Stochastic Destiny: Principle and Process

Progress of Science & Technology in India: A Path of Stochastic Destiny

2010-10-10T00:14:00.000-07:00

Indians, as any other people of a country of territory, are proud people. Except in very recent decades when a few of the Indians won Nobel Prizes and became top managers in foreign/ multinational firms or won a medal here and there, the Indians had very little to boast in the area of modern Science and Technology. Yet, people in the subcontinent started off well in the pusuit of knowledge. They started of seeking answers to basic questions on the why and how of the existence and operasation of the Universe in its entirety and in its various parts like stars, human life, parts of human life, etc. On the way of knowledge seeking, through simple observation and application of logic and reasoning, they advanced the analytical tools and sought useful applications of their knowledge for human welfare and increasing the technological ability of human beings to advance the human civilization. Indians have been credited with the creation of the concept of zero without which Mathematics could not have advanced much and modern science would have remained primitive. Yet, for centuries in the current millenium, Indian contribution to Science and technology has been very minimal. How does not explain the inital vibrancy of Indian contribution to knowledge followed by Indian scientists going into oblivion? Why is that the concepts that the ancient Indian scientists evolved were not subjected to reasearch by the later generations of Indians and allowed to be lost instead of creating a revolutionary process of continuous inventions and innovations? Many reasons may cited: foreign invasions and consequent destructions, primacy of spritualism and bhakti-cult among the Hindus, the easy availability of food and a very comfortable living environment. But these are not really satisfactory answers but raises more questions. Even befiore the foreign invasions took place, there were continuous wars and battles among the several kingdoms within India, the early Indian scientists were mostly disciples or descendants of spiritual sages/ saints, and different parts of India were not environmentally equally comfortable to human habitation and life. Various cults of Hinduism, Budhhism, Jainsism and Islam as also Christianity spread all over India but not science and technology. My hypothesis is that that advancement of science and technology is also subject to unknown stochastic peocesses that determines where and when scientific and technological advancements will take place. Even the ancient Indian history show that major discoveries by ancient Indian scientists were sporadic in time and place. The periods and the locations of the most famous ancient Indian scientists seem to suggest that continuity in research for innovations and pursuit of scientific inquiry did nt have hiogh probability in the initial period of human quest of knowledge, though the immediate application of the available knowledge to improve human life spread to many parts of India.
A friend forwarded some notes through email in circulation about 10 ancient / medieval Indian Scientists. I quote below an edited vesrsion of the material I received.
Ancient Indian Scientists:
A. Before Christ:
1. Acharya Kapil (3000 BCE) - Father of Cosmology

Celebrated as the founder of Sankhya philosophy, Acharya Kapil is believed to have been born in 3000 BCE to the illustrious sage Kardam and Devhuti. He gifted the world with the Sankhya School of Thought. His pioneering work threw light on the nature and principles of the ultimate Soul (Purusha), primal matter (Prakruti) and creation. His concept of transformation of energy and profound commentaries on atma, non-atma and the subtle elements of the cosmos places him in an elite class of master achievers - incomparable to the discoveries of other cosmologists. On his assertion that Prakruti, with the inspiration of Purusha, is the mother of cosmic creation and all energies, he contributed a new chapter in the science of cosmology.
2. Acharya Bharadwaj (800 BCE) - Pioneer of Aviation Technology
Acharya Bharadwaj had a hermitage in the holy city of Prayag and was an ordent apostle of Ayurveda and mechanical sciences. He authored the " Yantra Sarvasva " which includes astonishing and outstanding discoveries in aviation science, space science and flying machines. He has described three categories of flying machines: 1.) One that flies on earth from one place to another. 2.) One that travels from one planet to another. 3.) And One that travels from one universe to another. His designs and descriptions have impressed and amazed aviation engineers of today. His brilliance in aviation technology is further reflected through techniques described by him:
i) Profound Secret: The technique to make a flying machine invisible through the application of sunlight and wind force.
ii) Living Secret: The technique to make an invisible space machine visible through the application of electrical force.
iii) Secret of Eavesdropping: The technique to listen to a conversation in another plane.
iv) Visual Secrets: The technique to see what's happening inside another plane.

3. Acharya Kanad (600 BCE) - Founder of Atomic Theory
As the founder of " Vaisheshik Darshan "- one of six principal philosophies/ philosophies of India - Acharya Kanad was a genius is believed to have been born in Prabhas Kshetra near Dwarika in Gujarat. He was the pioneer expounder of realism, law of causation and the atomic theory. He has classified all the objects of creation into nine elements, namely: earth, water, light, wind, ether, time, space, mind and soul. He says, "Every object of creation is made of atoms which in turn connect with each other to form molecules." His statement ushered in the Atomic Theory for the first time ever in the world, nearly 2500 years before John Dalton . Kanad has also described the dimension and motion of atoms and their chemical reactions with each other. The eminent historian, T.N. Colebrook , has said, "Compared to the scientists of Europe , Kanad and other Indian scientists were the global masters of this field."
4. Acharya Charak (600 BCE) - Father of Medicine

Acharya Charak has been crowned as the Father of Medicine. His renowned work, the " Charak Samhita ", is considered as an encyclopedia of Ayurveda. His principles, diagoneses, and cures retain their potency and truth even after a couple of millennia. When the science of anatomy was confused with different theories in Europe , Acharya Charak revealed through his innate genius and enquiries the facts on human anatomy, embryology, pharmacology, blood circulation and diseases like diabetes, tuberculosis, heart disease, etc. In the " Charak Samhita " he has described the medicinal qualities and functions of 100,000 herbal plants. He has emphasized the influence of diet and activity on mind and body. He has proved the correlation of spirituality and physical health contributed greatly to diagnostic and curative sciences. He has also prescribed and ethical charter for medical practitioners two centuries prior to the Hippocratic oath. Through his genius and intuition, Acharya Charak made landmark contributions to Ayurvedal. He forever remains etched in the annals of history as one of the greatest and noblest of rishi-scientists.

5. Acharya Sushrut (600 BCE) - Father of Plastic Surgery

Born to sage Vishwamitra, Acharya Sudhrut pioneerd in amputation, caesarian and cranial surgeries and detailed the first ever surgery procedures in " Sushrut Samhita ," a unique encyclopedia of surgery. He is venerated as the father of plastic surgery and the science of anesthesia. When surgery was in its infancy in Europe , Sushrut was performing Rhinoplasty (restoration of a damaged nose) and other challenging operations. In the " Sushrut Samhita ," he prescribes treatment for twelve types of fractures and six types of dislocations. His details on human embryology are simply amazing. Sushrut used 125 types of surgical instruments including scalpels, lancets, needles, Cathers and rectal speculums; mostly designed from the jaws of animals and birds. He has also described a number of stitching methods; the use of horse's hair as thread and fibers of bark.

B. After the Birth of Christ

6. Varahmihir (499-587 CE) - Eminent Astrologer and Astronomer

Varahmuhir renowned astrologer and astronomer who was honored with a special decoration and status as one of the nine gems in the court of King Vikramaditya in Avanti ( Ujjain ). Varahamihir' s book "panchsiddhant" holds a prominent place in the realm of astronomy. He notes that the moon and planets are lustrous not because of their own light but due to sunlight. In the " Bruhad Samhita " and " Bruhad Jatak ," he has revealed his discoveries in the domains of geography, constellation, science, botany and animal science. In his treatise on botanical science, Varamihir presents cures for various diseases afflicting plants and trees.

7. Acharya Patanjali (200 BCE) - Father of Yog

The Science of Yog is one of several unique contributions of India to the world. It seeks to discover and realize the ultimate Reality through yogic practices. Acharya Patanjali , the founder, hailed from the district of Gonda (Ganara) in Uttar Pradesh . He prescribed the control of prana (life breath) as the means to control the body, mind and soul. This subsequently rewards one with good health and inner happiness. Acharya Patanjali 's 84 yogic postures effectively enhance the efficiency of the respiratory, circulatory, nervous, digestive and endocrine systems and many other organs of the body. Yog has eight limbs where Acharya Patanjali shows the attainment of the ultimate bliss of God in samadhi through the disciplines of: yam, niyam, asan, pranayam, pratyahar, dhyan and dharana. The Science of Yog has gained popularity because of its scientific approach and benefits. Yog also holds the honored place as one of six philosophies in the Indian philosophical system. Acharya Patanjali will forever be remembered and revered as a pioneer in the science of self-discipline, happiness and self-realization

8. Nagarjuna (100 CE) - Wizard of Chemical Science
He was an extraordinary wizard of science born in the nondescript village of Baluka in Madhya Pradesh . His dedicated research for twelve years produced maiden discoveries and inventions in the faculties of chemistry and metallurgy. Textual masterpieces like " Ras Ratnakar ," "Rashrudaya" and "Rasendramangal" are his renowned contributions to the science of chemistry. Where the medieval alchemists of England failed, Nagarjuna had discovered the alchemy of transmuting base metals into gold. As the author of medical books like "Arogyamanjari" and "Yogasar," he also made significant contributions to the field of curative medicine. Because of his profound scholarliness and versatile knowledge, he was appointed as Chancellor of the famous University of Nalanda . Nagarjuna's milestone discoveries impress and astonish the scientists of today.

9. Aryabhatt (476 CE) - Master Astronomer and Mathematics
Born in 476 CE in Kusumpur ( Bihar ), Aryabhatt's intellectual brilliance remapped the boundaries of mathematics and astronomy. In 499 CE, at the age of 23, he wrote a text on astronomy and an unparallel treatise on mathematics called "Aryabhatiyam. " He formulated the process of calculating the motion of planets and the time of eclipses. Aryabhatt was the first to proclaim that the earth is round, it rotates on its axis, orbits the sun and is suspended in space - 1000 years before Copernicus published his heliocentric theory. He is also acknowledged for calculating p (Pi) to four decimal places: 3.1416 and the sine table in trigonometry. Centuries later, in 825 CE, the Arab mathematician, Mohammed Ibna Musa credited the value of Pi to the Indians, "This value has been given by the Hindus." And above all, his most spectacular contribution was the concept of zero without which modern computer technology would have been non-existent. Aryabhatt was a colossus in the field of mathematics.

10. Bhaskaracharya || (1114-1183 CE) - Genius in Algebra
Born in the obscure village of Vijjadit (Jalgaon) in Maharastra, Bhaskaracharya' s work in Algebra, Arithmetic and Geometry catapulted him to fame and immortality. His renowned mathematical works called "Lilavati" and "Bijaganita" are considered to be unparalled and a memorial to his profound intelligence. Its translation in several languages of the world bear testimony to its eminence. In his treatise " Siddhant Shiromani " he writes on planetary positions, eclipses, cosmography, mathematical techniques and astronomical equipment. In the " Surya Siddhant " he makes a note on the force of gravity: "Objects fall on earth due to a force of attraction by the earth. Therefore, the earth, planets, constellations, moon, and sun are held in orbit due to this attraction." Bhaskaracharya was the first to discover gravity, 500 years before Sir Isaac Newton . He was the champion among mathematicians of ancient and medieval India . His works fired the imagination of Persian and European scholars.

Destiny of Choice 007

2009-01-24T10:32:00.000-08:00

Economics of Destiny

G: We are destined to discuss the independence of economic choices made by people!

S: It seems so. Please prove that economic choices of human beings are independent choices. Giving examples may help me better appreciate your point of view, if I am so destined.

G: Fine. Let us take the case of a car driver working for a small businessman in Kolkata. He is 32 and comes from an agricultural family in Bihar. His wife and two children live along with his mother and younger brother in the village in Bihar where they have adequate farm land to grow rice, wheat, vegetables and fruits that cover their needs and also to sell in the market to raise cash for buying other necessities including clothes, utensils, soaps, medicines, cooking oil, spices, cooking medium, etc as also pay for children’s education and doctors. Some of the money from sale of farm produce helps meet working capital needs for farming. He himself earns about Rs. 45,000 a year, lives in a small shelter shared by a few friends on payment of rent and run a joint dinner kitchen for them. He visits his village three/ four times a year and contributes about half his income to the family back in the village.

S: OK. What economic decision does he take?

G: None. The chained may have nothing to loose. But all are chained to choices that one has to make. The Driver had made choices that he had to make forced by the circumstances and his genetic codes. Nothing was decided by him. He was born in the family he did not choose. His tendencies were shaped by his genetics and the environment in which he grew: both the genetics and the environment were not of his choice. His and his family's economic rationality is the result of genetics and environment that neither he or anyone else had chosen. He could have earned more had his family reallocated the wealth by selling the farm land and going into cash/ bank deposit investments. But this choice was not within the feasible zone for him and his family, given their attachment to land and the uncertainties of the future, their education background and so on. He is one of the Yadavs who could not become a politician and minister in India. Certain other Yadav had only one choice: to become a politician and a minister.

S: But all this happens due to an unjust social structure.
G: Yes, but none of the Yadavs chose the social structure. Since ages social reformers thought of designing and implementing a just social order. No such just social order has yet come to materialize. Society seems incapable of choosing a just social order, wars, fights, agitations, political campaigns and ideologies, and revolutions notwithstanding.
S: Then what is the utility of studying history, philosophy and economics? It is to make proper individual and social choices.
G: But all such choices are the result of so-called choices made earlier. All coices are chronologically bound by consistency. That we do not have a just social order is the result of the past choices by the society and the new ideas and pressures that happen to be generated. Today's driver Yadav or Minister Yadav are not what they are because of their choosing: they could not have chosen otherwise than becoming driver and minister respectively. Study of history, philosophy and economics explains how and why Yadav Driver and Yadav Minister are what they are today. Such studies are themselves knowledges that has been acquired by chance and not through independent free choice. Today's driver Yadav's grandson may become a politician and nminister decades later. It all depends on the stochastic destiny process. Today's driver Yadav has as much economic rationality as was possible for him at each moment of his time. His choice is bound by his initial conditions and the time path so far. He has no choice to be different. The socirty today has no choice to be different than what it is today.
S: But he can make choices that will make the future different.
G: Even there, his choices are determined by his past and the circumstances to which he has to react to. So, there is virtually no real choice or option for him make independently.

Destiny of Choice 006

2009-01-24T10:26:00.000-08:00

God-dependent Choice

G: It seems that you believe that God makes all choices. Human beings chooses what they are destined to choose as individuals or as groups or societies.

S: Yes, but even God’s choices are part of a process that I call the Destiny Principle.

G: A Nobel Laureate says that societies and people should have the opportunity and ability to consider alternative choices available. You seem to say that he is incorrect!

S: No, I do not say that. What he says is what he is destined to say. He is correct in what he says. That is how human civilization progresses. The impact of what he says on others now and in future will be as per the Stochastic Destiny Process. The exercise of choice is the process through which Mankind advances. But the choices taken actually taken are not independent decision of any man or a group. The discovery of choices, the willingness to make choices and the actual choice making are all outcomes of forces beyond the independent control of an individual or a group. We choose that we are destined to choose given the past, the forces of prevailing circumstances and the properties/ inclinations in built in each of us.

G: Isn’t that contradictory?

S: No. It is part of the destiny process that most people continue to think about making choices, generate alternative choices and feel that they make choices. Destined choices by any person do not come from out of the blue: they come out of the destined process. People may think about alternatives but choose the one that is best according to some criteria. Some one decides to do something to maximize his self-interest. Some others decide to do something in the interest of someone else or the society. These criteria have also evolved over time. If some people do not think about making choices, and someone advises them to empower themselves by making choices as result of which those people become choice-making people, this is what is in the destiny. I believe in Destiny Principle and simultaneously make choices and advise other to make rational choices. I do not find any conflict. I do whatever I do in making choices and advising others on making choices only because I am destined and compelled to do so by the forces that have been operating on my body and mind since my birth.

G: I thought that those who would believe in your Destiny Principle are irrational, unscientific minds attached to old scriptures that are no more relevant to modern civilizations.

S: You are destined to think like that. You are as correct as I am about Destiny Principle.

G: But over the centuries, Human Society has expanded its stock of knowledge that gives the power to control destiny. So, nowadays we should be saying that we make our destinies.

S: Man has acquired great knowledge no doubt. That was destined to happen. Man did not acquire knowledge by choice but by the forces of destiny. Even that knowledge acquired so far is far, far inadequate for Man to be able to alter his destiny even a little. Assume that a man-made computer clock knows how it keeps time. Would that make it change the time? No. Even if one had the entire knowledge, one cannot control one’s destiny.

G: Isn’t Man’s life different now than what was centuries back because of the expansion of Man’s knowledge? Can we not say that Man has changed his destiny?

S: No. You cannot logically claim that. In the history of natural evolutionary process, man is of recent origin. This process has imparted many properties in human beings. One such property is to discover what goes on in the environment, acquire knowledge and apply knowledge to change the way Man lives. This is the working out of the Destiny Principle. Man was destined by the process to discover numerous properties of the physical world and destined to use this growing knowledge to light fire, grow food, hunt animals, kill fish, cook food, construct better shelter, weave clothes, build machines, defend against natural calamities, fly airplanes, communicate long-distance through radio frequency, invent computer and internet, formulate drugs to cure diseases and help extend life expectancy, send manned and unmanned spacecraft to probe the planets and the stars in the skies. All this was destined. Man had no control over the process.

G: Such an explanation would rob Man of his great achievements.

S: Do we have to give credit to children as they grow up slowly in to full grown adult bodies and acquire mental capabilities to deal with complex concepts and various languages. This happens naturally because it is a natural process. Most babies are destined to grow up into adult bodies: babies do not choose to become adults.

G: You seem to make Man as an integral part of Nature as all other things in the Universe.

S: Is there any specific reason that one must consider human beings as autonomous entities outside the Natural System?

G: The Universe has been expanding. It shows that completely new things can emerge independent of the Natural System.

S: No. It does not show that. The discovery that Universe is expanding means that the distances among galaxies are increasing. But this expansion is taking place in what? When you walk east and I walk west the physical distance between us increases. But the distance exists on the surface of the land. When fire expands in size, the expansion takes place over a three-dimensional space that always exists. Similarly, the previously known Universe can expand only within the hitherto unknown Universe. The distances among galaxies can increase if the galaxies drift apart in space that already existed even if unknown to us so far. It is a completely endogenous system in which nothing can emerge independent or nothing exogenous can arrive from outside.

G: So you do not believe that the Universe is expanding?

S: The Universe is Infinite. The things within the universe can expand or contract within the universe. If the Universe has to expand it has to expand within the Universe. Ask yourself where is it that the Universe is expanding? If you admit of anything separate where the expansion takes place, then it must be already in existence whether previously known to exist or not. The entire universe is filled with something or the other, whether we can observe them or not, whether they have mass or not. The size of the Universe is Infinity. Where are the limits of the Universe? There are none. If something within the universe expands it must be within the previously known parts of the Universe or newly dioscovered, hitherto unknown parts of the Universe.

G: OK. For a moment let us assume that you are correct that your Stochastic Destiny Principle operates as a process over the domain of this infinite Universe System that is completely endogenous and does not admit of any external, outside shock. Now, please explain how would you design such a process and system that is ever lasting.

S: I am sure you do not require me to write a treatise on this subject and detail the design of an infinite system and its inherent process or processes. You probably want to visualize the feasibility of such design. I suggest that you do some small experiments. For instance, you may take a big graph paper. Take a red pencil, a blue pencil and an eraser that can remove marks on graph paper without affecting the strength of the paper. Toss a coin. When a head comes, put a red dot on any one of the small blank squares on the graph paper. When a tail occurs, put a blue dot on any one of the small blank square within the distance of three small squares from any previously coloured small squares or if that is not possible choose any other blank square to put the blue dot mark. After you have done this for four dots, in every fifth draw erase any two squares already coloured. Go on doing this to see how long you last. Now, record the destiny of different squares and colours in terms of their longevity in terms of number of tosses a square remains coloured and number of blue dotted and red dotted small squares.

G: Such games may be never ending. But how does this help me.

S: It will help you design endogenous systems that last forever without external shocks and without giving any part of the system any real discretion to choose.

G: When did God design the system and how? Or, does he continually design and redesign the system.

S: I really do not know. But I do not believe that God, like a design engineer, works on his system. The entire universe or the creation is filled with something or other, whether we can see, feel or discover them or not. Each infinitesimal point in the Universe is filled with some mass-less thing that let us call OM rather than atom or sub-atomic particles like neutrinos. Conceptually, no vacuum exists. All that we see and feel or cannot see or feel are floating in the media called OM. The natural process takes place in this OM. The OM is constant, indivisible, limitless infinity. God Himself is the System that evolves and adapts in this OM. The natural system design is a process that evolves and adapts. That is why the ancient sages believed that God splits Himself in to many forms and then integrates back into one form or become formless. The division and multiplication process continues continuously in sub-atomic particles, in atoms, in living beings, in oceans, mountains, in air, in the Sun ad stars, in the cosmos within the known universe and within that part of the universe that is yet unknown, undiscovered by Man. As with anything else, the emergence and evolution of Mankind and human civilization is nothing but the result of that never-ending natural process. What Man comes to know about the Universe at what point of time is also part of the same stochastic Destiny Process. No one can be independent of that process.

G: Even God is not independent of that process?

S: Right.

G: So, even God does not exercise independent choice.

S: Correct. See, most people will agree that there should not be any War or military conflict in the World. Wars have always had a devastating effect on the minds of people only after Man came to know how to protect them form storms, fire, earthquakes, floods, rains, volcanoes, epidemics and etc. These physical/ natural calamities had a beneficial effect on Man. The benefits were immense in terms of progress of science and technology as well as religion and philosophy. The Wars have tremendous benefits that people do not want to count. These benefits again take the form of progress in science and technology, greater understanding of the sources of conflict leading to war, development of better methods of negotiations for peace, enabling people to learn their mistakes and foolishness, the embarrassment to the false pride of people/ nations or their leaders of both the fighting parties.

G: It is amusing to think of benefits of War! Are Wars fought because the benefits are substantially higher than the costs?

S: Alexander the Great forced wars on other countries if they had not agreed to become part of his Empire without a fight. People have learnt lessons from such wars including the World War I and II. Today, people do not fight wars to expand their territories. But they fight because both parties are unable to give up the attachment to their past and accept the reality as in Palestine. Or, they take uncompromising stance to belittle each other as in the case of the US and Saddam (and now some of the divided Iraqi groups). Maybe, people would take lessons in future and learn not to act so foolishly as Saddam, France, Germany and Russia did. Maybe, future US administration and military would learn to develop effective strategies to deter the rise of oppressive tyrants like Saddam who threaten World peace without going to war or win wars against such tyrants without causing human casualty or avoiding human sufferings.

