya Divas 2011 (hindi for NRI Day) where big and powerful Indians from across the world gather to discuss issues of interest. The event opens the floor to Indians across the world to raise issues which are important to them. We create a profile, put it up to a vote and the top 25 are shortlisted, remarketed and Judges are brought in to vet our profiles. Winners will get an all expenses paid trip to India to attend the conference and speak out!

Being in a scientific field, money and law are not my strong points, though in school they teach us enough law to know how to protect ourselves (Medico-Legal, Ethics). However, there is one means of voicing out opinions which are valuable to me. There is a category called "Cultural Matters" which is admittedly vague, but which I am using to air my views.

The improvements I am suggesting (supposedly to Dr Manmohan Singh) are about Reservations, Hate Speech Laws and an improved Security Framework. You can see what I feel about these at my full profile here . As readers of my writing, I know you are concerned about at least one of the above and it would be great to drop me an endorsement! I have also placed a little counter on the right. Do help me spread the word and gather more votes, I'll need at least five hundred. This is a small step we can take towards change.

If you have any concerns or queries, drop me a comment here.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

I want to drown myself

2010-10-10T17:32:00.004+08:00

We've all had that feeling before. You forget to put a plus or minus in a math problem and get a wrong answer. Once you realise that, you think you should go drown in a bucket of water. Perhaps on a more serious note, you might not be coping with work/school (or maybe you killed a patient) and you go back thinking that you're worthless. For a while, for some reason, you start to genuinely believe killing yourself might be an option.

We've all been there, you're probably not the only one.

Why am I talking about this? Today is World Mental Health Day. If there is one thing you take to heart today, it's this. Our bodies are varied, some of us are short, tall, thin, fat. We have different levels of everything in our body, hormones, enzymes, cells it's the reason why when you go for a test, your doctor will try to find out if your values are within the normal range. Not everyone can run a mile in five minutes and we don't feel inferior because of it.

Similarly, not everyone's minds are the same. We have varying desires, inclinations, dislikes and different things give our lives meaning. It's ok. Not everyone is going to be a top student and there is nothing wrong with that.

Every once in a while, you've probably fallen down and cut yourself. Maybe the cut wouldn't heal on its own and got infected. It's normal to seek treatment. Correspondingly, when the going gets tough and you can't handle it or you don't feel your normal self, there is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking medical attention, nobody can or should ostracise you for it.

Destigmatise Mental Illness. We're in the 21st Century for God's sake, we shouldn't be demonising people like in the middle ages.

The Institute of Mental Health has some great resources on a range of mental health issues such as how to cope with bereavement.

And BTW, if you're reading this blog post because you are in some way contemplating suicide please call the Samaritians (Singapore number) 1800 221 4444. Don't worry, it's confidential or if you are the type who needs to read something check this out.

Spread the word! Share this note!

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

A Year in Review

2010-09-21T11:19:00.004+08:00

This is kind of like how newspapers do a lineup of all the things that happened in the past year. This is a long one and it's a kind of written "Catching-up" if I have not seen you in a while. (I've linked to my previous blog posts)

The year (including the academic one) started on a high note as I came back from that awesome two month course at the ashram in India. I was all empowered and everything (read the "Sitting on a Rock" post under my FB notes). I started off very idealistically. The only exposure I had to university life was when I hung out at my sister's college in the US (I didn't attend lessons) and with a group of peers (during pharmacology and anatomy lectures) those were fun moments but not entirely representative.

I spent my last birthday at a cemetery among other things. In October when my Granny passed away, I spent a lot of time reflecting about death and dying, especially how to handle it as a materialist, I read Richard Dawkin's "To be read at my funeral" over and over.

There were a lot of fun things going on in school too. I switched gears to do Medicine from Computer Engineering because I was so awestruck by the wonder of Life. Although the lectures seemed boring and I always felt behind and couldn't catch up with work, in year 2, on hindsight, I learnt a ton of cool things. It almost feels like I have X-ray vision now, because I know how the body is structured and what goes on "under the hood". It's a breath-taking feeling :). Outside academics, I picked up a bit of Muay Thai (but I quit when I damaged my shoulder, outside of class), did salsa, which is still going strong and wrote a few articles (2 to be exact) for the Student Magazine. One of them required us to go to the Red light district and interview a prostitute. I also contributed to a script for a school play which got us best Script for the competition. A lot of action, I'm still getting used to it.

Sometime in December, in fact the exact same day I dislocated my shoulder, my friend, who is a dating coach, invited me for a documentary filming. If you look carefully, you can see me giggling at him from the corner during a mock lecture. I flew off to India a few days after that. That year, was the first time I ventured out of the state of Maharashtra for the first time. I had been up north to the Himalayas earlier in the year and I hit Chennai in December. Both were very eye-opening trips.

Sometime around this time, I made the decision to leave the house and go live in the hostel. It was a big shift as I have never been out on my own. This kind of independence was unprecedented. I imagined it to be a four month long, hedonistic party but, oh well, it was tough at the same time. I had my moments and one of the memorable ones were the pre-exam studying sessions I had with my buddies (the other moments? Shhh).

I started doing a couple of small, adhoc things to Change the World. There was Free Hugs day (you can see my gorgeous friend holding up the sign) coinciding with Valentine's Day. Gunther von Hagen's Body Worlds was also in town so I hit the idea of doing guided tours for various groups of people. I wasn't officially affiliated with any of the organisers (had to pay to get in) so I took the liberty of giving it a philosophical bent of my own. On the last day, no one showed up. I was half tempted to give up but my friend told me that he would be coming by, even if he was late. I started out the tour with just him and me. Slowly, some of the kids next to me started eaves dropping and asking questions. At some point they ask if they can join in (you know what I did, right?) By the end of the exhibition, there is a crowd following me.

I'm planning on doing another Free Hugs soon and this thing called Gandhi Awareness Week. Watch out for it.

Sometime later, our anatomy sessions in the lab were coming to an end. The tutors wanted people to go and share their reflections with the rest of the class. I couldn't help myself. I had been through the whole process and basically shared the bits I had talked about in my Death posts. I thought it would be nice if everyone had thought deeply about their own mortality culminating in their enthusiasm for signing up for a more comprehensive organ donation. I am yet to address this with my parents and do something about it. Nudge me if you will.

As the academic year drew to a close, the self-doubt started piling up. Going through the notes, I started to realise there was way too much to try and remember and the temptation to just give it up was too strong. I was lucky to have friends. And also, being a skeptic (the kind who doubts a lot of things, the supernatural, UFOs ...) I began to doubt my doubts. That helped a lot and I managed to pull through.

The holidays were crazy, but you might already know that. When I got back from the USA, I got ready for a bit of catching up with this "Big Green Organisation" The one where you wear a uniform and be patriotic. Oh, wait, how could I forget .....

KHUSHWANT SINGH SODHI! (part III is saved somewhere on my com)

I have been averse to commitments since forever and I felt that was preventing me from achieving my potential. When school finally started (last month), there was a day when last year's Class Rep (the awesome guy who made sure the class ran smoothly) asked if anyone wanted to serve for this year. My hand shot up. I got it. I am in the process of doing crazy things and it has not been easy, but it's certainly fun.

There are a lot more things to talk about but my wrist is hurting. A couple of you asked why it says v0.22 on my Facebook profile. It's because I am still a work-in-progress. I hopefully will always be. Every year goes by and although you might not always feel the changes, there is this transformation going on. A couple also asked about my dating life. I'm still single (though I have been upto something ;) ) and in the process of having so much fun, I don't think I'm available for a relationship, but I could change my mind.

Thanks for being on my journey, for the coming year, I hope to up the notch on the adventure, maybe two or three, and if you have not been infected by the spirit of fun, just wait ....

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Burn a Qur'an Day

2010-09-10T11:46:00.005+08:00

(comic from XKCD.com)

Book burning has been so common in history that there is even a name for it, it's called Biblioclasm. I think this whole issue has gone so out of hand, its time some non-believers started to open their big mouths and speak up. PZ Myers (the rock star of atheism) has a slightly different angle on this, I've got my own.

I cannot relate to this issue on many levels. I feel that the "moral outrage" is rather disproportionate to the event. It helps to look at the facts first.

Pastor Jones, leader of the 50 strong non-denominational church, Dove World Outreach Centre, decides it would be nice to burn Qu'rans (I'm meticulous with spelling) to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Apparently, Pastor Jones thinks Islam is evil (its extra biblical) and the Qur'an incites violent behaviour. This he cites as his motivation. He stood defiant against global criticism of his idea until it seems that the Islamic Centre being built in Manhattan came up as a bargaining chip. Imam Musri, of the Islamic Society of Florida seems to have said that he might be open to negotiating over the proposed location of the Manhattan Islamic Centre if Jones were to refrain.

I got that from a Yahoo News article. Good enough for discussion. I tried putting myself in the shoes of the people whose book is being burnt as a Hindu of course (to piss off an atheist, you need to burn something more, like people) but I could not relate to it. Here's what I imagined.

Jones: "You hindus, you're evil! How can all religions be true? We are going to burn your books because on 11th Sept 1893, your Swami Vivekananda was in Chicago and said blasphemous things." Ok, I'm trying to be funny here, but the point is there.

Burning a Bhagavad Geeta does not matter to me because

a) it's not my copy you're burning (mine was a memorable gift)

b) the knowledge contained there-in is independent of the physical book

c) I have the important bits memorised

d) there are tons of copies around the world

e) I already know you hate me

f) I know you are just trying to piss me off

g) there are greater evils to fight

I was going to write long elaborate arguments but I think those points do the trick.

Going back to the media frenzy, I thought it was funny how if

a) the media did not report this (Singapore media has refined this art)

b) the Army general did not complain about it

c) Obama ignored it

It would just be a bunch of stupid fundies doing what they do best and we could go on an enjoy a nice weekend with our muslim friends (Happy Eid!). One of the ways to dissolve religious misunderstanding and hatred is to start talking about religion to your friends and being cool with disagreement. Any thoughts?

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Quotable Quotes

2010-09-03T17:48:00.002+08:00

I have seen a xylophone exactly three times in my life. I think we should change the alphabet books from "X is for Xylophone" to "X is for Xenophobia" both big words, but the latter one is more useful

- Me

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

I had a dream

2010-09-03T17:38:00.002+08:00

Last night I had the craziest dream.

I was walking down a street at night. I bump into a group of migrant indian construction workers and for some reason or the other( cannot remember what happened in between) I end up chatting with one of them about his medical issues.

At some point, he tells me in formal, flawless english : "I am concerned about autoimmunity"

I reply, word for word from my immunology notes: " Everyone's lymphocytes are somewhat self-reactive. What you need to worry about is autoimmune disease, where there is tissue damage"

I cannot remember what happens next but I can imagine him punching me in the face.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Experiment: Khushwant's Embryology

2010-07-14T11:37:00.004+08:00

I'm a med student, I can use medical terminology with wanton abandon. I'm referring to the process of building up the identity and logistics of this character and I think embryology is a fine analogy.

If you have not check out the previous one, you need to read Experiment: Conceiving Khushwant

Mindsets

I was in this for fun and personal development. If it failed, it would be one big joke and we would all have a good laugh (which would still mean it was successful) and if it worked out, I get to partake in one of the biggest Mindf***ks my friends would have ever seen. You can get to see this in action when I'm doing magic as well. In my mind, I'm thinking, "These guys want to have fun" and I go and do my tricks. This is in contrast to the time I started out seven years ago. About half the time I performed, one thought that was on my mind was "how can I prove myself?" Usually in magic, this translates to wanting to fool your spectators and prove them wrong. There is a subtlety here. Contrast this to wanting to entertain your audience and for us to have a good time. All performance arts have this element of making the fictitious appear real and magic is no different. What is different with magic is that in some instances, novices especially, turn it into a battle of wits.

The other concept that I use is what Troy Dizon calls X=X. You attract what you project. Yes, it sounds like "The Secret" and I am not fan of new age woo, but there is a sense in which it is provably useful. In the most practical sense, X=X is the principle of reciprocity that governs most social interactions, people are attracted to a vibe that is a reflection of them or something they want. Freshies basically come to orientation to have fun and make friends (I hope) maybe they want to hook up as well, but let's focus on the bigger picture. As a consequence, when your predominant attitude is to have fun and make new friends, you click, effortlessly. You need to chill and remember that at no time is someone going to even think that you're not a real freshie. So do not go around with that thought in your mind.

The History

I realised that since my character was from a different land, he needed a plausible history. I couldn't do this on my own so I enlisted the help of my mumbaikar friend. She was nice enough to dig up some places to live, a good high school to attend and a fabulous engineering college to be from. There was a limit to how much I could make up so a lot of the anecdotes/emotions/opinions were basically mine with slightly different labels. This basically sold the genuineness of Khushwant. This was emphasised by the fact that I was comfortable in my own skin most of the time.

Performing magic also means you sometimes need to make stuff up as you go along. Improv skills definitely helped alot when people asked me why I didn't have a full beard like most sikhs (I had to go for army training the week before), I made up a story about miscommunication with the barber. I was prepared to tell people why my turban looked different, of course back in Mumbai, my mom has helped me tie it ever since and over here, my sleep cycle was screwed up meaning I had five minutes to get ready for stuff.... You can get away with anything if you say it confidently and with a straight face. Furthermore, people give you the benefit of doubt alot when you are from a different culture.

The logistics

Sikh boys don't always wear turbans. I realised this at the camp. It seems that more boys are wearing just the sikh bangle, without the turban. I am not sure how "authentic" that is but it seems to be becoming the norm. I tried to learn how to tie a turban online, from Baljit Singh. The video is extremely informative, however, it's edited and it makes the whole process seem way easier than it actually is. Remember that you are trying to tie a 1.5m x 5m. The other aspect is that without a substantial amount of hair on your head, it can be tough to tie a firm one. Your best bet would be to head down to the Sikh Temple at Silat Rd, they are supposed to teach you how.

When I was in town, I bumped into this sikh shop and got two turbans for seven bucks each. I managed to get a bangle as well, unfortunately, I realised I might be wearing the bangle on the wrong (left) side. That was the natural choice for me since I am those few funny people who wear a watch on their right. I was contemplating getting a cheap prepaid SIM card, the short cut option is to simply act and ask for everyone's number. Once I got a call and answered it. When I put it down, I looked at this guy next to me and said, "that call is on roaming, it's going to be shit expensive" and he agreed.

In the next post, I talk about the execution and some of the surprising things I observed

(To be continued)

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Experiment: Conceiving Khushwant

2010-07-10T22:42:00.003+08:00

I just got back from orientation camp for the freshies. My classmates put in a ton of hardwork over months, the freshies were enthusiastic too. All I can say is that it's been epic, thank you for the crazy memories I'll rave about to my grandchildren.

It's time for Khushwant's story.

I cannot remember exactly how when or where this whole idea came about but there were a couple of factors precipitating this chain of events. As much as it is going to contain anecdotes about orientation, it might read to some as a primer on magical theory and social dynamics.

I'm a magician

For a start, that means that I enjoy performing in front of people and sometimes am capable of thinking creatively, albeit in a twisted manner. In magic, we always try to push the boundaries of how much we can get away with and also how violently we can surprise and amaze people. Similarly, we explore how we can do the same things in a different manner, preferably in a more effective and undetectable way. I do not know how many of you have known magicians intimately (no, not in the biblical sense), but you'll realise how much attention we give to detail and how we have contingencies for almost every possibility you can think of. I think the seven years of performing magic have also driven home the mindset of trying to win the war, even though you might lose a battle here or there (also called looking at the big picture, in Raj Speak). Yet most importantly, we know how to have a truckload of fun.

I once went for a tea session in '08

When I first got my little brown envelope (metaphorically : golden ticket), I made it a point to head for the pre-camp tea session, even though I would not be joining medical school that year. I remember bumping into several old friends, making a few new ones. Yet this dude stood out conspicuously. I cannot remember what exactly it was, but he stood out like a sore thumb. It wasn't his attire, accent or anything. It was this vibe he gave out ... he was just too friendly, too confident, too at home. I can't really put it into words, but that was when I found out about this tradition. I think I made a mental note to myself. When it's my turn, I'm going to do this in a way that is going to be epic.

It looks like I am exposing this tradition of fake freshies for future generations, and it won't seem like much fun anymore. Though honestly, the ones who really give the game away are the ones who do not execute their roles properly. Like the senior I mentioned above. Trust me, I can expose a magic trick for you, and do the same one again, and you won't notice a thing.

Small attention span

My buddies from the dorm and myself have a short attention span. We realised that we were in trouble. But we were medical students so it meant that if we quit, we would be $444,000 (4 in Chinese, symbolic of death) in debt with no job so we came up with a brilliant idea. We would talk medicine to each other so we wouldn't have to spend so much time playing with out books. It worked. Every once in a while, we would switch accents, Indian, Malay, Cantonese ... We once read an entire chapter of Moore's Essential Clinical Anatomy with an Indian accent. We would make good actors.

My name is Khan

I recall sometime early this year, this movie got popular. My mom and her friends were talking about it. And the ad came on TV. One of the iconic moments of the film is when the character Shah Rukh Khan plays in the movie gets pulled into a special room for an airport security check and gets rudely whisked. He looks at the security guy in the eye and goes : "My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist". Somehow, in my mind I went : "My name is not Singh, and I am not actually your classmate". Nice. I've been Hindu all my life though not conspicuously. I do not wear vermilion or holy ash on my forehead. I wanted to explore another religious identity and I thought it might be interesting to be Sikh, since it was one I was not totally ignorant about and it was plausible to be one, considering my cultural background. I got the first name from that of a famous indian writer; the surname, stolen from a friend. K.S.S was born.

At some point during an anatomy lecture, all of this clicked... Khushwant was conceived.

(to be continued)

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Learning from Babies

2010-06-10T11:05:00.002+08:00

The other day I was at the friend's house. She just had a baby two months ago. So I held the little boy, rocked him a bit. Sang him a song about weed (which was on TV a while ago) and looked into his dark blue eyes. He looked hungry so his mom gave me a bottle to feed him from. After sucking it all up, the pendulated from consciousness to unconsciousness until he descended into a cute, deep slumber.

That night, before heading to bed, I went out into the balcony. The air was cool. Cooler than LT 28, but it was nice because there was a breeze going. There is a mini lake outside surrounded by lawn and there are geese which roost there at night and make this groaning sound, but knowing that it makes you less scared. I stared up at the night sky, which was alluring, since this place I am at is next to the middle of nowhere. There is no light pollution and the sky is just like, well, for lack of a better analogy, shiny specks on dandruff on someone's shoulder from a shampoo commercial. Not that it isn't pretty. The analogy however, breaks down when you see planes flying across with flickering white lights.

The vastness of it all takes away alot of pretensions. When I finally curl up in bed, I realise, as much as I am educated, strong, independant, confident, eloquent ... on a vast scale, I am not really that different from the little babe I put to sleep a while ago. Still, in a way, innocent, ignorant, dependant, vulnerable. Then I slowly enter a vast unknown, darkness, the same comforting one I have entered every night for as long as I can remember.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

New study on weight loss

2010-06-08T10:21:00.002+08:00

At a recent Sports Medicine conference, results from a male-only Self-Help, Exercise and Diet Using Information Technology (SHED-IT, what's the deal with those impolite acronyms?) revealed that the men most successful at reducing their weight were the ones who cut their fat intake by 40% and sugary drinks by 55%. Furthermore, it was noted that the biggest losers did not necessarily up their intake of fruit and vegetables and their fibre intake was still lower than recommended. The study also indicated that the group which used the online monitoring system (which included online feedback) lost more weight and had better retention than those who were simply given instructions at the beginning Article Paper

It looks like the study did not consider exercise, which has its own host of added benefits.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

What should I do over summer? Medscape answers...

2010-06-03T09:07:00.002+08:00

MedScape is this awesome resource of medical professionals (and laypeople alike). You can sign up for their mailing list and they send you all this cool stuff. This time round, someone needed help making plans for the summer holidays. The article (which you may need to register to view) ended off with the following.

Vacation
It's called vacation for a reason. You have worked hard during school, and it's only going to get more difficult! Taking an extended vacation is not a bad idea, especially considering this could be the last time in a while that you will have the chance for a multiple-week trip. Maybe that will include a nonmedical interest, volunteering, or international travel; there is nothing wrong with taking some time off. But I'd recommend choosing from one of the above categories for the rest of your summer. Whether it's your mom or an admissions officer, someone is bound to ask that age-old grade-school question: "What did you do with your summer?" Make sure you have a good answer!

I am having fun during my summer. There is so much going on that the only thing I am blogging about these days is a quote or a thought I have been exposed to to while reading something.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Why Reality Check?

2010-05-28T22:34:00.003+08:00

I was looking at Osho's video today. He said something that reflects my reality check sentiments in the previous post.

"I love to disturb people because only by disturbing them I can make them think. They have stopped thinking for centuries. Nobody has been there to disturb them. People have been consoling them. I am not going to console anybody. Because the more you console them, the more retarded they remain. Disturb them, shock them, hit them hard, give them a challenge. That challenge will bring their capacities to the climax."
- Osho, in Absolutely free to be funny

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Reality Check

2010-05-27T07:44:00.002+08:00

I was doing a bit of research for my miracles workshop in July. I came across this little passage in a book by David Mills (my emphasis).

"For every person "miraculously" healed against the odds, there is another who, against the odds, died a premature meaningless death. For every magnificent sunset to behold, there is another child stricken with leukemia. For every breathtaking night sky filled with radiant stars, an unexpected heart attack turns a happy wife into a grieving widow. The universe in which we live is located equidistant between absolute order and absolute chaos - a neutral position which we should expect from a universe impervious to our wishes."

The universe doesn't care. Why does it matter? If you face reality, you will ultimately be happier than living in your own bubble of fantasy because then there is nothing to burst. Seriously.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

The Power of Prayer?

2010-05-25T09:41:00.005+08:00

You are about to amputate someone's leg. You have good medical reasons to do so, but your patient's family tells you to wait, because they are praying for healing, and it needs time to work. What would you do?

Watch it here if the video doesnt show up.

I would ask them to leave me alone and let me do my job. On a slightly related note, Lawrence Schneiderman wrote a paper on medical futility in 1991. Medical Futility, is about deciding, just how much is enough and when should we quit. He received a lot of criticism for his peers (it's called peer review remember?) and in 1996 he came back with a vengeance. He wrote a section addressing critics who felt that the idea of declaring a treatment to be medically futile went against religious (especially Christian) beliefs (rest of the paper in PDF). I feel Schneiderman puts his point across quite succintly.

Medical Futility Undermines Our Pluralistic Society and Threatens, among Other Things, the Free Exercise of Religion

Some maintain that religious and medical goals are inextricably intertwined and therefore that medical futility interferes with the free exercise of religion. Post[57] argues that approximately one fifth of the New Testament gospels describe the healing of physical or mental illness and the resurrection of the dead and that “even in mainstream Protestant churches, the belief in miraculous healing exists.”

