The divine and the vulgar both,
Derives sustenance from the same force.

The light and the dark
Emanating from the same breath

The purity of the snowflake, the dirt of the gutter,
All flows into the same ocean.

Language is a pollutant,
For virgin thoughts contemplated,
Through silence.

Creation & The Myth

One of my favourite questions since childhood,and probably the most enduring mysteries of all time is 'What existed before the universe?'.I was also frustrated by this question.Then a few days ago,I had my 'eureka' moment(and no I didn't run out of the shower naked!).It occurred to me that the answer lies in examining the question carefully.First,let us look at the word 'existed'.Now,existence is something which is associated with the dimension of space,i.e. an object always exists between the realms of the spatial dimensions(length,breadth,height).The second word,'before' is associated with the dimension that we call time.The mistake most people mistake is that they assume that the dimensions of 'space' and 'time' existed before the creation of the universe.Infact,it is entirely possible that creation of universe resulted in the creation of space and time.Thus,any question of anything 'existing' 'before' the universe seems irrelevant.

This argument can also be extended to God.Since 'existence' is the property of 'space',and if we assume that god transcends these dimensions of space(and also time),then we can safely say that God doesn't 'exist',and nothing was 'before' him,since 'before' and 'after' refer to time,an entity that God presumably created.Thus paradoxically, we find that this apparently atheistic point of view is closer to the mystical conception of god espoused by the Vedantists,the Sufis and the Kabbalists
**********************************************************************************

While we are talking about God and religion,let us shift our attention to another very important aspect,mythology.Now mythology is something that exists in probably all major cultures.The semitic religions(Christianity,Islam and Judaism) have their own mythology concerning figures like Noah,Adam and Eve,Moses etc.The Greeks had Apollo and Jupiter as their heroes.The Hindus have too many to even count(The Ramayana,Mahabharat are just the tip of the iceberg!).

The problem with myths is that people take them too literally.Myths were written as a fictional accounts(or unusually exaggerated accounts of historical events),written so that people could digest religion easily,since people in general cannot be expected to understand the esoteric ideas and the higher reality which the myth symbolizes.Also, myths serve as commentaries on the socio-political conditions of the time and the region.Hence,I don't deny that there wasn't a war in ancient India,but probably it wasn't as grand in scale as is mentioned in our epics.And probably there weren't any great floods or the creation of Adam and Eve in the literal sense of the term.It's all just a symbolic representation of something deeper.

Now what is interesting is how myths developed.In semitic cultures,myths were precursors of a more subtle,refined religious thought.Thus you have traditional religious thought giving way to ideas like Sufism and Kabbalah.However in oriental cultures like Buddhism,which started with a very refined philosophy,myths developed later as offshoots so that religion becomes more personalized and easily digestible for the common man.As far as hinduism is concerned,there is again a very unique pattern.The early Vedic period was characterised by subtle philosophy and whatever mythology existed was certainly very rudimentary(the concept of the seven elemental gods could be put under the myth category).The mystical element in Hinduism probably reached its zenith with the Upanishads.However,in the later Vedic period we find that complex mythology(The Ramayan and The Mahabharat) develops during the course of 500 to 600 years.This period coincides with the rise of Buddhism and Jainism when Hinduism was on decline.Thus probably these myths were written so that the conception of God becomes more personal rather than the esoteric ideas of Upanishads and consequently of Buddhism and Jainism.

Thus we find that the present anthromorphic conception of God in hinduism was a result of people's need of a more humanized and personal God,which was especially comforting during times of foreign invasions,when people need something concrete to cling on to,rather than just dry philosophy.This is probably why Buddhism declined in India.It's conception of God,while not incorrect was too impersonal and remote in times of trouble.

Time(Whatever that is!)

Some people believe in destiny,others believe they can shape their lives according to their will,and others are confused about what to do or believe in.I fall in this category,constantly walking the tightrope between the two camps.

Now,what we believe in(i.e. fate vs. absolute control on future) can change the way we look at time.Now,for people who believe that there is no such thing as time,the conventional linear arrow of time model suffices,where the future depends on the conditions in the past,and this is consistent with the laws of physics.But for people who believe in destiny,their fundamental premise is that all actions of the past and present are made to reach a definite predetermined future state.Herein lies the problem.You see,this makes the future constant,therefore if you really think about it,the future starts acting like the past,constant and fixed.In a way,this also goes against the principle of thermodynamics,which states that the entropy in a closed system increases with time.