G: You imply that Wars cannot ever be banished from Earth?

S: So far wars seem to have been inevitable. Even Lord Rama had to fight and inflict a great cost to his followers and Ravana's Kingdom. Lord Krishna could not stop the Kurukshetra War and its devastating consequences. But successive generations have learnt highly beneficial lessons from these Wars.

G: If the costs are so huge, why should your God System make Wars inevitable?

S: We estimate only the costs of War. We must also learn to estimate the benefits of War. So long as there exists a fair chance (in probabilistic sense) that the benefits of a war may far exceed the costs of War, Man is likely to remain potentially violent to slip into Wars from time to time.

I personally think the cost of Iraq war is much lower as compared to some other wars US engaged herself in the past. The War benefits to society may have been much bigger. Man has made considerable progress and continue to do so in reducing the costs of war and enhance the benefits from war.

G: The war in Iraq still continues in 2006 with US Military actively present. The US has failed to win the war.

S: The Iraq war, according to me, is over. US military can withdraw from Iraq, if the war was to unseat and banish Saddam and destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The remaining people fighting in Iraq will continue to fight civil wars because they are still intoxicated by the warring spirit and selfishness.

G: Even not counting the damages after the fall of Saddam regime, the cost of the War is substantial. The money could have been better spent for human welfare.

S: But war benefits are also to be counted. Just by allowing the War in Iraq to happen the way it has many Arab World countries have become further wealthier through rise in crude oil prices and poorer countries like China and India continued to get more of their citizens employed and become richer by providing the American cheap supply of cheap food, clothing, furniture, software services etc and all these on loan. It is not so easy to calculate costs and benefits of War to Humanity as easily as some think because they believe that there are no benefits from Wars.

G: Are you a warmonger?

S: No, I am not. Lest others misunderstand, I must state that I do not want wars to happen even if the benefits far exceed costs of wars. I am among those who are frightened by wars. But ex-post evaluation of the desirability of a war by estimating only the costs and ignoring benefits, to my mind, is dishonesty or trick or simple ignorance.

G: Can you prove that the cost of Iraq War is much less than the benefit of the war?

S: I probably can, but only after a few years when the benefits become clearly evident. However, when man or a nation makes a choice to go in for war, it can only make a forecast of likely costs and benefits. The forecasts may not always come true as all forecasts of the future are probabilistic and can never be made with certainty. All wars may not necessarily result in positive net benefits, even if ex ante forecasts anticipated net benefits.

G: So, you hedge your position by introducing probabilities. That’s clever but not convincing.

S: I welcome your comment. It is exactly the same comment that applies to any other ex-ante or ex-post attempt to evaluate the desirability of war based on estimates of cost. They are all clever attempts that fail to convince.

G: But the US had launched war in Iraq to get a strong hold over Iraq’s large oil reserves.

S: I do not have any idea about what goes on in the minds of the US administration or the Americans. Maybe, you know better. But I would not consider that such an objective for Iraq war is really in the feasible zone in the modern day world. Rather such an objective may be feasible through less costlier non-war methods. A perpetual UN sanction regime with UN-operated sale of Iraqi oil auction to multinational oil companies could have been designed to suit US interest in Iraqi Oil. In any case, the war was destined to happen as per the Destiny Principle. The choice of the War by the US and Saddam was destined.

G: So you may agree that both political and economic interests may lead to wars.

S: Anyone will agree to such a Statement. But these causes have in turn some fundamental causes that are related to the tendencies human beings have been imparted by the Destiny Principle. Wars are the result of the same Grand Process that yields natural phenomenon like sunami, hurricanes, earthquakes, burning of the Sun, the planetary motion, the emergence of life on earth, the reproduction of life forms, the growth of children and the death of human beings.

G: While I do not agree with you that wars are nothing but another form of natural calamities, can I shift to another area where Man has proved his independence? Man has designed new systems and policies to improve his economic conditions. These economic decisions are not forced by any destiny principle: they are of Man’s own.

S: Should we shift this new area of your choice to the next session of our dialogue?

G: That is what it seems destined.

Destiny of Choice 005

2009-01-24T10:23:00.000-08:00

Democratic Equality and Freedom

G: You seem to be of the view that the Natural process or your Stochastic Destiny Principle entirely explains all social phenomena? What about political systems like democracy?

S: Yes.

G: How can that be so? We know that Democracy is a Political System created by Man to treat all human beings equally in the political process.

S: You have an illusion. Try to answer a few questions and you will realize that Concept of Democracy was not created by Man but evolved out of a process. Societies or the Mankind did not make a deliberate choice in favour of democracy but had no choice but to become democratic in varying degrees depending on circumstances.

G: What are the questions that one should ask?

S: The first question is: Is democracy as a political system everywhere it is claimed to be adopted the same?

G: Certainly not. There are wide differences. They talk about liberal democracies, people’s democracy. In some democratic countries, elected governments and military generals become rulers in musical chairs. In some democracies, women had no right to vote. In others, dead citizens appear in electoral rolls and cast votes, many living citizens do not find their names in electoral rolls, some other citizens find their votes have already been miraculously cast by the time they get to the polling stations and still others are either not allowed to enter polling stations or are not willing to go to cast their votes because of fear of being physically assaulted on the way or they do not find any value in voting process.

S: Yes. There are democracies that boast of two major parties contesting elections and others with large number of parties. There are strong single-party governments and there are governments of five to ten parties in coalition. If there are so many variations, can we call democracy has been a deliberate choice made by different societies? There are countries where elections are held under the supervision of large complement of military and police forces brought from different localities or even different countries.

G: Why should foreign countries get involved in installation of democracy in a country like say Iraq? Each country should decide to choose whether it should adopt democracy or not.

S: You have to answer this. For, oppressive dictators in so-called republics or democracies would always argue that no elections are necessary as the people in their countries have accepted the military dictatorships as the best for them. At best they will conduct their own version of elections to force all people to vote only for the military junta or get killed. There is always a chicken and egg problem: which comes first- democratic choice or choice of democracy. Even within a declared democratic country, the way elections are conducted in a locality cannot ever be disputed. The ruling party will always win the elections through unfair election processes and claim that the election results show that the people have exercised their choice in favour of the way the elections have been conducted. The ruling party will say that no Independent Election Commission is necessary in democracy and such Independent Election Commisions’ interference in laying down new rules of electioneering, election campaign, drawing up voters’ lists and other related processes is unwarranted. If a country is really destined to have real democracy, it would also be destined to have political parties that are willing to accept fully transparent and open election process even to the extent of independent third country supervision and electronic/ live camera monitoring of the entire process. The election processes differ considerably among democratic countries in terms of their credibility and as indicator of the quality of democracy.

G: Despite the differences, they are broadly of the same category. And, some of the differences are not because of a fundamental difference in the concept but because of the characteristics of politicians. For example, in our country politicians seem like inevitable devils of democracy. India was ruled by outsiders for several centuries, and is now ruled by 'insiders'. As a 'nation' we seem to have a history of liking to be 'ruled'. I guess it will take quite a few decades to clean democratic processes. Politics has always been interesting, despite the dirty things, the killings and so on associated with politics.
S: So ask the second question. Is it democracy in which most citizens are really interested? The basic property of most human beings throughout the history of civilization is that they in general like to be ruled. There must be one individual or group who should rule with the help of their cronies. Kings, aristocracies, communists have all been dictatorship rules. Democracy in most countries for most of the time benefited the so-called elected rulers rather than the ruled. The difference between democracy and other political systems is only that in the other systems, a bad ruler may be thrown out by another ruler, good or bad, depending on the luck of the ruled. But, in most democracies, a bad ruler is almost always replaced by the ruled through their ballot boxes, by only another bad rulers. Good rulers have theoretically negligible chance/ probability of emergence in democracy. There is another theorem: Those who sell democracy to the people are almost always aspiring to become kings or their cronies. If I were a teacher in politics, I would have taught my students to prove the above theorems mathematically and helped them to laugh at how the most oppressive political system ever known is sold in the new label of Democracy in India and elsewhere.

G: I agree with you that there are problems with democracy. But what could be an alternative to democracy?

S: I do not think I know if there exists any better alternative
to Democracy. I believe that Democracy is the only alternative to
Democracy. I will try to clarify the confusion arising now. For that we ask the third question. What are searching for in democracy or what is our objective?
If the objective is to maximise (a) the extent of freedom and liberty to
individuals, (b) the level and quality of education among the people in
general, (c) the progress of science and technology in the nation, (d) the
quality of life of all and (e) economic prosperity for all, Democracy alone
can not help us achieve this. Nor can Capitalism alone achieve this on its own.
Many countries have declared them as Democratic Socialist Republics or
People's Republic. Last century’s history may help prove the theorem that countries with such names are most likely to be oppressive and guaranteed to fail in achieving the standards of economic progress and individual liberty achieved
by the advanced countries which do not have any prefix or suffix like
republic, democratic, socialist and the like. Again, in ancient India there might have been many small Hindu Kingdoms that were really ruled in the most democratic manner and they were reasonably prosperous, safe for citizens life and liberal in tolerating diversity of ideas, besides being enjoying peace and non-violence at least within the country. But they did not announce to the World that they were democracies. Their democracies succeeded so long as they valued individual liberty and freedom more than the King. So, the answer to the third question is that democracy is not the solution to all our problems. It can deliver only to the extent the overall environment in which it functions.

G: You seem to be arguing for examining democracy not as a pure political concept but in the overall social, economic, cultural, philosophical context.

S: Yes, we are not merely trying to debate for the sake of it. Therefore, we need to see how the choice of a political framework in practice arises. To me, it is not a deliberate choice. It is a destined choice: an evolving outcome of a natural process that I call the Stochastic Destiny Principle. The people who conceptualized the idea of democracy did not do so in a vacuum but were influenced by the forces in operation in the society in relevant times and therefore were in the strictest sense forced by the Destiny Process to think in the ways the actually thought. Secondly, Democracy by itself cannot help us achieve most of the desired objectives. If the cultures in which you place democracy, people do not really understand, believe in and place the highest value on individual liberty and freedom, democracy cannot help achieve the societal objectives nor can it become democracy.

G: How would a most democratic State behave if the overall culture were not so congenial to practice real democracy?

S: I cannot make definitive prescription as I am tied to my Stochastic Destiny Principle. All that I can say is that a state that places the highest value on the freedom and liberty of each individual will try to build the most
efficient, extensive infrastructure for justice, peace, education, health,
science and technology rather than wasting time in building steel mills,
watch factories, bread factories and manage cloth factories, fertiliser
factories and so on. A State that calls itself democracy but whose priority
is on economic development is not going to practice democracy and will fail
to deliver economic prosperity to its people.

G: Since you seem to be placing the value of democracy only in the overall environmental context, we need to ask about the concept of capitalism, socialism, international economic order and militarism in our discussions. I am particularly worried about corruption, fast depletion of non-renewable resources of the earth, brute capitalistic exploitation and international military conflicts.

S: You are worried about corruption. Democracy on a stand-alone basis does not cure corruption. You may find corruption to be low among
countries that have democracies, largely free market capitalism, high standards of living, high literacy, high level of efforts in science and technology, low levels of
religious intolerance. And, the countries that are in the top in terms of
corruption are those ruled by dictators/ groups of ruffians with citizens
afflicted by low levels of literacy and education, low level of science and technology, high levels of religious intolerance.

G: I need to empirically verify this.
S: You also need to verify certain other facts. If you are worried about the depletion of the earth's resources, you must verify whether the most inefficient extraction and utilisation of nature's resources takes place in countries like India, Pakistan, China and whether the most efficient are the advanced Western capitalist democracies. If you talk about wars, you must verify whether most wars are among economically advanced western capitalist democracies including Japan.
G: I guess I am getting what you are trying to say.

S: What I am saying is that looking at democracy or capitalism for all
solution is not the correct way of thinking about the society. This way of
looking at solving society's problem has arisen from the indigestion of
western education by low quality brains of Indian social elite leaders and their
followers mostly those who could not have competed in any other sphere of life except politics and without the help of political clout. The latter included many who were first class cheaters as well: they sought to increase their popularity by singing the songs of Gandhiji or Tagore or Karl Marx, but had no intent to understand or follow their preaching. When such people lead the Nation, people in general become like them: cheaters, power-seekers and power-abusers. The objective of democracy in such environment is to allow access to State power for personal and group enrichment. The same is the story in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, China, Indonesia, Bangladesh, etc.

G: So, you are not recommending that we strengthen democracy in all countries, irrespective of capitalism or socialism or communism being there or not.

S: I am destined to hesitate in recommending because I do not believe that my recommendations, if accepted and acted upon, will, definitely or most likely, yield the desired results. I can only say what I have observed. I have observed that the democracy, capitalism and socialism are not stand-alone instruments that have succeeded or failed to deliver. Countries have practiced these ideas in varying ways in different environmental contexts. Some combinations of features in certain environment succeeded in bringing about results that we may consider most desirable, while certain other combinations did not. You may like to consider imagining introducing democracy in the society of elephants, tigers, lions, and other animals. Will such societies practice democracy they way human beings would have wished? Democracy is practiced by educated, civilized people
who really value individual liberty in a ways that are different than the largely uneducated societies ruled by all pervasive State (Governments) power in the hands of elective representatives.

G: On similar grounds, you may say that capitalism is destined to. Capitalism yields 'good life' to great many people who do not have time and energy to care about others in the World. Capitalism seems to thriving on 'creating want' and 'rampant consumption'.

S: What I can say is that capitalism has been seen to succeed in delivering prosperity to great many people for long periods, though not all the time only in civilized societies that values individual liberty and freedom more than the power of the State/ Government. For the past two centuries, capitalistic societies have made the most dramatic advancement in economic prosperity, education, science and technology, sports, culture and entertainment, human rights and human values. It seems to me that rich of the capitalist societies has shown greater concern and care for the poor in non-capitalistic societies. The large population of the poorer nations of the World have only benefited from the progress of science and technology in the capitalist countries. For example, India has only little to boast of her contribution to the progress of science and technology, but much of her economic progress is due to the technology borrowed or bought from the capitalist West.

G: I do not agree with you. I am rather concerned that capitalism’s arrival in India and China can have disastrous consequences for planet earth. Again, capitalism may be lesser evil than the only alternative of socialism that talks great about 'needs' of all and particularly the weaker sections op the society but successfully degraded into a different form of power-abuse and corruption?
S: I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you on the consequences of capitalism coming into India or China. The experience of capitalism or democracy may not be the same in the animal world or human societies where most children are taught to either fear or grab the State power and discouraged to value individual freedom and liberty. Rather, the individuals and groups are encouraged to seek economic prosperity by clandestinely influencing, grabbing and abusing State power in one’s/ group’s favour.

G: You seem to be against any big role of the State beyond law and order and external security.

S: I am neither against nor for any of the political or economic models. I do not find much merit in justifying anything. Whether a country claims to practice democracy or socialism is immaterial. What is actually practiced delivers the results. If the results are consistently good for long periods for most people, the practices must have contributed to that. The practices prevailing in a country evolve over time and the results that such practices produce are part of what were destined to happen, they are not independent choices. Those who claim to practice democracy are not necessarily those who actually practice democracy. Those who actually practice democracy are destined to so. And, the same is true of those who claim so but actually does not believe in individual liberty and freedom except for restricted purpose to elections.

G: You will say the same thing about socialism. In a sense you seem to against socialism.

S: I repeat that I am neither for nor against anything because of my belief in Destiny Principle. I only state what I observe. Socialism and Communism have been found to perform the way capitalism has done in some countries in the West.

Even Socialism and Communism as practiced in the World so far are to my mind nothing but variants of capitalism, variants in which capitalists, though not owners of resources, enjoy all the power to use them and these capitalists are those who do not get selected through market competition but get elected to use State power or their selected servants. These countries are destined to go through the experience of such socialism and communism, as are distorted versions of capitalism.

G: But how do different countries go through the experience of different variants of democracy, socialism and capitalism?

S: The whole time path of events and happenings are different in different countries. I do not know why they are different. What I believe is that this is in the nature of things in the evolutionary process. It is like the difference of skin colour of people in different regions, the variation in food habits in different regions, the differences in languages, in natural endowments or in history of conflicts and wars. Nothing that happens today in a society is independent of what happened in the past.

G: But things change over time. How?

S: The seeds of change are also in the past. High population growth during the past decades has altered the demography in India. Now close to 50% of the Indian population is below the age of 25 years. The younger generations seem to be viewing things in a different way and trying to assert their freedom and liberty in the urban and metro areas. The recent years have been witnessing rapid spread of international television channels, the coverage of international news in domestic channels, the variety of debates on domestic and local social, political and economic issues, the spread of internet usage and the like. All this has considerable impact on the attitudes and preferences of younger generations. The adolescent and the youth now show both a growing pride in the recent economic successes of the nation as well as a stronger preference for adopting a broader international perspective for acquiring knowledge and skill. The narrow perspective, reluctance to face challenges of the unknown and the strange, and the obsolescence of the skills of elder generations are fast waning in their impact on new generations. How far and when the attitudes and preferences of the new generations will begin dominating, I cannot forecast. One may only speculate about two possible destinies. One possibility is that the highly populated societies like India (and China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran and Saudi Arabia) will become the cause of the gravest disaster that you may call man-made because you do not believe in destiny. The other possibility is that some of these societies will be transformed by the attitudes and preferences of the current generation of children who place greater value on individual liberty more than the State and more open to globalization and technological progress.

G: But what do you conclude from our discussion on democracy, capitalism and socialism?

S: My conclusion is that the features of the society and the economy at any point of time and the changes we observe in them over time in any country is the result of the various naturally interacting forces in that country and the countries to which the particular country is connected to in varying degrees. All such forces are part of the Stochastic Destiny Principle. Thus, this Principle explains both the type of democracy or capitalism or socialism prevailing at any point of time and evolving over time in each country as well as the success of any country in achieving goals that you or me or others consider desirable. The destined time path of no country is in the control of deliberate choice of the societies concerned, least of all to political leaders. The actions of individuals, groups and political leaders are not deliberate social choices but the result of interactive forces linked to the Stochastic Destiny Principle.

G: So, you do not believe that societies make choices.

S: I do not believe that Individuals or societies can make real independent choices. What an individual does is to get into the choice that he is conditioned and forced to make given his/ her natural (genetic) propensities and the circumstances. Social choices are not made: they emerge as the result of interactions of destined individual choices. The political mechanism to translate or aggregate individual choices into social choices is also similarly destined outcomes. The Indians of today or of 1947 did not make a choice in favour of democracy: the variant of democracy that we currently operate in just evolved under the impact of various forces operating in the past. Sooner rather than later, India may transcend this distorted, negative variant of democracy to more open, transparent and positive variant of democracy.

G: You are saying many things. You not only believe in destiny and lack of independent choice for individuals and societies. You are also saying that what we term as democracy need not be democracy at all.

S: Yes, even if a society feels that it is making a choice to adopt democracy, it does not necessarily adopt democracy. It may not even know what democracy it wishes to adopt and how it evolves over time. Often democracy means Government “ of the people, by the people and for the people”. This rhetoric makes people believe that they are in democracy when actually they are not.

G: Please illustrate.

S: Most often democratic countries are actually run by governments that are “ off the people, beyond the people and fraud on the people”. You are led to believe that democracy means the right to cast vote in elections. If 50% of the electorate is illiterate or uneducated what you have is 50% illiterate and uneducated democracy. There is difference between 80% educated and 50% educated democracies. If there are 50% uneducated voters, why should they vote for educated people? Why should uneducated politicians make people educated? In democracies with political active population who are uneducated, efforts will be made to education a farce. They will question the rule of law. They will question the fairness of educated judiciary. They will question the authority and independence of educated election commissioners. They will question the quality and independence of the educated educationists/ teachers of the places of learning from primary school to universities. They will question the necessity of high standards of education. Thus you will slowly see the decline in standards of education, politicians as education administrators, relaxation of standards of tests and qualifying marks so that the uneducated can be counted as educated. So, the society will justify poor education as a desirable goal selected in a democratic way.

G: You are dramatizing.

S: Not really. In a country where 70% of the people are uneducated and also smoke bidis (a form of cigarettes), what kind of laws will be passed on smoking, what rates of tax will be imposed on bidis and what kind of research on tobacco and cancer will be funded by the Government? We know how low quality educationists have been inducted into education system by politicians. If the Government and the elected representatives of the people start acting on the premise that they are the only authorized and also the most competent persons/ groups to decide about everything in the society, you do not have democracy. Democracy is not all about winning the elections to get the power to lord over others.

G: So, people may claim that they have or trying to have democracy. But they are far from that. Democratic equality does not follow human choice. Nations have to accept whatever democratic equality or inequality emerges at any point of time in conformity with the Stochastic Destiny Principle.

S: Democracy is a formula to resolve conflicts among individuals and groups. It is an arbitrary rule. It has no sanctity of its own. But it has a special appeal because it is a rule for the domination of majority. Even if the majority is foolish or brute, cruel, you have to accept it sportingly. If the whole world was one country, Indians and Chinese would have ruled the World and taken away all the petroleum oil the Arab countries would have had. The application of democracy was not intended to serve the majority but to protect the oppression of the majority by the few. But that is not what democracy is able to deliver most of the time. It cannot because it is so destined. The process of practical application of the concept of democracy can vary so widely and is so susceptible to fraud, cheating and manipulation that the impact on the society often turns out to be opposite of and completely different from what the concept of democracy promises to deliver.

G: And, according to you, this is only natural and therefore destined.

Destiny of Choice 004

2009-01-24T10:19:00.001-08:00

Destiny of Social Divisions

G: This is not clear. Hindus have caste system. It is something bad and adopted by Hindus out of their own choice. How does destiny Principle come here?

S: It is only because of the operation of destiny principle that the caste system evolved. Whether it is bad or good is a separate issue and does not any way stop caste system to evolve. Caste grouping tendency is the natural property of human beings as imparted by the destiny principle.

G: Please explain.

S: Fine. Let us explore caste tendencies in a bit detail. In West Bengal, as in other provinces of India, many Hindus classify themselves into different castes. The four castes / barnas (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Sudra) defined a social system based on occupational structure and might have emerged in ancient Hindu India. It might have been long time back when societies consisted of small population to classify people in different families into the four castes based on the basis of the occupation of the families. Over a few decades or centuries, this caste system could have become rigid and reached a point of breakdown due to natural forces. For some time, a society could have limited the choice of individuals to vocations/ professions to that of the caste of the family to which the individual was linked by birth.
G; But such a system cannot continue for long.