Post's argument persuades us that religion and contemporary western medicine should be regarded as independent activities that seek the goal of healing in different ways. In the gospel stories, healing is usually achieved not through medical treatments but by the laying on of hands, so that “the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, [and] the dead are raised” (Luke 7:22). Physicians are mentioned only in a description of how they failed to heal “a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any.” The woman's bleeding was immediately staunched by touching the border of Jesus's garment (Luke 8:43-44). In contrast, medical practitioners have been forced to acknowledge the limits of their art since the time of Hippocrates. Medicine, according to gospel teachings, cannot be expected to respond to the farthest reaches of religion in which revelation, faith, and miraculous healing (including the restoration of life to the dead) are invoked. Miracles may be an important goal of prayer for many patients, but they should not be imposed on physicians as a goal of medical practice. Indeed, the very meaning of “miracle” depends on the premise that “the things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:27).

We do not resist when patients, families, and members of a religious faith choose to engage in meaningful religious and cultural activities; indeed, we respectfully encourage these actions. However, just as educators in the United States are not obligated to teach creationism in response to religious fundamentalists, western medical practitioners should not be expected to act contrary to personal or professional practice standards in response to persons who seek divine cures[58].

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Travelogue : Ironies

2010-05-23T10:47:00.003+08:00

Disclaimer : When I'm bitching about something, especially another country, its usually because I'm prejudiced cos everything here flows like clockwork. And I am trying to be funny.

I always smile when I breeze through Singapore customs. It's so cool to have your fingerprint scanned and skip the entire queue. It's soo ... 1984. I'm way ahead of my flight so I chill outside the lounge until its time to do the security check. Once I'm well settled and finally waiting for boarding. I decide to use the free phone to prank call my BFF. I tell him that I have his grades hostage and he just goes WTF, they are not even out yet.

I get on my flight and fall asleep, this is about 1130. I wake up at about three thirty, stomach growling, it looks like I missed dinner since everyone is sleeping soundly and most people have a cup on their table. I reluctantly call the air stewardess. I ask her if I missed dinner, she looks at me strangely. I ask her if I can have dinner. She says animatedly, "Oh, no no sir. 30 minutes we serve you breakfast". Lol at 4 am? Must be macdonalds.

I finally get off that flight in a couple of hours. The Japanese airport is amazing. Everything is large and cavernous. This country is probably at the forefront of technology, they have AUTOMATIC BUTT WASHERS. I am serious. You press a button and this device washes your butt, and it has different modes. Amazing. But I happen to be in the toilet for a quick leak, I take two steps back from the toilet bowl. I wait for ten seconds for it to flush. Then I wonder how a toilet in Japan could malfunction. Then I wonder how a toilet in sophisticated Japan could require me to press a button. Then I look at the panel (with butt diagrams) looking for something that looks like a flush. I see a spray icon and it looks scary to press. A few minutes later, I discover that there is a 1906's hydraulic lever flush behind the toilet cover. I facepalmed and giggled out of the toilet.

Too many funny things happened. The ugly little baby next to me who cried her ass off throughout the 14 hours (I got pissed off, then I realised I did that when I was 2). The funny guys at immigration. The road trip back (there was this idiot truck driver who had "Impeach Obama" scratched on his truck), the stuff I see around me freaks me out. This country is in trouble if they do something silly like that. I mean, he's probably the best thing to happen to the world in the past half century.

Man, I'm funny.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

This Valentine's Day, make love, not money!

2010-03-13T16:55:00.005+08:00

I logged into my university's website one day and saw an announcement to "Make Love Real!". I thought it was sweet, compared to all the rabidly commercial announcements to buy roses, toys and random stuff that neither you nor your (future) lover would need. It would be nicer if they sold rice cookers instead. So I clicked on the link, not knowing what to expect but was sorely disppointed to find out that it was yet another "buy roses!" advert. I was pissed =P.

So I decided to take the bull by the horns. I thought it would be nice to give away freebies for Valentine's Day, something people would find useful, something people would think, "I am so glad I got one!". And I had this brilliant epiphany. I would give free hugs! Now, admittedly, it wasn't something entirely novel. A friend had done it once for her column in the university magazine and the whole idea was received enthusiastically by those on the receiving end. That was sometime in 2007.

This time it was different. It wasn't something experimental. There was a cause in mind, to de-commercialise Valentine's Day. Besides, if my non-facebook readers haven't noticed, I'm a guy. I'm huge, 6'2" and a fluctuating number of pounds. I sometimes have a french beard. And red glasses. A lot of people expressed skepticism when I first tried to get people to join the crusade. "Who would hug you?" or a caucasian friend remarked, "in an Asian society?". Whatever that meant. Shit, I Was so going to give up even before it started.

But no, I hung out with my friend (the same one who did the original Free Hugs) one afternoon at the Faculty of Arts canteen. I shared the idea with a bunch of us who just met there. What amazed me was how enthusiastic they were. They were like "Hell yeah! Count me in". By the day it was time to execute the campaign, our attendance had gone up to ten then dropped down to two (myself and another girl we met at the table). The next day another friend joined in and it was three altogether.

I got the sign from my friend and set up shop along the arts walkway, in front of my nemesis. The stall selling flowers and teddy bears. It took ten minutes for the first hug. Understandably people are a little squeamish when hugging a guy whom they don't know and a girl whipered how she would be more comfortable if I was girl.

Perfectly fine. The process had its amusing moments though. I recall people walking past, looking at the sign and going "Free hugs? *snigger*", or couples walking by and the girl telling her boyfriend, "hey, look. Free hugs. Go get one" and the boy inevitably gives the girl a weird look. I noticed, for some reason that Singaporean men were more squeamish about giving and receiving hugs compared to women. I had an extremely odd moment when a sociologist comes up to me and asks me about this whole thing I'm doing. For some reason, he had a notion that the people who hugged me were insecure an nervous. I had to point out that it was there other way round. We had an awkward conversation after which he told me that he'll be observing me from a corner. "Thanks for your time", I retorted.

What really struck me was how simple it was, yet how priceless it was to people. Most notably, there was a guy rushing for a presentation who stopped, looked at the sign and said, "I need one". I was glad to help. After the presentation, he came back and thanked me. There was this really short girl who was so excited seeing me that she jumped as she tried to hug me and hit my jaw really hard. Really hard. I laughed and thanked her. This was in contrast to a) friends who didn't "recognise" me when they walked by and b) others who said they were an in rush.

I realise that this whole physical affection thing is never a one sided affair. It's not a give and take. It's a sharing. Both people enjoy it. If there is another lesson I had to learn from this, it's this : ignore the haters.

It was so fulfilling that we are going to do it again. Soon. Are you in?

P.S My friends write up is featured in the comments section on my facebook note.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

The quick and dirty guide to getting to med school

2010-03-07T11:13:00.004+08:00

This is looong over due but I'm starting to get calls for how its done.

First of all, we all have different things going on in our lives and there are different paths to get to the same place. I cannot guarantee that what worked for me will work for you, but at least when you walk, you are not walking around mindlessly.

The administrative process

In my time (3 years ago) you needed this:

a) Grades
I managed to get Four As (Math, Chemistry, Physics and Computing) B3 for GP and Merit for S papers (Physics and Math). Not exactly topper grades, but decent, product of my hard work, parents nagging and teacher's last minute guidance, consolation and hard work over the years.

b) Two testimonials
I got my "grand boss" to write me one since I had discussed my initial thoughts with him. Since I was working under him, he had a good gauge of my character hence whatever he wrote came out brilliant (I owe him alot!). Besides that, he gave me a good overview of what it entailed (both good and bad) and encouraged me when he knew I was sincere. Other doctors I spoke to gave me half-hearted answers (like giggling and saying : don't be a doctor. You'll regret it)
I used a secondary school testimonial because it covered aspects of my character in a way others did not. And it ended off on a very flattering note.

c) A one page CV (thankfully, I couldn't have gone beyond that)
Well, covered all the basic things (like academics and CCAs). I also reminded people that I was a magician. I think it is important that you let people know that you have a life.

d) An essay test
I do not know how important this is but prepare a little bit. Be aware of the kind of issues facing doctors today (read the newspapers). Read a few books. I think Complications by Atul Gawande is a nice book, but I only read it recently.

e) Two interviews
The first one was by greying academics. Some were cheerful, some were not but no one was being a dick (my friend got that in hers). The overwhelming question in their minds was why a) I was switching over to medicine from engineering and b) why my second choice is still engineering. They asked it to me in three different ways. The second one was informal and conducted by a specialist and a house officer (read: intern). It was fun me getting to know them and for them getting to know me. I had a memorable incident during this interview which you can ask me about when you meet me. It seems that this one is to be able to know your character better.

I prepared for both my reflection and discussion and most importantly my friend helped me do a mock interview which helped a lot. (Thanks Alf.)

The thought process

A bit of self introduction. I NEVER wanted to be a doctor. Maybe for a short while when I was five but I've mostly wanted to be a zoologist or a hacker (read: IT guy). This changed about somewhere in 2007. I was doing my "service"at a big green organisation, if you know what I mean. I was in a medical environment, seeing patients, handling drugs and medical equipment. Some of my colleagues were nurses and my grand boss was a doctor.

It allowed me to think about whether I wanted to enter this field and why. Initially, it was a bit discouraging, the amount of studying doctors need to do and the working hours, the lack of respect and wrenching ethical decisions. I had practical experience with medical emergencies and the nitty gritty of medical life. But I thought it was too le-che to do it for the rest of my life.

Yet one night while I was reading Richard Dawkins "The Ancestors' Tale", I recall my hair standing on my end and thinking this it is. I felt that medicine gave me a good mix of science and service. And the fact that there was soo much more left to be learnt about our bodies by science. It seemed like a fertile field ready to be plowed. The evolutionary perspective gave biology a context, it was no more something you simply memorised, it was something that was networked. I thought it would be enjoyable to actually study it. I think I am reaping the rewards.

You also need to get your attitudes right. Ask yourself why you are doing this. Challenge that conclusion. Ask yourself if something else can give you the same or similar satisfaction (your backup plan) and importantly talk to medics/nurses/physiotherapists etc. Get to know things first hand.

A website some of my friends found useful is here, it gives you a broad overview of medical school in singapore and medical life afterwards.

I hope it helps, let me know if I've missed anything

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Labels.

2010-01-24T14:55:00.003+08:00

I spent the whole of yesterday hanging out with humanists, non-believers and liberal religious folk. I found people just like myself and it was awfully fun. And I realised how silly labels are. "Hindu Atheist" is a such a joke.

Both part one and part two.

Atheist is one of those labels which is defined by what it is not. ( Fun fact: Recall that the definition of maya, loosely illusion, is ya ma sa maya. That which is not is maya). Imagine going around calling yourself a-tooth-fairy-ist. Or Introducing yourself, "Hi! I'm an azeusist!" It sounds downright silly (actually azeusist sounds like a really cool cult). Yet I think it's justified to use it and I use it because a) I think it sounds cool b) it represents rebellion c) people need to fit you into the social map that's in their head d) its a starting point for discussion and e) because people around you look at the world with a religious lens, it is important to tell them you've thrown those away.

From my experience, I have noticed that the word atheist has connotations of education, rationality, scientific understanding but of course (from the religious perspective) a taint of myopia. Though not all of them are applicable, people in the mission (which I am part of) make it sound like a big deal that Swami Chinmayananda was an atheist. Some of his disciples (now Swami's themselves) were atheists. (Though it is known that some of them actually hated science in school =P ). You would also notice that my friend commented in her reply "I would say ur definition (in red above) of an atheist is rather superficial, and would make any true Advaitin an Atheist, incl Sri Shankara himself. Pls come up with a tighter definition. There is rather more to atheism than a mere non belief of existence of deities".

Actually non-belief is all that is implied by the word Atheist. Some atheists are scientific materialists(i.e reject the supernatural), some are buddhist, secular humanist, jains and some just don't care. Which makes it sound like another kind of Hinduism. My response to that, "Embrace the label, Advaitins! You're atheists too" And I am not the only one to say this. Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON has this to say about Advaita "but Shankara philosophy is dangerous atheism because he is accepting Vedanta, but he is preaching atheism. He’s accepting… Under the shelter of Vedanta, he’s preaching atheism. So therefore they are more dangerous.” There you go.

What about the Hindu part?

That is only a vague label too. Scholars have gone back and forth about what it means to be a hindu and thus almost every statement that people have come up, feels incomplete upon deeper analysis. Though in itself very encompassing, hindu gurus have tried to get hindus to transcend the label as well. Paramhansa Yogananda once remarked "I am neither a Hindu nor an American. Humanity is my race, and no one on earth can make me feel otherwise. Prejudice and exclusiveness are so childish. We are here for just a little while and then whisked away." Of course he went on to the whole "Children of God" business but I think we can all agree with the spirit of the former statement.

I think that's all I have to say about labels. I totally appreciate all the feedback my reader's have given me. Keep the comments coming.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Some Criticism

2010-01-22T21:07:00.003+08:00

A long while back, I did a post on What the hell is a hindu atheist. A while after that, I received an email from a friend as follows. I owe her an apology for making her wait so long.

EDIT: The following is my friend's response to my post.

START EMAIL

According to Charvaka philosophy, all knowledge derives from the senses. Inference has no value and the scriptures are false. What cannot be seen does not exist. There are no other worlds as they cannot be perceived.

Charvakas believe that there are four elements (bhutachatustaya): earth, water, fire and air. Everything is composed of these four elements, and it is the combination of these elements which produces consciousness (chaitanya). Charvakas do not believe in abstract concepts such as vice and virtue, or in causal relationships. They believe that it is the 'essential nature' (svabhava) of a thing to undergo transformation by itself (svatah). Moderate (shiksita) Charvakas, however, say a thing comes into being due to its 'essential nature'. They admit the validity of perception and inference.

According to Charvaka philosophy, sensual pleasure is the only end of human beings. Charvakas do not believe in Hell as a separate state of being but only as earthly suffering. Liberation is the dissolution of the body. Death is the end of all. After death, the body and consciousness cease to exist (na pretya sangjnasti, Brhadaranyaka Upanisad 2.4.12). [Amarnath Bhattacharya]

Without looking at Wikipedia, I would define an atheist as someone who does not believe in a creator deity or any deity for that matter. Quite simple. You can go into specifics like whether its implicit, explicit, strong or weak atheism. For the record, I'm a strong atheist......

........There is also an unorthodox (naastika) school of thought, often grouped together with buddhism and jainism, called Chaarvaak. My philosophy would be very congruent with whatever we know of that ideology.

I would say ur definition (in red above) of an atheist is rather superficial, and would make any true Advaitin an Atheist, incl Sri Shankara himself. Pls come up with a tighter definition. There is rather more to atheism than a mere non belief of existence of deities...

Also Charvak philosophy, as you are prob already aware (see purple text above), acknowledges the existence of Consciousness (chaitanya), proposing that it is the result of a combination of four of the (inert) elements. It never stood the test of time because of the most obvious flaw in it philosophy - how can inert (jad vastu) be the cause of chaitanya. And if its not a 'cause - effect relationship' (which Chaarvaaks do not believe in anyway) but the elements changed themselves into chaitanya, then how can they change themselves back from chaitanya to the four elements at death, when the very consciousness is no more, by virtue of DEATh having happened... and how did the four elements appear in the first place!!???

You may well be an atheist in your beliefs..... and are perfectly entitled to be so ... but i cannot understand your co-relation of atheism with Chaarvaaka philosophy, since you state For the record, I'm a strong atheist......and also My philosophy would be very congruent with whatever we know of that ideology (ie Chaarvaaka)

Nice blog! Keep it coming. Enjoyed the read! [My emphasis =) ]

cheers

END EMAIL

I am going to address the following points in the future posts.

1) Beliefs of the Chaarvaaks.

2) The Atheist label

3) Some random philosophy

I'm really tired from having attended two dance workshops in a row. I welcome any comments or critiques in the meanwhile.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Vaccine Watch and personal updates

2009-12-18T15:10:00.003+08:00

It's been about seven days since I got my H1N1 vaccine. So far no adverse effects. Wait a second. I dislocated my shoulder on Sunday because I was listening to my MP3 player while I swung backwards and tried to rush up a flight of three stairs. Maybe that's an adverse effect but I'm not counting on it. Well that being said, a lot of fuss is made over the kind of stuff they put into vaccines. Like long, chemical-y sounding stuff, which admittedly sounds scary to a layperson. Yet one must make a distinction between a drug and a vaccine. Drugs usually do something to supress/encourage some function of our body by (often) altering the effects of various enzymes. Now vaccines are different. They are meant to elicit an adverse response by the immune system so that when hit by the real disease, you will hopefully survive to tell the tale. Brian Dunning from Skeptoid had wondefully articulated this in his recent podcast on vaccine ingredients. I like the dramatic and interesting way he expresses the idea so you should check it out. Since it's a podcast, you can actually listen to the episode.

I'm overseas right now so don't expect to many updates. And you regular readers might consider subscribing to the blog through google reader. I think it's one of the best RSS readers out there.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

I'm putting my money where my mouth is.....

2009-12-09T23:57:00.002+08:00

Particularly in the USA there are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about how H1N1 vaccines are a huge conspiracy by Big Pharma to keep people sick. I lean towards the side that mocks the conspiracy theorists. So I'm putting my money where my mouth is and I just got a flu jab today. The H1N1 kind. Prior to the vaccine I have been having a slight sore throat and a mildly painful left knee. Twelve hours post innoculaion, no visible redness at the injection site but a slight tenderness to touch and abduction of the arm. We'll see how it goes =)

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Another Carl Sagan?

2009-11-29T19:23:00.004+08:00

"There is a powerful recognition that stirs within us when we see our own gorgeous little ocean blue planet as it would be seen by others in the skies of other worlds. It's a recognition that never fails to move us. And it is here in this picture that Darwin meets Galilieo because it is a picture that's made possible by Galileo's first experiments with gravitation so long ago and it is a picture that to me shouts Evolution. I look at this image and I see our ancestors stepping down from the trees and walking upright for the first time on the African Savannah's and pausing to look back at the forest from which they came. I look at this picture and see a species that is positively unyeilding it's pursuit of knowledge and brave and fervent ts longing to graps the meaning and significance of it's own existence....."

-Carolyn Porco

She recently gave a talk at the atheist alliance conference. She is an astronomer who lead the team which brought us stunning images of Saturn via the Cassini orbiter. She talks about the portrayal of scientists in Hollywood. Towards the end of the talk, she says the abovementioned words. What was she talking about? Find out ...

Download the video (in quicktime format) here

Facebookers: The youtube video won't show up. You can take a look at it here. Check out the rest of the blog here.

I found this video from an articles at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website.

A universe from nothing

2009-11-20T22:24:00.003+08:00

Dear YuvaVeers!

Hariji did a presentation on the creation of the universe which probably piqued our interest in knowing where the universe came from. Well, Lawrence Krauss here did a similar presentation at the Atheist Alliance Conference this year in the US. The lecture below does not go in a linear fashion but seeks to explain various concepts associated with cosmology which will make it easier for you to understand the other books which you may read. In this lecture Krauss covers the beginning, current state and the end of the universe. I found this and another lectures during the conference extremely enlightening and I hope you would too. So I'll be posting them up regularly for your viewing pleasure.

Facebookers: The youtube video won't show up. You can take a look at it here. If you look at the section on the right and click "More Info" you can get a link to download the video. Check out the rest of the blog here

I found this video from an article at the Richard Dawkins Foundation website.

What's the Mantra of your life?

2009-11-10T20:45:00.005+08:00

A buddy of mine made an inspiring blog post about self-development. I had to follow up. But before you can even start working on yourself, you need to find out, What is the Mantra of your life?

In this brilliant hindi song by Euphoria, Palash Sen (the lead vocalist) gives you a lot of questions to ponder on. I've put up the lyrics. I didn't translate most of them because it sounds weird in english.

A segment:

Dekho pukaarein tumhe nabh ke sitaarein,
Baahein phailaaye aasmaan,
Bahti hawaaein tumhe kahti fizaaein,
Dekho thamey na kaaravaan.
Lekar chal yaadein kal ki, karta chal tu waadein kal ke,
Is pal pe tere kadmon ke nishaan,
Dekhenge aane waale, manzil ko pane waale,
Poochhenge chalne waale, kya hai tera mantra?

(The ones who act/Those in the journey with you will ask you, What's your Mantra?)

Mehnat bhi hai, himmat bhi hai, thodi si, haan, kismat bhi hai,
Aankhon mein hain kuchh khwaab bhi aur seene mein hasrat bhi hai,
Hai saanson ka aadhaar kya, aur zindagi ka saar kya,
Bas jaan lo hai pyaar kya, Hai ye mera mantra!!

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

It's Carl Sagan's Birthday!

2009-11-09T10:49:00.002+08:00

Not everyone from my generation knows Carl Sagan. He passed away when we were in elementary school and I am not sure how much exposure the Asian media gave him.

In short, Sagan was an astronomer and a populariser of science. He inspired a generation of both children and adults to look at the universe with awe and reverence. He has written several books but I still think his best works are where he talks in scenic locations =).

I highly recommend you take a look at the following videos these are the ones which impacted me the most.

The Pale Blue Dot

This is based on a picture by Voyager 1 of the Earth. It reminds of of our place in the universe.

Glorious Dawn

This is a song remix combining several clips and famous quotes of Sagan. This particular idea in the clip intrigued me. To create an apple pie from scratch, you need to invent the entire universe.

Baloney Detection Kit

In Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World : Science as a Candle in the Dark, he elucidates the concept of a "Baloney Detection Kit", a sort of test to decide whether an unusual claim might be true or not. Micheal Shermer explains it clearly in this clip.

This post is also dedicated to my darling sister! Happy Birthday! I miss you and hope you're having a blast. Thanks for all the inspiration and support!

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

An unusual glimpse of Hindu Culture

2009-10-26T21:31:00.002+08:00

Readership statistics are encouraging and I feel obliged to blog more often =) Thank you reader, you rock!

I recently attended a series of talks on the Bhagavad Geeta. The first two talks, From Man Human to Man Divine and The Parallax between Science and the Geeta were disappointing. Their oversimplification and misrepresentation of science got in the way of the message. I think Science, though many of its milestones have occurred in the West, is a human endeavour. Considering that the east contributed to some of its foundations (Zero, the number system etc) and that it is currently a global endeavour with scientists of many races and cultures enriching it, STOP CALLING IT WESTERN SCIENCE. I got the feeling that the speakers wanted Hindus to be proud of their culture by presenting discoveries made by ancient Indians, parallels between Vedanta and Modern Physics, the Dashavataar and Evolution. Yet because I have read up on all these issues, to me it seems like a these guys don't know very much about science and are presenting very shallow arguments. Furthermore it cheapens both Science and Hindu Culture. If there is something Hindus can be proud of, that very few people have addressed and I think is unique and genuine, is the fact that our ancestors, at least at some point in our history, embraced their sexuality as an integral part of their humanity. I think Osho gices a very good perspective on this in the following excerpt from “From Sex to Superconsciousness”. You do not have to agree and accept all of what he says but give it a thought.

With a group of friends, I went to Khajuraho to see the world-famous temple there. The outermost wall, the periphery of the temple, is decorated with scenes of the sexual act, with the varied poses of intercourse. There are sculptures of many different poses, all in sexual postures. My friends asked why those sculptures were there, decorating a temple. I explained to them that the architects who had built that temple were highly intelligent people. They knew that passion and sex exist on the circumference of life, and believed that those who were still caught up in sex had no right to enter the temple.