Thus,now our entire model of time changes,because now,the past has to act according to our predestined future,not the other way round.Thus the past,in a way becomes dynamic,and thus acquires the characteristics previously attributed to future....

So does time follow th first model or the second model or neither....and let's not forget the more important question,whether anything like time exists at all....Anyways,more on that later.....Ciao,Khuda Hafiz and Eid Mubarak to all....

Oh God!

Naqsh faryadi hai kis ki shokhi-e-tehreer ka,
Kaghazi hai pairahan har paikar-e-tasveer ka

(Against whose playful writing are the words complainants, Dressed in paper attire are countenances of every image)

-Mirza Ghalib

You know,God is a funny guy(/girl).The universe he created is inherently an antithesis of his own self.While he basks in unity,the whole world struggles with the paradox of duality.There's good vs. evil,man and woman,heaven and hell,light and dark,pleasure and pain....and so on.What is fascinating is that these contradictions stem from seemingly neutral sources.Let's say a man gets stabbed.If you analyze carefully,it's just a piece of metal penetrating the flesh.On another level,it's just molecules colliding against each other.So why do I think it's evil?If the same knife would have been used to cut food to serve poor children,then it's good.In both cases,molecules follow some laws of physics and collide.So what gives the two actions their intrinsic good/evil characteristics.So is it the conditioning of our minds that makes us feel good or bad about something....?

So yeah,coming back to God.Why is his world a contradiction to his own self.Since he did it,he must have a good reason for doing so.So let's make some kind of a Freudian analysis of God's mind.Maybe,God didn't want to show his true self to everyone,so his world,as his external manifestation was his exact opposite.It's somewhat like a person being funny just to hide his serious side from people.Or it could be that god could be suffering from minor schizophrenia,and that is another duality in itself.So the million dollar(/rupees) question is that,why did he do so?Maybe he just wanted people to rise above the dualities to see his actual self,you know,make them work a little hard.

The basic assumption I have made all this time is the existence of God.So I shall take that assumption down from it's axiomatic pedestal down to the level of a hypothesis/theory.So let's say God is just a concept man conjured because of his basic psychological needs,and as the years passed on,the concept spread like wildfire.So if you think about it,does a concept have a life on it's own?Can we create something and give it life just by imagining it?And if this concept is all powerful,then it should mean that God derives his power just from our belief.So if we take that belief away,will God's power diminish?Will disbelief suck the life force out of this concept?On the other hand,if we can give life to a concept,then it must mean that there is something called life,or in other words,some kind of intelligence/life force running through this universe.This in itself is a symbol of creation,and thus a symbol of God himself.Thus our very argument for proving the non existence of God may prove his existence.
******************************************************************************
Coming back to dualities,one of the most prominent is good and evil.It is often said that good always triumphs over evil.But if good 'always' triumphs over evil,then it must mean that evil sprouts up again.So if you really look at it,it's just an infinite succession of good,evil,good,evil....it's much like looking at an infinitely long zebra crossing,you wouldn't know if it started with the white patch or the black patch,it's just an endless succession on white and black.The only thing that matters is where you stand.

Anyways,like always,my thoughts have made me more and more skeptical.My mind follows the classical laws of thermodynamics,i.e the entropy in a system increases with time.Phew!...that was a lot of geeky crap to take.So,I shall bore my readers(if any) no more and so until next time,Ciao Ciao!

The pursuit of 'Happiness'

There comes a time in a person's life, when his entire perspective on things undergoes a complete metamorphosis, when his whole perspective changes, and things which seemed relevant a year and a half ago may seem trivial, like some vestiges of an era gone by, like an old scribble on a palimpsest, existing only as a mere shadow of it's former self.

This metamorphosis, may come from inside, or it may require a little help from outside. In my case, it was a bit of both. The outside was somewhat like fuel, without which, the logs of wood, are well, just logs of wood. Again, my definition of the ‘outside’ may be a little ambiguous, it may be a person, the environment , but I think it has one defining characteristic. This very entity, may directly or indirectly reveal your very soul to you.

I had some presumptions about my ‘soul’. It turns out that I was wrong. Imagine if you had these goggles, which allowed you to see everything, albeit in a particular shade. Now imagine that you had these goggles fitted on right since your birth. In such a scenario, one would believe that his world basically has one particular colour, only with slightly different shades. Now imagine that one fine day, someone takes these goggles of your eyes, and suddenly you see all these colours and hues, which you had never seen before. In a similar fashion, my presumptions about myself suddenly started to appear irrelevant, if not baseless.