S: You are right. The system did not last long. Surely, such an occupation-based system must have faced problems, as new generations might not have liked to stick to their ancestral occupations, as new occupations emerged and old occupations became irrelevant to the society. The economics of different occupations changed. People migrated from one place to another and got involved into inter-caste marriages. It could have been difficult for any caste, particularly the Sudras, to shift to other occupation classes unless they migrated to newer places. It could have been possible for some persons / families to migrate to less inhabited regions and claim their origin to different occupation-based castes. After all, until very recent period, family tree records were not maintained and available for public scrutiny.

G: So these are independent choices made by people to shift occupations. There is no destined choice here.

S: Exactly the opposite. The decisions to choose new occupations were not independent decisions but were forced by changing environment circumstances and natural human tendency to uplift itself from onerous bondages of the past.

G: But all people did not change. The Brahmins might have resisted the change.

S: Yes. For most Brahmins, the bondage to the past social structure was not onerous. So they would have not let go the advantages of such a system.

In the beginning, the Brahmins might not have helped Sudras or Kshatriyas or Baishyas to acquire from them the knowledge necessary to enter the vocations of the Brahmins. But, some Brahmins might as well have agreed to partly share their knowledge with the Ksatriyas fearing that the Kings might kill them if they declined to share knowledge. Again, wealthy Baishyas could have used their money power to buy knowledge from the poor Brahmins and buy part of kingdoms from weak kings.

G: But how does destiny come here?

S: The changes in external environment did not come about because of independent choice by the society but resulted from the aggregation of individual choices forced by the natural law of human beings to explore, discover and improve their lot. Economics of the professions might have changed over time depending on the laws of demand for and supply of services / products, inducing individuals and families to change professions / occupations. It would be too simplistic to suggest that markets for demand and services are of a recent origin. The ancient (Hindu) civilization in Bharat could not have prospered unless markets existed. Exchange of labour/ service/ commodities is a very ancient phenomenon. Modern competitive markets with paper money as medium of exchange are of recent origin; exchange is an essential ingredient of ancient civilizations. With the growth of population, migration from one land to another and emergence of new occupations, further divisions in the form of sub-castes or gotras arose.

G: But the old castes, subcastes and gotras are no longer socially relevant. Yet many Hindus identify themselves as belonging to particular caste/sub-caste/gotra classification based on their birth.

S: Yes, they do. That is also part of the Destiny process. People like to have a lineage identity. But the caste based on birth would have lost meaning once a person had shifted from a family’s occupation to a different occupation. Shifts in occupation might have caused problems of identification of family trees/ loyalties and purity of castes (problems of the same nature that is caused in the modern world due to inter-religion/ inter-racial marriages and immigration from one nation state to another). Shifts are only natural. Hindu Gods in their incarnations were reportedly born in/ raised by families of different castes: Ram belonged to Kshatriyas, Krishna to Kshatriyas/ Sudras, Gautama Buddha to Kshastriyas, and so on. Many kings in Hindu mythology were Brahmins rather than Kshatriyas (eg.,Ravana). Clearly, natural forces make it difficult to keep a caste system to be consistent with both birth and occupation. Family is a stronger tie and hence an occupation-based caste system had to drift to a pure birth-based caste system and castes had to get de-linked from occupations. Thus, the Hindu caste system died its natural death long, long time ago. It could not have survived with the spread of Buddism by Emperors like Asoka, growth and migration of population, inter-caste marriages, the invasions by the Muslims, the period of Moghul Rule followed by the British Rule in a country with a large, growing population speaking such large diversity of languages.

G: While that may be true, in reality caste system still rules.

S: Yes, it does. But this attachment to caste system is a natural human property. It has nothing to do with the ancient Bharatiya occupation based social structure that became extinct long ago. It is surprising that Indians still talk about Hindu caste system being in existence. They talk of oppression by the higher castes that died with the occupation-based caste system centuries ago, long before the British or the Moghuls appeared on the scene. From the Moghul days and throughout the British rule, a new caste system emerged among the Indian Hindus. This fairy-tale caste system has established since then. The foreign rulers had given the opportunity to their elite Hindu subjects to evolve a new caste system and link it to the ancient Hindu caste system. The names of the original Hindu castes were retained but the caste system was not linked now to current occupations. Individuals and families now could assume certain occupations for their unknown ancestors who lived thousands of years and declare them as belonging to the occupational caste of their ancestors.

G: You may be right. But the Hindus continue to have a caste system.

S: A new Fairy Tale Caste system emerged after the Hindu Kings began losing control over the major parts of India. Interestingly, the new foreign political rulers encouraged the growth of this new system and supported its being christened as Hindu System. The fairy-tale Hindu caste system is based on unrecorded, presumed and so-called superior/ inferior occupations of the forgotten forefathers who died thousands of years ago. As I have understood, the Fairy Tale caste essentially tries to link a person to some occupations or other beginnings of his ancestors thousands of years ago.

G: So you admit that caste system exists even today,

S: Hold on. Caste system exists everywhere throughout the World among all religions and cultures. That is the destined human property. But today’s caste system has nothing to do with the ancient four-barna caste system.

G: What we have today is an extension or modification of that ancient system only.

S: No. That is completely a false notion perpetuated by ignorance and deliberate distortion of reality.

G: What was the ancient system and what is the current system?

S: In the ancient ages, Brahmins seemed to have been traditionally honoured or they had established claim as the most superior caste. The ancient people belonging to this caste originally were in the vocation of learning, teaching, worshipping, praying to the God on behalf of others, engaged in the profession of priesthood, sanyasis (those who have renounced material world), preachers and so on. The claim of Superiority of the Brahmins might have been contested by the Kshatriya caste that originated from the ancient warriors, kings or those who fought wars and battles. Most Hindu royal dynasties of the olden times are supposed to belong to this caste. If the Brahmins claimed superiority, it could not have been without the tacit approval of the Kshatriya kings with Brahmin subjects. In ancient ages, a Brahmin could have become a Rishi, or Brahmarshi (one with the supreme knowledge of the Universe) through hard work, deep thinking, extensive study, penance and sacrifices. The Kings also had found their path to superiority. There could have been a Kshatriya who would become a Raja Rishi (Rajarshi) of status equal to Brahmarshi by efforts, sacrifices and learning similar to the Brahmins. King Janaka, the father of Sita, Rama’s wife, was a Rajarshi. Again, a Brahmin could have become as good a warrior as a Kshatriya king and become a King. Ravana, the king of Lanka who was defeated and killed in war by Rama, might have been a Brahmin, though an Asura (demon), was a very learned person, devotee of God and also a reputed warrior. Did he become a King to prove to the Kshatriyas that Brahmins were a superior class!

G: Caste system has something to do with claiming superiority over some others while being equal to some.

S: Yes, and that tendency in human beings continue even now everywhere and in all communities. Let us go back to ancient times. Apart from the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas, there was the Baishya caste that originated from the people who were engaged in trading and other businesses. They were the real money-spinners and wealthy people. They had to keep the Kings happy if they had to continue with their money-spinning businesses smoothly. They paid the most taxes and ensured that the Kings had adequate wealth to be happy and not become jealous of the business community. The Baishyas were also afraid of God, given the inherent risks and uncertainties of businesses ventures. So they also kept the temple priests happy so that the latter would worship God on their behalf and get for them the blessings of God. Not that some Baishyas would not have thought of becoming kings. It might be that some kingdoms were taken over by the Baishyas who became Kshatriyas thereafter. The Brahmins who were almost always a part of the King’s courts and acted as minister/ advisor might have attempted at installing their stooges as Kings or tried to become Kings themselves. In any case, many Hindu Kings tried to establish their fame by donating lands to their army chiefs, their ministers, their physicians, courtiers and other talented citizens. The landowners in turn would become kings of smaller kingdoms. As land became a tradable asset, some wealthy traders might have bought vast lands and became kings themselves. To protect their wealth, they would not have stopped short of raising army of security guards. They would not have supported weak kings and kings who borrowed money from them. They would have rather tried to remove them and become kings themselves. In any case, many wealthy businessmen of Hindu kingdoms would have behaved like kings given their money-powered influence on the society.

G: What about the Subras who were the most oppressed?

S:The fourth caste, the Sudras might have had very little opportunity to prove their Superiority as a caste. The Sudras consisted of the rest of the society and included all types of workmen, tradesmen, labor, craftsmen, and self-employed people excluding the occupations of other three castes. Since the Sudra caste supposedly covered most occupations, the bulk of the population would have belonged to this caste. Clearly, no society would have needed a large proportion of people to teach, to be busy in the pursuit of knowledge, become Sanyasis and preachers and provide the services of priests. No society needed a large proportion of people to be engaged as warriors or as kings. A society would have needed only a small percentage of people to be deployed as traders and businessmen to serve the needs of the society. So, the Sudras would have represented a wide range of assorted occupations and formed the bulk of the population. An omnibus caste could not have claimed superiority over other caste with smaller population. That did not mean that different sections of the Sudra caste could not have claimed superiority. Sudra castes would have covered various craftsmen who had held special skills handed down through the generations. There would have been goldsmith, yarn spinners and fabric weavers, carpenters, architects, sculptures, painters, musicians, ironsmiths, cattle-raisers. It could have been possible for some families in these occupations to establish a goodwill and reputation and enjoy monopoly power in selling their services. Some of them could have obtained royal patronage, benefited from land gifts from the kings and extracted high price for their wares from the Baishyas. These skilled and talented families over a period of time would have become wealthy and established a social prestige of their own. They could have become traders, businessmen and kings on their own using their wealth and acquired landed property. The power of money could have made them enjoy the life-style of Biashyas and Kshatriyas and buy the services of Brahmins. Many wise Sudras acquired as much (if not more) fame and influence as Brahmin scholars and Sanyasi preachers. Kabir, a weaver, probably a convert Muslim, had large following among the Indians. He preached the essence of Hinduism. Many Hindus, claiming to be originally Sudras, converted to Buddism, Islam and Christianity during the last thousand years. But even among those who converted or were forced to convert into Christianity in the west coast of India, there were some who until recently traced their origin to Brahmin Caste and preferred marriages among Christians with the similar Brahmin background.

G: That is a brief of a long history. What does it say?

S: It shows that the so-called Hindu Caste system is a hoax. Given the history of different castes, how many Indian Hindus today can really claim lineage to any particular caste. There is no way they can prove their link to any specific ancient Hindu caste. Hindus of today are mostly tied to a fairly tale caste system evolved in the recent centuries. This fairly tale Hindu caste system has nothing to do with the Ancient Caste system that could not have survived for long under the impact of natural forces. The fairy tale caste system was propounded by the elite Hindu subjects of the foreign rulers to create a superior (but false) image for themselves and power over other Hindus and in the process pave the way for the religions of the ruling class to convert more Hindus into Islam, Christianity and Buddhism.

G: So what is the new caste system now?

S: Hold on. Even today, the fairy tale Hindu Caste system continues to provide spice to life. There is one caste called Baidya / Vaidya or Baidya-Brahmins (in current Bengali language usage letter ‘B’ is common where the letter ‘V’ is used in Sanskrit language). Baidya literally means a person who practices medicine. My immediate ancestors (say, 7-11 generations up to my father) handed down the belief that we were Baidya-Brahmins, a special class among the Brahmins, supposedly superior caste among the Hindus. I have checked with friends who boasted of their Brahmin caste superiority: according to some of them, the Baidyas are the descendants of a family resulting from an inter-caste marriage between a Brahmin husband and Sudra wife. So, Baidyas are a mixed caste, inferior to the Brahmins. G: Quite interesting!

S: Equally interesting is the version I heard some elderly Baidyas who are no more. They said that the Brahmins also practiced medicine as a profession but they would not visit the residence of patients from other caste, especially Sudras, in order not to lose their purity. Some among the Brahmin medicine professionals, out of their dedication to patients (or, I guess, because of their relatively inadequate experience or knowledge or skill or reputation which would take time to build), had gone out to serve generally poor income Sudra families to earn fee incomes. This group was therefore outcast by the rest of the Brahmins. Since then these people were called as Baidya- Brahmins, a superior liberal class among the Brahmins. Later on, I used to taunt my Brahmin friends that they had right to knowledge from the Four Vedas (the most ancient Hindu scriptures covering various disciplines of knowledge from Philosophy to Spiritualism), but the Baidyas had the right to five Vedas – not only Rig Veda, Sam Veda, Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda but also Ayur Veda, the Veda of the medicines. Some friends who knew more than me however were quick to point out that Ayurveda (Treatise on Medicine/ Medical Treatment) was actually a part of the basic four Vedas.

G: But all this is funny and has nothing to do with our original inquiry.

S: Funny as these might be, they point to the basic human tendency to create around one’s family background a glory. Just consider that I grew up to marry a Brahmin girl. I do not know how Hindus would classify my sons in terms of caste. But recently I happen to meet a young person who is the son of a Baidya father and Brahmin mother. Among his relatives there were many such Baidya and Brahmin inter-caste marriages. And, they continue enjoy the debates over the superiority of castes in family get-togethers. He told me that one of his relatives, Mr. Biswajit Dasgupta, born around 1970 and a keen student of mathematics, radiology and ancient Hindu scriptures including the Vedas had done some research on the origins of Baidyas. I requested him to get me some of his research output. In what follows, I give below a short summary of his research findings.

Mr. Dasgupta quotes from Sanskrit grammar authored by Panini. According to Panini, the word Bid (Vid), meaning To Exist or To Know, is the source of three words: Veda, Vaidya and Vaidya. Vid + Acha = Vada, Vid + Kyap = Vidya (education), Vidya + on (favourable sense) = Vaidya. Vidyasyaptam Vaidya i.e., the descendant of Vid is called a Vaidya. All this would to link existence and knowledge with B(V)aidya.

According to Dasgupta, the reference to the Baidyas is found in Rig Veda Samhita: mondol 10, sukta 97, mantra 6 in which Rishi Vishak prays in anustupchhanda verse to the God of medicinal plants. The same verse also appears in Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita Chapter 12 mantra 80. His translation of the verse from Sanscrit to Bengalee when translated to English reads: “Hail thee, the medicinal plants. Just like the kings go to war to defeat the enemy, you all go to the Bipra (the best among the Brahmins) to win over all illness and disease. The Bipra to whom you go is called the disease-killer, life saver Baidya (Vishak)”. Mr. Dasgupta also refers to Mantra 10 of Chapter 30 of Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita (relating to Purushamedha Yagna). His Bengali version of the verse translated to English reads: “(I) enjoin Vishak (Baidya) for Purity ”. Dasgupta also quotes Mantra 33 of Chapter 5 and Mantra 74 of Chapter 20 of Shukla YajurVeda. These verses refer to AswiniKumardwyas (Aswini Kumar named Twins) as the physicians practicing medicines among the god-patients (Hindus believe in one from-less God, 330 million gods/ devatas of various forms, a select group of lesser gods and humans as incarnation of God on earth). God Surya (Sun) is the father of Aswini Kumar duo, born out of the womb of goddess Sangya in the form of a feminine horse and the duo were created to serve as the Baidyas (physicians) for the medical treatment/ protection of health of gods. Mr. Dasgupta then refers to the BrahmaBaibarta Purana, a centuries-old scripture widely publicized among the Hindus in the province of Bengal in India and quotes Baidya/ Vaidya as “ Aswinikumareno Jatascha Biprajyoshiti” which means that ‘ the Baidyas were created by the Aswini Kumar duos from the wombs of women from the families of the best class of Brahmins’. A direct link of the Baidyas to the gods: Human Baidyas are descendants of the physicians and medicine specialist gods who protected the health of citizens of the kingdom of gods.

I have learnt elsewhere that if one examines the Vedas, one will find names of 33 or so gods paying tributes to whom by chanting the Veda verses was the form of worship. These gods were nothing but parts of Nature observed at that time by man. For example, the sky, the cosmic space, the sun and its different phases during the day, the night and its different phases, the moon, the stars, the wind, the rains were all gods. Because these objects or phenomena were observed to be making movements/changing position/ exerting different magnitudes of strength over time and also making a powerful adverse or beneficial impact on the lives of men, these were thought to be having their own individual consciousness/ minds. Aswis were probably two phenomena of light just before dawn. This twin Aswis were turned into Aswini Kumars in later literature or religious stories called Puranas. While the Vedas and the Puranas talk of multiple gods including the Super God who created all including these gods, it is in the philosophy of the Upanishads that the concept of Single formless infinite God got established firmly in the Sanatana/ Hindu Dharma

Mr. Dasgupta also refers to Chanakya’s writing (Bishnu Gupta or Chanyakya, the son of Maha Rishi Chanak, helped Chandra Gupta Maurya to establish a kingdom with capital at what is currently known as Patna in the present Indian state of Bihar). Chankya says: Ayurveda Kritabhyas Sarbeshang Priya Darshana Aryashhel Gunopeto Esho Baidya Bidhiyote”.

Mr Dasgupta says that according to Sreemad-Bhagbat Purana: The warring davas (gods) and the Ashuras (demons) settled for peace to jointly drill out Amritam (the potion that makes one that drinks it, immortal) from the Oceans. God took the form of a huge Tortoise and held the Mountain Mandar aloft from underneath the ocean water. The mountain served as the drilling/churning rod. Bashuki, the huge long king of the snakes served as the rope tied around the mountain rod. With the davas and the ashuras holding on and pulling the two ends of the rope, the mountain rod churned the water of the oceans. This churning led to the arising of a young person in ornamented dress with the pot containing the potion Amritam. This person’s name was Dhannantari. He was a Baidya, the expert in AyurVeda, the science of medicine. Dasgupta thus refers to the great contribution that the Baidyas have thus been making contribution even in the world of the devas (the ashuras failed to get their share of the potion even as they tried to steal the pot of Amrita potion soon after Dhannantari came out of the ocean waters.

G: You indeed narrate interesting stories. But how does it help understand destiny.

S: Yes, these are indeed interesting stories for get-together parties of families with lot of inter-caste marriages. But they also help illustrate how deep the human tendency is to claim superiority of one group over other groups on the basis of relative glory arising from ancestral/ family background. This continues even today between people who live in metros and others, between those who could shift to metros and urban areas from their rural backgrounds and those who could not, between those from traditionally rich families and the new rich, between those who are members of posh clubs and those who are not, between MBAs and others, between CII/ FICCI (two main all India chambers of commerce) members and the members of small chambers, between mafias supported by ruling political party and other mafias, between those who claim to be secular/ animal lovers/ communists/ social reformers and those who do not make such claims, between those who despise smoking and those who smoke, those who claim to be communists, between leftist social scientists/ economists and those who believe in individual liberty and competitiveness, so on and so forth. The special group image is sought for the same reason, as one would have liked lineage to a superior caste in olden days.

G: You mean to say that this tendency is an underlying property of human beings that is destined to play out in all ages. Today also, we see small traders/ businessmen come to organize them as a different caste. The big industrialists are a different caste. The air pilots are a different class. The investment bankers are a different class. The journalists belong to a separate class. People related to Page 3 forms a different class. And, the society and the political system encourage the formation of such different high value castes/ classes. This is a new caste system that divides the mankind.

S: Exactly. People unite into groups and divide the society into separate groups. Both the tendencies, to unite and to divide, operate as natural forces. All this is destined. This tendency of human beings has nothing to do with Hindu religion or Hindu society. One single Guru or a single Prophet has not propounded Hindu religion. Hindu religious scriptures like Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Smritis, and are not authored by a single person or a group of connected or related persons. The authors of these scriptures and epics are many different individuals who lived in different centuries and millennium. Until a few centuries ago, most Hindus may not have known about the existence of so many scriptures. Many of these scriptures are collections of sayings of different individuals made available in written form much after the original composers had died. There were many compilers/authors/editors of the same collections. There are differences in style of writing and editing in the collections and even there are different versions of the epics. It may be that the original authors of different parts/ sections/ mantras of the Vedas and Upanishads belonged to different castes by birth or by family profession.

For the spiritual life of many of the original authors, worldly life – not mere caste-ism- was meaningless. They had preached the concepts of Single God, of omni-presence of God everywhere and in every living being and non-life matter. They had analysed the material elements of the universe as they had observed then as also analysed human body, mind and behaviour. Their analysis helped them classify all matters and the human beings into different categories with different properties. To relate caste system to Hindu religion or any religion for that matter is both wrong and foolish. But to do so is natural and destined.

G: Maybe, the caste system is not the essential part of Hindu society or Religion. But such social divisions are creation of Man and not destined by divine will.

S: I believe that the caste system or similar social divisions are the results of processes that are part of the Stochastic Destiny Process and therefore are destined to be created in human societies. Human societies have no choice but to create them. Even the communism of Soviet Union and the Republic of China, not to speak of communists of countries where communism could not capture complete State power, has failed to resist the creation of social divisions, even though the goal is to create a class-less society where every one belonged to the same class.

G: I see your point. Social divisions are natural phenomena and not the result of deliberate, independent choice of societies. The forms of social divisions vary over time and across societies. But they evolve in response to certain basic natural tendency of human beings and under the impact of prevailing circumstances.

S: You are right. Even those who try to eradicate social divisions create new divisions. The communists talk about labour and capitalists as also about the proletariat and others. These others ultimately include those who manage the State on behalf of the proletariat. The Indian politicians talk about minorities, about dalits (oppressed), about backward classes, about the common man, about the weaker sections of the society. All this is reflective of divisive tendencies. This happens naturally to human beings. They close one form of social division to create another. They despise caste systems of the past and create new caste system. This is done in pure self-interest, which is the natural dharma / property of human beings. The caste system continues in new forms in perpetuity and the social conflicts continue as a destined process.

G: I understand what you are saying, Attempts to eradicate social divisions are as much a destined force as the emergence of social divisions. We may preach equality through speeches and books and we may even try to bring about equality among human beings by peaceful or violent means. But simultaneously we are destined to practice inequality in actual social life. No human, it seems, is capable to practice equality. Each human or group believes in his/ her/ their unique identity distinctively different from another human being or group. Human beings form into separate groups each of which is supposed to be unequal in relation to other groups. Such groups form naturally and often are with conflicting interests. Therefore, the emergence of caste system or other social divisions is an essential part of the natural social process.

S: You are absolutely right. There is no social choice made independently: all social choices are resultant of forces that are part of the Stochastic Destiny Process or Principle. Men and women consider themselves unequal, so do fathers and sons, husbands and wives, friends and foes, colleague and colleague, teachers and students, peoples in location X and peoples in location B, workers and managers. Groups grow larger and then split. All this just happens because of the inherent property of human beings to divide themselves into persons or groups in conflict. This does not happen because they make choices to form or join groups, but because it is in their nature to make such choices. No body becomes Hitler or Mother Teresa by choice, it just happens. We know that all Indians born after 14th August 1947 are born equals. Are they equals in reality? No they are not. Those whose ancestors were recognized as backward castes or tribes during the mogul and British rule are a special caste entitled to reservation on a major part of the Nation’s resources while those who have different lineage are the new neglected caste. These are not independent decisions of the State or society but the fall out of the process of destiny of India and the Indians.