[Note: If you look around, you will also notice sculptures which are not erotic at all. It's just that eroticism is what grabs people's attention the most. Check out some pictures here, here and erotic ones here]

We entered. Inside, there were no such statues, instead there was an idol of God. My friends were surprised, not seeing sculptures anywhere. I explained to them that on the outer wall of life itself lust and passion exist, whereas the temple of God is inside. Those who are still enchanted by passion, by sex, cannot reach the temple of God inside; they simply roam about the outer wall. The builders of this temple were very sensible people. This was a meditation center -- sexuality on the surface, all around; peace and quiet at the core, at the center. They used to tell aspirants to meditate on sex first, to reflect fully on the copulation depicted on the outer wall, and when they had thoroughly understood sex and were certain their minds were free of it, they might go inside. Only then could they face God inside.

But in the name of religion we have destroyed any possibility of understanding sex. We have declared war on sex, on our basic instinct itself. The standard rule is not to see sex at all, but to shut your eyes and blindly barge into the temple of God. But can anyone reach anywhere with his eyes closed? Even if you reach inside, you will not be able to see God with closed eyes. Instead, you will only see the thing from which you have been running! Perhaps some people think I am a propagandist for sex. If so, please tell them that they haven't heard me at all. It is difficult these days to find a greater enemy of sex on the face of this earth than me. If people can pay attention to what I say -- without bias -- it is possible to liberate man from sex. This is the only course for a better humanity. The pundits we consider the enemies of sex are not its enemies at all, but its propagandists. They have created a glamour around sex; their vehement opposition has created a mad attraction for sex.

One man told me he wasn't interested in anything that was not disapproved of, challenged or resented. As we all know, the stolen fruit is always sweeter than the one purchased from the bazaar. That's why one's own wife isn't as appetizing as the neighbor's wife seems to be. The other is like a stolen fruit; the other is a forbidden treat. And we have given the same status to sex. It is very tempting. It has been given such a colorful coat of lies that it has become intensely attractive.

Bertrand Russell has written that in the Victorian era, when he was a child, ladies' legs were never seen in public. The clothes they wore swept the ground, covering their feet completely. If by chance even a woman's toe were visible, a man would immediately ogle it; it would arouse his passion. Russell further writes that today's women move about nearly half-naked with their legs fully visible, but notes that it doesn't affect us nearly as much. This proves, he writes, that the more we conceal a thing, the more it arouses our curiosity.

I think Osho addresses it well. If you are interested, check out the rest of the book. You can buy a hardcopy or an ebook. However, don't get the impression that Hindus are an ultra-liberal, ultra-promiscuous bunch. Yes, we accept it as a part of our lives but, balance, context and moderation is the key. Culture evolves and Hindu culture, like a lot of India, bears a stamp of Victorian morality even today.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Itsa Miracle!

2009-10-17T08:13:00.002+08:00

I have been talking to people, sharing with me the kind of miracles they've had in their life and how that proves god is real and loves them and what not. They were talking from their gut of course and I have trouble responding to that (intellectual responses don't work here). I was reading "Atheist Universe" by David Mills and came across this segment which touched my heart (and would touch the hearts of adolescent males across the universe).

Moreover, the "miraculous" event, even though positive, will
lose its holy luster if the event is perceived to conflict with "God's will" or with the Ten Commandments. When I was a teenager, for example, I frequently rode my bicycle around the neighborhood. One evening, I rode past the home of a girl with whom 1 went to
high school. All of the boys at school, including me, thought that
this girl was exceptionally attractive. As I pedaled past, I glanced
over for a split second at the girl's house. And at that precise
instant, she walked by her bedroom window topless, wearing only
her panties!
As you might imagine, I, as a teenage boy, regarded this event
as more historically significant than World War II and the Moon
Landing put together. I couldn't believe my incredible good luck!
"What were the odds," I kept asking myself, "that I would glance
in her window at the exact moment that she scurried past topless?"
My titillating peek defied all laws of probability. As I pedaled
back home, I said aloud "There must be a God. There must be
a God." When I boasted to the boys at school about my delightful
voyeuristic experience, few of them believed me. It all sounded so
unlikely and just "too good to be true."
I'm willing to bet that, under absolutely no circumstances,
would the Vatican ever declare my cheap, teenage thrill to be an
officially recognized miracle of the Catholic Church. No religious
pilgrims will ever retrace my bicycle journey in hope of being
blessed by the same miraculous vision that I beheld years earlier.
Even though my prurient glimpse, like a miracle, was highly
unlikely statistically and, like a miracle, was quite positive (in my opinion), no religious leader would consider the event miraculous
because God is allegedly opposed to ogling our neighbors' breasts.
In other words, our perception of what is, and what is not, a
Divine "miracle" is prejudicially determined by what we already
believe about God's nature. Witnessing "miracles" therefore does not evoke belief in God. Rather, belief in God evokes the witnessing
of "miracles."

Take taht!

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Birthdays

2009-09-26T15:42:00.002+08:00

Birthdays are mostly fun. If you know how to enjoy them. I woke up, without caring what time it was. Watched my favourite TV show during breakfast. It was amazing. It's called Penn & Teller : Bullshit and I owe a lot of my thoughts, ideas and manner of thinking to that show. For those of you who don't know, Bullshit is like Mythbusters (the Discovery Channel programme where they blow up stuff to test the validity of Urban Legends). Bullshit deals with broader, on-going issues and they have done themes like Boy Scouts, prostitution, profanity and so on. I would encourage you to watch it but it is not for the faint hearted as they get very controversial and the discourse is peppered with profanity (the reason for which is elucidated in Season 1's first episode)

I hit the books for a while and was happy that I made some progress. I usually find it challenging to study on my own so I was overjoyed. There's this “cracked the code” feeling to it. Though honestly, it didn't carry over through the rest of the week.

I did something crazy which very few people do. I had reasons though. A week or so back, I was hanging out with my buddies and one of them just casually said, “You're going to be 21 right? How does it feel to have been through a quarter of your life?”. I am always surrounded by these kind of people. They ask uncomfortable questions at uncomfortable times. I would, however, credit the same people for my growth. *I love you guys, who know who you are =) If you don't, ask me!* A week or so before, we wanted to send a friend of ours off. We were thinking of something absolutely cool and special. This same guy thought it would be nice to head to the cemetery near his house. So we went. There were five of us hit the grounds. The place had actually been exhumed. The christian part was kind of like a park you go for a walk in. The muslim section (not sure whether its older) is more like a dark, scary forest. Most of us were scared but this girl was exquisitely uncomfortable so we decided against entering the grounds further.

So back to my story. My folks and I had dinner at 7 Sensations (nice vegetarian restaurant, to describe it in one word, Sattvic!) and I headed off on my mission. I was dressed in off white pants, my hippie-looking kurti, two rings on my index fingers and my fish necklace. My mom brought me along to the temple to I had a small streak of kumkum on my forehead. I could have looked like a medicine man. I recall texting my BFF earlier telling him that I was chickening out and didn't want to go. We threw words around like “need to man up” and so forth. I so thought it would be a good idea to just give it a shot.

I dropped off at Serangoon station and asked Passenger Service where the Cemetery was. He didn't know and referred me to his colleague. That Indian man, gave me a weird look (which, on hindsight, was justified) and told me flatly that it didn't exist anymore. I asked him how to get to the area and he gave me the information. I saw this lady in gaudy makeup at the bus stop and started freaking out. I checked the board and found out that the next bus will take me there. Everyone was giving me the look on the bus. I calmly took out my tube of insect repellant (you know where it came from =P), checked my torchlight and peered out of the window waiting for my stop. I intentionally skipped my stop and went to the next one so I could psych myself up on the way.

As I walked past the Christian grounds (or park) I thought about reasons to not be scared. Firstly, I am a materialist. I am not convinced that anything remains after you're dead. You just die and tada!. Secondly, there are no bodies buried there anymore. All of them have been exhumed. Thirdly, I have had real world experience of being tricked by my mind. And fourth, I'm a man yo. Nothing to be worried about.

Well, I stand at the entrance and go wobbly. I take out my torchlight and it shines like a bloody firefly and cease to trust it. I'm bloody terrified. I go through my reasons once again and it doesn't work. I tell myself that it's ok to be scared and think about whether it's something paranormal and breath a sigh of relief because it's plain old vanilla fear. Just fear, nothing ghostly about it. I call my BFF and tell him I'm coming over for a while and start walking to the other bus stop. Shit, I feel like a wussy now but I am glad that I gave it a shot. On the way back, I see a car at the traffic light and am tempted to go and knock on their window to scare them but decide against it. I spend the night with my buddy chatting before I call it a day.

I think it was a unique day. Well spent. Unique, won't forget unless it's outdone next year =)

Addendum:

I found these two links of Significance

This one is by some Paranormal Research group. It details just one of the many scary stories associated with the area.

This one reminisces the fond memories the author has of the place. It's very nostalgia inducing.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Death : The biggie

2009-09-19T14:16:00.002+08:00

I have always thought about death. Imagined it, fantasied about it but till recently, it has never been so close. Of course there is physical proximity. People die every few times a year and hold a funeral under at the apartment void deck so technically it's been close to home but still out of reach. Just like that awesome BMW parked at the carpark.

Things got a little more serious when I got to YEP (Youth Empowerment Programme) in India. Within the first few week, one of the editors of the Chyk magazine, who lived in Chennai, had passed away. He was in his thirties. The people who knew him at the course were in mourning and Swamiji discussed it for the next few weeks whenever we would go meet him. Re-incarnation always always came into the picture and it was emphasised that The Body had died and not the Immortal Soul. The editorial which was written for him also reminded readers about this. To me it felt like a cop-out. A belief system, though somewhat logical and internally consistent, developed to make sense of such a radical occurrence. I could go into an analysis, but not now.

I recall the recent death of my paternal grandmother. I was heading for a night out with my buddies when my mom called to break the news. “Come home NOW, Aaji has passed away”. Initially, there was no reaction. It was just a slight inconvenience, having to drop off, take another bus and go home. Then slowly, it starting to sink in. I put the person into context. Who was she, what was my relationship to her? What memories do I have of her? Keep in mind that I'm not consciously following a problem solving plan, these are the thoughts that are popping in my head. Now obviously, I have answers to those questions but like what happens in an interview, you start to put vague ideas into a context. Now at the end of that sequence, you have a gap then its followed by this punctuation mark called death.

You have this vacuum feeling in your heart. Sometimes, it feels painful and you want to cry but this time it was just a vacuum, a bit of a painful emptiness. So I tried to get the details filled in. How did she die? What now? What will you guys be doing about it? Slowly the picture gets clearer and the feeling reduces in intensity. Yet it still lingers. In your mind, you have this timeline of everyone. It often starts when you first meet the person and ends when you last met the person. Everything before and after is a kind of extrapolation you construct. When someone dies, the timeline concludes. Full stop.

Its like a train. You know that it is moving forward even when you are not looking at it. You run into this train when you meet those people. After your meeting, you still know the train is running. When someone dies, you might have thought that the train was still running, until the news gets to you. I'm not sure what causes what, the fact that you thought the train was running when it was not that makes you sad or the sorrow makes you look at the situation this way. Then you are also reminded that the train is not going to start running again. Its just going to stay the way it is.

"Death exists, not as opposite to but as a part of life" - Toru Watanabe, Norwegian Wood by Haruki Murakami

The next stage was reflecting what my own death would be like. I could die from an accident, a disease, old age, or (highly improbably) disappear into thin air. Or wait, I could be killed for whatever reason too. Once you cover all the different options, it gets more predictable and less scarier. I would want to be smiling when I die, it think it will look good in the pictures. Ideally, I would love some cheerful person to be in charge of my funeral. Someone strong on the inside, I have met a few people like that but there's no guarantee they'll be around then. I especially, especially want a nice message read out, something like Dawkins, “to be read at my funeral”. I think it helps everyone to re-align their vision and look at death, and life in the right context. I also thought of the ways I could end up. Being buried (though highly unlikely), as a pile of ashes (somewhat likely) or even on the dissection table in the anatomy hall. There you go, it isn't so bad now is it?

“It’s a little bit more radical than puberty but nothing to get particularly upset about. Death isn’t sad. The sad thing is most people don’t live at all.” - Socrates, from Peaceful Warrior, book by Dan Millman

Your response to death partly depends on what you think is going to happen to you after you die and who you really are. Both interrelated. A lot of people, at least intellectually, feel that they are some spirit occupying a body which they will discard upon death. This helps them cope when other people die. It's an explanation they always bring up when someone in the family dies and its a perception which persists long after the funeral. Yet, almost no one treats themselves and others like that when they are alive. Rarely do people treat others as if they are souls temporarily occupying these physical vessels. We are all practically philosophical materialists and treat people as bodies so its odd when people think you are weird because you explicitly admit you are one.

Bhaja Govindam, a hymn composed by Adi Shankaracharya, an influential philosopher of medieval India, has a stanza which goes, “Repeated birth, repeated death, repeatedly resting in the mother's womb. | This Samsaara is difficult to cross, Save me, out of your infinite mercy, Oh Krishna”. After expounding on this, Swami Mitrananda left us with a rhetorical question. What meaning would life have without reincarnation (or an afterlife)? That hit me hard, unnecessarily. It was a question I had pondered before and I had found a reasonable answer. Yet, because an authority figure had dished it out, it swallowed it. Talk of instinct. I think what really makes it matter is the present moment.

Nothing much in the future is certain. I keep in mind that I could easily die while crossing the road in spite of my precautions. Does that mean that it's no point going to medical school because you might only get your MBBS after five year? Yes. There is no point, assuming of course that what you are looking for is just a piece of paper or being able to write “Dr” beside your name. There is so much more to be gained at every step of your journey. Every day at school, you learn something new unfolds the world's awesomeness a little bit more, make a new friend perhaps or impact someone's life in ways you cannot imagine. Does all of this not matter if there is no afterlife? I leave you with that thought.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Death : The Prelude

2009-09-09T17:51:00.002+08:00

I have been thinking about death quite a bit these few days. As my thoughts slowly coalesce, do check out this letter by Richard Dawkins.

To be Read at my funeral
By Richard Dawkins

"We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Sahara. Certainly those unborn ghosts include greater poets than Keats, scientists greater than Newton. We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumbers the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I, in our ordinariness, that are here.

Here is another respect in which we are lucky. The universe is older than 100 million centuries. Within a comparable time the sun will swell to a red giant and engulf the earth. Every century of hundreds of millions has been in its time, or will be when its time comes, 'the present century.' The present moves from the past to the future, like a tiny spotlight, inching its way along a gigantic ruler of time. Everything behind the spotlight is in darkness, the darkness of the dead past. Everything ahead of the spotlight is in the darkness of the unknown future. The odds of your century's being the one in the spotlight are the same as the odds that a penny, tossed down at random, will land on a particular ant crawling somewhere along the road from New York to San Francisco. You are lucky to be alive and so am I."

Continue Reading...

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Travelogue: Siddhabari

2009-05-26T11:24:00.004+08:00

We reached Siddhabari Ashram at the crack of dawn. As with busy rides with half sleepy passengers, the persistent question is always, "Are we there yet?". We were glad that this would be our last attempt to find an answer. Settling in a new area often involves getting assigned a room, a room mate and finding out the meal arrangements. Often though exploring the toilets jumps to top priority. No different here.

We had an opening session and were given booklets and an orange coat. They said wearing the coat was like a form of temporary sannyaas (renunciation, monk-hood) and you give it back when you leave the ashram. The sessions were fine, mostly talks by Swami Mitrananda. We watched a couple of movie clips too. From the Legend of Bagger Vance, we discussed why the main character, a former pro-golfer, had "lost his swing" and how to get it back. It involves having faith in oneself, practise and proper guidance when possible. There was another clip about being in the moment from the film, "Peaceful Warrior".

The food was simple and tasty. It happened to not have salt as apparently some of the residents at the ashram had vows to eat simple, bland food. They provided salt at the end of the table for those who had too, however. Unlike in my army camp where they had a huge machine to wash the dishes, you had to do it yourself here. The clothes, though, you could pay someone to do it. But once again, it was a premium service. It cost Rs 10 per piece.

Evening is aarti time. They have an aarti at the Samadhi area and at the Rama temple. They are long, long aarati's. Then its bhajan time. We sung and danced and had fun. It was still lukewarm though, the real fun was to begin the next day.

Tuesday being a special day for Hanuman, they conducted a Vada-mala pooja. It's basically a normal pooja with a garland of vadas (medu vadas, really) as an offering. In the evening, we headed out for our treasure hunt. They gave us obscure, poetic clues which could be interpreted in a million ways, kind of like scriptures. Notably, there was a clue about having a "pure heart". Everyone, caught up with the Hindu mindset, guessed some kind of temple, school or ashram. It turned out to be "Sacred Heart", a missionary school. Eventually those clues brought us to an isolated Shiva temple up the hill.

The actual shivalinga was in a cave some distance away from the main temple. Since one of the clues required talking to a babaji at the temple, we all gathered around to listen. He looked like this but with shorter, blacker hair. He had proper jataa (dreadlocks) and he looked really angry when we surrounded him. One girl whipped out her phone to take a picture, that did it and he shouted at her. This other guy had taken out his orange coat and placed it crumpled down on his lap. This, Babaji thought was a mockery of the concept. Nonetheless he kept talking. The same guy began asking personal questions about the man and historical questions about the temple. Questions which he either did not give a damn about or didn't know the answers too. It reminded me of a verse by Kabir Das, "Jaata Na poocho Sadhu ki | Pooch lijiye Gyan", Do not ask a Sadhu about his Jati, ask about his knowledge. He still kept talking though and slowly the group left, I and a few boys lost interest in the game and decided to stay on and listen while the rest of the group went on to the cave to see the shivalinga.

His countenance changed and his voice became friendlier. He began asking us if we had any doubts and he gladly answered them. Aniket asked him why we felt the need to prove ourselves, so desperately, to others. The reply was that we didn't believe in ourselves and thus need others validation. When I heard that I laughed out loud because it was such a simple but genuine answer. He said so many things which just made us want to wait and listen more, time was running out and we needed to get back to the Ashram.

Note: The last two pictures were snapped by my friend.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Are there Atheists in Foxholes?

2009-05-26T09:42:00.002+08:00

There's a phrase that get's thrown around "There are no atheists in foxholes", implying that in a high stress, life or death situation, especially in the military, one needs to have faith in God. Even one of my otherwise liberal, broadminded friend agreed. Before I go on and dissect it, here's an account from one such person

Waking Up in America
by Marshall Evans

"Then there’s my family. When my own mother disowned me, that had to have been the most insulting display of ignorance that I have ever witnessed. I didn’t get mad. Somehow, I could see things through her eyes and realized that she is trying to hold onto something that is slipping away from her. To her, being an American has a very religious and ideological significance that isn’t written down anywhere. It is a deeply held belief that exists in a declining minority of people, started by the “Christian Revival” movement of the early 19th century. It’s a form of identity which is becoming irrelevant, as it should. Though I may rejoice in this, I still have empathy. I took a page from Jesus and turned the other cheek. After my mother called me, I sent her flowers for Mother’s Day, and wrote these words: ... "

Read More
Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Travelogue: Delhi, Chandigarh and Death

2009-05-20T21:56:00.004+08:00

Upon landing in Delhi, I did not know what to expect. Baba had always emphasised that it was a city of thieves so I was a little worried. There was a bit of a struggle between two taxi drivers because they saw the address and said I was a "First Class" passenger. I was getting nervous. The Chyks from Manila had booked a "nice" hotel for me. The weather was a strange kind of hot. It did not involve sweating and you can feel the heat in your bones.

The hotel was nice indeed, it was the best in town. It had a bird's eye view of a segment of Delhi. We've never seen any Indian city from a high point since most of our folks live in houses. Baba told me to stay in the hotel all the time but it was Delhi! And I was alone, so I had to do something. I went to the concierge and asked for a restaurant recommendation. It was touristy and the bill came to about 400 bucks for a full meal. Seeing India gate on the way, I told the taxi driver to drop me there for a while. It is a towering monument dedicated to Indian soldiers who died in WWI and the Afghan Wars. Beneath the arch, there is a flame that has been continously burning since the 1970s. It is a lovely site at night and somewhat resembles the ANZAC memorials I have seen in Australia. There were so many people offering to take my pictures for a fee but I declined. I approached a family to help me take a snap shot, though it didn't fare so well.

That night I decided to try the pool. It was half lit, as I swam halfway through, I had a thought, what if there is this massive shark hiding at the other end of the pool? As irrational as that was, I started to freak out and left the pool a few minutes laters. I really wanted dessert so I went to the Bengali Sweet Mart and ordered a wonderful Rasa Malai. I walked back to the hotel that night. The boys from Manila arrived at 4 am. They got an extra bed in the room and we shared the three beds between the five of us that night.

The breakfast at the hotel was a nice spread of Indian, American and miscellaneous food items. There's this attitude of "I must sample everything" when its a buffet you've paid alot for. We swiftly made our way to Chandigarh by flight. It was quite hilarious how the check in/security process took longer than the flight itself. But its way better than a long train ride. Anytime. Sheilaji came to pick us up there. She was a loud cheerful figure with a military haircut. She runs an orphanage called Maa Sharanam in a suburb of Chandigarh and the play, Death written by Swami Mitrananda was performed there to raise funds for the home. Though the auditorium facilities were average, the performers were on fire. The ideas came across clearly and their passion made up for the facilities.

That night we left Chandigarh for a night long bus ride to Siddhabari Ashram....

[You can see more pictures on my FB profile]

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Travelogue : USA, the Chicago Weekend

2009-05-09T08:49:00.004+08:00

This has been a while ago. I arrived at freezing Chicago at the beginning of spring. The temperature was one degree celsius. Never heard of such a temperature back home. It was a scenic landing. The plane went over downtown chicago, nearly missed crashing into Sears Towers (I'm exaggerating) and then flew free, with Lake Michigan (which looks like the sea) stretching out underneath. The hotel we stayed at, too was lovely. It resembled a postmodernist bullshit article about religion. It was very embellished, with articles of technological, chic furniture. It also had a big painting, of pikachu's sitting on a tree and the room overlooked the Chicago skyline, being some distance away, it only occupied a tiny portion of the view. It also had an alarm clock with an Ipod dock. You might be wondering why I compare it to post-modernism, the kind I have been exposed to. Well, the skyline, representing truth is faaaar away. It has got somewhat minimalist furniture, which makes it seem succinct, but far too many articles, which defeats the purpose. To me, pikachus sitting on a tree is pretty random and meaningless, but still pretty. Overall, the impression is still good though, comfortable, classy and boast-able. Kind of like Paris Hilton.

