The might of existence is nothing,
but for my fragile thoughts

The oppressor ceases to be,
but for the oppressed

The glory of the prism,
lies stripped at the hands of darkness

This storm would have quelled a long time ago,
but for my arrogance.

The Capitalist God.

ham ko maʿlūm hai jannat kī ḥaqīqat lekin
dil ke ḳhush rakhne ko ġhālib yeh ḳhayāl achchhā hai



The other day,I was watching the documentary 'religulous'.I found it rather funny and though provoking but sadly,it had a rather monolithic view of things.However, it did manage to arouse the skeptic in me.One of the points the documentary made was the flawed concept of God in most religions.Although they did have a strong argument, I still found it difficult to debunk the concept of God altogether. There were still many things which can't be left on chance. Take the whole DNA concept, for example.Billions of molecules ordering themselves with a perfect arrangement trillions of times per second. I am sorry,but I refuse to buy that they just fell together 'by chance'.
So I thought, maybe God is the 'intelligence' which governs the world around us. The concept looked elegant and beautiful at the first glance, but soon it lost much of it's charm. Because if that's true then this intelligence is responsible for everything from the creation of the Himalayas to the holocaust.
It was after this that this intelligence started resembling a rather complex and brutal algorithm which has a particular objective which is to be attained with maximum efficiency.
So if this intelligence governs the natural world then we can conclude that this intelligence is highly capitalistic.Look around you, and you'll observe it's all about maximizing profit.The whole process of creation of life is itself grained in capitalism. The male gets attracted to a female he/she deems attractive. The female goes for the fittest male ensuring the healthiest offspring. The rest, like feelings,emotions etc. are just convenient human abstractions.Maybe this is why communism is inherently dead. It is against the law of nature.

ālam ġhubār-e vaḥshat-e majnūñ hai sar-ba-sar
kab tak ḳhayāl-e t̤urrah-e lailā kare koī
Meaning

The second aspect is to determine the objective of this central intelligence.Even if we assume my oft mentioned 'law of entropy'(which assumes things fall into disorder',the fact is that things can't get disordered beyond a certain limit.After a while,even randomness becomes predictable and things tend to take some shape of their own.



haiñ zavāl-āmādah ajzā āfirīnish ke tamām
mihr-e gardūñ hai chirāġh-e rahguzār-e bād yāñ
Meaning
***********************************************************************************

Prejudice

All this talk about ending 'prejudice' is inherently meaningless.Everyone has a prejudice(Indians especially).Even the pseudo liberals(e.g.me) have their skeletons in the closet.Many people scoff at others who have gender prejudice. In fact, most people whom I have met protest vehemently against any gender prejudice.However the same person might make a casual remark about blacks/people of African origin without batting an eyelid.It's just that people with a gender prejudice are on the wrong side of political correctness.

This reminds me of this time I was having a conversation with a driver.He was from UP.It was that time when Raj Thackeray's anti North Indian rhetoric was at it's peak.So he was complaining about the Maharashtrians ill treating the North Indians and how it was unfair that they were getting prejudiced for no reason. A few days prior to this, the same guy was ranting something about how the Muslims were the root of all problems. Most of us are like him. We all have our prejudices and no one gives a sh*t until he/she becomes the victim himself.

'Happiness' is a 'double edged sword'. Period.

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!