G: We create new inequalities: we go back to the long past and create new reserved / categories to perpetuate social conflicts. This happens because it is natural and hence destined, even though there is no logic to justify such divisions. Yesterday’s royal descendants abroad are our friends even if their forefathers oppressed us. Day before yesterday’s royal descendents are minorities. Descendents of oppressors who lived before the Moguls or British came are today’s hated castes, even if they are in minority.

S: These are not divisions created by Indians by applying unbiased logic and independent judgment. Indians create these under the influence of jealousy, pity, and anger and under compulsions electoral politics in socalled democracy where most people are uneducated AND many remain illiterate.

Destiny of Choice 003

2009-01-24T10:16:00.000-08:00

Destiny of Actions or Action of Destiny

G: But is this stochastic destiny process in consistent with the concepts of Karma falla (Fruits of Actions) and Rebirth? Do you believe in rebirth?

S: Rebirth of what? Rebirth of body takes place through a process of corpses degenerating into other materials, then some such materials getting into some human bodies as water, food, etc and then living bodies through procreation give birth to new bodies. It is not the rebirth of a particular body that once stopped functioning. To the extent the mind and the ego are intrinsically related to a part of body, that is the brain, we cannot talk of rebirth of a particular mind or a particular ego. Something independent of the body, mind and ego and yet a part of the living being does not die when the body dies, can probably get attached to a new body. But what is that something. Is it an experience of a body when it was alive?

G: Let us assume it is an experience.

S: If it is an experience, I do not know as yet how it could get attached to a new body. Maybe, such past experience can get attached to a new body by some mechanism through the stochastic destiny process. But a new body can always retrieve this past experience from books where the experience is recorded or by accessing an invisible experience store space provided the body has such a capability.

G: But does destiny link from birth to birth? For example, if I have done good deeds this birth I will have good life next birth.

S: The cause and effect or Karmafalla relationships are definitely a part of the stochastic destiny process. If the past experience carries into a new body, the experience itself may have an impact on what the new body or form does or the way it behaves. This is a kind of cause and effect relationship. But I am not sure this has anything to do with what you call good deeds leading to good life in a new body, called rebirth. In any case, the existence of cause and effect relationships between a previous body and a new body emerging after the extinction of the former, does not necessarily give rise to the possibility of rebirth of the particular entity of the past. All these aspects I am yet to explore. But all this possibilities cannot be called as rebirth of a particular thing of the past. In a continuous stochastic process of transformation, it is possible to that history may partially or fully repeat but that does not mean rebirth.

G: But rebirth is an integral part of Hindu philosophy.

S: Maybe, but it may not mean rebirth of the particular entity of the past. In the water cycle from vapors to clouds to rainfall to river water to ocean or melting of ice to formation of ice, we can see forms being recreated again and again. But is there any separate identity of the particular ice or particular water atom from one cycle to another? I don’t think so. The attachment to the continuity of the existence of the particular is the illusion created in the human mind by the destiny principle for its own smooth functioning.

G: Can you elaborate on this aspect of the illusion a little more?

S: Look when you play a game of carom or ludo, you use coins of different colors. How they move on the board depends on the chances emanating from how you arrange the coins on the board and the throw of the dice or your strike at the coins. Whether you succeed or fail and win or lose, you do not identify each coin as an entity of permanence for the game. In fact, you do not even distinguish between any two white coins or one blue coin with another. But if you had marked the coins with separate numbers you could have tracked how lucky or unlucky each coin is over repeated throw of dice or strike-hits or in their movements across the board over successive games. You do not do that. You play the game. Win or lose but do not get attached to or angry fall in love with a particular coin of a particular color. This illusion is not there in these games including the game of cards, except occasionally when the losing party overturns the board in disgust or throws away the complete pack of cards.

G: But this illusion remains when human beings deal with themselves.

S: Yes, they do not see themselves as undistinguishable white or black coins, each of which moves in deferent directions depending on the strength of the force of the striker, the angle of force, the impact of bouncing on the edges and collisions among coins along the path of their travel. The human beings cannot see themselves as being a piece in the pack of cards getting distributed to and played on by hands of varying skills. Carom coins and cards have no mind and therefore no illusion that they make any choice whatsoever in deciding their movements. Human mind is imparted with the illusion of independence. And this is an integral part of the Destiny Principle.

G: This part may appear OK. But what about rebirth in the sense of Atman getting into another body after the first body dies? Hindus seem to believe in this.

S: Yes, Hindus do so. But Atman then Atman can never die. Atman must be of permanent existence. If Atman is of permanent existence, it never changes. The question is whether there are separate Atmans each with separate identities? Let us assume they are not. Then the question of rebirth does not arise. If Atman is the Pure Knowledge, it is not something that can have separate identity just because we assume that Atman resides in or behind each human body or mind or intellect. Let us assume that there are numerous Atmans. But Atmans being of permanent existence has the Knowledge of the Principles of the Creation or the Universe. Atmans cannot therefore have any illusion that they have separate identities.

G: Then, where does the realization take place?

S: That is a separate issue for discussion.

G: Fine. Tell me one thing now. Why is it that no one is willing to accept the Destiny Principle as Truth and yet you seem to have total belief in this?

S: Because each one of us is destined to have different beliefs in accordance with the Destiny Principle. The Destiny principle is either true or false. Either a person believes in the Destiny Principle as Truth or does not believe so. There are four possibilities. The worst case scenarios are that (a) one believes in something as True when it is not True and (b) one does not believe in something which is True. My position may be an instance of (a). I may be destined to change my position if I stumble on to an alternative principle explaining the Universe, which is more convincing than the destiny principle. So far nothing of that sort has come my way,

G: Then, how do you explain the developments taking place in societies, nations and civilization over time?

S: I have always only one answer: All that happens is the manifestation of the Destiny Principle.

Destiny of Choice 002

2009-01-24T10:14:00.000-08:00

Equality of Diverse Forms

G: I do not accept all that you say. But being spiritual-minded, I tend to believe in ‘Adhwaita’. You and the world are the same – the world, as you know it now exists only as long you ‘exist’. There is no sense, for e.g., in ‘planning’ for your near and dear’s lives after you exit! So much for life insurance!!

S: Most Indians are likely to be spiritual and, if they are analytically oriented, they are likely to be believers of ‘adhwaita’. However, it is the operation of the Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Principle that forces one to plan and take insurance, while forcing another not to exercise the choice to plan or take insurance.

G: It seems that you have moved in this direction of thought after years of worldly experience and your thoughts are still evolving: I wish that there was some way of skipping the learning curve and directly become a sanyaasi!!

S: You are right: earlier experiences must have caused me to think in a particular direction. I did not have any choice. And, I believe that for most of us there is no way of skipping the learning curve. Only a few may have been destined to become sanyaasi with out having to go through the experiential learning curve.

G: I also think that ‘realization’ cannot be through only reading or listening to discourses from tomes or religious texts. It can only be through experience – which is what life is.

S: I agree with you that ‘Realisation’ may not in most cases be possible without learning from experience. Maybe, reading, listening to discourses and participation in relevant discussions also helps progress towards realisation. However, I believe one can reach the state of realisation only if one is destined to realize.

G: It seems today, you have been mostly agreeing with me.

S: I have agreed with you only to the extent I am destined to do so.

G: Can I continue to ask assorted questions to find out your understanding on what others quote from Hindu scriptures?

S: Please do.

G: You agreed that desires motivate us into work or action. Then, what do you understand of the preaching that “ one should work without any attachment”? Unless one is attached, how would one work?

S: You are right. But the preaching is not a prescription for others to follow. To my mind, the preaching means that while one is in action, the action gets better done if the actor remains independent of, and not attached, to his action or the goal of the action or the uncertainty of the consequences of actions.

G: What is attachment?

S: Attachment is the absence of Independence. One may feel that his or her very existence and happiness dependent on the actions one is doing and desired outcome of those actions. He becomes tired with worries doing that action. That is normal. But the one who does not have this feeling may not act at all or may neglect in performing the actions. This is also normal.

G: But can there be persons who work without attachment?

S: Many persons work without attachment sometimes or other. Everyone cannot do this all the time. There are persons who concentrate on their actions and never worry about not being in action or being in action. They never worry about the result of action/ inaction while they are in action/ inaction. They live as if they are independent of their status of being in action (includes thinking as an action). It does not matter to them even if they are not busy in actions. Such people are truly independent. Such persons work without attachment. They are a rare tribe. They work like machines, say an automatic air-conditioner, when they are switched on mode and keep quite when in off mode. The hypothetical tree I talked about earlier works without any attachment.

G: Is it possible to develop such detachment in a human being?

S: Yes, if that is the destiny of a particular person. You preached certain good behavior to all people through religion. But very few people are able to follow and practice such advice. Even if you had given training to all people to steal, rob and kill others, only a few would be able to absorb or use that training.

G: If people are so different, how can you treat them equally?

S: You cannot treat them equally in your response behavior. You will not treat the thief who was trying to steal from your house in the same way as your friend. You cannot pay the same salary to your car driver and your aircraft pilot. But in your heart you know all these persons are manifestations of God and therefore they are nothing but you. This knowledge makes a difference.

G: What difference does this make?

S: You do not get upset that there are thieves or rogues in the society. You do not get angry with the thief or with the police for failing to prevent the thief from entering your locality at night. You catch the thief if you can with the help of your neighbors who rushed in when you raised the alarm. You defend yourself from his attack to hurt or kill you. You call the police to report the incident, handover the thief or its dead body if you killed him in self-defense. Yet, you are not angry with the thief. You see him as another manifestation of God.

G: How can you be not angry with someone who tried to hurt your interest? How can you think of your enemy as a manifestation of your God?

S: I am not suggesting that you do that. I also do not believe that people in general will do that. I am merely saying that there is no real cause of being angry with the thief or the enemy. You always knew that there are going to be thieves and enemies. Being in an angry state only hurts oneself rather than the enemy or the thief. I am merely saying that we cannot escape the Truth that the thief and the enemy and also you are the manifestation of the same God. When we accept this Truth, it makes a difference.

G: Only difference this will make is that the thieves and enemies will be further encouraged to hurt me more?

S: I am not sure that this will indeed be the case. A person, who maintained his family by robbing others on the roads through dense forests, suddenly went into meditation and later became a pious sage and wrote a classic Epic of the Hindus. He was as much a manifestation of God when he was a robber as when he transformed into a pious sage named Valmiki. The fact that I am not angry or that I admit the Truth about manifestation of God, cannot be a cause to encourage the thieves and enemies. Even if I pardon the thief, the police will not automatically let the thief go if it is once caught. The enemy will continue to be my enemy if he so wishes out of jealousy or a feeling that I have hurt his or society’s interest whether or not there is any real justification for his feeling against me.

G: Your God seems to be very unfair in suggesting that you forgive your enemy and the thief.

S: My God suggests all types of actions: getting angry and not getting angry or accepting the Truth about manifestation of God or not accepting that. I will be doing as per one of the opposite or alternative suggestions. Which one I actually do is the one I am destined to do. I have no real choice as the thief and the enemy.

G: You always end up using your Destiny Principle to justify what you say. But most people in the World will not accept your Destiny Principle. Even the few who might accept your Principle, will not accept that individuals have absolutely no choice.

S: I agree. What you are saying about the rejection of and reservations about the Destiny Principle is also consistent with that Principle. If all human beings were to accept the Destiny Principle and believe in it, God’s manifestation in human form will at least temporarily end.

G: Better we move over to some other questions about cultivating this thought about everything being manifestation of the same. Why is it that we find impossible to accept this so-called Truth you are talking about? We are unable to consider a thief as a manifestation of God.

S: Because as per the destiny principle, human beings have adopted the practice of giving identification on the basis of differences in forms and relating behavior with forms. Consider a situation that all human beings look exactly alike and wear identical dresses. . Ignore sex differences for the present. However, different humans have different kind of emotions, capabilities and preferences. So differently persons will behave differently. Some may have a tendency to steal while others may not. It would be impossible then to relate the behavior of one human being with his form. You would not know who was the thief and whose house raided. You cannot even enforce relationships between two different human beings. Because all look so identical, you cannot make out who did what to whom. Getting robbed becomes a risk similar to getting into a road accident or getting hit by hurricanes in a hurricane-prone area. You then do not identify the act of stealing with a particular identified person. You accept the incidence of theft in your house as a natural calamity or accident due to human error. No one will have difficulty in accepting others as manifestations of God.

G: But this hypothetical situation of all looking identical is not true of the World. Very few human beings are identical in form.

S: I also happen to know what the real world is. But, for a while consider hypothetical situations for analytical purposes. Let us consider another hypothetical situation where humans have different forms but all behave similarly because they have identical emotions, capabilities and preferences. Let us assume all try to steal from others. Then, the society accepts stealing as normal behavior. No one will have objection to accepting others as manifestation of God.

G: The problem arises because different persons not only look different but also behave differently in the real World.

S: You are right. That is the source of the problem. Now let us make you as the God to design a system, by which you impart the stealing tendency among some of the people, say, one-sixth of the population, so that you have a real World, rather than hypothetical worlds. You are a great mind and also fair. So you decide to throw a dice before each child is conceived as your manifestation and decide that whenever six comes up, the child will be imparted with stealing tendency. Now, the probability of each child born with stealing tendency is same (one-sixth). It is you as God designed this system to manifest yourself to make a real world. So, we cannot say that the thief is not a manifestation of God. The thief is the same as other manifestations of God. It is only the throws of dice that caused the differences in behavior among human beings. There was nothing intrinsically bad or evil with the human who turns out to a thief. Why then should others not accept the thieves as manifestation of God if they knew that it is only throws of dice that made the behavior difference and helped create the real world?

G: I agree if what you say about what God throwing dice is true, logically it would be necessary to accept thieves as manifestations of God in the same way as others are. But how can a throw of dice explain so many types of differences among human beings? We just do not have only six categories of human being.

S: You are right. There are numerous types of attributes among human beings. There are numerous types of tendencies, preferences and capabilities. Also, the strength of attributes also varies from very weak to very strong. If God has to be fair then He must resort to a large series of throw of dice for child being conceived to cover so many attributes with varying strengths. Maybe, He must drawing cards from a pack of 52 cards a number of times for each child conceived Maybe He has to play games of Carom or Ludo and relate each coin cleared into the holes to each attribute to be imparted. Will He have all this time?

G: But how do we know what game of fair chances does God play to impart different behavior, emotions, capabilities and preferences to different persons?

S: God need play these Games at all. Only the process in which children are conceived, born, brought up, grow, age and die, can these probabilities be assigned. The process itself becomes a stochastic process. Once the probabilities are automatically and randomly generated, God does not have to play any game of chances like throwing dice again and again. Human beings are only a small part of the Universe. There are other living beings, the physical materials, the energy flows, the vast space separated by billion light years, the numerous terrestrial bodies and cosmological forces and matters, the billions of Stars and black holes. The destiny process covers the emergence, continuation, transformation and disappearance of each such entity. You can recall that I referred to Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Process or Principle.

S: Yes, I do. If the material used to create, sustain and destroy any form or formless entity is drawn from something already in existence and the probabilities of the emergence, transformation and disappearance of all entities are the result of an unbiased, fair, stochastic process, each form can be regarded as the manifestation of God. We can easily appreciate the unity among diverse forms. Everything is God.

S: Yes, each entity goes through a process not under its control. Whatever it does and meets/ transact/ interact with is nothing but a part of that process. So every entity is essentially the same.

G: It is difficult to practice this in life.

S: Certainly, it is so. And, this is so because the destiny process itself is so designed. Human beings are but a small fraction of the Universe. The destiny principle covers the entire Universe including the destiny principle itself. Even if every one wishes to practice the thought that everything is nothing but the manifestation of the same God or Destiny Principle, the probability of everyone’s wish becoming true at the same time is so very negligible that we can say that this will never happen.

Destiny of Choice 001

2009-01-24T10:07:00.000-08:00

God in Dialogue with Self

[This dialogue emerged out of e-mail dialogues, initially with a former, junior colleague and later out of e-mail and face-face interactions with many others including siblings, relations, friends, and former colleagues. How interesting to note that almost all had their own spiritual beliefs and dilemmas. I sincerely thank them all for their contribution to my thoughts and to the emergence of this Dialogue over the years, even as I await more interactions in future. For most part, the thoughts reflect undigested readings of books and articles on Hindu Philosophy and Upanishads authored by both foreigners and Indians including learned Bengalis like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore. The entire responsibility of my weird views certainly rests with me and I would be happy to join you in ridiculing such views.]

PART TWO: GodAndI: Destiny of Choice

1. Illusion of Independent Choice

G: We are meeting after a long time.

S: Yes, after a long time. That was as per the Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Principle. There was no way we could have exercised a choice to meet yesterday. However I feel fortunate that I have chance to have another session with you.

G: Well, that’s how you say always. But, today was a bad day with a train accident
in the morning and bomb blasts in the evening, both causing loss of life and limb and damage to property. Hope good senses come some day.

S: We are an integral part of Nature. Nature operates as part of the Divine Destiny Principle and makes us feel happy or sad. Yet, on this Diwali day we wish each other better days ahead. By nature most of us feel happy, when others become happy. Maybe tomorrow may well be better and the day after not so good.

G: In one state of mind, I agree with your idea. The following lines from T.S. Eliot’s Poem I of Choruses from "The Rock", appeals to me:
” The world turns and the world changes,
But one thing does not change.

In all of my years, one thing does not change,

However you disguise it, this thing does not change:
The perpetual struggle of Good and Evil.”

S: I am not that well read. I did not know that Eliot wrote this. I was only repeating the age-old observation that good and evil repeat in turn following each other. I also believe that this happens as part of the Natural process. We cannot prevent earthquakes and hurricanes. I believe that rail accidents and terrorist blasts/ massacres will continue to happen despite all our desire that they do not happen and despite all our efforts to prevent them.

G: As usual, you are saying that they are pre-ordained. But it is the eternal conflict about the importance of "daiba" and "purushakar". I believe both are important and one should not view them as in conflict. One should put one's best efforts and then let daiba take its course.
S: Some persons believe that there is no daiba events controlled by something divine. They think if someone really wishes he/ she can chose his/her destiny. However, you are not so sure: you continue to feel that you are in charge of destiny in some way and letting daiba events over which you have no control some role. I say that everyone and everything in this universe chooses the destiny it is destined to choose. I continue to say that every thing in this creation / universe happen only as per the same natural law / dynamic process that gives rise to gravitation force, the earth's movement around the Sun and the Sun's continuous burning. I am responding to your words that were prompted by my previous set of words and so on - all this is due to the operation of the same natural dynamic process. It is the operation of the same law or process that makes me believe in what I believe in and makes you believe in what you believe in. There are, I believe, no Daiba and no Purushakar.

G: If there is no Daiba and no Purushakar, what explains my life? I make choices of my free volition and that is my Purushakar.

S: Simple the operation of Nature explains everything.

G: Do you mean Prakriti ?

S: All that happens is natural. Natural events are natural
events. No body does anything here: only the Nature plays out in
different ways as per its own immutable law. So when we make efforts to do
our best we are forced to do it as per natural law. Similarly, when we do
not take efforts, we are forced that way as per the same law. No choice
exists for any one, even for the Nature. The thief steals because of the law. The
Sadhu worships and spreads the message of love and sacrifice also because of
the same law. They did not have any choice. Neither Ravana nor Ram had any choice other than what they actually did. Same thing applies to Ramkrishna, Chaityana, Hitler, Buddha, Bush, Saddam, Bin Laden, Jesus, you and I.

G: I am still in dialogue with you because I seem to be somewhat spiritually inclined. I only found your ideas interesting but not entirely acceptable. You are emphasizing on the all-pervasive role of destiny – to the extent that one becomes fatalistic.

S: You are partly right. You can say that my ideas are not almost, but completely fatalistic from your point of view. For me, Nature is both Purush and Prakriti . Nature seems to act independently, so we say Nature is Independent Purusha. But we all agree that every element in Nature has some properties or tendencies. So we call Nature as Prakriti. However when it comes to an individual’s behaviour we often assume that at least some times an individual takes independent decision and that is his Purushakar. But we fail to notice that an individual takes only such decisions as are natural to him under the given circumstances at any point of time. In other words, it the individuals nature or prakriti that drives the individual to take certain decisions and act in certain way.

G: So, everything is Nature ultimately. Even what happens in what we call in the environment external to an individual, is part of Nature and often called Daiba.

S: You are right. Everything that happens and does not happen at any point of time is explained by Nature or what I call the Divine Destiny Process or, from the perspective of any individual or group, the Stochastic Destiny Principle.

G: Assuming that what you say is correct, what would you prescribe me or any other individual or group to do to be happy and progress in the path of peace, prosperity, technological advancement and establishment of just order.

S: Since everything is explained by Destiny Principle, I can prescribe what I am destined to prescribe. But in theory no particular prescription follows from the Destiny principle. This tautological theory does not give rise to any prescription or sermons or advice. I have therefore nothing to prescribe. To me the implications of Destiny process as I have understood and tried to explain does not lead to the prescription that ‘one should depend on destiny and do not work as per his choice’. The theory says that one has to do and does what he believed he would be doing. He has no choice except that he may be destined to believe that he has choice and is working as per his choice. One is making only those choices all the time as one was destined to choose as per the Dynamics of the Destiny Principle.

G: I think ultimately a man is what he believes in. You are what you believe – nothing else matters – for you are viewing the world through all the virtues / sins pride / prejudice that define ‘you’ and its your own experience which you are labeling as your life – things are happy / sad, not important / important solely based on your judgment. You can be passive / involved. All this is your choice.

S: I may agree with you that that “you are what you believe in”. I do not, however, believe that one has any control over your actions or ‘reactions’ in the movie / play going on the theatre of life. I believe that there is virtually nothing over which one has no control and therefore really no choice. It only seems that one has and does make choices. This attitude is natural in you and I: each one of us thinks that he thinks and does such work as he chooses to think and do. This attitude helps continue the game all of us have to play! Something beyond us actually forces us to make our choices: we do not choose but made to choose the way we do. It is like the way the coins play in caroms, the balls and bats play in cricket. The human players in these games are also like coins and balls/ bats.