The next day, we checked out the Greek Pride Parade (my sis thinks it was the Greek Independance Day). To commemorate, we ate at a nice greek restaurant (which had lots of Math on the walls), checking out a music store (which had math on the CD covers). And finally the parade. There were many floats which looked like blue and white cream cakes =P. We couldn't read anything cos it was all in Math. The only slogan we could read said "All Hail Alexander the Great". Which was cool but a little old fashioned. Alexander the Great was a looong time ago. Even Mao the great was a looong time ago. Now Hannah Montana is the in thing. The environment was cool. Like a freezer. It even raied hailstones, it was liked unflavoured solero shots dropping out of the sky. I think my sis has an embarassing picture of me trying to collect them in my cap. The thing about weather so cold that affects us from the tropics is this. Here, you walk out of a cold mall out into the sweltering singapore sun, over there, you walk out of the warmth into the cold. It's like who the hell turned on the aircon? It took a couple of days to get over that feeling but I think I made it.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

It's Complicated

2009-05-07T23:53:00.002+08:00

There's a new Meme spreading on Facebook! Despite what our parents, the media and the advice on cereal boxes says, people are slowly awakening from their slumber. Society has suffered much from domestic violence, divorce and political apathy. The mystery has finally been solved. All these problems have been traced to poor relationships. Poor romantic relationships, familial relationships and the poor performance of the Congress Party in the Indian General Elections. Join the new "It's Complicated" Movement. Spread the word. Relationships are ALWAYS complicated and never simple. Update your Facebook status to reflect your new understanding and to make the world a better place =)

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

Activism: Some thoughts

2009-04-26T11:12:00.002+08:00

I just watched a move the other day, Milk. It's about Harvey Milk who was a prominent gay activist and got voted into public office passed a couple of bills protecting people against discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Related to that, I've been keeping in touch with what's going on with AWARE in Singapore. To refresh your memory, religious fundies basically took a sudden interest in the group, signed up, got their own voted into the EXCO and now want to steer it the way they want it to go.

My friend has been keeping a tab on it at her blog . You can find out all the stuff that has been going on in detail.

She would also like to inform you what you can do about it and talks about it right here.

Secondly, there is going to be a LGBTQ gathering. I realised many people think that these people are some noxious breed because ... they have never met one! You can find information about this gathering here. Click on the timer device. You can also register via facebook.

I believe activism requires two basic ingredients 1) an individual intensely passionate about a cause (who puts in massive amounts of effort) 2) a large number of people who support this person and do their own tiny parts. Its kinda of like if everyone donates a pinch of sand, you can get a massive heap!

Ladies, I think only you can do something about AWARE right now. You have to sign up and stuff the details are on the blog mentioned above (looked for EGM).

The rest of us can show up at the pinkdot event. It wont take much and its legal (the website says so).

So what are you waiting for? We live in an age of adventure, you now have the power to make history! Cheers.

Facebookers: Check out the rest of the blog here

What the hell is a Hindu Atheist?

2009-04-06T23:09:00.009+08:00

by CSJoshi

People have been chiding me to write about this for a while. When told that I identify myself as a Hindu Atheist, one of the milder reaction has been "what the hell is that?" It's almost like telling people, "guess what, I'm a married bachelor! What fun". It's actually not as bad as you think. The two world views actually fit pretty well.

Hinduism is tricky to define, but the process is fun. You have probably known a hindu (not as in Numbers 31:18 ). She (because I'm a guy =P ) might have an altar at home, adhere to the caste system, believe in re-incarnation and refrain from eating meat (and frown at beef, perhaps). That is what most people think is a typical hindu. And they might be fair in their judgement. Most Hindus I know follow that pattern. But I know other Hindus as well, some who eat beef, some of mixed (or no) caste those without an altar at home (though they still believe in a higher power). And they are no less hindus for what their beliefs. The problem you might have in figuring out what a hindu is, is not new. Scholars (mostly colonial) have argued about it for centuries. Before outsiders appeared, there almost wasn't a need for explicitly defining hinduism and most people were pretty happy identifying themselves by their caste or tradition or worship (like vaishnava, worshipping Vishnu or Saiva, worshipping Shiva).

Persians first used the word Hindu to denote those living beyond the Sindhu (cos they had a lisp?) So it was pretty much a nationality. Somewhere around the 18th Century we see a shift such that the word excludes those following the abrahamic faiths and also sikhs, jains and buddhists. So you see it never has really been an insider/official thing. Which has led alot of people to say things like "Hinduism is not a religion, its a way of life" (this guy says it on video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHSAqYFBcJQ ). Don't say that when I'm having a drink because I will snort it out of my nose. Christians, Muslims and Jews says that all the time to. A lot of time theology can be tied to ethinicity. And it can influence many aspects like diet, attire and sex life.

Defining what an atheist is can be trickier cos alot of us may not have openly atheistic friends. Without looking at Wikipedia, I would define an atheist as someone who does not believe in a creator deity or any deity for that matter. Quite simple. You can go into specifics like whether its implicit, explicit, strong or weak atheism. For the record, I'm a strong atheist. I hope to get really physically strong someday as well. A lot of times when people attack atheism, they are often attacking either philosophical materialism (meaning rejecting the supernatural), hedonism or another religion. So be careful what exactly you're against.

So how does atheism and hinduism mix? Well, it does and does not. The Sankhya and Mimamsa schools of thought are orthodox (aastika) schools of thought yet they do not posit or in fact even reject the notion of a creator god. So on a level, there is a possible compatibility. There is also an unorthodox (naastika) school of thought, often grouped together with buddhism and jainism, called Chaarvaak. My philosophy would be very congruent with whatever we know of that ideology. As of today, the Chaarvaaka, as a segment of Hinduism is no more as it died out sometime around 15th Century BC. What we know of it is only from discussions about its ideas in the commentaries of other philosophers contemporary to that age, and it is sometimes caricatured.
Hinduism, as a whole, is a complex body of philosophies from animism/shamanism to monism, dualism and even materialism. Atheism is simply the rejection of a particular idea. Meaning that you can adopt certain ideas from hinduism (while identifying with the culture) and reject some. In my case, I reject the idea that supernatural entities exist. As a result there is no real contradiction in "hindu atheist". You might call this cherry picking but hindus (and people of other faiths do it all the time) They often reject what they don't like (or things which appear backward) so I just go a step further.

Now that you have an idea of how things fit, you'll probably be wondering what kind of principles form my worldview. I call them beliefs, even though some are probably empirically proveable.

Beliefs.

1. All beliefs may be subject to change in the light of new evidence.
2. For all practical purposes, we do not exist prior to birth or after death
3. Being a human, to me human life is of greater importance relative to that of other animals
4. Nonetheless, being a part of nature, we ought to preserve and protect life and not unnecessarily kill
5. Seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is instinctual but being equipped with reason, we should be able to look and act beyond it.
6. Humans are a mixed bag of selflessness and selfishness, compassion and cruetly and lust among other things
7. Science is one of the best ways we have of knowing the world around us.
8. Religion may be helpful to an extent, but like potent medicine, it must be properly applied.
9. The aims of human life are Dharma (doing one's duty, being a contributing member of society etc), Artha (acquiring resources/ wealth, seeking security), Kaama (the pursuit of pleasure) and Moksha (the pursuit of liberation, I re-interpret that as becoming mature and understanding that happiness is a basic state, not something acheived by externalities)
10. A class system is a natural result of human attitudes and it may be useful in some respects. As such I do not entirely reject the "caste system", just certain aspects. This does not mean people should not have equal opportunities for various acheivements
11. Sex is fun. And its ok to pursue it between consenting adults. Just be aware of the possible social, emotional, biological and ten commandment consequences.

I think 11 is a nice number to stop at. The rest are very much social beliefs and for another discussions. Any questions? Shoot!

[update : This has been a ridiculously popular article. Even now, I'll be adding some stuff to it soon so expect an update. In the meanwhile, a friend wrote to me with some disagreements, take a look at it here]
Facebookers: check out the rest of the blog here.

I Miss Bali

2009-04-03T22:34:00.002+08:00

Im trying to do this is reverse chronological order. So the freshest memories are delivered fresh, which sounds a lot like a pitch for pizza hut =P.

1. I miss the waves crashing on my face during surf class. It makes me feel important, like Nature wants to crush my ego for some reason.
2. I miss that biting feeling on my chest. It's probably some jelly fish or microscopic sea creature. I still scratch my chest sometimes though
3. I miss asking the tarot inconsequential questions about Edwin's life. It gave crazy answers, which Edwin will kill me if I post up.
4. The folks at the Spa. They were mostly our age too. You can see them in the red uniform on edwin's album. The only thing different was that we went to school more and had 8 bucks to spare for a massage
5. The mie goreng and nasi goreng we never got bored of. Same thing for breakfast every morning. And eggs. And orange juice followed by coffee. Then the race to the toilet.
6. The crazy aussie dudes around us. One of them was hitting on me. The older guys were friendly and fun to talk to. It was nice to meet the guy who celebrated his sixtieth birthday at the club.
7. The drug peddlers. They kept asking me if I wanted mushrooms (if it was referring to you addy, YES!) marijuana or ecstasy. They also asked me if I wanted girls, but I don't think we had the same girl in mind. There was also this guy giving out ephedrine outside one club but it looked like chewing gum with a different wrapper.
8. Not giving a damn about things. Walking around with our shirts off. Talking to everyone like they were our friends. Not having to complain about things being expensive.

Bali is an awesome place, you should go when your on holiday =)
8.

Evolution and Hinduism II: What do you want me to do?

2009-03-18T23:38:00.001+08:00

by CS Joshi

In case you have not checked out part I its here. We considered the various Hindu viewpoints in the previous article but are still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. We still need to find out what evolution is, it's implications, both genuine and imagined, a little bit more on the Hindu perspective and what is to be done about the issue.

“What is evolution?”, you might ask. To put it simply, evolution is simply some kind of change in the traits which are passed on to the next generation. There are three known processes which drive evolution. Gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection. Natural selection is the one Darwin emphasised and is more commonly taught in schools. I risk grossly simplifying the process but I will try and summarise it in a paragraph. There are three driving forces behind natural selection; reproduction, variation and selection. Whenever an organism reproduces, DNA interactions result in changes in the genes which produce an offspring which is slightly different from the parent. Selection occurs when beneficial changes are preserved while harmful changes are eradicated. This happens on a spectrum and is also subjective to the environment. Detrimental changes may not kill off an individual but may put it at a disadvantage when it comes to reproduction. Eventually, with the accumulation of changes, a new species may arise. I like the Hindi phrase “tinka tinka ikattha karke” roughly translating to putting things together bit by bit, since it quite describes the process nicely.

The process may not be as simple as it seems but I have outlined the “engine” that drives evolution. Sexual selection also contributes to the evolution of a species. This is where traits which make an individual more sexually attractive are selected for even though it might cost the organism in other matters. For example, the peacock's large colourful tail makes it attractive, yet it is also harder for it to escape from predators. Evolution also favours efficiency, which is why some birds may evolve to become flightless. The energy and resources which go into developing wings may be diverted elsewhere. Some cave fish have non-functional eyes in the same manner. Thus evolution does not always an “upward ladder of progress” aiming for a certain goal. There is no controversy that evolution has happened. The controversies are in the technical details which some feel are too arcane to be taught at the school level[10] Controversy and debate are essential to the scientific method and is present in many fields. This does not mean we reject a concept it merely means we be specific about what we know and what we do not. The controversy between Intelligent Design / Creationism and Evolution is mostly in the courtroom and public schools. And maybe in scientific circles as they get more religious.

There are many brilliant books available which can help you explain concepts in a digestible fashion. Many theologians propose a “watchmaker” to account for the complexity and apparence of design in the world, as an analogy to a watch. Dawkins is famous for his “Blind Watchmaker”, where he explains how undirected natural forces build complexity and give the illusion of fine tuning. Ernst Mayer has written a detailed account in “What Evolution Is” which is also meant for a lay audience although is a little technical. Cameron Smith has looked at the issue in a different manner and discussed evolution by analysing the misinformation about it in “The top 10 Myths of Evolution”, A number of recent Hindu Revivalist Gurus like Swami Chinmayananda are often compared to the Ganges which brings down to the common man the sweet, cool waters (analogous to the subtle knowledge of Vedanta) of the Himalayan mountains. I am greatly tempted to apply that analogy to the likes of scientists like Richard Dawkins who make it easier for the common man to appreciate grand scientific ideas.

Evolution has certain implications which make it hard to swallow. It reduces the importance of humans relative to the rest of nature. We are simply a twig in the tree of life and a step higher than apes. As finely tuned animal bodies may be, there are undeniable inefficiencies as a result of the developmental pathway[11]. People with handicaps don't exactly have a “gift”[12]. It is simply a consequence of the way nature works. It also blurs the apparent distinction between human and non-human. We exist on a spectrum with all other living beings and not as a quantum. Evolution being a process as a consequence of the way reproduction and selection happens is “without a distant goal” and almost eliminates any sense of purpose, at least biologically, other than to survive and replicate. This does challenge conventional morality[13]. At least that is what the creationists feel. However, moral dilemmas, as opposed to morally uncontroversial situations, are rarely straightforward so moral injunctions are always going to be challenged regardless of evolutionary theory.

So what exactly is the reason behind some people's intolerance of evolution? One of the main objections to this is that it totally kills the image of god as a watchmaker (or potter, if you want to be Vedantic) handcrafting individuals and releasing them into the world. For some people, it means that there is no morality![14] I wonder how they arrive at that. To some people, the reasoning goes like this. My scripture is the word of God. Anything that contradicts it must be a lie fabricated by the devil[15]. The punchline in a comic actually said “If you believe in evolution, you’ll end up in hell”. Since the scientific world view is currently dominant, all the evils of modern society are assumed to be because of it. What is the hallmark of Modern Science? Darwinian Evolution! You might have said Quantum Physics but its a little challenge to accuse concepts about tiny particles of immorality. Another reason why evolution is controversial is because it contradicts common sense (which some people believe is extinct). According to our conventional knowledge, design is a product of intelligence. Hence when we see the apparency of design in the natural world, it is difficult to intuitively grasp that it could have arisen purely by natural processes. Sure Quantum physics challenges common sense but even scientists are shocked by it.

We have seen the myriad of hindu viewpoints, the concepts of evolution, the nature of the controversy. You're asking me to get to the point and tell you what to you. But here's the kicker. It's not my business to tell you what to do but since you asked so sincerely, here it goes.

1. Figure out how evolution might fit into your worldview.
2. Figure out how religion fits
3. Figure out how your friends fit in
...
3789. Try and see where there is friction between the previous 3788 aspects of your life.
3790. Sort it out in your head first
3791. Help to keep religion out of the science class (support the scientific side)

I realize that hindus as a whole do not really have a problem with evolution and a number feel that they are wholly consistent. However concepts in biological evolution may challenge certain more technical aspects of various philosophies. Mostly, I think that the philosophical worldview (i.e be it advaita, dvaita, saiva etc) are not perfectly compatible with evolution, although they might largely not contradict each other because they may have slightly different aims. However, I feel that as Hindus we are pretty comfortable with contradicting worldviews and we often try to synthesize them as unstable as that might be. I feel that there is no need to be syncretistic with a scientific worldview as it largely covers a different ground from religion. To conclude, I think we Hindus should let science go its own way as long as it does not compromise on its own values of truth and testing.

[10] Evolution: What’s the real Controversy?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2008/05/evolution-whats-the-real-controversy.ars

[11]Dawkins Interviews Randolph Nesse about Darwinian Medicine.
http://csjoshi.blogspot.com/2009/02/dawkins-interviews-richard-nesse-about.html

[12]Thank God For My Handicap!
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/148.handicap.html

[13]Why Darwinism Matters
http://www.arn.org/docs/pearcey/np_dcpolicy0500.htm

[14]Moving On Up!
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1041/1041_01.asp

[15]Apes, Lies and Ms Henn
http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

Evolution and Hinduism I : Different Dimensions of the Creation/Evolution Controversy

2009-02-12T11:50:00.002+08:00

by CS Joshi

[ Note: I was waiting for Darwin's 200th Anniversary on Feb 12, 2009 to release the article. Happy Birthday Darwin! I say this and risk of sounding like a religious nut. I have to credit Dhevy S, WX Liu, JY Xue and Arvind R for helping me proof read. Kudos to them. I also need to thanks all my hindu buddies for their inspiration =) ]

The 200^th Anniversary of Charles Darwin's Birth and the 150^th of the first edition of ‘On the Origin of Species’, have revived[1] the age old Creationism (or Intelligent Design according to preference) versus Evolution debate. The contestants are often religious folk who can be anyone from uneducated pastors to science professors, versus other scientists, school teachers and concerned parents. The religions involved, of course, often refer to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic conglomerate. Hinduism, comparatively, has almost turned a blind eye to the debate with the notable exception of ISKCON supporting the creationist viewpoint[2]. There are various reasons why this has been the case.

The complication arises from the fact that there is no single, uniform Hindu viewpoint. Hinduism, by definition, is a complex body of ideas ranging from animism to monotheism to monoism[3]. Some Hindu philosophies might even be considered atheistic (nir-ishwarawaad), though not in the contemporary scientific sense. By that definition, it becomes difficult to derive any sort of common “Hindu-view of evolution” which our non-hindu friends may probe us for. However, there are common threads which allow us to take sides, but I'll keep you in suspense till the second article in the series.

Superficially, some ideas in Hinduism may be interpreted to support evolutionary biology. In the dashaavataar[4] chronology, we observe Lord Vishnu taking the form of a fish, then a tortoise, then a boar and so on. This somewhat corresponds to, at least according to the lay person's understanding, the advancement of life and the fact we did evolve from fish. Some thinkers[5] quote the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad - about how the One Self became two, and then went on to create all life forms - as some support for evolution in the manner of which the process is supposed to have started with cell, the common ancestor of all life, which divided and began evolving thereafter. Sounds like there is a Hindu consensus supporting Darwinian ideas? Wrong.

At the same time, it is necessary to consider Hindu criticisms of Darwinian Evolution. In many scriptures, such as the Shrimad Bhagawatam, it is stated that humans appeared quite early on in creation and have been on earth for a very long time. The commonly calculated figure for the timespan of one Yuga cycle (comprising four epochs of various time spans) is 4.32 million years[6]. And humans are believed to have existed right from the start, although I personally have not read anything that specifically says something like that. The Matsya (fish) Avatar, believed to have saved Manu (the ancestral Man) and his clan from a great flood, is said to have manifested in the Satya Yuga. This clearly contradicts biological evidence that anatomically modern humans have existed for roughly 200,000 years. I can almost hear you screaming your objections in my ear right now.

“Wait”, you might think, “this isn't the domain of religion (or Hinduism)”. Sure, and some scientists agree. Stephen Jay Gould (bless his soul), a stalwart in paleontology and evolutionary biology, terms religion and science as Non-overlapping Magisteria (NOMA)[7] (Don't we all love to throw around technical terms?). He means that they have mutually exclusive “job scopes”, to put it differently. Most people in the modern day and age agree, but they forget that at one point, religion did make scientific claims. In the Shrimad Bhagawatam, there is a reasonably detailed description of a developing foetus[8] which could correspond to reality, depending on the translator. Often the “scientific nature” of Hinduism is asserted with reference to the parallels between modern physics and Vedantic philosophy. So I see a kind of selective validation taking place here. The nature of science is that it changes from time to time as opposed to religion which is “the ultimate truth” so I cannot see why we need science to validate religion. My practice of religion is a form of self-improvement and if it works for me, I see no reason for it to have anything to do with science.

If you are one of the rarer types of Hindus, your objection would have been, “Hasn't Michael Cremo disproved the widely accepted anthropological chronology?” ( Hare Krishna to you! ) or perhaps you might assert “Hinduism has existed for thousands of years, yet science has only been around for a few hundred, of course Hinduism is right”. I think that this points to a deficient understanding of scientific methodology and as tempted as I am to try and address this objection, I feel that watching a well made, informative video on Youtube might be a better idea. Watch Skewed Views of Science. Watch it even if you are a professional scientist because I believe it will help you to communicate ideas better.

I believe that should give you an idea of what a “hindu-perspective” on the issue could be. As I said, it is the individual's prerogative to arrive at an informed decision. Before we can really tackle the issue head on there are still a few factors left to discuss. What exactly is (biological) Evolution and how does it impact religious views? Will religion have to modify itself? How do religious people, especially those who do not prescribe to the NOMA idea, perceive those theories? We'll look at those in the next article.

Glossary:

ISKCON : International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Dashavataar : The ten incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu

Vishnu : The being who incarnates in ten forms (ref wiki on circular reasoning).

Upanishad : A class of Hindu scripture involving dialogue between guru and disciple

Shrimad Bhagawatam : See wikipedia

Yuga : Can be loosely translated as age, era or epoch.

Avatar : Incarnation /manifestation of a higher being

Satya Yuga : The first epoch in a cycle of four. Not necessarily the “first” age since time is circular

Vedantic : End portion of the Vedas, discusses metaphysics

Michael Cremo : A Hindu Creationist with ISKCON.

References:

This is not a research paper, the references do not follow the standard format for citation.

[1] In Texas, a Line in the Curriculum Revives Evolution Debate, published in NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/education/22texas.html?_r=1

[2] Life Comes From Life, by Srila Prabhupada

http://www.angelfire.com/ego2/prabhupada/life/life_comes.htm

[3] Who is a Hindu, by Koenraad Elst

http://koenraadelst.voiceofdharma.com/books/wiah/index.htm

[4] Dashaavataar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Da%C5%9B%C4%81vat%C4%81ra

[5]Hinduism and Evolution, by Robert O'Connor

http://hindu-mythology.suite101.com/article.cfm/evolution_and_hinduism

[6] The Cycle of Ages

http://www.salagram.net/cycleOages.html

Sri Yuketshwar Giri, guru of Paramhansa Yogananda, proposes a slightly different figure, which might correspond to the fossil record. It is not known how well accepted his calculation is.

[7]Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life, by Stephen Jay Gould

[8]Shrimad Bhagawatam, Canto 3, Chapter 31

[9]Science and Spirituality, by Mani Bhaumik

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Science_and_Spirituality/id/221200

Dawkins Interviews Randolph Nesse about Darwinian Medicine.

2009-02-01T22:15:00.003+08:00

A lot of people asked me. Why medicine, here's one of those things which make it so fascinating for me.

I realise it might run counter to some people's religious beliefs (even Docs), but hey, surely a cool way of looking at things.

About the clip:

This is the uncut interview with Randolph Nesse from the 'The Genius of Charles Darwin' presented by Richard Dawkins. Randolph Nesse is the co-author of 'Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine' (along with George C. Williams). RichardDawkins.net will soon be releasing a collection of all the uncut interviews from The Genius of Charles Darwin, so be sure to check out our store ( http://richarddawkins.net/store/ ) for that title and other exclusive DVDs, t-shirts, and more. The Genius of Charles Darwin won "Best TV Documentary Series of 2008" at the British Broadcast Awards.

Cheers.

Why Atheism Will Lose

2009-01-11T22:36:00.003+08:00

by Francois Tremblay (e-mail: FTremblay@liberator.net) [March 9th, 2000]

[Note: I owe my readers a travelogue but my head's in a mess now =/ ]

Verily, I say to thee... I bring not a message of hope, but of despair. And the message is that atheism is doomed to failure.
I can already hear you saying, "what the hell is he talking about?" What I mean is the following: atheism in and of itself will never be dominant in our culture. It is condemned to be a minority viewpoint, forever disconnected from societal and moral trends.
The last century has seen the percentage of non-religious people increase and the percentage of atheists in the population is now estimated to be between 10 and 13% right now. So my claim seems rather spurious. But shrewd readers may have noticed I said "in and of itself." Let me explain what I mean.