I was a very ambitious person, which I believed was a very good thing. My whole life revolved around my plans, my future, the big company, fame, fortune, you know the routine. I don’t deny that it wasn’t exciting. There was that rush. But it was a little bit like opium. The rush, the feeling was all very fleeting. Another thing was my dependence on my absolute principles. Everything was either high or low, good or evil, black or white. Most things in life, I learnt later on, were a shade of grey.

So my love for materialistic glory gave way to things more subtle, and from ‘Gates’, I moved on to ‘Ghalib’. I am still on a pursuit no doubt, only the destination is different. I assume the destination is ‘happiness’, but then again some routes aren’t supposed to lead you to a particular destination. Or maybe ‘happiness’ is the route itself. Maybe ‘happiness’ is the origin, the destination and the route. This pursuit has different manifestations; it may be in music, in poetry, in language or anything else. This pursuit could be an ‘entity’ or a mere figment of my imagination.

I don’t think, this article, like my ‘pursuit’, should have a conclusion. I don’t know where my journey will lead me, hence this article should also, like the written spirit of my thoughts, shouldn’t end here…………………………………………………………………………or should it?

On analogies

A civilisation can be a complex thing to understand.One way to gauge it's essence is to look at it's various aspects, like the people,the dress,the language and strangely enough,the script.

If one observes carefully, a script can tell a lot about the people who use it. To make my point a little clearer, let me give you an example about 2 scripts which are closely related to each other, and yet have subtle differences, i.e. the Naskh Script & the Nastaliq script.

For the unacquainted, Arabic is commonly written in the Naskh style and Persian is written in the Nastaliq script. If you look at the former, it is written in a very linear fashion. There is an inherent simplicity in it, although on the face of it, Arabic calligraphy may seem somewhat complex. On the other hand, Nastaliq script is highly ornate, with plenty of curves.

As Arabia is a desert, the way of life there in the ancient/medieval times was highly simplistic. Iran, on the other hand was known to appreciate luxury, and this is well reflected in their calligraphic style. Both the writing systems are beautiful, but the concept of beauty in both is different. The desert is certainly reflected in the Naskh style, while the sybaritic nature of Iran exhibits itself in the Nastaliq script. It's quite like comparing the Alps & Ladakh. While the beauty of the Alps lies in their abundance, it's the very elemental nature of Ladakh that gives it it's beauty.

**************************************************************
While we are on the topic of anal[ogies], here's an interesting one-

On the face of it,marriages and government systems are not closely related. But if you look carefully,they share a close resemblance to each other.

The Arranged vs Love marriage debate is something that is guaranteed to generate some heat.While I am quite a strong supporter of the latter[do not worry,my oh so anxious relatives, I am not bringing some weed addicted hippie home...no wait a minute,I might just ;)],both the systems can be compared to the systems of governance of India and China.

Arranged marriages can be compared to the government of China. It is statistically speaking,a very stable system,with a greater rate of tangible success. Also, since the control is generally autocratic,problems due to dissent are generally lesser.The problems,if any,are generally suppressed before they take a more serious shape.Arranged marriages are quite the same.Since it is generally the parents/relatives who are running the show,the sense of authority flows from top to down.Also,lesser disputes arise,since the decision is largely a collective one rather than personal.

Love marriages are a little bit like Indian democracy, messy and highly flawed.It is visibly less stable,as dissent is allowed.Also,since the power in a democracy is in the hands of the people,it is subject to the moods and fickleness of the public[akin to the mob in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar].Now,authority in this case flows from bottom up.Similarly,in a love marriage,the power lies with the couple & consequently the protests are more marked.Since the expectations are higher(unlike an autocratic system),it is more prone to discontent.Also,the couple,like the public can make their own decisions.Likewise,the way we elect our leaders and mates are overshadowed by our emotional prejudices and hence there is a tendency to make flawed judgements.

All said and done,I am still a strong believer in the strength of Indian democracy, inspite of all it's faults.A democracy is a more human approach,flawed and emotional while an arranged marriage is much like a computerised algorithm,efficient and it generally works...The choice is yours

In case no one noticed,I changed the title of my blog. I think "I came,I learnt,I conquered" rhymes more with the theme of the blog,as compared to "I came,I saw,I conquered".