Cause Effect Paradigm 007

2009-01-24T10:03:00.000-08:00

Everywhere, Globally Operating

G: All examples you have given so far on public or societal or national policy choice and decisions are from your local Indian or West Bengal context. We are yet to see examples of the three forces of Cause-Effect Paradigm, Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverses operating in other countries or internationally.
S: You are right. The examples that come to my mind first are conditioned by my limited knowledge. I know virtually little about hat goes on other countries or internationally. But if you insist I will make an attempt.
G: It seems that I have developed considerable patience with your ramblings; I can tolerate some more of your lectures. But please try to cover examples relevant to such issues as conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, international fight against terrorism, globalization and World Trade negotiations, the rise of China and India as emerging, super economic power, spread of Western culture, international cooperation in eradication of environmental pollution, elimination of poverty and establishment and protection of human rights.
S: I will try. Let us first consider the issue of human rights. Probably, Man started off with Might is Right. Once some men or women had discovered that they had greater might in terms of physical or mental power compared with others, they developed a notion of what rights they should enjoy. They felt hungry and had the might to pluck fruits from trees who could not resist them had developed the right to eat fruits. It is through a long history that the concept of Right against Might has evolved. And, now we also have recognized Right against Plight. The development of the concept of right is only a reflection of the Natural Process. Each human being is given the right to live, to get food, shelter and clothes, to get educated, to work and earn livelihood, to get protection against insult, oppression and torture, to express opinion without fear of oppression or assault by others and so on. The only way we can justify these rights is to say these are good things most of us like and with these rights recognized the society will be happier.
G: Isn’t that good enough justification.
S: But is this relationship between human rights and societal happiness a scientific truth?
G: Do you have doubts?
S: I would be happy in a world in which human rights are fully in force. But here I am seeking a scientific proof of the proposition that human rights and happiness are positively correlated.
G: This proposition does not require proof. Everyone understands.
S: Not exactly. Some fools may still fail to understand. As for example, I do not know how a person who is oppressing others and happy today will become happy when enforcement of human rights stops him from oppressing others. I also do not know how those people who are making sincere and tireless efforts to protect human rights remain happy when despite their efforts violation of human rights continue to take place.
G: Since you do not know let me explain. The number of oppressors is few and the number oppressed is many. The happiness of many relieved from oppression is greater than the loss of happiness of the few who loses their power to oppress. And, the people who care for human rights become happy as the incidence of human rights violation reduces.
S: Has incidence of human rights violation gone down over the years? If it has, the happiness of the World must have increased. But it does not seem so. With the spread of education and respect for fellow human beings, the incidence of violation must have gone down. But the lower incidence itself should cause greater unhappiness. When the incidence is high, each incident is of low value in terms of happiness. When incidence is low, each incident is much more painful. In civilized societies, a single incidence causes great pain. In less civilized societies with poor education, violations are so many that people do not bother much.
G: You are talking about differences in values across societies. These issues are finer issues like beauty. They are not dealt with in numerical or quantitative terms.
S: I do not agree. Human rights are not a subjective matter like beauty. They are real practical matters. If we are to protect human rights, most people should be concerned and involved with such protection mechanism. The human rights commission should ideally be a network of the majority of the people involved directly in anticipating and preventing human right violation from taking place. And, we cannot have human rights commissions with infinite life. They have to die when most people in the society are so caring about others. When will we reach that stage?
G: We have to struggle all the time to ensure human rights.
S: That means we are assuming that violation of human rights is a natural tendency among human beings however few. What you therefore wish to do is to delegate this task to a permanent policing force. It would be better if we find why human rights violations take place at all. Once we understand that correctly, we can know how exactly we can prevent people from desires that lead to behaviour of violating human rights. We need a Scientific Cause-Effect Paradigm on human rights violation. All of us would need to be educated on this before really meaningful public policy can be designed to eradicate such violation. Only laws and commissions cannot solve the problem.
G: You are essentially talking about spread of awareness and strengthening the capability of human rights commissions and agencies.
S: Yes. But, I am talking about not merely of such awareness and capabilities. I am more concerned about developing attitudes and behaviour that automatically help prevent human rights violation. If the attitudes and behaviour practices are not based on an understanding of and commitment to human rights, we cannot eradicate violations. How do we ensure that all persons in the society understand and appreciate human rights? If we can ensure that no one would act in any way that leads to violation of human rights. We need a cause-effect inverse starting from a state where everyone protects every other one’s human rights to an earlier state where many people think that it is legitimate to violate human rights in selfish interest.
G: I understand what you are saying. If most people love each other, why should people have tendency to cause harm to other people in any way? This is the way to get to the solution.
S: But at ant point of time there would be at least a few persons who would violate human rights. Not all persons in the World will simultaneously become sages or saints.
G: So what? We must try to approach towards the ideal state.
S: We must. But we are destined to fail. All our efforts to reduce the percentage of population committing human rights violation will succeed up to a time. There may exist a low floor below that the percentage refuses to go down and before that floor is reached the percentage may start rising again. Thus, the percentage may move like a sinusoidal curve over time. At a very high/ ceiling percentage, societal system would tend to breakdown and people may be forced by circumstances to cleanse. More and more people will slowly start respecting human rights. Again, when the percentage of population committing human rights violation reaches a floor cut-off, more and more younger generation persons may start violations because of strong self-interest overwhelming the traditions and values their past generations tried to inculcate in them. It goes on like this over time again and again.
G: I see what you are trying to hint at. That these oscillations occur within a boundary of upper and lower limits would tend to imply that these are determined by natural law. But in this session you have cleverly chosen an example that helps you return to your Natural Law Stochastic Destiny Principle.
S: Thank you for your accusation. But I felt that this example illustrates how Cause-Effect Paradigm establishes that growing incidence of human right violations over time causes the effect of societal order breakdown. It illustrates also how this cause-effect relationship develops a Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome to believe that if we can be fully successful in our efforts to cleanse the society of human rights violations. Then, we may suddenly find a Cause-Effect Inverse that shows that societies that exist today and advanced materialistically still suffer from human rights violations. This would imply that the phenomenon of variations over time in the intensity of human right violations is as natural a law as the variations in the intensity over time of human efforts to cleanse the society of human right violations. No wonder the human incarnation of Hindu God, Lord Krishna, had said that He had to take birth again and again to restore order in the society. He would not have to come again and again if the any one knew how to permanently cleanse the society of human right violations! It is all part of the Natural Law or Stochastic Destiny Principle.
G: See, you were to give more international examples of the Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Inverse. Instead you started with one example and digressed into your pet Destiny Principle that negates the existence of freedom of choice to human beings. Why do you go into issues or theories that are not relevant to giving more examples of cause-effect obsession syndrome in the international context?
S: I am sorry that I have limited ability to generate examples and a tendency discuss in a manner that makes Destiny Principle resurface. But is this limited ability and tendency irrelevant? We need to take up the issue of Relevance and Irrelevance to generate more illustrations you sought.
G: For that better we have another round of serial dialogue sessions later.

Cause Effect Paradigm 006

2009-01-24T09:59:00.000-08:00

Inevitability of Faith-induced Policy

G: In the previous session you seemed to suggest that most national or State policies, whether social, economic or political, are inevitably based on an intermingling of Cause-Effect Paradigm, Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverses.
S: Yes. Each of these processes contribute to the making and implementation of policies that can be said to based entirely on scientifically proved Truth or knowledge but reflect an element of blind faith.
G: Can you give some more examples?
S: Consider first the case of equal opportunities of employment. Employment opportunities are largely location specific. All citizens of equal merit can only be available to compete for a location-specific job if these citizens are by chance also located at the same location. We pursue this policy on the blind faith that no discrimination is possible if we have equal opportunity employer. The concept of equality is so vague and we practice equality on the blind faith that concept of equality is so concrete and unambiguous.
G: What about reservation or quota policies in respect of education and employment in India?
S: We have a blind faith that past inequality among people who are long dead can be corrected by reservation or quota based inequality among children and youth of today. The State or the ruling class or the political elite does not have a solution for educating all children and offering employment to all young persons. This lack of competence, expertise leads to a blind faith that reservation is a solution when in fact it generates a new problem. If there are 40 jobs available for 100 persons, how you choose the 40 does not solve the problem of inadequacy of jobs nor does it solve the problem of equality. But almost all persons have a faith that reservation is a solution at least in the short-run.
G: How can the force Cause-Effect Inverse affect the future of this issue?
S: I do not know what lies in the future. Let me illustrate by narrating a story. A learned and rich person of age around 65 in one of his daily siestas met God to express his anxiety about the violence and division of people over the Reservation issue. God told him not to worry because he has taken steps to alter His Rebirth policy so that the persons whom he wants to get education and jobs in future are born in different proportion than in the past to match with the reservation percentages. Thus, the general category persons will be reborn in much higher percentages in reserved category homes now. Similarly, reserved category persons on death will have a higher probability of getting rebirth in general category families.
G: In other words, the rebirth policy is adjusted by God to remove one to one correspondence between disadvantage and reserved category birth.
S: Yes. But let me complete the story. The learned person thereafter asked God about his father in the next birth. God told him that he will be born in a reserved category poor family and his father is child X, aged 8, living in a village from where the nearest school is about 35 miles away. The person went to the village, talked to the family of this child and arranged to admit the child into a good residential school 150 miles away with all expenses borne by a trust funded adequately with his money solely for the benefit of the child. The man wanted to ensure that in the next birth he has an educated father.
G: I understand you are ridiculing the whole debate over reservation based on birth.
S: Only such Inverses of Cause-Effect Paradigm will one day hopefully help future citizens of India to realize that it is so shameful to enjoy reservation benefits based on birth.
G: What about the issue of acquiring agricultural land for new industrial units and new towns?
S: It is amazing that people debate about this. The simple scientific truth is that each piece of land should be put to the best possible use. There are scientific, numerical methods to find out the social values generated by a piece of land when used for different purposes. The opportunity cost of land is its price. All these can be computed. But no one will try to work out these numbers and come to a consensus estimate of the values. Those who want a particular land to be transferred from agriculture to industry will say that it is the best for the transferor, the transferee and the society or the economy. They will provide all kinds of arguments that are only a reflection of their faith. Those who are against transfer of highly fertile, triple crop agricultural land to industrial use will also have no education on how to compute values on scientific basis. Their arguments are also qualitative and based on their blind faith that good agricultural land should not be transferred to industrial use.
G: You mean to say that the debate over the issue itself is less based on scientific knowledge or truth but more on blind faith on their competence and capability to solve a highly technical issue of allocation of resources among various uses, despite the fact of their complete ignorance about the subject matter.
S: You are absolutely right. Two sets of ignorant and incapable or mischievous persons are trying to solve a problem based on what they like to believe in.
G: I thought ignorance is bliss.
S: Yes. But if the ignorant believes that he or she is learned, well informed, competent and capable, it can only cause damage and confusion.
G: But I thought the strength of democracy lies in debates among people who will naturally have differences in opinion.
S: And, also have differences in capability to debate, differences in level of knowledge and differences in their beliefs.
G: That is what democracy is all about.
S: Sure. But that democracy is not necessarily the produces social decisions that are based on scientifically established truth. Democracy or socialism does not guarantee knowledge of truth. Science may not believe in the existence of God who needs to be worshiped but the majority of the world population believes in the existence of and worships God. God wins democratically.
G: That is why Indian democracy is secular.
S: Secular is in the sense that people who believe in God of one type or another and those who do not believe in God have equal rights and opportunities. So, we have a democracy of religions with equal weights irrespective of the percentage of population belonging to various religions. A social or national policy formulated without any scientific basis.
G: Based on scientific knowledge, the State has no scope of taking cognizance of differences in religious background among citizens at all. No one should be asked to officially register his religion in any document including census enumeration or school admission forms. No law should cater to any specific religion because religious categorization has no scientific basis. You seem to suggest that decisions of democratically elected Governments are not necessarily consistent with available scientific knowledge.
S: Yes. Otherwise, how do you explain the ban on Pepsi and Coke imposed by the Govt. of Kerala, or the purchase and use of blood transfusion kits that have crossed their expiry periods in govt. hospitals, or the ban on English teaching in primary schools for two decades.
G: In each of these cases, science or relevant scientific knowledge has been ignored. Coke and Pepsi are foreign companies. Foreign companies want to harm Indians. The proof of this has been provided by a NGO. NGOS are good people. We must believe whatever they say as scientific truth. Therefore, ban Coke and Pepsi: a simple example of Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome.
S: In the case of expired blood transfusion test kits, the assumption is that whatever the Govt. and its employees do is perfectly in order. Just like ‘The King can do wrong’, the Cause-Effect Syndrome operative here is that State mechanism can never be less than efficient, when the empirical truth is State mechanisms are generally most vulnerable to inefficiency and failure. While market inefficiencies and failures are almost always detectable before much damage is caused and therefore corrective steps initiated promptly, State mechanism failures take time to surface.
G: In the case of teaching of English at lower classes in schools, what was the Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome?
S: Here, the assumption for a long period was that knowledge of English only creates advantage to urban children with relatively better financial background and discriminates against the children from poor, uneducated rural homes. It was also assumed that knowledge of English was not relevant to Indians in general. Not all intellectuals have the vision to anticipate the likely technological progress in the area of computer, internet, telecommunications and television and their impact on the lives of even poor people in rural areas. So, some politicians blinded by Marxist ideas and anti-West inferiority complex, identified ban English from primary school education as a very popular education policy to attract electoral support,
G: This policy would have been sold on some notion of equality promotion: remove the advantages of a smaller section of the children who would learn English with greater ease because of their urban, educated and relatively higher income family background.
S: You are right. This policy and the assumptions underlying them had no scientific basis but was politically a winning strategy. But such a policy of the State was bound to produce adverse results on the future of the children. Only when the adverse results of the policy became so clearly evident, the policy had to be changed again to remain popular.
G: For long, the communists guided the employees to strike work and create violence to stop computerization of office work. Again it was a politically convenient strategy: the country’s progress may be hindered but the policy would be popular among the more active urban blue-collar middle class whose employment and comfortable life would get protected. It is ironical that the same communist rulers changed their minds to usher in information technology zones/ parks as high priority projects that would get preference in land allotment and acquisitions and other State support.
S: You are right. Now that a significant number of young people are employed in vibrant IT and related industries, the communists are back again to plant trade unionism in this sector where the growth of employment has been and will continue to be huge and far greater than the growth of employment in traditional industries. This huge potential of business of trade unionism would naturally attract politicians to increase their bases among the new generation electorate. This is the emerging situation.
G: Don’t you think that this is unfortunate?
S: What is happening at any time is the result of the operation of the natural forces and therefore in accordance with the Stochastic Destiny Principle. We do not have to worry. Just as foreign capital flows to exploit higher returns in emerging markets, domestic political business houses called parties are attracted by high return political opportunities. But success of any business depends on how the costs rise: the costs of knowledge workers and PC screen/ telephone-based operators in the IT, ITES and BPO sectors are very high relative to other industries. Moreover, these industries depend, not on local demand, but on foreign demand and both the demand and the employees can shift to many other locations in the world. So, it all depends on how, in response to trade union and political movement to foster Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome, the forces of the Cause-Effect Paradigm and Cause-Effect Inverses react.
G: Don’t you think that after the economic reforms started in 1991 and the trend rate of economic growth substantially increased the State policies in India are now more consistent with scientific knowledge.
S: I don’t think so. In some areas this may be true, while in many other areas policy making is far distant from scientific knowledge or truth. And, this is consistent with the Natural laws. In the ultimate sense, however, nothing is unscientific. That societies will always be guided only partly by scientific knowledge, partly by the lack of scientific knowledge and partly by deliberate avoidance of scientific knowledge, seems to be a scientific truth.
G: It seems paradoxical that human civilization has progressed based on the advancement of scientific knowledge and application of such knowledge and yet societies will continue to pursue policies that are not consistent with scientific knowledge and technology based on that knowledge.
S: It is really not paradoxical. At any point of time, available scientific knowledge and technology are only a small part of the scientific knowledge required for all sorts of societal or national or even international policy- making. So, policies and decisions are always to be taken under conditions of imperfect or inadequate knowledge of the Universe or the Creation. It is this inadequacy knowledge of Truth or the entire set of Truths that the Universe or the Creation sustains itself. The more we come to know of things, the more we come to know of things that we do not know.
G: You are again becoming too abstract to follow and remain relevant to current societal issues. Let us end the session here.