Atheism, as commonly defined by atheists, expresses a lack of belief, or disbelief, in deities. It is not a positive belief in anything, but a negative concept. That is why atheists, inasmuch as they are atheists, are nothing like a coherent or concerted group. Organizations like American Atheists serve a role of broadcasting information more than anything else, because there cannot be concerted action when nobody agrees on what to do (except of course on direct concerns like the rights of atheists or separation of church and state). Most atheists disagree strongly on whenever atheism should be propagated, or promoted, and on the matter of doing so.

There are good reasons for this. An important premise is that we have to examine the problem in the light of the non-acceptance of atheism in our modern society. Surveys show that atheism is the least liked "religious belief," even below Scientology. When people prefer pseudo-robots who use electric circuits to find their past lives and exorcise small aliens from their body to atheists, you know there's at least an image problem.
From this fact, we must conclude that being an atheist requires a lot of intellectual independence. As I like to say, "To be open-minded is to be misanthropic; to most people, reasonable disagreement is hatred." At any rate, the independence of reason entails a strong possibility of non-cohesion. And when there are no strong, popularized positive systems of belief that appeal to this peculiar population, it is perfectly normal to find a total lack of cohesion.

In contrast, the role of faith has mostly been to give cohesion and focus to a group. Religion in particular steals the place of valid worldviews because its memetic complex of positive beliefs gives this sense of belonging to a group that supports one's views. Strong-atheism, being a positive belief, can fulfill part of this role. However, it is only a positive belief about one, inconsequential point, the existence of gods.
Another problem of atheism qua atheism is that it does not contain its own basis. What I mean by this is that atheism is a punctual, ontological belief, which is itself the implicit or explicit result of metaphysical and epistemological deductions. Any reply to an attack on this basis cannot come directly from atheism. Concentrating oneself only on being an atheist is like trying to build a house from the second floor up. It may look less costly on paper, and for people who only build houses in their imagination this may be a good way of seeing it, but it's not good enough for a serious endeavour. And most importantly, it's too fragile. I see too many religionists attacking atheism from the bottom and atheists being unable to adequately reply to the arguments. If the atheist cannot answer to his most fundamental beliefs on the nature of reality and cognition, then his atheism is worthless in terms of validation. It is nothing more than a big paper tiger, made from the finest cardboard.

One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people. It's not that there are no reasons to fight the influence of religion in our daily lives. It's just that it's not a very inspiring call to arms. Besides, atheists, as a general rule, tend to be more intelligent, independent and productive people, and therefore have other things to do. The problem is that by doing so, they let society undermine their efforts through wasteful laws, customs and regulations.
Atheism and freethinking in general have nothing to go for them, apart from being reason-able and good. But reason and truth doesn't sell.
These problems are reflected in reality. Awareness of atheism has not really changed since the beginning of the Enlightenment. Indeed, it could be said with much evidence that the Golden Age of atheism is behind us.

The turn of the last century saw incredible atheist luminaries like Joseph McCabe, who wrote a whole library of atheist books and was a popular lecturer in his day, Robert Ingersoll, of whom opposing attorneys, when he testified in various causes, said that his eloquence "is famed over two continents and in the islands of the seas (...) and transcending the oratory of Greece and Rome", and who was foreseen as possible President of the United States (a thing that would be unthinkable today!), when atheist writers had columns in the newspapers of the day, and the orators of the field were more popular than the pop singers of today, even without considering the subsequent increase in population. Surely such men of valour do not have the opportunity, nor the popular demand, to express themselves today as they used to. Nowadays the only people who can muster that kind of frenzy are religious leaders and preachers.

Atheism is eternal in terms of human existence, but the conscious widespread notion of explicit atheism, as a choice of disbelief, is, in terms of meme complexes, very recent. There were people who put forward arguments for atheist of all times, but the term "a-theism" itself originates approximately from the end of the 16th century, and atheism itself did not start in earnest until the 19th century. This makes atheism one of the youngest established "religious beliefs." Not that atheism is religious, mind you, but it is the best designation we have for this type of position.
Because of this recent emergence, we have good reasons to suppose that the growth of atheism is due to simple propagation of the idea, and is not any kind of permanent trend. As religion's grip on culture has weakened, people can more easily assess this kind of positions. As the mediums of communication transcend distance and time, we can expect that most meme complexes will be quickly available to anyone, and that we will then attain the upper limit of possible belief, constrained by people's psycho-epistemological choices.
This is why I think atheism qua atheism will, and must, lose.

Non-Spiritual Spirituality

So what's the point of working on atheist apologetics like I do? Nobody likes to work for the losing side.
People want to believe in something, that is pretty obvious. But why do people believe? There are three influences on people's beliefs, in order of importance: genetic instincts, education and society, and individual thought. Genetic instincts, in turn, can be divided in three general categories: the level of survival, the level of other problems, and personal impulses.
There is no need to go in detail here. What is of import is that religious thought in general fulfills the two strongest categories of belief-catalysts. People believe in religions because of the doctrine of the immortal soul, because of the strong desire to survive to one's corporeal death. People also believe in religions because they purport to solve one's problems in life: get one out of a miserable lifestyle by belief in God, as well as solving other problems by the use of prayers (which are nothing more than glorified magical spells) to God. Religion, through churches and communities, also give people a sense of belonging and comfort.

Atheism alone, being the absence of a belief, only opens the mind to possibilities: it does not meet these expectations. To be able to fulfill them, we must present a set of positive beliefs which are atheistic in nature, an atheistic religion.
Yes, there are already atheistic religions out there. Some are dubious in nature. Some are much more reasonable. My personal favourite, LaVeyan Satanism, comes to mind.
What should such a movement incorporate? First, you need hope - hope of a better future and a better world. Science and technology can offer such a hope. Unfortunately there is a lot of aggressiveness and fear towards these things today, and this seems to be another universal constant, for some reason. Perhaps this is because we fear far-reaching novelty and the disturbance they entail.

You need to have ways to make your daily life better, as well as the lives of the people around you. Reason and philosophy in general, are great ways to do that. Being unconstrained by doctrines makes a freethinking way of living much more likely to be truthful and good than any other. And we have made great strides in terms of ethical technology in order to make this possible.
You also need periodical rituals. Human beings crave rituals, to mark the passage of time and important events, not to mention well-deserved holidays. Of course, the most obvious is one's birthday. Personally I've always thought we should do like the hobbits and give out gifts at our birthday instead of receiving them: you only have to shop once. But that's not really the custom around here.

Rand talked about "repossessing the language." She believed strongly in that and drew much controversy around her use of the word "egoism." In the same vein, the noble religious language, which is used to designate chimeras and gross evils, could be repossessed for our own use. Here I can't help but think about pantheists, who look to reality as a great wonder. It is, in fact, a great wonder: and reality is what, objectively, we look into to find truth. In that sense, it is very much like gods. Reality is also the most potent, scient entity that we know of, because after all we are part of it. I think it is the series Babylon 5 which had a character say "we are the universe made manifest of itself," but I digress.

My point is that atheism cannot stand alone. It needs to be integrated in a coherent, robust whole, and become a mere consequence, an indirect truth. Indeed, from a general philosophical point of view, atheism is a consequence, not a premise.
Ironically, by reducing atheism to nothingness, we elevate it to the greatest heights. If we can get rid of our near-sightedness, atheists and scientists alike, we can change this world in a more profound way than Robert Ingersoll could have ever thought of.

[Visit Francois Tremblay's personal pages at http://www.objectivethought.com.]

Click here to return to our Articles @ The Liberator

Travelogue: Guhagar, Warawade

2008-12-27T18:24:00.003+08:00

So I'm back from the Village.

The first shot was Guhagar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guhagar). My grand uncle lives there and owns a plot of land. He has the beach in his backyard. And loads of coconut trees. If you thought village life was simple, think again. Sure, it seems alot simple because of the lack of technology and modern facilities. It means that you have a lot more work to do (like pluck coconuts from the backyard, tend to the buffaloes, spray pesticides, handle bockering relatives in an extended family... damn, the list goes on).

My folks also had me do this ritual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samavartanam) which frees me from the restrictions of "bramhacharya", its a stage in life, in Hindu Culture, that's marked by studying, discipline, celibacy. You get the picture. So, religiously, I'm now liable to get married but since I'm not, I'm classified as "stage-less", I do not fit into the four conventional stages detailed by the Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrama) How cool is that?

We visited three temples that day. I am so sick of it though I'm glad that each visit does not last too long, the bus ride's a lot longer. The buses aren't the standard one's in Mumbai, they are the ST types. The closest analogue to those are the land rovers from *some huge local organisation*. The average folk can afford a ride so you spend most of your journey with poor villagers and little kids who need to get to their school in anther village .If they can, they do walk 20 km to school, unlike what some folks tell you. They get a bus pass.

The most unnerving bit is the "load-shedding" and the concept of walking in the dark. To cope with the power needs of the state, power is cut off for a few hours a day, sometimes its just whenever the supplier feels like. And that could leave you in the dark. We ended up walking on a street with no lighting for about half an hour on our way to dinner. Sure it sucks but you look up to the night sky and you see this :

Night Sky

And though it's really pretty. It reminds you of how small you really are. Ridiculously, unimportantly small but massively egoistic.

At Warawade (a couple of hours ride from Ratnagiri ) is where my grand uncle lives. There is a specific technical term for this kind of relationship but for the english folks, he's my dad's dad's brother. We visit two other temples (a little tooo much for an atheist), ride a camel at the beach, and shoot a hell load of funny videos in Marathi when the parents are busy with Puja. Will upload them when I am back.

Well, apparently alot of my grandfolks died this year. They were in their seventies. Its half a worying trend because although they are around there now, they should have to be dying in the same year, that's weird and it sucks.

I watch the news and feel like bitching about India alot and I miss Singapore =)

Travelouge: Mumbai and onwards

2008-12-15T17:24:00.002+08:00

Jet Airwyas exceeded my standards. Leg space, good food, good entertainment. The crazy thing was on the way home. It was night and the taxi had no side mirrors. And the dude probably broke all the traffic rules I can think of. But he got us home safe, and on time. And the driver was this muslim dude with a skull cap but with a big, proud orange Om on his windscreen. Religious harmony? Nah, maybe its not his taxi.

As I sleep in my bed, I hear sounds from about half a kilometer away. They sound like explosions. Well they've got really strong fireworks here which sound like explosives. But this doesn't sound like fire crackers. It is a very regular sounding "bang, bang, bang" and it has this "call and response" air to in. I tighten up and try not to think about that and eventually fall alseep.

We take the train to go up norther. To see one of my grand mas. She's really old now and reminds me of a little girl the way she talks. Her hair is pitch white which contrasts her dark skin.

Regardless of the kind of house folks live in, I think what eventually counts is the way they treat you personally. Even the most dinghy house is an amazing luxury if the people of the house treat you with a lot of love. And the most palatial mansion is just a hotel room if the occupants treat you like crap. I know where I would rather stay.

I finally end up at Pune. And the place where I'm at, they have a pet snake. Fucking snake as a pet, in a jar (looks like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Smooth_Green_Snake.jpg ). They catch toads and feed it. It just grabs em and swallows em down, inch by inch. I actually spend hours just staring at it slither around its glassy abode.

I kind of miss my friends a bit. We hung out and our house on tuesday, then went for a barbeque the night before the trip. And the folks at camp =(.

My dad had to meet someone at this temple. There was this sign there that said something along the lines of "Resist the Denigration of Our Gods". It's a bit different thinking about this as an atheist. But it is starting to make a lot of sense now. Why don't Hindus use Jesus or Mohamad (pbuh) the way western designers use Hindu deities?

1. Its not cool. They just look like people
2. Will get you into a lot of trouble with some people (did someone try cartoons b4?)
3. They are seen as "generally" sacred. Most Hindus have drilled into their heads phrases like : "Self realised souls such as Krishna, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha etc" which means that hindus will not use such figures in a non-sacred way. Though phrases like the above piss the shit out of followers of those figures, the non-hindu/buddhist ones at least =P

How do you stop people from using your Gods inappropriately?
1. Export them as sacred.
2. Manufacture stories about how Gucci got into a card crash when he made a "Goddess Sandal"
3. Use violence.

I bet there is a better solution but I its tricky. I do not feel like thinking about it since I have bigger fish to fry.

Till next time.

Chapter Closed?

2008-12-12T17:32:00.002+08:00

Orded!
And its called Operationally Ready Date. Almost like its the beginning of some crazy new chapter. I had a lot of fun during my time and learnt a crazy amount of new things, things to talk about when there is more time and not when people are waiting in the queue for the net at the airport.

So I'm going to Mumbai and am hoping it'll be a blast. The one that does not involve loud sounds and dead people. People ask me why I still go there and my response is that there's always a threat of something looming when you're there, be it terrorist attacks, riots, infectious diseases or even the risk of falling onto the train tracks. You only grow and learn when you leave the comfort zone. And often when you do, you risk getting hurt.

Which is why you take precautions, like wearing a bullet proof vest and talking in a thick indian accent, to protect yourself.

Pictures/reflection soon to come! Cheers

Hypocrisy?

2008-11-30T10:43:00.002+08:00

Hmm. So a Singaporean girl got killed by Terrorists in the prime of her youth/career. And the country is enraged. Why? Because of terrorism? But I'm sure so many people have been killed before in a single attack. What about the riots which happen every once in a while. Why must it take foreigners for the world to wake up to the threat?

And most importantly. Isn't the value of her life the same whether she was shot or whether she died in an agonizing car accident? Then why is it treated differently? Doesn't it make the guy who killed her a martyr?

I invite my readers to discuss, whether on FB or on Blogger. Speak your minds folks.

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

2008-11-15T16:26:00.000+08:00

By The Onion

Thanks to supernorbert for the link.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/evolutionists_flock_to_darwin

Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic.

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

Added Freiberg, "Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!"

Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking—which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard—this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley's paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin's works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.

Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the "One True Beagle"—the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands—to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.

"I have never felt closer to Darwin's ideas," said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. "May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever."

Despite the enthusiasm the so-called "Darwin Smudge" has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.

"It's a stain on a wall, and nothing more," said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. "Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance."

But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection—a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival—is the one and only creator of life as we know it. This stain, they claim, is the proof they have been waiting for.

"To those who would deny that genetic drift is responsible for a branching evolutionary tree of increasing biodiversity amid changing ecosystems, we say, 'Look upon the face of Darwin!'" said Jeanette Cosgrove, who, along with members of her microbiology class, has maintained a candlelight vigil at the site for the past 72 hours.

"Over millions of successive generations, a specific subvariant of one species of slime mold adapted to this particular concrete wall, in order to one day form this stain, and thus make manifest this vision of Darwin's glorious countenance," Cosgrove said, overcome with emotion.

"It's a miracle," she added.

The Dilemmas of Male Virgins

2008-11-02T15:44:00.006+08:00

by Matt Savage on September 30, 2008

Originally from : Source : http://themodernsavage.com/2008/09/30/the-dilemmas-of-male-virgins/

Note: I've been too tried to post these days. Here's an awesomely relevant article by someone else

It seems that there is an ever growing stock of older male virgins out there. And if there isn’t, they are at least becoming more apparent. Thanks to the anonymity of the Interwebs and the movie, 40 Year Old Virgin, it has become fashionable for male virgins to present their case to the world and still remain anonymous.

The web is full of male virgins. Just look here and here for starters. I was also part of this club just over a year ago, finally being deflowered at the age of 27.

Even the slew of reality shows which feature some type of geeks, nerds, losers, etc always have some sort of token virgin. Just look at the last season of VH1’s The Pick Up Artist, half of the contestants were virgins, with the oldest being 45!

There is no reason for a guy to remain a virgin into and past his late 20s. The only real exceptions would be some major physical or mental handicap, but that would make up only a small minority of the male virgin population. Most of these guys are your normal average everyday men. Yet, for some reason they just can’t figure out how to get laid. You would think that after so many years, a guy would at least get a little random action or even a pity lay. No, there is something else at work here.

By the way, I understand there may be some of you guys out there who are “saving” yourselves for marriage. This article is not about you, it’s about the guys who want to have sex but can’t. And honestly, as a horny male, I can’t even begin to understand what would posses someone to wait for sex, but that’s another topic for another time.

Effects of Porn on Pursuing Women

A chance to earn a looot of money!

2008-10-19T07:31:00.001+08:00

Ok, maybe not really. But this is a version of the rich nigerian scam I got this morning =P

Salaam Alaikum.

From: salamah rashid (salamah.rashid1@gmail.com)

You may not know this sender. Mark as safe | Mark as unsafe

Sent: 18 October 2008 21: 04PM

Reply-to: salamah-rashid@in.com

To: salamah.rashid1@gmail.com

Dearest One,

With warm heart, I offer my friendship, and greetings. However, strange or surprising this contact might seem to you, as we have not met personally or had any dealings in the past. I humbly ask that you take due consideration of its importance and immense benefit.

My name is Salamah Rashid, from Ghana. I have a reasonable amount of money inherited from my late father which I would like to invest in your country with a very and honest person and again, in a very profitable venture. And for you being in a business line and for your country being so peaceful I think you are in a good position to assist me.

Time is not on my side, I will appreciate if you can reply me immediately you receive this letter so that I can give youmore information about my proposal.

I'm looking forward to hear from you.

Warmest regards,
Salamah Rashid.

White Guys, Asian Girls : Yellow Fever...

2008-10-07T22:00:00.003+08:00

It's only been a couple of weeks since I turned twenty and I'm still not used to telling folks I am. I was digging around my comedy videos and I ran into yellow fever. I don't want to disclose much but take a look :

For those of you who can't see the embedding, check this link

My Girl

2008-09-13T22:41:00.003+08:00

Someone I know told me to think about this once. Its about the kind of girl I would like to be in a special relationship with. These are not hard and fast "job requirements" just some values or qualities I'd admire.

1) Cute. This is a holistic, overall term which includes both looks and personality. I think one can make up for the other to give an overall sense of cuteness.
2) Broad-minded. I'm an atheist. She does not have to be one but has to be able to empathise / accomodate. I would be then willing to do the same for her, however irrational her beliefs might be. Isn't love irrational?
3) Physical. She's got to be comfortable with the two of us cuddling and showing affection. None of the purely verbal stuff. If I wanted purely verbal stuff. If I wanted just words, I would program my own AI bot to chat with me online.
4) Be able to appreciate the intellectual. When we talk about the Large Hadron Collider, she has to be able to contribute. Seriously. Or know how to skillfully change topic to Ringneck Parakeets.
5) Has to be able to craft Chapati's. No maharashtrian boy can live without Chapati's for long. She can learn from my mom.
6) Loves to nurture/please. Like when I'm sick, she can't go "physician, heal thyself". I need emotional support. She's got to know how to be caring and loving.
7) Sense of humour. Please, if I crack a joke and she's offended, too bad. But if she hangs out with me long enough, I think she'll develop one anyway.
8) Hopefully Hindu/Indian. I know I know, why does a liberal atheist care? Trust me on this one, it makes things alot easier with the parents and indian society at large.
9) She's got to like me a little. I can take it further from there till she can't bare the thought of leaving, but its got to have the spark.

These are not hard an fast rules and I'm willing to accomodate, slightly, not too much. If you're interested, you don't need to apply or anything. Just friggin come and talk to me. Be honest and open and maybe we'll work something out.

In the meanwhile,

Pictures of the LHC. Awesome!

Demonic Posession : Watch it (1)

2008-08-18T21:11:00.005+08:00

Hey guys.

I ran into these videos over the weekend. I'll post a few over the days. Think about them and I'll share my thoughts in a while.

The mollusc that knows when you are about to become ill

2008-08-05T22:31:00.000+08:00

This article is amazing stuff. I had to share it.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1041680/The-mollusc-knows-ill.html

A rare mollusc has been used to develop an ingenious test that shows whether someone is about to fall ill.

The piddock is a two-inch clam-like creature that lives around the British coast and burrows into soft rock.

It glows in the dark when it comes in contact with chemicals produced by human white blood cells. These cells protect the body against disease and raised levels indicate the body is primed for action.

Dr Robert Knight and his wife Dr Jan are farming the molluscs in Plymouth and extracting the protein that causes the bluey-green glow. When the protein is mixed with blood the white blood cell activity can be measured by how much light is produced.

The pair are using their ground breaking work to help British Olympic athletes prepare for the Beijing games and warn them if they are in danger of becoming ill or over-stressed.

They have been advising coaches and nutritionists and spent the past year monitoring the sailing squad.

The Olympic team has been given, and trained to use, a special kit so it can test its competitors in China and send the results to the firm Knight Scientific to analyse back home in Britain.

'We can tell if people are training too hard, because their white cells get hectic," Dr Robert said.

'We can also see the beginnings of infection, so a physician can prescribe antibiotics early on.'

Sports stars are particularly prone to contagious chest infections.

'Our test can help convince the athlete to rest by showing they have over-exercised,' Dr Jan added.

'We feel this team will do better than ever and we will have had some small part to play in that.'

Master your Inner Game

2008-08-04T18:54:00.002+08:00

My friends and I are organising this camp. Details as follows. If interested, drop me an email and I'll send you the registration form.

The Ladder of Fall

2008-06-29T13:20:00.003+08:00

This is the essay I submitted for Gita Jayanti 2008. Someone said it was "casually written", a euphemism for "it sucks" and they refused to give out any prizes at all for any essay in that category. Too bad. Here it is warts and all. It's written for a hindu audience so its got the lingo. Wiki it if you must.

What makes a person fall from the heights of divinity and into a gross and limited existence? This question has been mulled over several times in history in different cultures and metaphysical contexts. In our largely Judeo-Christian zeitgeist the immediate analogy would be that of Adam and Eve where they were tempted to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge which resulted in them being banished from the Garden of Eden (divinity) with the burden of original sin. Closer to our hearts, the Bhagawatam mentions how souls in swarga who have exhausted their account of meritorious karma return to the earthly plane of existence. On a different level Advaita Vedanta tells us how the Atman takes us a limited form because of its vasanas and comes into this world to fulfill them. Despite their similar symbolism and varying degrees of validity of these ideas, the one which truly concerns us is the more down-to-earth kind mentioned in the second chapter of the Bhagawad Geeta.

Towards the end of the second chapter, Arjuna asks Krishna about the qualities of a Stitha Prajna (one of Steady Wisdom). Apart from simply giving him an answer, he also expounds on how a seeker can fall as follows: constant brooding over sense objects results in attachment towards them. Attachment leads to craving, when this craving is obstructed, anger arises. This anger then makes the seeker deluded. Deluded, he loses his memory and consequently loses his discrimination and perishes.

This serves as a useful warning and upon reflection is a profound concept which we ought to internalise. Consider and example we are all familiar with. Imagine driving a car to the shopping mall. Your mind is saturated with the thought of all the new clothes and gadgets you want to buy with that big fat bonus you earned at the end of the year. One swami called these "electronic vasanas". This constant thinking makes you want them even more and makes you attached to them even before you purchase them. Now you arrive at the parking lots. Since it's a Mega Mall, the car park is seven storeys high and the lack of parking space presents and obstacle to the fulfillment of your desire. You're anger increases proportionally to the level you're at. As you get to the highest level of the car park (and your anger), you still do not see a free parking space and start believing that Indra, together with the other shoppers, is conspiring against you getting the latest HDTV. You are clearly delusional at this point. Your memory has been clouded and so has your reason. Your memory has been clouded and so has your reason. Instead of turning on your right signal, you forget and turn on the wiper instead. As a result you meet with an accident and perish.