Cause Effect Paradigm 005

2009-01-24T09:54:00.000-08:00

Economic Development Policy

G: You were to give more illustrations of how the triplets, Cause-Effect Paradigm, Obsession Syndrome and Inverse play out in the area of economic policies.
S: Yes. Please note that the natural process does not begin with just economic development policy making. It starts much before to lay the foundation of the birth of institutions that will take up economic policy making.
G: You are using Cause-Effect Inverse now.
S: Yes. Economic development policy making in period T must cause the existence of policy makers with powers to make policy on behalf of an authority that has the responsibility and power to manage an economy. This in turn must cause the prior creation of Nation State with a Ruler that takes up the responsibility of economic development in the State.
G: You are saying that economic development policy is influenced by the theory or ideology that a Nation happens to believe in and tries to practice.
S: Exactly. Economic development need not be national issue for all Nations and the State or the Government need not be given the power or responsibility to ensure economic development.
G: In the absence of a State authority or Government, how can economic development be pursued?
S: History does not show that in all ages and in all States economic development was ushered in by State power.
G: But nowadays most countries pursue economic development through the aegis of the State.
S: Maybe in most poor countries but not all countries. What are the economic development efforts taken by the US and UK governments?
G: They are already rich countries and they largely depend on private enterprise and competitive market system for economic growth.
S: So, a Nation must be relatively poor and/ or believe in non-capitalist, non-market systems to bring the State to play the role of economic developer. It is an ideology based belief system that generates its own special beneficiaries among people who can get connected to the exercise of the powers of the State.
G: But that is only scientific way that poor countries can develop.
S: I cannot agree with you on this. Many of the rich countries of the last and this century were poor countries a few centuries back. And, these countries did not achieve economic development through non-market, non-capitalist systems with the State playing the role of economic developer.
G: But in the modern day world, poor countries need non-market, non-capitalist systems with State as the prime economic developer.
S: That is not a scientific truth. It is a belief and faith that is born out of Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome among different sections of educated people in the poor countries and some sympathizers in the developed countries. Some of them do not like rich capitalist countries because of their behaviour of the educated elite of those countries. Some of them did attempt to migrate to rich countries, but did not adjust to the competitive environment. Some of them were simply jealous of the rich businessmen in India. Some of them failed to prove their competence in any field other than capturing the powers of the State. A variety of mental complexes and personal ambitions led them to suffer from Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. This was only a natural process and the belief in State as economic developer was not an independent rational choice for them. It is just like Indian nationals choosing to support Argentina or Brazil in World Cup Soccer.
G: But we have seen in the last century, the rapid economic growth of former Soviet Russia under centrally planned communist dictatorship.
S: Yes, but that did not last for even a century. To sustain growth and restore human dignity and freedom, the system collapsed from which the disintegrated parts are yet to revive.
G: We have seen the Japanese miracle that was brought about by a network of institutions and business houses/ families commandeered by the Government.
S: And, sustained and significant US Aid and support. But that miracle also did not last beyond five decades. Ultimately, people had to be given back their freedom however reluctantly as the hidden inefficiencies of Govt. dominated economic system started surfacing.
G: What about Germany, France and other countries where the State exert considerable influence on the economic development?
S: Yes, these countries failed to sustain strong economic growth over long periods and lost out to the US in terms of competitiveness.
G: What about the UK?
S: First, Thacherism had to come to rescue the British economy from doldrums through privatization and liberalization. Next, Blair had to give another thrust to private enterprise and initiative.
G: What about Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea?
S: They did well and are doing well. But the over the years the State is becoming only a symbol attached to what their private enterprises do.
G: What about Latin America?
S: They remain Latin America and where they were: relatively poor countries facing crises from time to time.
G: But by 2040, the BRICS countries, Brazil, Russia, India and China are going to be major economies of the World.
S: By that time, the nature of the State in these countries will also dramatically change. And, even at that time, in terms of per capita income, these countries will not be close to the top economies in terms of per capita income.
G: Do you mean to say that the State does not have a role in economic development?
S: That is beside the point, Sir. Even thousand of years ago, there were rich kingdoms and poor kingdoms. The standard of living and wealth of those kingdoms obviously depended on the nature of the kings and the royal dynasties. The oppressive kingdoms did not sustain economic growth for long, even in the individual kings might have enjoyed their lives. On the other hand, kingdoms in which the royalty was less oppressive, the businessmen had freedom to do business and the environment encouraged competition and rewarded talent, innovation, hard work, dexterity and creativity prospered. The King could stall economic development and distort economic development in many ways like economic oppression, forced labour, high taxation, favouritism, nepotism, unfair systems of justice, corruption in administration, poor governance , poor law and order, inefficient enforcement of contracts, inefficient system of dispute resolution, neglect of the weak and the poor, discrimination among subjects, restriction on trade and commerce, going into wars frequently, forcing people to change religion, keeping sections of the people away from education and poor civic infrastructure. The fundamental role of the King was not to do such things. If the King had been doing the opposite things well, the people would have delivered economic development: the farmers, the artisans, the traders and the businessmen. The Kings cannot deliver economic development in any manner: whether by contributing to vision or planning or implementing manufacturing or trading projects or by creating economic ministries to coordinate and guide the countrymen.
G: But many Kings did not do what they should have done.
S: And, many democratic and socialist governments still do not do what the societies are used to expect of them: providing good governance. Rather, they try to do what they are not required to do: plan and implement economic development. The results are just the opposite of what was desired. You get short periods of economic growth at great cost to and oppression of the people. Rules of terror, fear, corruption, delayed justice, poor education and heath, etc, continue even now in socialist or democratic or communist countries as much they did throughout the political history of different countries, except brief periods under capable and yet benevolent rulers.
G: Why does this happen?
S: That is the process of creation and maintenance of creation. It is the Natural Law or the Destiny Principle in operation. Nature produces diversity: not merely knowledge and application of science. Cleverness and foolishness, missionary zeal and indifference, cold calculations and emotions- all sorts of opposites combine in different proportions at different points of time and space. Man does not have any control over this. Man can only witness whatever happens and does only what Man is forced by Nature to do.
G: Let us assume for the moment that what you are saying is correct and proceed further.
S: Good. We come back to current times. Man is in search of just and fair rule. Which men really search? Clearly, philosophers and thinkers take up this job. They search for and try to design ideal social structures and systems that will deliver the most fair and just system. They thought of the principles of liberty, freedom and equality. They designed systems of democracy, republics, socialism and communism. But these concepts and models did not solve problems of economic growth and economic development. No one has yet been able to solve the problems. Meanwhile, the people who want to become leaders of nations or countries experimented with different concepts and models evolved by the thinkers to the extent they understood them in practical terms. Basically, there are two models being tried out. One where economic growth results largely from individual and private group initiative and enterprise but the State ensures income transfers and support to the weak through taxes and subsidies/ grants. The second is the dominant model under which the State has the right to take all steps that the State feels necessary to ensure economic growth and development.
G: If I may say so, the first model is the free enterprise, capitalist market economy system. The dominant model is one of socialism, communism and State planning and control over economic activities. The first model failed to deliver. As a result the second model developed.
S: You are broadly right in identifying the basic models. But I do not think the second model has so far delivered as well as the first one. The failure of capitalism, free enterprise and market mechanism is in no way any greater than that of socialism or State economic planning and control.
G: Why do you say so? We have the examples of Soviet Russia and China, besides a host of Asian countries.
S: Examples do help understand things easily. But they do not constitute proof from scientific, theoretical or empirical point of view. Soviet Russia did not survive for long in its original form and we do know about the economic sufferings of Russian people who had guaranteed jobs but not guaranteed food supply. China suffered great famines. Both Russia and China are now on their path to economic liberalization, free enterprise and market mechanism, though the State-centric approach to economic growth and development still continues to remain largely in tact. India is no different even now.
G: Why do many nations adopt such State-centric economic growth and continue to cling to it?
S: This is because of Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. You have some economic theory which says economic growth depends on national savings rate, investment rate, value added (national income) per unit of capital, labour productivity, rate of growth of consumption of goods and services by the nation,, rate and nature of technical/ technological progress, efficient allocation of capital and natural resources among alternative uses, risk taking ability, entrepreneurial talents, international trading opportunities, state of infrastructure for dispute settlement and contract enforcement, financial services, transport, goods trans-shipment and handling facility, power generation and distribution, education, health and availability of natural resources, etc. The issue is who will organize to ensure that an economy has the best possible situation in respect of all these factors.
G: Is there some one who can ensure all this? Or, can Man create such a institution or mechanism that will ensure all this?
S: There is as yet no scientific theoretical or empirical proof of the existence of any person, body, institution or mechanism that is fully competent and capable of doing all this. Moreover, the desire is not merely of economic growth and progressively higher standards of living for the citizens. Simultaneously, Man wants that economic growth is rapid, stable and sustainable with ecological and environmental protection and equality of income, wealth and opportunities among citizens.
G: You need a very powerful group of people and institutions or mechanisms to deliver all that you desire.
S: Unfortunately, we do not as yet have such a powerful entity or the scientific proof that we can create such a one.
G: Then what do we do?
S: Only option is to believe that we can design such an entity and have faith in such an entity.
G: Do all people believe in creating such an entity?
S: No. Some just tried to find out if there are natural forces or mechanisms that operate to perform this job efficiently and competently.
G: What have they found?
S: They have found some natural forces do part of the job competently and efficiently and that too only under certain circumstances. One such force is called Invisible Hand of markets. Based on this some designed market mechanisms the use of which can deliver economic efficiency so necessary to step up growth. They found concepts of market equilibrium and steady state economic growth under certain conditions. But the real world seldom, if ever approximates the conceptual frameworks and conditions. So, they recommend regulation over markets to protect against the possibility of market failures, monetary policy to control inflation, and use of State policy to promote education, protect the weak, smoothen fluctuations in economic activity levels, provide incentives for R& D, innovation, entrepreneurship as well as direct legal and fiscal efforts at promoting income equality, equality of economic opportunities, environmental and ecological protection.
G: So, it is a mixture of individual enterprise, free markets, market regulation and State intervention.
S: Yes. But this mix is based only partly on scientific knowledge and largely on faith and belief that you can sometimes rely on the institution called the State or Government. This far it is based on Cause-Effect Paradigm. Beyond this, people start believing that the State is really powerful to ever fail and therefore they move away from use of free market mechanism and independent self-regulation or regulation to complete determination by the State and its progressively expanding and complex machinery. This is when the cause-Effect Paradigm that recognizes the limitations of market mechanism turns into a Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. The ideology that develops from such Obsession is that that the State knows what is the correct thing to do, has no deficiency and really achieves the goals of maximum rate of economic growth with economic stability and sustainability and reduction of economic disparities. The opposition political parties may often criticize the Government of the day on the latter’s economic development policy. But if the opposition party gets into power tomorrow, they will follow a similar, if not the same economic development policy.
G: So in this alternative model there is no role for markets, equilibrium and entrepreneurship. The State does everything.
S: You are right. The State decides what rate at which the economy should grow, how much it should save, invest and consume, what the country should produce, how these will be produced by what technology and in which factories, where the factories should be located and should be owned by whom, what it will import and export, what the nation will consume, what they will not consume, what the prices of different commodities and services will be, what the distribution of intermediate goods, raw materials and goods in short supply should be among different sections of the citizens, among different regions of the country and among different alternative uses, and so on.
G: It is like God wills and God gets. Whatever the State decides, it happens.
S: Unfortunately, the State has the power to decide and no power to ensure that it gets what it decides. It is like God wills and seldom gets. Countrymen were urged to give all powers to the State and the Government to plan and implement all economic activities and fix the values of all economic variables including industrial location, technology, production capacity, actual production, prices, sales to different classes of consumers as well as the allocation of financial resources for both public and private sectors. The Indian experiment of socialist economic planning and State controlled economic structure since Independence is only one of many examples. The Government has failed miserably in delivering they promised year after year, budget after budget and plan after plan till they put the country into bankruptcy in 1990. The elitist native rulers of India developed the concept of private sector promoters in the name of mixed economy and the whole development banking business and bank nationalization was ushered in to dole out money to favored and loyal, even if weak and incompetent businessmen. The nurturing and breeding pet criminals under the fold of different political parties was preceded by State patronage of weak, corrupt businessmen and Industrial was introduced to protect the favoured and loyal business houses from competition. The private sector in India had been nothing but an ancillary of the public sector. People without money or experience or competence were encouraged to access private savings of households through the mechanism of developmental and commercial banking. India did not produce a many great industrialists after Independence. One cannot breed a great successful industrialist or corporate leader in an environment of reservation and patronage for loyal businessmen.
G: Even if what you say is correct, India would not have grown economically, politically and militarily as much as she has done during 1947- 87.
S: There is no scientific proof of your statement. Nor can one prove that India could not have grown much faster had India not introduced socialist economic planning with commanding heights for the public sector.
G: These are not laboratories of physical sciences or mathematical issues where we can prove these.
S: But to claim something as true without valid proof or evidence is simply unscientific and inconsistent with Cause-Effect Paradigm. It is a kind of faith and belief close to educated superstition. That is Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome.
G: At the time of Independence, Indian capitalists did not have sufficient resources to fund Indian economic growth.
S: It is surprising that we believed in this insufficiency of private capital
argument. Did we have enough public capital at that time? All capital that
had gone into public sector in the planning era was the transfer of wealth
of private individuals expropriated by the State in various forms and
foreign capital brought under Govt. channel. The State did not ever
accumulate capital during 1947- 87; it only wasted and consumed
capital. We know how big and long the budget and fiscal deficits ran and what has been the net return on capital from investments in the public sector or Departmental enterprises of the Central and State Governments.
G: But World Bank economic growth models also supported use of multilateral loans for economic development.
S: That foreign capital can accelerate economic growth is known for long. But the foreign capital recipient country need not have to be one that is socialist, centrally planned and controlled. Foreign capital inflow through World Bank to any country only increased the World Bank’s business necessary to justify its existence and we paid for the costs associated with economist developmental bureaucracy of the World Bank and ours.
G: Let us assume that there is no proof that State planned, directed, led and controlled economy will deliver rapid, stable and sustainable economic growth with progress in equality in income, income opportunities and wealth and ecological and environmental protection. Let us assume also that if people continued to believe in such a cause- effect relation between State and economic growth despite lack of valid scientific proof, that is nothing but a faith reflecting Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. What happens next? The economic liberalization and economic reforms needs to be explained.
S: The natural process of Cause-Effect Inverse also starts operating at some point. The concepts of the State and Government have inherent weaknesses or deficiencies. In fact, the State has more deficiencies than the deficiencies of market mechanism and free enterprise. This helps a slow but steady reversal of dependence on the State sooner or later. That is how economic liberalization and economic reforms began in many countries during the 1980s and 1990s.
G: But did just one day India changed its mind and started this process of privatization, liberalization and globalisation? The State’s role suddenly changed?
S: Not exactly the way you say. But Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome leads you to do unnatural, unscientific and unsustainable things. By 1990 it was clear that India was a slow-growing largely closed economy that delivered very little economic growth on sustainable basis and very little on economic equality and yet she had become bankrupt. There was no way that the State could have admitted to the abject failure of socialist and state controlled economic system. But it had to do something for its own survival. So, it hesitatingly and reluctantly started economic reforms, hoping to unwind them at an opportune time that never came. But it took control of the process of reforms. If you have a long period of economic reforms, you can justify the State’s role in economic development. People can continue to believe that the State is delivering; while the fact is economic growth is delivered largely outside the State’s sphere of activity.
Economic growth has spurted because the State’s role has been dramatically curtailed. But the State seems prominent because it announces economic reforms. Actual economic growth is now delivered by the absence of the State in many areas.
G: You mean to say that Cause-Effect Inverse has developed.
S: Exactly. People are being led to believe that the State and its organs like the Planning Commission are delivering higher economic growth, while actually they are still constraining economic growth, though not as much as they did during 1947- 87. People are led to believe that economic reforms are the instruments with which the State is delivering economic growth. Actually however economic reforms are essentially moving the State out of the major part of economic activities. It is now more the market forces and the people of India and the foreigners who want to trade with and invest in India by their separate decisions that determines the rate at which the economy grows, the economy’s rates of saving, investment and consumption, the basket of production, the technology deployed in factories, the location of factories, the ownership of factories, the pattern of exports and imports, the prices of goods and services, the allocation of resources among different uses and so on. The State makes it own decision as a producer or consumer or investor only in the market. It is no more the State it was for forty years.
G: Then why not the Indians call their system a capitalist, market economy?
S: Cause-Effect Paradigm does not win all the time. The Obsession Syndrome that State is the Cause and Economic development is the Effect continues in an Inverse way. The State is active in dismantling its sphere of its influence on the economic decisions the country takes. This activity of the State paradoxically is advertised as the Cause.
G: Better we end this long session here.

Cause Effect Paradigm 004

2009-01-24T09:51:00.000-08:00

Full Convertibility Example

G: To progress in our discussions in more meaningful way, we need illustrations of Cause-Effect Paradigm, Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverse.
S: Fine. Let us go through some real life examples. Let us reflect all these three through our dialogue. Can we explain why Indians fear Full Convertibility of the Rupee?
G: One reason can be that China has not done this. China with a larger population has continued to peg its currency with the Dollar and still runs a largely State controlled economy. If such a big country which has been growing much faster than India for long does not have full convertibility, why should India take such a step whose consequences can be bad?
S: So the scientific prejudice says that it is advisable to follow someone who is more powerful than you are.
G: Yes, it is better to follow good examples. Why do you call this prejudice?
S: Because the example is not relevant from the point of view of Cause-Effect Paradigm. Such examples reflect Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. First, we only know of the past of China but we do not know of the future of China There is no certainty that China will follow the same policies all the time to come or that China will continue to do well with the same policies adopted in the past. If China’s pegged to dollar currency and restricted currency convertibility policies are to be good examples, we have to wait and check all the time in future if China is continuing to do well and/ or whether China is changing its exchange rate and currency convertibility policies. If future is what will prove whether certain policy or set of policies are good or bad, we cannot just follow examples of the past. To overcome this obsession syndrome, we have to paint a picture of the future and work backwards to the present.
G: Fine. There are other examples that show that many Asian countries that had adopted policies of free exchange rate determination by the market forces of demand, supply, etc., later suffered the Asian financial crises. But India and China escaped because they did not adopt such policies.
S: Association of events may not imply that a straightforward cause and effect relationship exists. Those countries that suffered the financial crisis in 1997 also did many other things that were not necessarily consistent with or necessarily complementary to full convertibility. So which is the cause of what is not very clear. Besides many of these countries survived the crisis without much real damage. Normalcy returned in a short period of time. Why should some one worry about such short-term crises that make the economy stronger soon? Unless afflicted by Obsession Syndrome, we need not worry and invent logic to avoid what we fear.
G: Yes, Indians are generally afraid of full convertibility. Why risk full convertibility if we can avoid it for longer period?
S: Indians avoided markets, competition and liberal external trade for over four decades since Independence and remained a poor, slow growing country. The cost of such a policy turned out to be huge on the economy and the people.
G: Why do say that past economic policies forced the Indians suffer a great cost?
S: I do not have to say this. Those who are afraid of full convertibility today know this fact. The much faster economic growth of India since the time India started liberalizing and opening up is a pointer that they should wonder about. The cost of avoiding full convertibility can also be great.
G: It is better to pay such costs when we do not know what exactly will happen in future. India must get stronger before she adopts full convertibility. Otherwise, who knows how strong western countries will start dominating India soon?
S: But full convertibility itself can help India become stronger by growing at a faster rate and effectively deal with any threat of foreign domination. How many countries with full convertibility are foreign dominated in the world today? You do not know. So you develop apprehensions about what is strange and unfamiliar to you. So, you build up a cause-effect relation between Full Convertibility and foreign domination. You are affected by obsession syndrome. You start misusing the cause-effect paradigm even without being conscious of doing so.
G: You know who I am and you accuse me of obsession syndrome.
S: All these are but natural forces that are inherent part of the Universe or Creation. You are also part of the Universe and therefore can reflect Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome.
G: That is all the more true of you. Whatever you are saying may also be because the same Syndrome affects you.
S: According to my understanding of the Creation, that is quite natural. But you are required to defend Full Convertibility.
G: Yes. Look. India is already on the verge of full convertibility. India can wait for a while before the last few small steps to Full convertibility.
S: In that case, the last few small steps can as well be taken immediately.
G: Why hurry? Foreigners are happy that Rupee is fully convertible. All Indian businesses can buy foreign exchange to meet their import requirements and also invest abroad in setting up factories and buying ownership of foreign companies to set up their foreign subsidiaries. Indians can freely import whatever they want and go abroad whenever they like by purchasing reasonable amounts of foreign exchange for buying goods/ services during their stay abroad and remitting money to their children for education or as gift. They can also invest abroad up to certain amounts through banks and mutual funds. Only thing that remains to be done is to allow Indian citizens in general to buy and sell foreign exchange freely and without limits.
S: If that is the small step, why not India takes it now?
G: Indians have two reasons. First, India’s growth rate is not going to increase dramatically if Indian citizens are allowed unrestricted freedom to buy, sell and hold foreign currency or financial assets abroad. Second, if such freedom is given Indian businessmen and the rich will take away Indian wealth abroad and endanger a financial crisis.
S: Both the reasons do not seem to be based on scientific cause and effect relationship. We have no proof that Full Convertibility will not sharply increase India’s growth rate. We also have no proof that rich Indians will take away Indian wealth abroad. These are pure guesses. If we are worried about Indians investing and holding assets abroad, Reserve Bank of India is already doing that. Where are our foreign exchange reserves? If Reserve Bank can hold such huge foreign currency assets, they can be held by individual resident Indians as well.
G: So, you are supporting the case for Full Convertibility.
S: I am not simply interested in supporting any thing. What I am trying to say is that the case against Full Convertibility is weak from a strictly scientific standpoint. The same may be true of the case for Full Convertibility as well. Science has not yet helped us with adequate knowledge to come to a definitive conclusion about Full Convertibility. So we should say we do not know the Truth.
G: You do what you would like to believe as true. It’s simply a matter of faith. It is not a matter on which Cause-Effect Paradigm is as yet able to give an unambiguous, scientific answer. The matter is therefore to be solved unscientifically and based on which faith is more popular among those who will decide.
G: Your concept of Cause-Effect Inverse has no role to play in this.
S: It has. One can construct many types of Inverses to experiment. We will now construct one such Inverse. Let us assume that for some (n+1) periods, namely, “(T+n), (T+n-1), (T+n-2), ……., (T+1) and “T” the economy has sustained with Full Convertibility (FC). This causes less than FC in period (T-1). What features of FC now are lost?
G: That you have to answer.
S: You are not cooperating with me. Fine. I say that the features of FC that will be missing in (T-1) depend on the dynamics of the economy in the periods T, (T+1), etc. So, we must assume something on this. Let us assume that the economy is experiencing progressively higher current account deficit as percentage of National Income as one moves backwards in time from (T+n) towards T and to a few periods near T like (T-1), (T-2), the economic growth rate falls as we move closer to T, foreign investments falling in absolute terms and rising foreign exchange inflows and reserves. The effect of this dynamics on period (T-1), I suspect, would be restriction on domestic resident nationals to invest abroad or on holding of foreign exchange in banks.
G: You are trying to be clever. You are assuming scenarios and dynamics that would imply that India should remove restrictions on resident Indians investing in foreign currency assets now.
S: You know how clever people can be. But isn’t the scenarios desirable and dynamics a possible reality.
G: Yes. It is one of the many possible scenarios.
S: Why then are Indians reluctant to attempt to make such a scenario become a reality. Why are they afraid of moving to Full Convertibility immediately?
G: You should explain.
S: It is only natural. First, some are wedded to the thought or ideology that the process of liberalization and globalisation is an evil that cannot be avoided altogether but must be resisted: the only way to safeguard national interest and Indians future is to keep minimum openness to international capitalism, to control citizens’ economic freedom through State intervention and to uplift the economic condition of the poor by State efforts only.
G: That may be the socialist or communist view. But there are many other Indians who do not subscribe to the ideas of socialism or communism.
S: True. There are others who may not subscribe to the ideas of communism or socialism but would still support the communist and socialists because their vested interest. They want the State domination over citizens’ life because such a system gives them a chance to use State power in a manner that benefits them in many direct and indirect ways at the cost of the exchequer and the economy. Greater openness to global economy for individual Indian citizens implies loss of an income, wealth and social image building opportunity these bases and supporters of Indian political parties used to abuse of the dominating and pervasive power of the State. It is natural that they will resist Full Convertibility.
G: What about the rich Indian businessmen and the capitalists?
S: They will naturally be for or against FC depending on what they anticipate as the favourable or adverse consequences of FC on their future business prospects. But most businesses cannot really figure out the consequences. As any other human beings, some of them do not like uncertainty about the future consequences of FC. So, these people are against FC. The adventurous like to face the challenges that FC might bring and therefore support FC.
G: But the intelligentsia, the academicians are also divided on the issue.
S: They may be in one of the groups that we have already discussed about and will reflect their natural interest.
G: What about the common mass?
S: They follow whomever they happen to consider as their leader irrespective of what the issue is.
G: So, what is the result?
S: The result depends on popularity and not on arguments and scientific truth. And, the popularity depends on the strength of the political parties, the quality and reach of the media, the new evidence and theory that come to the fore over time and the bargaining among the political parties over different issues. Thought of FC would have been a national nightmare in 1992, a great relief in 1997, a debatable issue in 2003 and a likely future in 2006. Soon, most Indians may become indifferent to the issue of FC and FC will become a reality in India.
G: How does Cause-Effect Inversion help in this case?
S: Once you recognize that you do not know the Truth with certainty, then you admit of your prescription being based on faith or belief. Then, you allow for people to vote based on their desires as well. For example, some Indian citizens of the country may simply desire that the international financial markets and foreigners recognize the Rupee as one of strong currencies in which they should hold their assets and simultaneously the Indians desire to hold assets in other stronger currencies. If most people think in that way, the national economic policy will have to be geared to making Rupee fully convertible at the earliest. Such an objective makes fast economic growth or reduction in poverty as results from the pursuit of the objective to attaining full convertibility rather than as objectives to be pursued. Your perspective change dramatically.
G: So, you say that Cause-Effect Paradigm, Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverse may work simultaneously as processes in individual and social behaviour.
S: Yes. And, which of these processes become stronger at what time determines the individual’s and societies choices over time.
G: Does this process apply to all social and economic issues?
S: Yes. The natural process is that the popularity of the debates on various issues as well as the popularity of different opinions on any particular social, political, economic, national and international issue, fluctuate over time with a cyclical, if not a secular, trend towards nil.
G: To summaries at this stage, you seem to suggest that
(a) Whatever happens in a society over time is a natural process;
(b) Whatever controls or directions that individuals or leaders or elite groups or different sections seemingly exercise or impart over that natural process is actually an integral part of the natural process itself;
(c) Cause-Effect Paradigm, Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Syndrome are examples of interactive sub-processes of the natural process that determines how a society moves over time; and,
(d) The social, economic or political choices that societies seem to argue for or seem to make are actually not choices based wholly or fully on scientific truths but the result of interactions of natural sub-processes over which neither individuals or groups or the society as a whole has/ have any control.
S: You are absolutely right. I also say that whether I support a particular economic policy or is against it or I remain indifferent to policy issues for whatever reason, is not my independent rationally chosen decision but the outcomes of natural processes over which I can really have any control.
G: And, you also say that these outcomes result from interactive processes that are stochastic in nature.
S: Yes. It is merely a chance that I happen to support or criticise a particular policy. And, it is merely a chance that the society or the nation adopts a particular policy at any time.
G: So, you come back to your Stochastic Destiny Principle.
S: You are absolutely right. That happens to an obsession that I reflect by chance.
G: But we need to discuss more examples of social and economic policy.
S: If you agree we will do that in the next few sessions.

Cause Effect Paradigm 003

2009-01-24T09:48:00.000-08:00

Frustration Syndrome

G: I surmise that your motivation to develop Cause-Effect Inverse is to prove that one has no independence in choosing the future consistent with your Destiny Principle.
S: You are right in being suspicious about my motive. But my voyage is one in exploration and examination.
G: But I also suspect that your Choice-absent Destiny Principle has emerged from your frustrations and failures that you have experienced in your life. Since you could not succeed in many areas despite your best efforts, you have become a believer in fate. I say that you exhibit a Frustration Syndrome. You failed in many areas and did not find any cause of that failure that was under your control and you chose not to use the control.
S: You are partly right. My frustrations and failures in life are the raw data for the hypothesis of Destiny Principle. But all my achievements and successes in life are equally important raw data that contributed to my thinking. I could not relate anything independent / free choice that led to my achievements and successes. There was no cause that could fully and uniquely explain my successes and achievements as the effect.
G: But your life is not a representative sample.
S: You are right. But there are so many persons like me in this world. The states towards the end of many lives are so similar despite wide differences in initial states. There is no unique relationship between end states and states before that. When we deal with so many persons we have more than representative sample for analytical purposes.
G: But much depends on how you establish equivalence of (identical) states. That is very difficult considering the multitude of dimensions of a state for an individual, especially in view of individual differences in psychological and mental perception about seemingly identical states.
S: If we cannot establish equivalence of states among different individuals, the problem gets further compounded for the reliability of scientific methods.
G: How sure are you that your approach is not conditioned by your failures and frustrations and your life experience?
S: I am not sure of anything. I just want to explore and find out. I want science to address my concern about the capability of science to attain complete knowledge in finite time.
G: You can never get that.
S: In that case reliance on science for attaining complete knowledge about Creation becomes a matter of faith.
G: How does that matter if people have faith in science?
S: It matters. In that case, it would be difficult to make a rational choice between spiritual / religious pursuit and scientific pursuit of knowledge as alternative paths to complete knowledge.
G: I understand what you are saying. One can have blind faith in God or Destiny Principle. Another can have blind faith in the future progress of Science. Being faiths, there is nothing to choose between them. So what?
S: You are right. It does not make much difference to the World. If there are cultural prejudices, social prejudices, religious prejudices and irrational behaviour all over the world, the scientific prejudices can co-exist as well. For, all this is consistent with the Destiny Principle. It is the very essence of Nature and Natural Laws. Belief in Science and belief in God will co-exist in Nature. That’s Natural Law. And that’s Creation. We cannot really choose between them. We happen to be believers in either Science or God or both or none from time to time.
G: You will say that this is just the result of a stochastic process.
S: Yes. There are many who are frustrated by failures including failure to get God’s favour to fulfill their desires or wants. Some of them stop believing in God while some continues to believe in God. It is not a result of independent free choice: it is simply the result of stochastic destiny process.
G: But Science delivers. There is proof.
S: Yes. Science delivers. But God also delivers so many things including Science. Science and scientific methods are part of the Creation, i.e. God. Concept of God, spiritual philosophy and practice of religion are the result of the natural human urge to know about the Universe and about Creation. This urge has given birth to many concepts, methods of analysis and experiments. Over time this helped evolve the concept of science and scientific methods. Science is also a result of Man’s urge to know.
G: But the urge to know is followed by the urge to use knowledge in life.
S: That is absolutely right. All these urges are natural sub-processes of the great stochastic destiny process. Scientific inquiries have made great successes and great failures. But Science continues to advance in both knowing and in continuously expanding the new areaa of ignorance Man wants to reduce.
G: How then do Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome and Cause-Effect Inverse contribute to the process?
S: These two are very natural, integral sub-processes of the Creation. These processes along with Cause-Effect Paradigm and human race have no choice but to co-exit. That co-existence and interaction is the history and future of Creation and its various parts.
G: Spiritual leaders do not know many of the Truths that Scientists have discovered.
S: The reverse is also true. Spiritual leaders know something that Scientists do not. Scientists also do not know how and why spiritual leaders come to exist. Spiritual leaders try to know something, which if they come to know results in zero need to know anything else including what Science may have discovered or trying to discover. But Creation is not about just spiritual leaders and their knowledge: it is also about Science, scientists, about people afflicted by Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome, about people with blind faith in God or Science, about human beings in general, about other life forms and about everything else we are aware of and not aware of.
G: To avoid confusion, lets end this session now.

Cause Effect Paradigm 002

2009-01-24T09:45:00.001-08:00

Paradigm Obsession Syndrome

G: You were talking about Cause-Effect Inversion. Even if we accept that, how does it help us?
S: It helps us avoid the Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. To put it another way Cause-Effect Inversion is the antidote to Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. To understand this we need to elaborate the Syndrome a bit further. Can I have your permission?
G: Granted.
S: We have already seen the basic characteristic of this Syndrome. It is reflected in the belief in and faith on the ability of Science to explain the Nature/Universe/ Creation completely one day in infinite time. This belief or faith is not based on any scientific reasoning but only a projection of the past successes of science in explaining many Natural phenomena and identifying many Laws that govern the Nature or Universe or Creation.
G: But do all scientists develop this Syndrome?
S: No. Pure scientists’ mind may not be able to accept this faith. For them, they accept as Truth only those Laws/ Principles/ Propositions for which scientific inquiry has found valid scientific proof and this acceptance is conditional on Scientific Inquiry not finding any inadequacy of the proof at any later point of time. Pure Scientific mind accepts as Truths that have been established by known and accepted scientific methods. It rejects propositions / theories that are inconsistent with the accepted Truths or have been proved wrong by scientific methods. It pleads ignorance about any other theories or propositions.
G: Then, how does the Obsession Syndrome develop?
S: It develops naturally from the great power that Science and Technology have demonstrated over centuries. If science has discovered so much and impacted Man’s life so much as compared to the ancient days, I would tend to develop a faith that one final day Science will discover all that completely and fully explain creation with zero probability of any part of the Complete sets of Truths being ever proved wrong after that final day.
G: I now seem to understand what you are trying to say about this Syndrome.
S: But there is more. When this Syndrome affects my mind, I tend also to believe that the search for and establishing cause and effect relationships are easy now that I am conversant with accepted scientific methods. So even before I am able to establish valid proofs, I start believing in cause and effect relationships that I only surmise to be Truths. If many others join me in the same belief, I develop a confidence in those surmises yet to be proved as Truth. When many people, including the common people, join this process of spreading of faith, surmises turns into Truths based on popularity. We develop different schools of thought. The scientific community and the common people get divided into different groups based on what they believe to be true. They tend to criticize each other based on inadequate proof supplied and possible vested interest motives.
G: I see. What is this motive issue?
S: So long as the debates over scientific theories/ propositions remain within the scientists, there is very little concern with the motive issue. One school of scientists may not agree with another. Both may go on finding fault with the logic/ arguments/ proofs supplied by each other. But sometimes, each school tries to go beyond the debate and start ascribing personal / group motives to explain why the other school has vested interest in favouring a particular theory without valid proof. For example, those in favour of theory X may get tempted to say that those favouring the competing theory Y have an ulterior extra-scientific interest to do so: the ulterior motive may be to protect the reputation of the leaders of their school of thought or to support a particular social policy.
G: How can scientists do that kind of bickering and character assassinations?
S: Normally they do not. And, it does not really matter much even if they do such quarreling strictly among themselves for the scientific community in general has the patience to bear the pains of long periods of waiting to get to the Truth.
G: So, the Syndrome does not really matter.
S: It matters in the real world outside when the policy-makers, administrators, politicians, educated classes, environmentalists and even the common people get involved or roped in subjects/ theories/ propositions of scientific debates.
G: How?
S: Some scientific Truths have implications on public policy. When scientists prove that nicotine and other elements in tobacco raises the chances of a smoker attracting cancer, anti-smoking lobbies develop. But many doctors who treat patients continue to smoke. The tobacco growers and cigarette/ tobacco product manufacturers resist ban on consumption of tobacco. Confusion arises. Different groups take their defense from scientific cause-effect relationship discoveries. Some may argue that if people start smoking on a limited scale after the age of 60, this may in itself not cause cancer before the smoker dies at the age of 75. There are many people who smoked away till they met death before attracting cancer. Now, public policy regarding smoking divides common people, even members in the same family, into smoking and anti-smoking groups. Even passive smoking becomes a great issue. Both the groups believe in cause-effect paradigm but fight based on their own understanding of the scientific basis of the relationship between smoking and cancer.
G: We know that smoking increases the risk of cancer. This is based on scientific observation and analysis.
S: You are right. But it is equally true that many smokers did not have cancer before they died and many non-smokers died of cancer. Both are scientific truths. So, the Truth that a scientist can accept is that smoking may most likely cause cancer and injury to health. If we are not affected by cause-effect obsession syndrome we will not accept the statement that smoking will certainly cause cancer. Science is not so easy and simple as people afflicted by cause-effect obsession syndrome would believe.
G: But most likely incidence of cancer due to smoking is based on scientific application of Probability Statistics Theory with empirical data.
S: True. That is why we use it with most likely qualification and we never mean that it is certain. Based on this high probability of the average smoker we tend to develop ban on smoking or smoking in public places.
G: That is logical.
S: No. Not necessarily if we come to know that the genetic/ biological/ molecular combination differences among individuals can lead to differences in the likelihood of each individual getting affected by cancer before death. This may mean different sets of human beings classified by such genetic differences may have different probabilities of being affected by cancer before death depending on he starts smoking and rate of smoking. In case later science confirms such calculations, public policy implications could be different: like smoking can be banned for individuals based on genetic test reports. This would be especially relevant once the society recognizes smoking may be giving enjoyment or pleasure to some people and this value of enjoyment from smoking has to be compared with the cost of smoking including differential probability of attracting cancer before death of different individuals.
G: But that is relevant if and when Science comes with such discovery of the Truth of differences in probability of attracting cancers for different individuals.
S: Correct. But once we start recognizing such possibilities in the future our moral justification for general smoking ban today weakens. We specifically correct the cautionary statement from “ smoking will cause cancer” to “ Smoking will cause cancer unless you are an exceptional case”.
G: Can you give another example?
S: Yes. Scientific Truth leads us to use pesticides to protect agricultural produce on the fields. Scientific Truth also leads us to ban use of pesticides given the potential adverse effect on the health of the people who eats vegetables produced by farmers who use pesticides. Then starts a process of trying to find the optimal rate of pesticide application. A debate on optimal standards emerges. Again, people get divided on the issue of use of pesticides. Each group thinks that they have the scientific proof of the cause-effect relationship between pesticide use and heath of the people. Observe the Coke-Pepsi drink controversy that caused widespread concern in India in 2003 and again in 2006. Both sides had their own scientific proof. If you observe you will find many learned persons joined the two sides of the debate and yet either most of these people will not fully aware of the scientific findings or were hiding that part of the scientific knowledge from the people that were not consistent with their argument or case. In fact, the debate created more confusion about scientific methods and findings. These debates are natural phenomenon and cannot be avoided but they are also the most unscientific activity that can happen.
G: So, what is the solution to such confusion caused by Cause-Effect Obsession paradigm?
S: The solution may lie in cultivating cause-effect paradigm inversion. That means we need to encourage people to view in the reverse way. Among those people who were affected by cancer, how many have had anything to with smoking or consuming tobacco? We work backwards from cancer to cigarette smoking and tobacco consumption. This approach of looking at things in this reverse way is Cause-Effect Inversion. It may sound absurd and funny but it helps remove cause-effect obsession syndrome that take you away from the letter and spirit of science. If we have Coke or Pepsi cola tomorrow as drink and apple as food, how should this cause us today to produce them with ingredients that meet the standards of pesticide residues. Can cola consumption tomorrow cause us to find today milk and municipal water supplied to homes as containing very high levels of pesticide residue and therefore cause us today to subject to processing of water and milk to certain standards of quality? Can safe food and drink tomorrow cause us to ban use of pesticides in agriculture today?
G: We better end this session here.

Cause Effect Paradigm 001

2009-01-24T09:45:00.000-08:00

Cause Effect Paradigm 000

2009-01-24T09:42:00.000-08:00

Cause-Effect Paradigm, Obsession Syndrome &
Paradigm Inverse_

[This is in continuation of the dialogue that begun in 2003 and continued till early 2006 in Choice of Destiny and Destiny of Choice. The present dialogue began in the second half of 2006. Man suffers from a great dilemma whether to believe in God and spiritualism or in Science and materialism. Choice of Destiny and Destiny of Choice tried to explore and expose this dilemma. Those who believe in God have difficulty in leading a life that is based on the acceptance of the proposition that they are puppets in the hands of God. They like to reserve something that they can do and choose independently of God. This is a dilemma that separates Man from God even for those who believe in God. But a similar dilemma faces those who do not believe in God and believe in reason, rationality, Science, Scientific methods and Supremacy of Mankind over Universe. For them the key is the methods of science and the past success of science’s explanatory power, but they still need for themselves a scientific proof to establish the certainty of the triumph of science in completely explaining the entire Universe in finite time. However optimistic one may be about the future of science based on its past success of science, a probability of less than one here gives rise to a dilemma whether the progress of science can be fully be explained by science itself. How far is the disbelief in God is dependent on a firm faith in the ultimate state of complete scientific knowledge about the Universe? This needs to be explored. One way of exploring that is to study how far choices are really made under Cause-Effect Paradigm.]

1. Cause-Effect Paradigm

G: We are meeting after a long time. Last time we met you were so obsessed with your Destiny Principle that you intended to explain all aspects of societal progress over time solely in terms of that Principle.
S: I know you do not like a Destiny Principle that refutes the existence of any choice to man as an individual or society. Many of my learned friends who believe in God did not like the human choice destructing Destiny Principle, even if it is of stochastic variety. Man wants to determine, at least partly, the destination he reaches at any future point of time.
G: That is true. Your concept of Destiny is not merely a meaningless one from the point of view of science; it takes away the freedom of choice to believe in God even from a person who believes in God.
S: I am sorry for that. But I can’t help. If you believe in God, you cannot but accept that it is God who has forced you to believe in God. It’s that simple.
G: Nor do you leave those who do not believe in God happy. You say that their disbelief in God is not an outcome of their free, independent choice but is the effect of God’s will.
S: It is not my choice either.
G: I understand your position. But your theories make the progress of science and human civilization beyond Man’s control.
S: Yes. But that seems to be the Truth. Something causes progress of science to take place in a sequence and pace that vary over time. Scientific progress is the effect of something. Science is about establishing links between causes and effects. Science is based on a particular paradigm of reasoning. And, it is a natural phenomenon. But associated with that is another natural phenomenon: a strong Cause-Effect Paradigm Obsession Syndrome.
G: Yes, Cause-Effect Paradigm is very fundamental to scientific methods: the association of effects and causes. But where do you get an obsession syndrome here?
S: Before that let us look at the cause-effect paradigm in a time perspective.
G: OK.
S: If you would observe the cause precedes the effect in time.
G: Yes, that is the sequence. It was the Big Bang that caused the Universe. It is energy and our limbs that help us jump. It is weight and gravity that pulls us down. It is some cells / DNA/ RNA within the body and their interaction among themselves and with external environment that determine our physical, emotional and intellectual growth, stability/ instability and decay. Whatever happens now must have a cause/ reason that exited before that particular happening.
S: Can you not think of effects preceding causes?
G: No. How can that happen?
S: We keep that for the next session.

2. Cause-Effect Inversion

G: How do you say that effect can precede cause in time? It is not possible.
S: The reason why one cannot believe in cause preceding effect is because of blind faith in Cause-Effect Paradigm. This paradigm gives rise to an obsession that I call cause-effect obsession syndrome. Once this Syndrome afflicts you, you cannot view the causes as effects and the effects as causes. But it is perfectly possible to run backwards in time and imagine decaying cells becoming alive and multiplying. If I am a scientist today, that is what caused me to study science in my school. If I am to die of cancer some eighty years later, this must cause cancerous cells to be hidden somewhere in my body much earlier.
G: You are saying the same thing as Science does but you are just interchanging the use of the terms cause and effect.
S: Yes, I am doing that but probably I am doing more than that. I am saying that it is today that caused yesterday and today is the effect of the future. I call this Cause-Effect Paradigm Inverse.
G: You have gone beyond fuzzy logic to funny, absurd logic.
S: Why do you call it absurd? Most of the time we do such funny things in real life. We first construct a future and then that causes us to think what we should do now. We wish to fly at a future date and that causes us to construct a device that would make us fly. It is the design of future that is the cause and the technological experiments that come before that is the effect.
G: You are wrong. What we construct or design about the future is the result of our past knowledge and experience. We design the future today when the future has not yet arrived. You must be careful about the way you deal with time.
S: Yes, we must be careful in handling time. If we say that we must live for a cause, the way we live now becomes the effect of that cause.
G: You are only playing with words. Such play will not help us progress.
S: We must be careful with words and time. Fine. But even noble laureate Rabindranath Tagore had composed a short story, titled IchhaPuran (Fulfillment of Wish), about how a father and son lived after they interchanged their position by a boon from the God.
G: That is a funny story for entertainment.
S: That is true but it is equally true that the story had important lessons to tell. But let us not distract from our main point. We classify time in such a way that some events of the later time can be ascribed as the effect of some other events of an earlier time. That is the natural process. But it is possible to look in an inverse way and some events of a later period had to cause some other events in an earlier period.
G: Why should we work with such inversion of cause and effect? How does this help us?
S: I agree that the normal cause-effect paradigm helps us to discover many natural laws. That is how the science has progressed. That is how even human civilization and the society have progressed over time. That is how even the concept of God, religion and culture have changed. We find out causes and effects and their relationship by observing the past happenings and, where possible, by doing experiments. But this method has still not helped us solve the problem of forecasting the future with certainty. Unless we are able to forecast the future with certainty all our knowledge remains incomplete in explaining the Universe or the Creation completely.
G: How does this issue matter? One day, science will discover all that explains the entire Creation and we will have complete knowledge.
S: It matters because we want to be certain that the progress of science is uniquely associated with a future state where we will all know the complete explanation of the Creation from time immemorial in the past to time immemorial in the future. Without the establishment of certainty, reliance on science will remain a faith no different from the faith in an ideology or a religion or the God. We cannot just wait indefinitely for science to reveal everything that we need to know. We also need to know how exactly science will discover all that we need to know. And, what happens after we get to know all that we need to know through science.
G: But has not the progress of science and technology already proved the capability of scientific methods?
S: If we have to have place complete reliance on science, we must be able to explain scientifically how the present is uniquely tied with the past. If the present could have come about also from a past different from the one we have witnessed, we have a problem. And, we have a greater problem if a present different from what we are witnessing at present was also possible given the same past that we have already witnessed. We need to establish that the past uniquely determines the future and the future is associated with a unique set of the past.
G: How can one do that? Future is unknown. We cannot predict the long-term future with certainty as yet.
S: If the future of science is uncertain, our belief in science and scientific methods is only a bet or a speculation or a faith that cannot be scientifically defended in a way that is stronger than the defense of faith in religion or God.
G: How do you propose to use the Cause-Effect Inverse to help us out of this dilemma?
S: First step would be to explore the uniqueness of present-past association. Once we get some confidence with the results from such exploration, the nest step would be to describe the desired ultimate state of complete scientific knowledge. Then, treating that State as the cause one would need to work backwards in time to see the effects of the cause and compare the actual past and present with the scenarios worked out as effects.
G: Assuming that this is feasible, how do we use that analysis?
S: If the worked out scenarios and the actual/ observed, present and past, tally, we could come to the conclusion that we could rely on science to attain Complete knowledge in finite time, not in our life time though.
G: That would be a great thing for the Superiority or rather Supremacy of Science. Does that mean that then Science becomes independent of the Destiny Principle?
S: No. Rather that would only prove completely that Science and its progress is explainable by the Destiny Principle. More interesting is the case where the reverse projection of the future in to the present and the past significantly differ from the observed ones. The most interesting possibility would be where the desired future state of complete scientific knowledge is consistent with alternative scenarios for the past.
G: What would that imply?
S: It could mean that Science may never reach the State of complete knowledge. It could also mean that Stochastic Destiny Principle works and that the progress of science is subject that Principle. All progress in science and technology is purely a natural process much like the process that generates rains, floods, volcanic eruptions, death of star, etc.
G: Your discussion is becoming too messy and abstract to the point of being bereft of sense. Can we not shift to some examples in real life?
S: We could try doing that in later sessions. But now we need to note that quite apart from this time inversion of cause-effect relationship, in real life we deal with time in many other inverse ways.
G: How?
S: When we discover light from a distant celestial body in a far away galaxy, we are dealing with the past in the present. When we listen to a disc recorded earlier a recoded DVD of Olympics we deal with past in the present. We capture the past and replay it in the present. We cannot capture the future in a similar way. But forecasts and predictions are probable images of the future. We do write scientific novels to project he future. If we work forward from assumptions and initial conditions to future state, why can’t we work backwards from a given/ assumed future state to the present and from the present to the past? Analysis of fossils found today helps us move backwards to paint the past.
G: But doing so is not necessarily an inversion of cause and effect relationship, as we normally understand.
S: You are right. But it might as well be an inversion if we simply could start thinking in terms of a dynamics that associate one state with another state with reverse ordering of the states in terms of time. We start with a 60-year-old just dead and work backwards in time or from a fruit to the tree to the sapling and to the seed. We may start from the current state of the earth to its state billions of years in the past. We can go back from the future to the present and to the past. We can go back from a desired future state to the present. This is only an analytical tool. Once you have the solution to a difference equation involving time, you have a time path along which you can move both forward and backward.
G: Let us end the session here to avoid further confusion.
S: I agree.