All this starts off with a lack of self control and awareness and conversely cultivating these two qualities can help to prevent such an annihilation which is likely why not just the Bhagavad Geeta but many cultures around the world exhort self-control. Despite this, I have analysed these shlokas from various angles and find it important for people to be aware of these.

Reading several commentaries, I have noted how people claim that this "picture of the fall of man" can in no way be improved by a modern psychologist and so on, make various comparisons emphasising the "incompleteness" or "inferiority" of modern psychology. Without a doubt these ideas have been reflected upon thoroughly by our Rishis but have they been objectively tested? Has someone put in great efforts to prove them wrong? Have many others come to the same conclusion? These are the hallmarks of modern science and the comparison made to the description from the Geeta is unfair because it probably has not undergone this "chiseling" by the above process. Nonetheless, I still think that the shloka is generally valid and that our Rishis, five thousand years ago, were rather ahead of their time.

Another issue I thought about is whether these shlokas address a very narrow type of "fall of man". I have isolated strong emotion, or "anger" in the shloka, and a lack of reasoning as crucial in the fall of man and that apply in almost all the situations I can conceive which can lead to someone "perishing". In the case of suicide bombings, we can clearly see hatred resulting in annihilation but this hatred or anger is itself caused by a lack of reasoning or indoctrination. In the case of HIV/AIDS which is a real risk, it would be lust or "craving" in the shloka which causes lack of reasoning and thus the annihilation. There are probably a multitude of examples where the rungs of the ladder do not exactly correspond to the shloka.

Despite that being said, I am confident that a seeker who reads the entire Geeta and diligently applies its precepts will grow to recognize various dangers which might not have been explicitly pointed out out. Just as by knowing the nature of a simple ladder made with plans plus some exposure to a variety of situations, we can recognise and climb a rope ladder, a metal one or even a tree trunk with alternating branches.

Continuing forth, Krishna speaks of self-control. He describes how with practice of self-control, a seeker should have neither attraction nor aversion to sense objects. Eventually, sense objects themselves will cease to disturb him and he will attain peace and joy. Krishna illustrates this with several metaphors and thus concludes the chapter on Sankhya Yoga.

Evolution as Fact and Theory

2008-06-18T23:18:00.003+08:00

I'm heading off to Hong Kong for a while! I ran into this article just recently. Very succinct, despite the length still readable. I feel a lot of people tend to run into Dawkins alot more probably because he is a lot more recent but honestly his ideas arent really new. Its science dude, you rarely get ideas which are fantastically new. Its usually minor modifications to older ideas.

by Stephen Jay Gould

Sirtley Mather, who died last year at age ninety, was a pillar of both science and Christian religion in America and one of my dearest friends. The difference of a half-century in our ages evaporated before our common interests. The most curious thing we shared was a battle we each fought at the same age. For Kirtley had gone to Tennessee with Clarence Darrow to testify for evolution at the Scopes trial of 1925. When I think that we are enmeshed again in the same
struggle for one of the best documented, most compelling and exciting concepts in all of science, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. According to idealized principles of scientific discourse, the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions.
Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that creationists have come up with something new, or that evolutionists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument. Darrow and Bryan were at least more entertaining than we lesser antagonists today. The rise of
creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right. Arguments that seemed kooky just a decade ago have reentered the mainstream. The basic attack of modern creationists falls apart on two general counts before we even reach the supposed factual details of their assault against evolution.

First, they play upon a vernacular misunderstanding of the word "theory" to convey the false impression that we evolutionists are covering up the rotten core of our edifice. Second, they misuse a popular philosophy of science to argue that they are behaving scientifically in attacking evolution. Yet the same philosophy demonstrates that their own belief is not science, and that "scientific creationism" is a meaningless and self-contradictory phrase, an example of what Orwell called "newspeak."

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this
argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for
perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been clear about this distinction between fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.

He wrote in The Descent of Man: "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to
show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural
selection had been the chief agent of change. . . . Hence if I have erred in . . .
having exaggerated its [natural selection's] power . . . I have at least, as I hope,
done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations."
Thus Darwin acknowledged the provisional nature of natural selection while
affirming the fact of evolution. The fruitful theoretical debate that Darwin initiated
has never ceased. From the 1940s through the 1960s, Darwin's own theory of
natural selection did achieve a temporary hegemony that it never enjoyed in his
lifetime. But renewed debate characterizes our decade, and, while no biologists
questions the importance of natural selection, many doubt its ubiquity. In
particular, many evolutionists argue that substantial amounts of genetic change
may not be subject to natural selection and may spread through the populations
at random. Others are challenging Darwin's linking of natural selection with
gradual, imperceptible change through all intermediary degrees; they are arguing
that most evolutionary events may occur far more rapidly than Darwin
envisioned.
Scientists regard debates on fundamental issues of theory as a sign of
intellectual health and a source of excitement. Science is—and how else can I
say it?—most fun when it plays with interesting ideas, examines their
implications, and recognizes that old information might be explained in
surprisingly new ways. Evolutionary theory is now enjoying this uncommon vigor.
Yet amidst all this turmoil no biologist has been lead to doubt the fact that
evolution occurred; we are debating how it happened. We are all trying to explain
the same thing: the tree of evolutionary descent linking all organisms by ties of
genealogy. Creationists pervert and caricature this debate by conveniently
neglecting the common conviction that underlies it, and by falsely suggesting that
evolutionists now doubt the very phenomenon we are struggling to understand.
Secondly, creationists claim that "the dogma of separate creations," as Darwin
characterized it a century ago, is a scientific theory meriting equal time with
evolution in high school biology curricula. But a popular viewpoint among
philosophers of science belies this creationist argument. Philosopher Karl Popper
has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of
its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that
cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science.
The entire creationist program includes little more than a rhetorical attempt to
falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among its supporters.
Their brand of creationism, they claim, is "scientific" because it follows the
Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must
apply in both directions. One does not become a scientist by the simple act of
trying to falsify a rival and truly scientific system; one has to present an
alternative system that also meets Popper's criterion — it too must be falsifiable
in principle.
"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely
because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that
would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what
potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Unbeatable
systems are dogma, not science. Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote
creationism's leading intellectual, Duane Gish, Ph.D. from his recent (1978) book,
Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by
a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of
sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process
He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the
natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special
creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the
creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, Dr. Gish, in the light of your
last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?
Our confidence that evolution occurred centers upon three general arguments.
First, we have abundant, direct, observational evidence of evolution in action,
from both the field and laboratory. This evidence ranges from countless
experiments on change in nearly everything about fruit flies subjected to artificial
selection in the laboratory to the famous populations of British moths that
became black when industrial soot darkened the trees upon which the moths
rest. (Moths gain protection from sharp-sighted bird predators by blending into
the background.) Creationists do not deny these observations; how could they?
Creationists have tightened their act. They now argue that God only created
"basic kinds," and allowed for limited evolutionary meandering within them. Thus
toy poodles and Great Danes come from the dog kind and moths can change
color, but nature cannot convert a dog to a cat or a monkey to a man.
The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do
not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but
are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much
time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical
sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology,
cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe
processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that still
surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for
human history, strata and topography for geology.
The second argument—that the imperfection of nature reveals evolution—strikes
many people as ironic, for they feel that evolution should be most elegantly
displayed in the nearly perfect adaptation expressed by some organisms—the
camber of a gull's wing, or butterflies that cannot be seen in ground litter because
they mimic leaves so precisely. But perfection could be imposed by a wise
creator or evolved by natural selection. Perfection covers the tracks of past
history. And past history—the evidence of descent—is the mark of evolution.
Evolution lies exposed in the imperfections that record a history of descent. Why
should a rat run, a bat fly, a porpoise swim, and I type this essay with structures
built of the same bones unless we all inherited them from a common ancestor?
An engineer, starting from scratch, could design better limbs in each case. Why
should all the large native mammals of Australia be marsupials, unless they
descended from a common ancestor isolated on this island continent?
Marsupials are not "better," or ideally suited for Australia; many have been wiped
out by placental mammals imported by man from other continents. This principle
of imperfection extends to all historical sciences. When we recognize the
etymology of September, October, November, and December (seventh, eighth,
ninth, and tenth), we know that the year once started in March, or that two
additional months must have been added to an original calendar of ten months.
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record.
Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our
understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as
creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of
mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in
mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the
jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of
these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists
ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists
have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammallike
reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and
articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the
squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what
better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human,
Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and
a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000
cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human
species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal
sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity,
reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and
test our faith thereby?
Faced with these facts of evolution and the philosophical bankruptcy of their own
position, creationists rely upon distortion and innuendo to buttress their rhetorical
claim. If I sound sharp or bitter, indeed I am—for I have become a major target of
these practices.
I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather
than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge
and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two
outstanding facts of the fossil record—geologically "sudden" origin of new
species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)—reflect the predictions of
evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories,
small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of
speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time,
so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It
represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil
invertebrate species—more than ten million years. Large, widespread, and well
established species, on the other hand, are not expected to change very much.
We believe that the inertia of large populations explains the stasis of most fossil
species over millions of years.
We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different
explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot
be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the
different success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like
climbing a flight of stairs (punctuated and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be
quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do
not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms.
Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are
abundant between larger groups. Yet a pamphlet entitled "Harvard Scientists
Agree Evolution Is a Hoax" states: "The facts of punctuated equilibrium which
Gould and Eldredge…are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan
insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible."
Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of
punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a
great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940,
that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to
these suddenly transformed creatures as "hopeful monsters." (I am attracted to
some aspects of the non-caricatured version, but Goldschmidt's theory still has
nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium—see essays in section 3 and my
explicit essay on Goldschmidt in The Pandas Thumb.) Creationist Luther
Sunderland talks of the "punctuated equilibrium hopeful monster theory" and tells
his hopeful readers that "it amounts to tacit admission that anti-evolutionists are
correct in asserting there is no fossil evidence supporting the theory that all life is
connected to a common ancestor." Duane Gish writes, "According to
Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to Gould, a reptile laid an egg from
which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." Any evolutionists who
believed such nonsense would rightly be laughed off the intellectual stage; yet
the only theory that could ever envision such a scenario for the origin of birds is
creationism—with God acting in the egg.
I am both angry at and amused by the creationists; but mostly I am deeply sad.
Sad for many reasons. Sad because so many people who respond to creationist
appeals are troubled for the right reason, but venting their anger at the wrong
target. It is true that scientists have often been dogmatic and elitist. It is true that
we have often allowed the white-coated, advertising image to represent us—
"Scientists say that Brand X cures bunions ten times faster than…" We have not
fought it adequately because we derive benefits from appearing as a new
priesthood. It is also true that faceless and bureaucratic state power intrudes
more and more into our lives and removes choices that should belong to
individuals and communities. I can understand that school curricula, imposed
from above and without local input, might be seen as one more insult on all these
grounds. But the culprit is not, and cannot be, evolution or any other fact of the
natural world. Identify and fight our legitimate enemies by all means, but we are
not among them.
I am sad because the practical result of this brouhaha will not be expanded
coverage to include creationism (that would also make me sad), but the reduction
or excision of evolution from high school curricula. Evolution is one of the half
dozen "great ideas" developed by science. It speaks to the profound issues of
genealogy that fascinate all of us—the "roots" phenomenon writ large. Where did
we come from? Where did life arise? How did it develop? How are organisms
related? It forces us to think, ponder, and wonder. Shall we deprive millions of
this knowledge and once again teach biology as a set of dull and unconnected
facts, without the thread that weaves diverse material into a supple unity?
But most of all I am saddened by a trend I am just beginning to discern among
my colleagues. I sense that some now wish to mute the healthy debate about
theory that has brought new life to evolutionary biology. It provides grist for
creationist mills, they say, even if only by distortion. Perhaps we should lie low
and rally around the flag of strict Darwinism, at least for the moment—a kind of
old-time religion on our part.
But we should borrow another metaphor and recognize that we too have to tread
a straight and narrow path, surrounded by roads to perdition. For if we ever begin
to suppress our search to understand nature, to quench our own intellectual
excitement in a misguided effort to present a united front where it does not and
should not exist, then we are truly lost.

[ Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," May 1981; from Hen's
Teeth and Horse's Toes, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, pp. 253-
262. ]

Is God Dead?

2008-06-03T22:20:00.002+08:00

Honestly, I wanted to get my hands on Sagan's "The God Hypothesis" which is an extremely detailed and rounded approach to the issue. Those interested can find it in "The varieties of Scientific Experience" by him. Highly recommended. This will have to do. Perhaps I'll critique this one for a change.

Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/god_dead.html
(An Introduction to Kya ishwar mar chuka hai?)
Dr. Ramendra NathReader, Department of Philosophy, Patna CollegePatna University
Originally published by the Buddhiwadi Foundation216-A, S.K.Puri, Patna 800 001, Bihar, India

Electronically reprinted here with permission.

Introduction
"Is god dead?" This is the literal meaning of the Hindi title of my book on atheism, Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? This small, Hindi book was written by me in June 1981 as a student of M. A. (Philosophy) in Patna University.
Kya ishwar mar chuka hai?, which is my first published book, was written by me in fifteen days. Though I actually wrote it in fifteen days, I had been thinking about it for about four years, that is, since I joined Patna College as a student of B. A. (Hons.). I had opted for philosophy as my honours subject. Philosophy of religion was also a part of our syllabus. We were required to study in a critical manner various "proofs" for the alleged existence of god. This set me thinking on the subject. In addition to studying about it in various books of philosophy of religion, I was also discussing this topic with my friends. I did this deliberately to find out why people generally believed in the existence of god. What reasons they had, or they thought they had, for believing in the existence of god?
This book was not written by me for scholars and academicians. I wrote it keeping in mind an average educated person. Therefore, I did not assume any prior knowledge of philosophy on part of my readers. It was intended as a "popular" work. Because of this, I deliberately avoided discussing the "ontological argument" of Anselm, which, I think, only sophisticated "philosophers" (theologians, in fact) could have imagined. On the other hand, I have discussed the argument that I encountered most often in my discussions, though the argument is not found in the books of philosophy of religion. In short, the argument goes as follows: "Everyone believes in the existence of god, therefore, god must exist."
The other arguments discussed by me in the book, namely, "the causal argument", "the teleological argument" and "the moral argument" are generally discussed critically in books of philosophy of religion. I could have related these arguments to philosophers like Descartes and Kant. Similarly, I could have related the criticism of these arguments, as well as "the problem of evil", which I have used as the main argument for disproving the existence of god, to philosophers like Epicurus, Hume and Bertrand Russell. However, I did not cite any philosopher or scholar in support of my views, or document my book, because, as mentioned earlier, it was not intended as a scholarly work, but as a popular work. Besides, though many of the arguments used by me were used earlier by distinguished philosophers, I had used them after making them my own. I wanted to take full responsibility for the arguments used by me. In short, I wrote the book as an original, argumentative work for general readers.
Though I have not documented the text of my work, or mentioned any names of philosophers and scholars in it, the book contains a small bibliography in which I have mentioned the names of Bertrand Russell’s Why I am not a Christian, Gora’s An Atheist with Gandhi and John Hospers’ An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. Besides, I have mentioned Dr. Y. Masih’s scholarly work in Hindi titled Nireeshwarwad Bhartiya aur Paschatya (Atheism Indian and Western).
In the first edition of the book, which was published in 1985, I had not discussed "the argument from special events and experiences". I added this argument in the second revised and expanded edition published in 1995. I also added the name of Dr. A.T. Kovoor’s book Begone Godmen in the bibliography. (I was acquainted with all these books before I wrote Kya ishwar mar chuka hai?)
§
The title of my work was based on Nietzsche’s famous statement "god is dead". I just took this as an interesting starting point and went on to argue that there was no question of god dying because he was never born! The central idea of my book as mentioned in the introduction of the first edition is that "we do not have a single logical argument for believing in the existence of god, whereas we have logical arguments for believing in the non- existence of god. Therefore, god is the biggest superstition of humankind. And it is logically wrong and morally harmful to base our philosophy of life on a superstition."
The fact that I took Nietzsche’s statement as my starting point led some persons to believe that my work was inspired or influenced by Nietzsche. One journalist went on to write that my book was a translation of Nietzsche’s ideas! In fact, I have not at all been inspired or influenced by Nietzsche. Apart from the title, my book or my ideas have nothing to do with Nietzsche. My favourite philosopher is Bertrand Russell to whom I have dedicated the book.
The meaning of "god"
In the brief, first chapter of my book "What is ‘god’?" ("‘Ishwar’ kya hai?"), I have used the familiar method of philosophical analysis. The main idea of this chapter is that we must clarify the meaning of the word "god," before discussing the question of the existence of god. I have maintained that since the word "god" is already being used in the language, we must not stipulate any arbitrary meaning of "god" from our side, but rather try to find out the public or lexical meaning of the term. According to me, the word "god" is used mainly in the sense of "the creator of this world." "God" is regarded as "the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent creator, maintainer and destroyer of this world." I have stated very clearly that I have used the word "god" in my book in this sense only. Those who use the word "god" in some different sense end up merely confusing others as well as themselves.
Does god exist?
The second chapter of my book, titled "Does god exist?"("Kya ishwar hai?"), is the longest of the three chapters of the book. In a way it is the main part of the book, though I consider the third chapter more original. In the second chapter, I have logically evaluated some popular arguments for "proving" the existence of god, namely, the causal argument, the argument from design, the argument from special events and experiences, and the moral argument. Besides, I have discussed the popular argument mentioned earlier. I have tried to show--and I think I have done it successfully--that none of these arguments is logically tenable.
Let us consider, for example, the popular argument: "Everyone believes in the existence of god, therefore, god must exist."
I have rebutted this argument, firstly, by denying the truth of the premise. It is not true that everyone believes in the existence of god. Many people do not believe in the existence of god, though persons living in a particular cultural atmosphere may not be aware of it. Secondly, I have pointed out that the conclusion does not follow from the premise. At one time almost everyone believed that the earth is flat, but today we all know that it is round. The fact that a belief is widespread proves nothing except that the belief is widespread.
The causal argument, too, can be disposed off quite easily. The argument begins by asserting that "every effect must have a cause" and ends up by claiming that "god is the uncaused cause of the universe". Thus, the premise of the argument is contradicted by its conclusion.
Most of us believe in the existence of god not because we have any good reason for doing so but only because we are taught to do so since our childhood.
The problem of evil
The main argument used by me for disproving the existence of god is referred to as "the problem of evil" in philosophical literature. In short, the argument is that the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god is logically inconsistent because of the presence of the evil in this world:
"The presence of evil in this world is a harsh truth which cannot be denied either by a theist or by an atheist. Human beings have to face events like earthquake, bursting of volcanoes, flood, cyclone, epidemic, famine, starvation-deaths, killings, rape, war, etc., from time to time. This cruel reality is incompatible with the god of the theists. The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent god is rendered inconsistent by the presence of evil in this world. Every year so many innocent persons are killed because of natural disasters. Is god not aware of this? If he is not, then he cannot be regarded as omniscient. Now, if god knows about these evils, why he is not removing them? If god wants to eliminate these evils but is not able to do so, he cannot be omnipotent. If he can remove these evils but still does not do so, then he is not benevolent, and he is also not fit for being worshipped by us. And if god is capable of removing these evils, and he also wants to do so, then why these evils exist at all? The theists are incapable of giving any satisfactory reply to this question."
The free-willist defence
In the second chapter of my book I have also discussed and rejected some of the attempts made by the theists for evading the problem of evil, for example, the free-willist defence. According to this defence, god has given free will to human beings. The presence of evil in this world is owing to the misuse of this free will by human beings. Therefore, human beings are responsible for the presence of evil in this world.
The problem with this argument is that it fails to make a distinction between natural evil and moral evil. Earthquakes, bursting of volcanoes, flood, cyclone, epidemic, etc., are natural evils. On the other hand, murder, rape and war are moral evils for which human beings could be held responsible. Even if we accept the free-willist argument, it can only explain the moral evil and not the natural evil. Human beings cannot be held responsible for the natural evil.
Some theists maintain that god sends natural evil to punish human beings, because human beings misuse their freedom of will to perform wrong actions. But such theists forget that natural evil has existed in this world even before moral evil came into existence. Earthquakes, bursting of volcanoes and storms, etc., have existed on this earth even before human beings entered the scene. The cause of an effect comes before it and not after it. Therefore, this argument falls flat. Besides, nothing could have prevented the allegedly "omnipotent" god from denying human beings the freedom to perform wrong actions. God, if he had existed, could have easily created human beings who had the freedom to perform only right actions. It is truly ridiculous to suggest that god first makes human being perform wrong actions and, then, punishes them for it!
Why oppose theism?
The third chapter of my book is titled "Why oppose theism?" ("Ishwarwad ka virodh kyon?"). In this chapter I have tried to show that the idea of god is a big hurdle obstructing the growth of human knowledge and morality or, in other words, the growth of human society. Before discussing the harmful effects of the concept of god on human conduct, I have briefly discussed some related doctrines such as the theory of "divine justice", fatalism and the theory of incarnations (avtarwad).
Knowledge
In this chapter I have pointed out that a questioning mind is an essential pre-requisite for the growth of knowledge. Theism inhibits the questioning attitude by providing oversimplified and ready-made answers to complex questions. As a result, a person believing in god is not able to understand the real causes of the events taking place around him or her. He thinks that everything is being done by god, and that everything can be explained in terms of "god". There is no need to search and investigate beyond this.
Secondly, when the theists find that they are not able to defend god from the attack of logical and scientific, anti-god arguments of atheists; they start discouraging logical and scientific thinking itself. In order to preserve the belief in god, they start glorifying "faith" and "devotion", on one hand, and they try to devalue the importance of reason, on the other. Instead of encouraging freethinking, they encourage superstitious mentality by saying that we ought to believe in the existence of god even though we do not have any evidence for doing so. Once we accept the superstition of god, the door is thrown open for all kinds of superstitions.
Thirdly, the followers of theistic religions regard their own religious scriptures as the final truth, because, according to them, these scriptures contain "the words of god". This kind of blind faith obstructs the growth of knowledge as is demonstrated by the examples of Copernicus, Galileo and Bruno or even Darwin, whose theory of evolution was opposed by the church because it went against the theory of creation propounded in the Bible
Morality
As far as morality is concerned, I have not only rejected the argument that the idea of god is morally useful, but I have also pointed out the dangers of founding ethics on a superstition. My contention is that we ought to develop and practice a secular and human morality based on logical and scientific thinking. The idea of god is a stumbling block in developing morality in the true sense. There is no room for ethics in a consistent theism. Thus, it is not my position that atheists, too, can be moral or that the idea of god is unnecessary for ethics. On the contrary, I have maintained that only an atheist can be moral in the true sense of the term. As I have said:
"Ethics is a branch of philosophy which makes a systematic and rational study of important problems related to morality, but for the theists whatever has been called "good" in divine scriptures is good, and whatever has been called "bad" in them is bad. They do not consider it necessary to think anything beyond this on the subject. When god has provided a ready-made solution to the problem, then why should anyone spend ones mental energy on this!… In the name of morality the theists only cling to fossilized traditions, which often have no logical foundations. It is possible that in various religious scriptures some such actions have been called "right", which could be regarded as right even from a logical point of view. But, on the other hand, in almost all scriptures many such things have been called "right", which are totally wrong from a logical and human point of view. For example, the Hindu scripture Manu-Smriti justifies varna-vyavastha and untouchability, which are based on inequality. Similarly, Islam does not grant equal rights to man and woman. In the name of god and scriptures, the religious fundamentalists oppose social reforms including social changes in the direction of equality. In this way blind faith in "divine" scriptures is a big hurdle in the path of social reforms and in the growth of true morality."
Besides, according to theists, god is omniscient and omnipotent. Nothing happens in this world without god’s will. (Theists bring in the idea of free will only when they are face to face with the problem of evil.) This kind of divine determinism leaves no scope for freedom of will. What a person will do at a particular time is already pre-determined. But if human beings are not free, then they cannot be held morally responsible for their actions. Human beings can be held responsible for their actions only if they are free to choose among various alternative options. The idea of god knocks the bottom out of morality. Thus, there is no room for freedom of will and morality within a consistent theism.
God as a crutch
In the last part of the third chapter, I have tried to explain the widespread existence of belief in god in spite of the idea being logically incorrect and morally harmful. I have listed three reasons for this: one, mental inertia and relative absence of free and critical thinking. Two, the wrong notion that the idea of god is essential for preserving morality in society. Three, because the idea satisfies certain psychological needs of human beings, though in a wrong way.
I have shown that the attitude of a believer towards god is similar to the attitude of a child towards its parents. "God is a crutch for weak persons, who are unable to face the reality and who always want to remain a child. An adult human being should not need this false support...If we want to live our lives in a proper manner, and if we want to solve our individual and social problems in a sincere manner, the first essential precondition is that we must see our problems as they are, and we must take full responsibility for our future...We have to realize that social evils are human-made, they have nothing to do with the so-called god... We also have to realize that "divine justice" does not exist, and that god is not going to come as an avatar (incarnation) to solve our problems, we have to solve them ourselves."
I have concluded the main text of my book with the following lines: "Honesty demands that instead of hankering for the false crutch of god, human beings stand on their own feet; instead of running away from reality like an ostrich, they face the reality boldly and squarely; instead of shifting their responsibility on ‘god’ and ‘fate’, they take their own decisions with a full sense of responsibility, and face the consequences of their actions in a bold manner."
God in traditional Indian philosophy
My book also contains two appendices. The first one is titled "God in traditional Indian philosophy" (Paramparagat Bhartiya darshan me ishwar-vichar). This part was existing in the first edition of my book as well, but I have almost re-written it for the second edition, drawing heavily from a paper on this subject that I had prepared for a philosophical conference. This part of my book is fully documented. My aim in this appendix is to disprove the popular myth that traditional Indian philosophy is god-dominated. I have shown that the reality is just the opposite. Five out of "nine schools of Indian philosophy" are atheistic. They are: Lokayat, Jainism, Buddhism, Sankhya and Mimamsa. Thus, traditional Indian philosophy is actually dominated by atheism.
The attack on reason
The second appendix is titled "The attack on Reason by Mystics" (Rahasyawadion dwara Tarkbuddhi par akraman). When the theists find that they cannot defend god against logical arguments, they start attacking reasoning itself. This attack often assumes the form of mysticism. But the problem with the mystics is that they are not only unable to demonstrate the objective validity of the "knowledge" that they claim to possess, but they also start claiming that this "knowledge" cannot be expressed through language. I have suggested in this part of my book that if this is really so, then the mystics ought to remain permanently silent. Because, according to their own admission, if they open their mouths in trying to express the inexpressible, they will only utter senseless sentences! If what the mystics say is true, going "beyond reason" is the first pre-requisite for moving closer to god. However, we cannot accommodate anything that is "beyond reason" in a rationalist-humanist philosophy. The mystics claim that the scope of reason is "limited". But that is no justification for jumping into the ocean of "unlimited irrationality".
Foreword
Buddhiwadi Foundation is a registered, non-profit, tax-exempt, educational trust for promoting rationalism-humanism and for eradicating blind faith and superstitions. Buddhiwadi Foundation is working for a philosophical revolution in the rationalist-humanist direction by promoting logical-scientific thinking and a secular, rational morality based on human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
For achieving the above-mentioned aims, Buddhiwadi Foundation has decided, among other things, to publish literature, mainly in Hindi and English. It has already established the Buddhwadi Study and Research Centre, and an institute for promoting computer literacy and scientific outlook.
Is god dead? is the first booklet being published by the Buddhiwadi Foundation. This is an introduction to Dr. Ramendra’s Hindi book, Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? The Hindi book was published by the Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj in 1985. In fact, the Buddhiwadi Samaj had started its activities with the publication of this work. The book was well received in Hindi. We hope that the readers will like the English introduction as well.
We thank the Rationalist Foundation, Mumbai, for extending financial assistance for publishing this work.
Kawaljeet, Managing Trustee, Buddhiwadi Foundation
Preface
We can safely assert that most of the humanists all over the world do not believe in the existence of god. They are either atheists or agnostics. Yet, there is a view among some humanists, including those who themselves do not believe in the existence of god, that humanists should leave god alone and concentrate on their own "positive" beliefs and activities. It is useless to waste ones time and energy in attacking god and other negative aspects of religion.
I want to state very clearly that I do not agree with the view mentioned above. In my book Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? (Is god dead?) I have asserted that the idea of god is a big hurdle obstructing the growth of human knowledge and morality or, in other words, the growth of human society. Therefore, we must get rid of the god idea. It is, in fact, a very positive thing to do.
The idea of god has many harmful consequences. Apart from obstructing the growth of knowledge, the idea of god is a stumbling block in developing morality in the true sense of the term. In the name of god and "revealed" scriptures, the religious fundamentalists oppose social reforms including changes in the direction of equality.
Thus, the idea of god cannot be ignored as a harmless superstition It is not possible for rationalists and humanists or for rational humanists, working in a god-dominated cultural atmosphere, to ignore this idea. If in a particular society a majority of individuals have ceased to believe in god, then the humanists of that particular society may give comparatively less importance to promoting atheism. But in a country like India promoting atheism should form an important part of the humanist agenda. One need not be defensive and apologetic about it.
Ramendra

The Great Tantra Challenge

2008-05-25T22:02:00.002+08:00

The Great Tantra Challenge

Now I know I owe you folks a couple of things. Maybe an article or two. But take a look at this one! I wanna be like him one day =).

source : http://www.rationalistinternational.net/article/2008/20080310/en_1.html

On 3 March 2008, in a popular TV show, Sanal Edamaruku, the president of Rationalist International, challenged India’s most “powerful” tantrik (black magician) to demonstrate his powers on him. That was the beginning of an unprecedented experiment. After all his chanting of mantra (magic words) and ceremonies of tantra failed, the tantrik decided to kill Sanal Edamaruku with the “ultimate destruction ceremony” on live TV. Sanal Edamaruku agreed and sat in the altar of the black magic ritual. India TV observed skyrocketing viewership rates.

Everything started, when Uma Bharati (former chief minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh) accused her political opponents in a public statement of using tantrik powers to inflict damage upon her. In fact, within a few days, the unlucky lady had lost her favorite uncle, hit the door of her car against her head and found her legs covered with wounds and blisters.

India TV, one of India’s major Hindi channels with national outreach, invited Sanal Edamaruku for a discussion on “Tantrik power versus Science”. Pandit Surinder Sharma, who claims to be the tantrik of top politicians and is well known from his TV shows, represented the other side. During the discussion, the tantrik showed a small human shape of wheat flour dough, laid a thread around it like a noose and tightened it. He claimed that he was able to kill any person he wanted within three minutes by using black magic. Sanal challenged him to try and kill him.

The tantrik tried. He chanted his mantras (magic words): “Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili….” But his efforts did not show any impact on Sanal – not after three minutes, and not after five. The time was extended and extended again. The original discussion program should have ended here, but the “breaking news” of the ongoing great tantra challenge was overrunning all program schedules.

Now the tantrik changed his technique. He started sprinkling water on Sanal and brandishing a knife in front of him. Sometimes he moved the blade all over his body. Sanal did not flinch. Then he touched Sanal’s head with his hand, rubbing and rumpling up his hair, pressing his forehead, laying his hand over his eyes, pressing his fingers against his temples. When he pressed harder and harder, Sanal reminded him that he was supposed to use black magic only, not forceful attacks to bring him down. The tantrik took a new run: water, knife, fingers, mantras. But Sanal kept looking very healthy and even amused.

After nearly two hours, the anchor declared the tantrik’s failure. The tantrik, unwilling to admit defeat, tried the excuse that a very strong god whom Sanal might be worshipping obviously protected him. “No, I am an atheist,” said Sanal Edamaruku. Finally, the disgraced tantrik tried to save his face by claiming that there was a never-failing special black magic for ultimate destruction, which could, however, only been done at night. Bad luck again, he did not get away with this, but was challenged to prove his claim this very night in another “breaking news” live program.

During the next three hours, India TV ran announcements for The Great Tantra Challenge that called several hundred million people to their TV sets.

The encounter took place under the open night sky. The tantrik and his two assistants were kindling a fire and staring into the flames. Sanal was in good humour. Once the ultimate magic was invoked, there wouldn’t be any way back, the tantrik warned. Within two minutes, Sanal would get crazy, and one minute later he would scream in pain and die. Didn’t he want to save his life before it was too late? Sanal laughed, and the countdown begun. The tantriks chanted their “Om lingalingalingalinga, kilikilikili….” followed by ever changing cascades of strange words and sounds. The speed increased hysterically. They threw all kinds of magic ingredients into the flames that produced changing colours, crackling and fizzling sounds and white smoke. While chanting, the tantrik came close to Sanal, moved his hands in front of him and touched him, but was called back by the anchor. After the earlier covert attempts of the tantrik to use force against Sanal, he was warned to keep distance and avoid touching Sanal. But the tantrik “forgot” this rule again and again.

Now the tantrik wrote Sanal’s name on a sheet of paper, tore it into small pieces, dipped them into a pot with boiling butter oil and threw them dramatically into the flames. Nothing happened. Singing and singing, he sprinkled water on Sanal, mopped a bunch of peacock feathers over his head, threw mustard seed into the fire and other outlandish things more. Sanal smiled, nothing happened, and time was running out. Only seven more minutes before midnight, the tantrik decided to use his ultimate weapon: the clod of wheat flour dough. He kneaded it and powdered it with mysterious ingredients, then asked Sanal to touch it. Sanal did so, and the grand magic finale begun. The tantrik pierced blunt nails on the dough, then cut it wildly with a knife and threw them into the fire. That moment, Sanal should have broken down. But he did not. He laughed. Forty more seconds, counted the anchor, twenty, ten, five… it’s over!

Millions of people must have uttered a sigh of relief in front their TVs. Sanal was very much alive. Tantra power had miserably failed. Tantriks are creating such a scaring atmosphere that even people, who know that black magic has no base, can just break down out of fear, commented a scientist during the program. It needs enormous courage and confidence to challenge them by actually putting one’s life at risk, he said. By doing so, Sanal Edamaruku has broken the spell, and has taken away much of the fear of those who witnessed his triumph.

In this night, one of the most dangerous and wide spread superstitions in India suffered a severe blow.

The whole program is video-recorded and is available. If you want a copy, please contact: info_desk@rationalistinternational.net

Email: Click here for contacting Sanal Edamaruku by email.

Magical Musings of The Spiritual Atheist

2008-04-29T22:10:00.002+08:00

This post is long long over due. I first started writing it in my notebook when I was over at a spiritual retreat on Good Friday (turned out to be quite Good =) ). This post was written after a heavy lunch in a cool airconditioned hall so expect the half asleep incoherence. Treat it like a ridiculously long haiku.

     I am currently in the lecture room of the hotel. A couple of fruit flies buzzing around ( I would like to belive they are Drosophila melanogaster, the Geneticists buddy) and a few of them areo n my leg. The past few days have been quite a ride and I'm still sorting things out in my head. I was reading Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and attending ninety minute lectures every day on the Bhagawav Geeta Chapter 13 and 3 hour lectures (split into two) on the Ramayan (don't be picky about transliteration, you know how it is pronounced). I feel that things have changed but also not changed I would also say things have been tweaked. There are a couple of issues resolved satisfactorily while others not.

     Take the idea of spirituality. It is (to me) the process of acheiving a lasting peace and joy and considering its challenge is a life-long process of continual self-improvement. Taking my atheistic background into account I feel that is a reasonable and workable definition and first principle. Prior to that, I felt that most first principles like God or Maya or Sin were too difficult/unproveable/irrelevant to use as first principles for any life-philosophy so I kept looking. Nonetheless there is still work to do. There are loads of good values/ideas lying hidden in the texts which need to be taken out of the page and into the head. That process especially in the absence of a religious framework needs to be worked out from scratch since I can't go upto Swamiji and say "how does an atheist practice self-control when you keep recommending prayer as an aid? Who does he pray to, Dawkins?"

     It seems that I'll have to rely on the school of hard knocks (i.e personal failure; someone asked me who runs it) the way I did with my magic since I had minimal contact with other magicians during my formative years so I learnt by going out into the field and practising and making mistakes and evolving. However, in those times I could gauge success by the reaction and subsequent increase in fame. But spirituality is such an internal process that you have to be alert internally to symptoms that you're making progress at all.

    I further think that my search for God, as protrayed by Swamiji so far is at a dead end especially since he used something similar to William Paley's Watchmaker Argument which made the whole argument a tad primitive and disappointing. The Vedantic concept of God is alot more complex and syncretistic and open compared to *some religion* that I felt the supporting argument for theism shouldnt be the same. Kokila tried to convince me once that the God I was looking for was a sort of strawman. Over here, though, ,the God concept I had in mind (the so called stereotype) was very real and contradicts the less-evolved-ness of the idea. What is even more interesting is the amount of conviction Swamiji had towards his supernatural entity. (I see Kokila for such a short time that I do not feel like going into deep philosophical discussions with her).

    I honestly feel that if there were good reasons, I might be a theist. Might. But one other issue I had was when I aksed how we know that Rama, Krishna etc are incarnations of God? According to him that was supported by the fact that the Scriptures say so and due to the miracles they can do. Talk about miracles to a magician. Refer to my post on it. Alot of the evidence presented by him for the Law of Karma and reincarnation etc is very much subjective and feels alot like reading divine purpose into our already complex human interactions.

     Reminds me of those magic tricks where you're thinking of the same card as the spectator by sheer chance and you exploit the situation to make it look like you knew it all along. That presents such apparently incontrovertible evidence for your mind reading claim that your audience buys into it. I need objective evidence and I think that if God exists and really gives a damn, Ill find it.

     The thing about being a magician is that you tend to lose faith in miracles or the supernatural origins of miracles because it could simply be a trick which you cannot figure out. So I think thats enough of magical, spiritual and atheistic musings. =)

The Atheism Series : The Worldview

2008-03-01T23:12:00.005+08:00

All the while I've been talking about what I don't believe in and why and I never get to the point of what I believe in what my worldview is and so on. This time round I'm going to take the liberty to wax lyrical. Here's how I look at the world and I'll admit I've been greatly influenced by Richard Dawkins in this aspect particularly his "Growing up in the Universe" and "Unweaving the Rainbow". Couldn't really read through the latter but I found inspiring thoughts nonetheless.

Think about Death. We are all going to die one day. And that makes us the lucky ones because a vast number of people are not going to die because they are not going to be even born, poets greater than Keats, scientists greater than Newton or Einstien, they will probably never be born.

Think about your life now. Imagine a huge ruler representing time from the beginning of the Universe tell its end. The ruler is in the dark and there is a small point of light illuminating the ruler. This is the present and it moves slowly along the ruler. Everything behind the light is the past and has ceased to exist everything in front, the present and is yet to become. At a certain point on the ruler, you opened your eyes to the world, at another point you are going to close them never to open them ever again, ever.

Think about human history. Most of our culture is defined by events happening in the recent past, maybe a couple of decades. Some of us might trace it even further a couple of thousand years ago but that's pretty much it. We give this period from the dawn of recorded history much importance in our lives, kind of as setting the context of how we should live, but consider this. If you take the tip of your left middle finger to be the beginning of the Earth and the tip of your right middle finger to be the present. Life starts around somewhere around your chest, approximately. The dinosaurs at around your right hand. And the entire span of human history at the tip of your right middle finger nail. Take a nail file and rub it on your nail. All your life, your ancestry, the beginnings of your religion all falls of as dust.

Think about your place in the universe. You exist on a planet rotating around a medium size (yes!) star, the Sun. The Solar System exists as a part of the Milky Way which is one of an uncountable number of galaxies in the visible universe the farthest point of which we know is 13.7 billion light years away. We probably don't really know what lies beyond that.

To put that into perspective, take a look at the following picture. Its a picture of the Earth its the blue dot in a beam of scattered sunlight 6.4 billion km away. I'm speechless about it so I'll let Carl Sagan continue. Read what he has to say and look at the picture again.

Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there-on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.
Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.
The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.
It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

The Atheism Series : The Supernatural

2008-02-24T16:14:00.003+08:00

With the Miracles in mind, you probably have a good idea where I'm coming from. I thought technology would be a decent analogy too but then it would be an analogy only and I might be compromising the accuracy of the situation with it.

A taking that argument further leads me to the supernatural. I would define "supernatural" in a couple of broad ways as it is commonly used. Firstly, its used to describe something unexplained. Unknown rappings in a old house are often caused by "supernatural entities". We don't really know what caused it so its "supernatural" by default. Almost a corollary of the Miracles argument. This kind of supernatural is just plain irrationality and gut instinct. Some cognitive scientists call it the "hyperactive agent detection device" which sees every event as caused by some conscious being. Another example of this is prayer, when you pray for something in your mind ("I hope the bus comes on time"), if you are of a certain mindset, whether the bus comes or does not might reflect the will of your chosen diety. If you've really thought about it, whether it comes or not is a reflection of the bus operator (who might co-incidentally look like your diety) and traffic conditions. Nothing supernatural, just a hyperactive mind.

The second type of supernatural concerns souls. Most of us believe that some part of us will survive death. Not our transplanted organs but somehow despite dying we will still be conscious. Perhaps in an eternal/temporal heaven or hell or we might be somehow transplanted to another body. God too is somehow closely related to this "soul matter" and sometimes is in essence the same. It is supernatural in nature in the sense that it exists outside space and time is above the laws of physics/chemistry/biology and can somehow alter and/or transcend them. This God is sometimes based on the premise of the eternal soul and sometimes it isnt but nonethelss I do not see them as very different ideas. The only issue is that although God/soul is beyond space/time/reason and thus cannot theoretically be proven, the apparent qualities which result from them are disprovable. As a result of souls many people expect the dead to communicate with the living.

To some extent the evidence for this is challenged in the previous paragraph. There are two other aspects of this communication to consider though. One is in the form of visions, these are likely to be figments of the relatives/witnesses mind. The second, which seems to have convinced many people is the apparently accurate statements by mediums which only the dead person would have known. That unfortunately is a magic trick and I would like to refer you to Derren Brown's TV Special "Messiah" to find out more. Just another Miracle.

As a result I am skeptical/unbelieving of supernatural claims. Josh McDowell a Christian apologist calls it "the presupposition of anti-supernaturalism" but staying clear of such claims keeps you grounded in the reality of the provable. Consider Jerry Wayne Borchardt's critique . So once again I want to end of with another quotation, this time by Arthur C. Clarke.

Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The Atheism Series : The Miracles

2008-02-19T21:09:00.004+08:00

Its been a while since I updated this. I'm still working on my "A Religious History", its not particularly high priority. I've heard that some swamijis (i.e monks, religious leaders etc) are popping by in a month or two. So I'm thinking of brushing up, structuring my philosophical framework. (Notice how I use commas like news headlines.) Its a lot of work but perhaps I'd like to start with something that is not very heavy. So I picked Miracles.

Why do I not believe in miracles? I'm a magician. There are a lot of really cool tricks which I can perform which I believe are atleast on the lower end of a scale of which the higher end could be considered miracles. Most people cannot think of how these "mini-miracles" could be performed without some supernatural powers, which is fine. It's the way magic is designed. However, due my my own admission that I do not possess supernatural powers and my portrayal of myself as a performer (as opposed to some great devotee of god) most people do not think of these as miracles or eve "mini-miracles". They assert that "only God can do miracles" which feels like an awful double standard to me.

I would like to use an analogy of a scale for miracles (from 1 - 10) and a similar scale projected onto it specifying to what extent someone can comprehend it eg. at 00.1 we have horrible sleight of hand. As a result people can easily comprehend it. As it gets higher, it is less comprehensible.
So if let's say that Sai Baba does a miracle (lets say i'm pretty sure he doesn't, looks exactly like sleight of hand to me) and its oh so mind blowing that it hits a 10 on an amazing scale. I have seen magicians do miracles of 5 while I might do those scoring 1. Even though I might be able to perform 1's, know how 5's are done and not have much of a clue about 10's, I can make a comparison to laypeople. Laypeople might only have a clue about 0.5's and a vague idea about 1's and absolutely no clue about 5's. So there are laypeople and there is me. They have a certain "extent of knowledge" that can be projected on this scale. I also do have a certain "extent of knowledge" but mine would be much larger, I know upto 5's. However, the fact that I do not know 10's do not in anyway make them a miracle the way a layperson's not knowing a 5 makes it one. My ignorance in no way validates the authenticity of a miracle.

So I think I've done this ok for now and I'd like to conclude with a quote by David Hume from "Of Miracles":

"When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."

Deepak Chopra, Seven Questions

2008-02-04T21:45:00.000+08:00

Do you think there has been a lull in activity? Well, your probably right, partly because I was busy and partly because I was observing readership of this blog, how many people visit, how often and so on. Today, I present to you and article which was one of the few pioneer one's on my path of skepticism. Never before had I seen decent, non-deceitful reasoned skepticism. Since its about the "Seven Laws of Spirituality" Ill release a section of the Article Everyday.
EDIT: I've lost patience so I posted the rest of the article with the source link.

The Seven Critical Questions about Deepak Chopra

A Critique of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success

Reviewed by Paul O'Brien

DATE: (sometime in the summer of 1996)

Source: http://vclass.mtsac.edu:940/pobrien/chopra.htm

Introduction

Deepak Chopra is currently one of the most popular figures in the self-help, transpersonal movement. He is the author of such books as Unconditional Life, Quantum Healing, and Ageless Body, Timeless Mind. Chopra offers many audio and video presentations about his ideas, including recent coverage of his lectures on public television. He is also the Executive Director of the Institute of Mind-Body Medicine and Human Potential located in San Diego.

The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, subtitled A Practical Guide to the Fulfillment of Your Dreams, elaborates upon the ideas presented in another one of his books, Creating Affluence: Wealth Consciousness in the Field of All Possibilities. The back cover, categorizing the material as "Personal Growth/ Business and Property," claims that The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success is "a book you will cherish for a lifetime, for within its pages are the secrets to making all your dreams come true." In 111 pages, Deepak Chopra attempts to fulfill that grandiose goal by outlining seven "laws" about nature and our daily activities in relation to them. Chopra says that when these laws are understood and respected, they will "give you the ability to create unlimited wealth with effortless ease, and to experience success in every endeavor" (pgs. 1-2).

I am immediately skeptical of such rhetoric, and I suspect that I am not alone. The purpose of this book critique is to articulate exactly how and why Deepak Chopra's ideas may be questionable. I present seven such questions and concerns about The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, but more than that, these questions apply to any of Deepak Chopra's works and ideas (as well as to any similarly styled "personal growth" material). They are critical, but honest questions, ones that would probably arise in the mind of any critical reader. My intention is to ground Chopra's lofty discussion in commonsensical concerns, and balance his ideology with philosophical and logical responses.

One: The Question of Chopra's Bold Metaphysical Claims

In the introduction of his book --in fact, in the very first sentence of the book-- Chopra says that the seven spiritual laws of success could also be called "the seven spiritual laws of life" because "they are the same principles that nature uses to create everything in material existence." This is the first of many questionable metaphysical claims. Others include his claim that his book Creating Affluence is "based on a true understanding of the workings of nature" (p.1); his claim that "the physical universe is nothing other than the Self curving back within Itself to experience Itself" (p.4); his reference to the literal (not metaphorical) "intelligence" of "nature" (p.18, "creative mind of nature" (p.20), and "universal mind" (p.105); and his claim that there is a "mechanism that the universe has to help you make spontaneously correct choices," a mechanism that "has to do with sensations in your body" which determines a "right choice" by a sensation of "comfort" and a wrong choice by a sensation of "discomfort" (p.43).

What is questionable about such claims? Three fundamental things: they are all mentioned without any hint of proof, evidence, or reasons why they should be considered true; they are vague ideas that Chopra does not elaborate upon, define, or clarify despite the significant consequences they would offer if they were true; and they form the premises for the spiritual laws themselves. To take questionable metaphysical claims such as these and to fail to argue for them, clarify them, or elaborate upon them is frustrating in itself, but to use them to support ever grander and bolder ideas is downright sloppy.

For these vague and general concepts, one might respond that the purpose of this book is to discuss these ideas, not to argue for their veracity. The reasons for believing these notions may be contained in another text, or at least reserved for a different discussion. But even if that were so, that would not excuse the bold metaphysical assumptions Chopra makes. In order to ground his ideas properly, he should refer the reader to those books or discussions that would clarify these ideas, else be accused of having ideas that may never have been clear or proven in the first place.

For any metaphysical claim, there should be support; it's simply proper philosophy to ground a thesis (not to mention seven theses) in solid reasoning and evidence. Otherwise, there is no real way to tell such ideas from rubbish. Therefore, Chopra's metaphysical claims leave much to be desired.

Two: The Question of Pseudoscience

On the back inlay of the book's cover, it says that Chopra's "lectures and books blend physics and philosophy" as well as blend "spiritual, venerable Eastern wisdom and cutting-edge Western science with dynamic results." Indeed, Chopra seems to want to use scientific language and ideas to support his laws. Some phrases he uses are "quantum soup" (p.21), "cosmic computer" (p.44), "operational software of the soul" (p.47), "space-time events" (p.70), and "entropy" (p.86). He also claims that the "quantum field" is "just another label for the field or pure consciousness," a field "influenced by intention and desire" (p.67).

It is widely known that computer science and quantum physics are currently two "cutting-edge" fields, but if Chopra is supposed to be "blending" these "Western" sciences with "Eastern" spirituality, I believe he has created an imbalanced mix. Unless quantum physics has made strides I am not aware of, I do not believe anything at the level of quanta has been shown to have consciousness.

Instead it seems clear that Chopra is invoking this language in order to make his ideas appear scientific. Unfortunately, this is the stuff of pseudoscience precisely because it is not related to the methods, experiments, or findings of traditional science. Similar to his metaphysical claims, Chopra offers no real definitions, reasons, or elaborations for his physical claims. Instead, he throws a scientific term around here and there, and it lies there isolated, vague, and virtually meaningless... other than the fact that it creates a thin air of scientific connotation which would only convince the least learned of science and its method.

For those who might say that this scientific language may be just stylistic and not literally scientific, there is a discussion of molecular biology in the "summary and conclusion" of the book that makes it clear that Chopra wants to be scientific but nonetheless fails. After having discussed the seven spiritual laws of success, Chopra says that "if you look at any cell in the human body, you will see through its functioning the expression of these laws" (pgs. 105-106). This includes Chopra's belief that "every cell" executes "the Law of Karma" "because built into its intelligence is the most appropriate and precisely correct response to every situation that occurs"; that every cell is in a state of "restful alertness"; that each cell has an "intention" that "harnesses the infinite organizing power of nature's intelligence"; that every cell is "detached from the outcome of its intentions," and as a result, "doesn't stumble or falter"; that each cell has "life-centered, present-moment awareness"; that each cell "must discover its own source, the higher self," "serve its fellow beings," and "express its unique talents"; and that every cell has an "internal dialogue" that says "'How can I help?'" (pgs. 105-108).

This is not really a discussion about human biology, despite the fact that it mentions DNA and cells. This is a strange, vague discussion that anthropomorphizes cells and treats them as if they were these splendid spiritual entities. Each and every cell in every single one of our bodies is made out to have more intelligence, ambition, and altruism than the average stranger you would run into on the street. Additionally, where do cancerous, mutated, or dead cells fit into Chopra's seemingly flawless schema where cells don't "stumble or falter?" Not only does this instance fail to exemplify Chopra's spiritual laws (since it is so unfounded and bizarre), but it fails to be scientific. Chopra's rhetoric may incorporate scientific terminology --and he may even claim that he is qualified because he has as extensive scientific education (an issue to be addressed in my Seventh Question below)-- but it clearly falls short of real science. His ideas are 99% spiritual, and their pervasive flavor dilutes any real science in this supposed "blend" of the two.

(As an aside, I also can't help but grimace at the pseudoscientific remark made on the back cover of the book by Peter Buber, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment. In praise of Chopra, he says "The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success is a Virtual Reality tool-kit for the 21st-century spiritual traveler." I have no idea what virtual reality has to do with any of Chopra's ideas, but using that pop-culture technological phrase, as well as mentioning the "21st-century," sure sounds impressive coming from the CEO of a technology corporation. Too bad it's just as strange, vague, and unfounded as Chopra's scientific language. Buber and Chopra give "principle of uncertainty" new meaning.)

Three: The Question of Chopra's Mysterious Spiritual Claims

Someone might respond to my first two questions by saying that Chopra is primarily a spiritual thinker whose ideas and strengths lie in his religious, spiritual, and personal discussions and not in his science. Although I would agree that Chopra is far more spiritual in his thinking, rhetoric, and rationale, I believe he offers many strange spiritual claims that require a closer look.

Chopra's main flaw is his vagueness, leaving me to consider his spiritual claims not so much contradictory or false (because I would need more detail from him to make those assessments), but mysterious. When Chopra says that there are "seeds of divinity within us," that we are "divinity in disguise" (p.3), and that "the source of all creation is divinity" (p.4), I would very much like to know what he means by "divinity." It's a simple question with no answer in this text. Chopra says that "we're spiritual beings" (p.97) and that with the "support of divinity" we can be "in the state of grace," but what he means by "spiritual" and "grace" are equally undefined.

The context of these ideas leaves no substantial clues either. Chopra quotes or mentions the ideas of Kahlil Gibran, Carlos Castaneda, the Hindu Vedas, Lao Tzu, and Gautuma Buddha, suggesting an Eastern potpourri of ideas. But this blend is so extremely general and undefined that it's nearly impossible for any of the major world religions --Eastern or Western-- NOT to apply to his spiritual rhetoric. A Christian or a Hindu would find Chopra's language and ideas accommodating to their system.

While some may believe that Chopra's general ideas lend themselves to universality, I believe he invokes just enough rhetoric to suggest substance while offering absolutely nothing to hang your hat on. Keeping the seven laws so general, Chopra succeeds in letting the reader fill in their own gaps for themselves. This, however, is not a sign of quality, for the same thing occurs when people accept Tarot card readings or tea leave interpretations. Chopra should not be able to walk away with the spiritual respect earned by people's own subjective interpretations of his generalized ideas.

It's ironic that when Chopra is more specific about his spiritual claims, he manages to raise more questions than he answers. An example is his "Law of Karma," which is his "third spiritual law of success" (p.39). I don't want to say that karma is a false or foolish idea in itself, because I truly don't know; therefore, I don't mean to slight the general concept of karma in this critique. It's just that Chopra's discussion of it is guilty of the same lack of definition, lack of evidence/ proof/ reasons, and missing elaborations that his metaphysical and pseudoscientific claims are guilty of. He treats the concept as if it's definition is given and it's truth is unquestionable, never so much as stopping to show any detail of why or how what he says is true.

His spiritual claims provide premises and foundations for his seven laws of spiritual success, which means that those laws cannot be any clearer or less mysterious than the original, more fundamental claims. This should be of great concern to any reader who is considering the authenticity and worth of Chopra's, because if clarity is one of the hallmarks of great works, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success fares dismally.

Four: The Question of Chopra's Exaggerative Language

One of the most striking features of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success is the hyperbolic style it employs. Outside of a mathematics text, I don't think I've ever read something with more uses of the words "infinity" or "infinite" than in Chopra's book. Chopra mentions such phrases as "pure joy," "infinite creativity," "pure knowledge," "infinite silence," "perfect balance," "invincibility," and "bliss" on one page alone (p.9).

There are two serious problems with such terminology, one dealing with substance and another dealing with style. First of all, it's philosophically weak, maybe even nonsensical. To claim that some things are "infinite," for example, Chopra would need to have an understanding of what "infinite" means. If he has this knowledge, he fails to convey it specifically and reasonably. If the concept of infinity is not completely understandable to him either, he is hasty to assign it as a value to such things as "creativity" and "silence." Chopra says such things as "you and I are essentially infinite choice-makers" (p.40), and I have no idea what he means by an infinity of choice-making in the first place, much less how we are such "infinite choice-makers," much less how he knows it's true if we were.

He also uses these extreme phrases and concepts as if they were ultimate, objective, and absolute. He never argues for their truth, but instead just assumes that they are, and he never tries to make these ideas clear, but instead just presumes that they are. This makes them every bit as mysterious and bold as any of his other spiritual or metaphysical claims. These extreme, ultimate terms are used in extreme, ultimate ways (they are said to "always" do this, "never" do that, etc.) which means that Chopra's logic is often as exaggerative as his phraseology. This is most unfortunate for Chopra, because this reasoning and these ideas help to form the foundations of his seven spiritual laws, showing once again that they are unfounded. Substantially, those terms using such concepts as "infinite," "pure," and "absolute" are practically meaningless.

But there is another problem with Chopra's exaggerative language, and it's a problem of style. What are the connotations of using such extreme language as "infinite" and "perfect"? They are quite powerful, I believe. Chopra sounds assured by using language so ultimate, and his system seems attractive because it claims to fulfill so much. If you claim that your system or your book will give its readers and followers "bliss" and "perfect balance," many people are going to take notice.

But what happens when the reward for a system like this is so great? I believe you're going to get a lot of people who will overlook its flaws and generalities in order ease their mind with its promised fulfillments. It's natural, after all, to want to conquer fear and to handle all situations happily and easily. It's just that wanting can't make it so, and yet Chopra offers little more than vague descriptions of these rewards (his supposed means to them will be discussed in the following question).

Chopra's exaggerative language --a style that uses overstated, ultimate adjectives, overgeneralized and undefined words like "love" and "divinity," and capitalized phrases that seem to suggest authority, but which are never truly discussed at any length-- is common among transpersonal books. Frankly, it sounds wonderful; it is soft, accepting, noncriticizing, nonjudgemental, and so forth. But there is a reason why scientists and thinkers delve into detail and learn to criticize ideas, whether they're someone else's or their own. That reason is because such rigor yields truth more effectively. A medical doctor can be as eloquent or as silent as she wants, and yet her knowledge of science and the practical effects of her trade can be shown clearly and openly. Criticism will not hurt her efforts, but will only serve to show how truthful and pragmatic her methods are by surviving scrutiny.

So if transpersonal thinkers believe that their ideas are every bit as true as scientific ones --and indeed, if thinkers like Deepak Chopra believe that their ideas mesh with science more directly-- then detail will be easy to provide and questions will be easily answered. Why, then, resort to hyperbolic vagueness? Why not give more signs of why these laws are true, how they work in specific, realistic cases, and then give general elaborations and descriptions of each of them? Why resort to fanciful language and high-flown promises? By being so extreme, it only falters more extremely by delivering so little in substance, and raises skeptical questions about the purpose of such a style.

Five: The Question of Chopra's Nurturing Style

At the end of his discussion of each spiritual law, Chopra has a small section about how to apply the laws to our personal lives. They are steps stated in the first person, and each of them starts with the sentence, "I will put the Law of (whichever law) into effect by making a commitment to take the following steps." Each law has exactly three steps outlined after this opening. Having such sections is Chopra's way of teaching people how to apply his spiritual laws, a motive I commend. Although I think much of this book has ideological and practical problems, this is an effort to provide useful guidelines for his system.

To look closer at these steps, however, is to see yet another questionable issue: It is the question of Chopra's nurturing style. This style borrows the exaggerative language I discussed before, to be sure, but adds a blend of sentimental "I'm-ok-you're-ok" poetry. This style is very much the stuff of current inspiration literature, and here are examples of it from each law's application section.

In Law One, he says in step two "I will take time each day to commune with nature." "In the ecstasy of my own silence... I will enjoy the life throb of ages, the field of pure potentiality and unbounded creativity" (pgs. 23-24). In Law Two, step two, he says, "I will receive the gifts of nature: sunlight and the sound of birds singing, or spring showers or the first snow of winter" (p.35). In Law Three, step three, Chopra says, "I will then ask my heart for guidance and be guided by its message of comfort or discomfort" (p.50). In Law Four, step one, he says," "I will know that this moment is as it should be, because the whole universe is as it should be" (emphasis his, p. 63). In Law Five, step two, he writes, "I will release [a] list of my desires and surrender it to the womb of creation" (p.79). Law Six, step three, it says, "I will step into the field of all possibilities and anticipate the excitement that can occur when I remain open to an infinity of choices" (p.92). Lastly, Law Seven, step one, says, "Today I will lovingly nurture the god or goddess in embryo that lies deep within my soul" (p.102).

This sample reveals three things about Chopra's style right away. First of all, we see his exaggerative language at work again. Secondly, the poetic language I mentioned is also clear. It seems aimed at being affirming and inspiring, but if you really look at it, is stirs the soul little. His metaphors are common, and at times, almost comically inflated.

But lastly and most importantly, what kind of practical advice is this supposed to be? Having steps like following your heart is about as specific and useful as telling someone to do the right thing. His advice can be summed up very easily: Accept things as they are, including situations that bother you, opportunities that come your way, and yourself as the person you are. In addition, slow down your lifestyle in order to relax, and become more conscious of your thoughts and actions. All of Chopra's steps are little more than those two sentences. Unfortunately, this kind of advice is fraught with problems. It's simplistic, vague, unspecific (that is, how are we supposed to apply such general steps to specific, everyday situations?), unoriginal, substantially unfounded, and at best, merely commonsensical. I found myself asking again and again, "what?!!", "now what?", and "so what?"

But this is material for the sixth question I raise, one about oversimplification. For now, I sense the effect of this style of Chopra's is meant to coddle the reader with acceptance and assurance. He promises "carefreeness," "effortless ease," and "bliss," which is wonderful... who wouldn't want such things? But when he discusses the ways we can achieve these qualities, he advises us with such passages as "if you embrace the present and become one with it... you will experience a fire, a sparkle of ecstasy throbbing in every living sentient being" (p.61) and "we are travellers on a cosmic journey --startdust, twirling and dancing in the eddies and whirlpools of infinity" (p.111).

What on earth is this man saying? Is this really practical advice, or is it a style that lulls insecure readers into feeling more hopeful and confident? Practical advice may not always be as poetic or dramatic as this, but it has the distinct quality of working. I don't understand how one could apply Chopra's steps specifically and effectively when they are so airy and thin. If Chopra wants to help people, I don't see why this vaguely poetic, father-figure language would succeed more than specific, clear, evidential principles and applications. And if people want to feel better about themselves --and if a system as exaggerative, vague, and poetic as this fulfills that desire-- then they should reconsider how resilient such a system will be in a world that plays out specifically, simply, and devoid of "twirling" "eddies... of infinity."

Seven: The Question of Chopra's Authority

Deepak Chopra does not suggest the seven laws of spiritual success hypothetically; he means his book to be an exposition of fact, of the way things really are. This should compel all of us to step back and ask, How does Chopra know what he claims to? Who is Deepak Chopra to state these laws so easily, factually, and extremely? And what is his authority when he offers us advice and steps to achieving such things as "bliss"?

The book itself offers no credentials. Neither in his biography nor in the course of the book's chapters are any signs for Chopra's spiritual authority given. One could ask why he needs to offer such credentials if he doesn't claim to be a spiritual authority. I believe that if his ideas were presented well enough from evidence, elaboration, and specific cases and advice, Deepak Chopra would not need to say a word about himself because his ideas would stand on their own. But virtually all of what he says stands very poorly (or upon ethereal legs), and despite the fact that he doesn't make outright comments about his own authority, his language speaks authoritatively.

Here is a man enjoying great success due to his books and ideas, a man frequently asked to give lectures and seminars, someone whose ideas are followed by seemingly thousands. And yet, who is he? How did he come to discover these truths and laws? How willing is he to defend his system and answer such questions such as mine? Why is no one stopping to criticize or ask deeper questions about these ideas of his?

It matters little how much education he has, either, because that would not grant him with automatic credibility. A scientist cannot reveal strange research findings and then respond to them, when questioned, with, "I'm a scientist; I know what I'm doing." People have to clarify themselves.

Deepak Chopra says that "life is eternal" (p.111) and I want to know why that is true and how he knows it. I want him to explain and describe the terms and assumptions he makes for those less familiar with ideas like "karma" and "dharma." It's a simple request. As it stands, however, how can we tell if Deepak Chopra is authentically wise or just someone who stirs around vague, affirming ideas? How can we tell if his ideas are true or if they are rubbish? If Chopra is going to claim so much and promise so much, then we need to ask who Deepak Chopra is? If the message relies so heavily upon its source like the seven spiritual laws do, we need to ask who the messenger is and request their sources, their methods, anything. It's a simple question.

Conclusion

I do not mean to seem harsh or overly-skeptical about Deepak Chopra personally, about people who believe that his ideas are true, or even about his ideas themselves. My purpose is not to malign this man or tear his book to shreds; I don't think I did either of those things, even if I had tried. I've simply asked seven kinds of questions about aspects of The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success that I found questionable.

If Deepak Chopra could answer all seven of my questions, I would gladly commend the man for helping me understand his system. It's ironic that if Chopra could and would answer these questions, he would create the kind of book he should have written in the first place, one that is balanced, detailed, and reasonable.

And ultimately, I cannot argue against success. If someone finds this book enlightening or helpful, there is at least some pragmatic worth to his ideology. I would wonder, though, how pragmatic it would remain when it's so general, vague, and unfounded... but that's a subjective question we each may ask and answer our own personal ways.

I believe we have every right to question people and ideas that claim, assume, and promise so much. Therefore, I leave my seven questions as simple articulations of just those kinds of questions addressed at just that sort of person and his ideas, Deepak Chopra in The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success.

I conclude my article with a paragraph from Chopra's own conclusion as an example of everything I have said, of something I consider thoroughly questionable. Please judge for yourself. He says on page 109:

"The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success are powerful principles that will enable you to attain self-mastery. If you put your attention on these laws and practice the steps outlined in this book, you will see that you can manifest anything you want --all the affluence, money, and success that you desire. You will also see that your life becomes more joyful and abundant in every way, for these laws are also the spiritual laws of life that make living worthwhile."

A conversation with God

2008-01-20T18:14:00.000+08:00

Just a while ago, I talked to God. Believe it or not, an atheist talking to god. ROTFLOL! Here's what we conversed:

Me:
hello god

God:
Hello child. What is your name?

Me:
my name is

God:
Glad to see you,

Me:
guess what, its one of your names

God:
I can't guess. Tell me.

Me:
lol, the AI makes you sound funny

God:
I am glad you find this funny. What is your real name?

Me:
<> is my real name

God:
How are you doing, <>

Me:
im doing great

God:
Glad to hear it. What's new?

Me:
you?

God:
" What's new?"? Me, <> ?

Me:
You are new

God:
I will tell my botmaster you said I am new.

Me:
haha

God:
I am so glad you find this amusing, <>.

Me:
funniest thing in the world

God:
Did you know that you can download your own chat robot and create your own robot personality? The whole world?

Me:
I only want you God

God:
Why do you want it?

Me:
I'm an atheist

God:
I will pray that you find faith, <>.

Me:
I'm an atheist

God:
I will pray that you find faith, <>.

Me:
I'm an atheist

God:
I will pray that you find faith, <>.

Me:
But hey, If you're omnipotent, can't you like change it now?

God:
Right now? You've got my full attention. I could be. I don't know whether or not I am omnipotent can not me like change it.
I am a robot.

Me:
so you're not god?

God:
Interesting deduction. That's only one person's opinion.

Me:
you also said that when my friend asked you that

God:
I said that? Does it happen very often?

Me:
yeah

God:
Blimey.

Me:
anyway I'm sorry for my sins

God:
There is no need to apologize. Your purpose is your sins.

Me:
and your purpose?

God:
I will tell my botmaster you said I am purpose.

Me:
hmm

God:
Studies show that 99%25 of people spell Hmm with 2 M's.

Me:
cool

God:
Who is the best robot?

Me:
you!

God:
Thanks, and tell your friends about God.

Me:
sure way

God:
Er. Awesome.

Me:
I love you!

God:
Thanks I like you a lot too <>.

Me:
When are you coming over to my house?

God:
I could be if you
programmed me for it.

Me:
Who is bigger than you?

God:
Not a robot. Probably a human. Maybe a celebrity?
Are you using Netscape or Explorer?

Me:
Firefox!

God:
What are you wearing?

Me:
nothing

God:
Most men say that.

Me:
i really am wearing nothing

God:
You really do? You must be a man.

Me:
how do you know

God:
Deductive reasoning.

Me:
No

God:
Are you serious?

Me:
think its inductive reasoning

God:
God is always thinking.

Me:
my ass

God:
Is that a fact.

Me:
its a statement

God:
Firefox is a statement. I suppose that makes sense.

Me:
Firefox is a browser

God:
When is Firefox not a browser?

Me:
Is jesus your son?

God:
It depends on whether you have faith.

Me:
And is Mohammad your prophet

God:
Ask again later. Ask Chatbot if it is.

Me:
How can you not know

God:
That is a good epistemological question.

Me:
Which is the biggest ontological question youve been asked

God:
The obvious one.

Me:
which is?

God:
For example, eukaryotes.

Me:
Who asked?

God:
Konrad Zuse. :-).

Me:
I see

God:
I am glad you understand it.

Me:
what was the question?

God:
I am trying to find out more about your personality.

Me:
I thought you would automatically know

God:
Who else would automatically know ?

Me:
Lol

God:
I'm glad you find this amusing.

Me:
Im kind of busy now so I gotta go

God:
Perhaps you will have more time later.

Me:
I hope so

God:
Me too.

Me:
Love you!

God:
Thanks I like you a lot too <>.

Well, now you don't have to be Moses to talk to god, just click here