Choice of Destiny 017

2009-01-23T23:07:00.001-08:00

Prelude to Destiny of Choice

G: In this round, I wish to clear out the mess your discussions on God and destiny principle, have created in my mind. Would you consider giving me some straight answers? I wish to make a summary of what all you have said.
S: Yes, I will do that if I am so destined. Shoot your questions.
G: Is there a God? Who else is there in this Universe and beyond?
S: There is a God. And, there is only one God. And, there is nothing, except this God, in this Universe and beyond. There are numerous things you can or cannot see or hear or touch or feel or conceive or perceive or imagine or taste or conceptualize or analyze or manufacture or paint or write. All these and whatever else are nothing but God.
G: If that is so, then why are there different things?
S: Because, God can manifest Himself in different ways.
G: Why does the God do so?
S: As yet I do not know. Probably, He cannot but do otherwise. He is that way only. I do not know why?
G: In that case, do you admit that your God has a limitation?
S: Yes, I would admit that if I knew that there was never was a time and there will never be a time when the Entire Universe did not or will not contain different things. It is quite possible, there was at certain time only one thing. The process of destiny principle is consistent with a time when there are no different things for God to manifest. He just manifest as one thing.
G: What could be that one thing?
S: I really do not know. But I guess that is pure knowledge of the destiny principle.
G: Where will that knowledge lie?
S: It lies in itself. In other words, that is the one that I referred to as permanent existence that is infinite, indivisible, indestructible and never changes.
G: I do not know whether I can really imagine that situation. I better skip now to a different question. What do you do with your God? Do you worship that God or pray to Him?
S: I am not sure what is really meant by worship. There are a number of ways one can feel the need to worship. First, because one fears God’s immense power to harm him, one worships God to please him. Second, one thinks that by pleasing God, he might gain materially because God will use his power to benefit him. So, one worships God. Third, one is so overwhelmed and awed by God’ immeasurable diversity, size and beauty of the entire Creation that one worships God out of great respect. Fourth, one tends to develop love and affection for the great power that he respects so much. Fifth, one worships God to forget the earthly, material losses and sorrows. Sixth, one worships God because he wants to participate in the race among people who worship God. Seventh, one worships God because he wants feel the presence of God in his Self. I worship God for some of the above reasons. But I think I worship my God in the sense that I really love to think about and explore God. And, of course, I am at present destined to pray to God.
G: What do you pray To God?
S: I pray that that certain good things happen to my near and ones, to others, to the World and, of course, to me. I also pray that certain bad things do not happen.
G: Does your God listen to you and grant what you pray for?
S: My concept of God allows Him to be aware of everything that happens in this World and therefore of what I pray for. That I pray for is part of the Destiny Principle and therefore part of God’s Creation. Similarly, the extent to which some of my prayers may or may not come true is also part of the process of Destiny Principle. I worship and pray to God notwithstanding my doubt whether God exists to grant my prayers and wishes.
G: This last part of the answer is not very clear. Maybe I should ask you differently. What is your religion?
S: All along I have been declaring myself as Hindu. But that is because of family tradition. No body told me that I should consider something else as my religion.
G: I understand. You did not consciously choose a religion for yourself. But are you religious? Do you follow what Hindu religion preaches?
S: I do participate in some Hindu religious activities. But I cannot really claim to be religious in the popular sense. Nor can I say that I practice what Hindu religion preaches. In fact, I do not have very clear idea what all Hindu religion preaches. From my childhood days, however, I have carried over certain practices followed in my family those days, which many religious Hindus also follow. But following certain so-called Hindu traditions may not mean that I am religious.
G: You seem more like most people who do not know much about their religions. Fine, but you may have read Hindu scriptures, mythologies and holy books.
S: Hindu scriptures are supposed to be written in ancient languages. I do no know these languages. But I read some of these in Bengali and English languages. These are translations and interpretations by authors born in 18th century or later.
G: That is enough for you to be eligible to answer my next set of questions. What do you understand from the saying like “ God appears in every age to protect the good and the weak and destroy the wicket and the strong”?
S: To my mind, it means that God is always there throughout all ages and times and He manifests Himself in various forms in accordance with the Destiny Principle. This Destiny Principle binds him and all his manifestations.
G: Hindus believe in fate and destiny? Your Destiny principle seems to suggest that you believe in fate and destiny.
S: I do not know exactly how different Hindus define fate and destiny. But for me, destiny is the path. Between any two points of time, there is a time interval, however small or large. One of these time points is the initial point of the time interval. The later point is the ending point. Something happens at these two points and during the time interval. The ending point is the destination and the experience and the journey through to the destination point is destiny. The principle governing these experiences and journeys is the Destiny Principle. Nothing happens which is not consistent with this principle. Irrespective of and not because of our belief that we choose or make certain things happen, all things happen only as the fallout of the operation of the Destiny Principle over which no one has any influence or control.
G: But in the end all this means that no one made history and no one can make the future. It is only the Destiny Principle playing out. In that case, how do interpret the saying “ one has the right to do/ act and no right to the consequences of action”?
S: To me this saying means that the right one really enjoys is to do what he is destined to do. It means one has no other option to do as one is destined to do. The second part of the saying means that one cannot change the outcome or the consequence of what one does. It does not matter whether one can predict with certainty or with some stochastic confidence, the outcome of an action. If one cannot really choose an action but do what he is destined to do, the consequences of actions are not also within his control. The relationship between a person’s actions and what lies ahead in the future is not definitive. The intended consequence of a person’s actions may or may not be realized. It all depends on the interactions among so many sub-processes of the Destiny Process of which a person’s action is a also a sub-process.
G: But to act or do something you need some motivation.
S: Yes. Desires and capability within lead to an action. No one without desire and capability can act. But desires and capabilities one has is not his choice but imparted to him by the process of Destiny Principle. If you have certain desires imparted in you and certain capabilities in you, in a given situation you can act only in a certain ways. That is what we are doing all the time. These desires imply a desired outcome or consequences. The desired outcomes may not exactly match the actual outcomes or consequences. The consequences cannot be avoided even if they include some that was not part of the desire motivating an action or intended consequence of an action.
G: Do you have desires?
S: Yes, I do. But the number of desires has come down with age. And, most of my desires have always been of week intensity to spur me into action to get them fulfilled. The intensity of desire is important for the intensity and quality of action.
G: You have a desire to discuss all this with me.
S: Yes, I do. This desire is linked to my desire to explore God.
G: Why do you upload all this on your web page?
S: There is a week desire that some other persons like you may interact with me to help my exploration of God.
G: Why don’t you circulate your thoughts on these to many more by publishing a book? Why are you not trying to get your ideas across to many people?
S: Ii seems that I am destined not have that desire. I do not have a strong desire to become an author of such a book. I have no desire to let many people read about what I think. What I think about God may not be interesting or may be completely useless to others.
G: If you know that for sure why do you think about God the way you are doing?
S: I am destined to do that only for my pleasure now.
G: But what is the harm in publishing?
S: No harm to me. But I do not have that desire. If you have that desire, you publish what you discuss with me.
G: Fine. Let us now discuss about you desire to explore God. What is your objective and what is your methodology?
S: My objective is to be in a state where my body, mind and intellect are synchronized and attuned to the knowledge that each and everything in this universe, though apparently different in form and structures, are nothing but finite manifestations of the Infinite Existence. My objective is to be in consonance with that State of Infinite Existence.
G: Can you illustrate this a bit for me to understand you?
S: Yes, take the example of a hypothetical tree. This tree has life. It has a body. It grows. It takes certain things from the environment and gives back certain things from the environment. It, however, does not move, or see or touch or feel or imagine or think or hear or conceptualize or feel or desire or take decisions or actions the way we human beings do. It does not become jealous or happy or sad or feel hurt. We assume therefore that the tree does not have a mind, ego or intellect. It has no knowledge. Let us now assume that it has the knowledge that everything in this Universe is nothing but different manifestations of Infinite existence. It has the knowledge that this knowledge is what runs the Universe. It identifies itself with that knowledge. What will this tree think and do if it is given an intellect and mind. Its mind and intellect will be filled with that knowledge. It will therefore see all things including itself as one and the same, although all are in different forms, acting differently and show different behavior. The knowledge-filled mind and intellect of the Tree will not change the behavior of its body. It will continue to respond to external environment the way it has been doing so long. It will continue to generate flowers, fruits, lose leaves, grow fresh leaves, breath in air, breath out what it does, draw water and food from the soil, remain mentally and emotionally unmoved by rain, storms, extreme temperatures, axing of woodcutters or nests formed by birds on its branches. The Tree can now look at all that it does as its destiny and as part of the process that the Destiny Principle as it plays out. My objective is to attain that state where the Knowledge of oneness with God or Destiny Principle or the entire Universe completely influences my intellect, mind and body.
G: Will you be able to achieve your objective?
S: Maybe not. Maybe I will make some progress towards that and ultimately fail. It all depends on how the Destiny Principle works out in my case.
G: OK. But how will you make progress and measure your progress.
S: I still do not know how I will make progress. But it is easy to make out whether I am progressing or regressing.
G: Why do not you adopt the standard methods of achieving progress towards that state?
S: I will follow the method I am destined to follow. At present, I will only explore the concept of God and Destiny Principle in my mind further and further.

Choice of Destiny 016

2009-01-23T23:07:00.000-08:00

Choice of Destiny 015

2009-01-23T23:04:00.000-08:00

Stochastic Destiny Principle

G: Today, we wanted to discuss the relationship between your concept of God and your concept of the Principle of Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Process.
S: Yes. In my concept of God, there are three elements: Infinite Existence, Finite Existence and Transformation. Now, Infinite existence is the cause of transformation and all Finite Existence. But Infinite Existence is not affected by Transformation. Transformations are also Finite Existence.
G: It may be useful to re-state why you say so.
S: All right. Infinite Existence is formless but exists behind all forms and Transformations. Atman (Infinite Existence) exists in everything, every form perceived by human body, all senses, mind and intellect. That is a fundamental assumption (this assumption itself is a finite existence in the form of a concept or idea). O.K.

G: Yes, this is O.K. But you admit that the concept of Infinite Existence is itself a Finite Existence. And, still you have no problem?
S: Yes, I have no problem. Because all that emerges from human mind and thought are Finite Existence. So all my three elements of Infinite Existence, Finite Existence and Transformation are concepts. As concepts they are Finite Existences, but the elements these concepts are referring to are not all Finite Existences. Infinite Existence is not Finite Existence. It remains everywhere all the time as a constant, formless limitless enveloping entity. Conceptually, there could be a time point when the entire creation could consist of Infinite Existence only as nothing is under any transformation. So dealing with the Finite concepts to explain Infinite Existence causes no problem. You may tomorrow define Creation in a different manner and no body will remember the concepts I have been using. So, all concepts are subject to change by Transformation. But that does not mean that we cannot try to understand the Creation using the concepts that are part of the Creation. It’s a closed, but infinite, system in which we have to operate.
G: Seems that I have understood what you are trying to convey. Let me accept that and you proceed further.
S: All Transformations and all forms are Finite existences. All forms are subject to Transformations that destroy some forms to give rise to new forms. Is that O.K?
G: Yes. Go on.
S: Now, consider all forms. There is infinite number of forms. There is also infinite number of Transformations. At any point of time, infinite number of Transformations (processes) is acting on infinite number of Forms and Transformations. All right?
G: Yes. Proceed.
S: Some of these transformations are interrelated. A person meets with an accident. His son then comes from abroad to visit his father. The accident was caused by truck. The truck driver gets arrested. The foreign airline got a passenger who booked the ticket at the last moment. The hospital doctors and nurses got ready to amputee the father’s legs. The news got published in the morning paper. Some friends of the person became sad. Numerous interconnected things or finite existences occur. How do we explain them?
G: You explain.
S: Do these finite existences happen without any reason? What causes them? Maybe there is no reason. In that case, these are chance occurrences. But they happen again and again. Therefore, we are led to believe that these are the results of one or more stochastic processes. Maybe there are reasons why the finite existences appear. But we do not know the reasons. In that case, the reasons are of definitive nature or stochastic nature. Mind you, the reasons themselves are finite existences. We may try to find out reasons behind reasons. Maybe we arrive at the ultimate unique reason / cause. But the question remains what is the cause of the cause. It’s never ending. So, until we have solved this cause and effect chain puzzle, we would tend to assume a stochastic process generating these sequences of causes and effects (all finite existences).
G: Do you mean to say therefore that whatever happens in the Creation is the result of an unknown stochastic process and not the time path of a complex but deterministic model of cause and effect?
S: I suspect so. I have not yet been able to think out how a deterministic model would be able to explain the entire time path of the Creation. But that is not the reason why I believe in stochastic destiny principle. Here destiny is defined as the time sequence of the form and content of a single finite existence or a series of finite existences that are thought of as forming a single finite existence. Each moment a person is changing and therefore the person can be thought of different persons (a series of finite existences) or as a time profile of a longer duration single finite existence till the person dies. I hope you understand what I mean by destiny. It is the time sequence of the state of physical, emotional and mental condition of a person, the behavior and actions of the person along with the external events affecting the person.
G: And, you say that these states are in some sense random variables. Therefore, the destiny process is stochastic.
S: Yes, I know that these states may not be finite and may not be assigned a single value or number. I may not talk about probability distributions in the usual sense. Yet, for at given point there are alternative destiny outcomes with different chances of their actually materializing. Thus, from the perspective of an individual human being (for that matter any form of finite existence), the future or destiny is nothing but a stochastic process whose parameters are unknown. I suspect the discipline of astrology based on the time of birth is an attempt to chart destiny is some kind of an effort at estimating the parameters of the stochastic process.
G: I thought astrology believes in deterministic destiny.
S: I do not think so. Indian astrology linking destiny to time and place of birth is not necessarily a deterministic model. People born at the same time and same place may have different destinies. Because while the time and place remains the same, the transformation process implied by the birth may not be same. The parents are not the same. Indian astrology obviously believes in destiny. Destiny cannot be changed does not mean that it is known or predictable with certainty. So, from the point of view of an individual living being or finite existence, the transformation process yields a time profile of future happenings that are not known with certainty. If one wishes to predict one can indicate only likelihood or probability of alternative outcomes in the future, or even make conditional forecasts based on conditional probabilities.
S: Fine. I have now some idea as to how your Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Principle is related to your concept of God in terms of Finite Existence, Infinite Existence and Transformation Process. In fact, they are but the sides of the same coin.
G: You are right. Everything is after all God.

Choice of Destiny 014

2009-01-23T23:03:00.000-08:00

Exploring Infinite Existence

S: You wanted to know what I mean by exploring Un-manifest God. Infinite Existence itself is un-manifest. I want to realize, feel, see and observe that.
G: But how? Is there any method, any instrument to do that.
S: Let us call Infinite existence as Om for the sake of simplicity. As far as I know, nothing that is in my body and mind, nothing that is invented by scientists and technologists that can help me realize Om, the Infinite Existence. Yes, great leaders have prescribed different paths of Love, Prayer, Devotion, Worship, Meditation, etc to realize Om. But they say that these methods help come close to realizing Infinite Existence, but do not place you there.
G: This looks odd and funny that you believe that there is something called Om that is indestructible and formless, that is always in existence everywhere and in everything. You also believe that this Om is God that you wish to realize. Finally, you say that there exists no method by which you can realize Om. All this is meaningless.
S: Absolutely. You are right. But what appears meaningless to you is the most logical and meaningful to me. Just consider the properties of Om. It cannot be seen, perceived, proved, measured or felt. Om pervades all that exists (and does not exist). Now by definition, Om cannot be realized by anything else but OM itself. If I have to realize Om, I have to fully identify myself with Om.
G: How do you do that?
S: By cultivating the properties of OM.
G: Please explain this.
S: The main property of OM is that it is the same everywhere and always. It does not differentiate between any two or more things because it is all pervading in the entire creation. For Om, everything is the same one and only one thing. So, I need to feel and think the same way. It means I have to stop thinking that I am different from any thing else in this creation. I am OM. I exist everywhere. Therefore, there is nothing but me in this entire creation.
G: But you are different from me!
S: No, I am not different than you or anything else. Everything is OM. I you, he, she, this, that, they and all are OM. They are the same and indistinguishable. I am just trying to think and feel all the time this way only.
G: But really you cannot do that because when you are talking to me, you are a person different from me. If you think that everything is same OM, you cannot work.
S: What you say is not correct. An actor plays different roles in different plays. An individual plays the role of a child, an adolescent, an adult, a father, a son, a friend, and a foe.
But his ability to play roles is absolute. This ability is like OM. The different roles are only the different manifestations of the pure/ un-manifest ability to play roles. This existence of this ability pervades all roles. And, it is one and the same thing across all roles. That ability is the power; it transforms a player in to different roles at different points of time. If I am that power, I do not identify myself with a particular role. So, I identify myself with that ability. Once I do that I will be soon able to identify myself with all persons who have that ability. Once I do that I will be able to identify myself with all persons in the world since each one in the world is playing one or more roles without being conscious of the acting ability.
G: This last point seems not so logical. But let me grant this to you to save time and avoid digression at this stage. Now, what you are saying appears simple in theory. I have to do whatever I do but I must think that behind my actions and everyone else’s actions lie the unique OM, which is what I really, I am. My body, mind and everyone else‘s body and mind are only manifest transformations of the same OM. In practice this is difficult to apply.
S: Ah! You are absolutely right. That is what great leaders, saints and sages and learned people have told us time and again. They had told us that we develop ego of being different from others: different from non-living beings, different from living beings who do not behave like humans, different from people of other lands, countries, states, cities, villages, localities and houses and rooms, different from our father, mother, siblings, children and so on. This ego has to be given up. You see many old people give up their egos once they retire from work, become physically weak, lose eyesight and memory and as they await death to come over. So it is possible that the sense of being different goes away as one continues to live and interact with others. But it is difficult.
G: If it is difficult and if you are not certain that you can reach the goal, why try at all?
S: No one tries this unless one is destined to go through this path. I am not asking you to take lessons from me and apply. I am only narrating what I have understood of things about which I have not found full explanation from whatever I have read or seen or been told. You are destined to ask “why”. I am destined to respond the way I have done. Nothing could have been different for you and I at this point of time than what we are passing through.
G: Fine. But let me also know how you are trying to get rid of the sense of being different from others.
S: I try to follow what others have said and to the extent I like doing so. See prayer, worship and devotion to God are one way eradicating ego because you submit to someone. Another way is love and service: loving and caring others may help you feel that you are loving and caring yourself. Meditation is another way because you go on thinking about the oneness of all things in the Creation. I try to do all these things but not consistently, not following any routine, or method prescribed. I try this way because I am destined to do this.
G: How does this Destiny principle related to your concept of God.
S: This is something we take up another day.

Choice of Destiny 013

2009-01-23T23:01:00.000-08:00

Existence and Transformation

S: We were to discuss Creation. Creation is existence. The Fundamental Axiom of Existence explains this. According to this Law “ something that exists (whether perceived/ perceivable or not) is a form of manifestation, or transformation, or un-manifest condition of something/s that existed earlier, or is something that always existed ”.
G: But this does not explain much.
S: Yes. Before that you may note some corollaries to this Axiom. These help understand the Axiom better. First, ‘Nothing can be created out of nothing”. There is no magic in the Creation.
Second, “ Non-existence of something is the due to the emergence of something else into existence”. Third, “ Destruction is the other name of creation; for nothing can be destroyed without giving rise to the emergence of existence of something else. In other words, Creation is the cause and consequence of destruction and vice versa”.
Fourth, “Nothing in this Creation is fundamentally new”.
G: These corollaries help drive the point that Creation is a self-sustaining never-ending system of which Creator is an integral part. But I still need elaboration of the Fundamental Axiom of Existence requires extensive elaboration.
S: I agree. Let me try this elucidation. First, let us consider those things whose existence we can perceive by our body, senses, minds and intellect directly or with the help of instruments like telescopes, microscopes, computer and other instruments. All these things are only a manifestation of transformation of something that existed earlier. Say for example, a beautiful building. It is made out of things like brick, mortar or iron or steel or wood or cement that existed in the past. In turn brick is a transformation of clay and fire/heat of the past. Similar is the case with other materials that goes into making a building. The building is designed to be beautiful. So the building is also a transformation or manifestation of a design by a human brain/ imagination. But the design in turn is a transformation of a thought in the human mind. The thought in turn is the transformation of a need for shelter or a concept of beauty or the knowledge of the principles of physical sciences that preceded the design of the building.
G: It seems that I understand what you are saying. All material things and also thoughts and emotions are transformation of certain things that existed already. So there is always a change of form, there is nothing new. This is true of coal and petroleum underground, the computer, the inter-net technology, the earth, the sun, the planets, everything.
But, how do you explain a man or a tree or an animal?
S: They are, of course, the result of a reproduction process and therefore linked to something that existed before as a man and women, as seed, or egg, or sperm or seed or flower and so on. Even a man of today is a transformation of the man of yesterday. The human race as a whole has come through an evolutionary process. Nothing is new.
G: I understand that you can in the same way show that all chemicals, all physical forces, rains, clouds, sunshine, all scientific and social theories, all concepts in different disciplines, all analytical tools, all new technologies, new paintings, new music compositions, all discoveries, all emotions are nothing but transformation or manifestations of some thing or some things that existed in the past. Fine, but what about life?
S: Life is also the same: a product of the past in the physical and biological sense. You may say there is something that goes away when death comes. Death is recognized when a living body stops functioning altogether permanently. It is another transformation. It would also help if at this stage I introduce the Fundamental Axiom of Non-existence. According to this axiom, anything that does not exist, it must have given rise to the emergence of existence of something else. For example, if life does not exist in a body, then it has given rise to the existence of corpse. If light is not in existence, it gives rise to the existence of darkness. If were to visualize that the entire universe and beyond did not have any light at any point of time, it would mean all light has been absorbed in darkness and darkness is what exists. So light only transforms into darkness. Transformation is an integral part of the Creation.
G: What is Transformation?
S: According to the Fundamental Observation of Transformation, a process resulting in a change of form and properties is Transformation. A transformation process exists and is the result of one or more transformation process/es that exist or existed or always exist.
G: What does always exist?
S: We are in search of that. But note that: “ That which always exists is ever present in all that exists and all that is currently non-existent”. It is in this sense that Creator is, has been and will be always an integral part of the Creation.
G: Sorry to interrupt. What happens to the spirit?
S: Hold on for a while. We will take up this question shortly. Before that let us note the Fundamental Observation of Infinite Existence: “ That which always exists is infinite,, ageless, omni-present everywhere (in all forms, all transformations and even in those that are non-existent) all throughout time”. Infinite Existence is therefore formless, not restricted by space and time, and is unaffected by the processes of transformation. Yet it is the Infinite Existence that is the source of all limitless and continuous transformation.
G: All this seems to become abstract and complicated.
S: Yes, it may seem so. But it is really not so. It is straightforward and simple. Apply these concepts and trace anything that you see overtime backwards and forward. All Finite Existence transforms into other Finite Existences or into Infinite Existence. Non-existence resulting from transformation of Finite Existence is a part of Infinite Existence. Further, whatever is not known to be in existence is either as yet undiscovered finite existence or part of Infinite Existence.
G: I need help of examples.
S: Yes, you do. Take the case of the storage battery. As a battery it has a finite existence. But whatever was there in the battery form sooner or later got transformed into different things/ works/ processes. But do all constituents of the battery get transformed? We do not know. The assumption is that there is something that gets passed on through transformation without being affected. That something is part of everything that exists and does not exist. Or, just consider the transformation of death of an animal. Some physical form of bodily existence comes to an end and further transformation of decay leads to emergence of some other physical existence of finite period. But death does not transform something that always existed and that is a part of everything. Material things, substances, bodies, forms, ideas, names, thoughts, feelings, identities, stars, egs, sound, light, darkness, attitudes, temptations – all these are part of Finite Existence. Infinite Existence exists simultaneously as an envelop with all Finite Existences.
G: Is this thing that always exists, the one of Infinite Existence, called spirit or soul?
S: What is spirit or soul? These are conceptual constructs. Some people believe in their existence and some do not. As a concept, they owe their origin to some concepts that existed before or represent vacuum/gap in understanding life. This gap is transformed into a concept. Now if spirit does indeed exist, it is either a manifest or un-manifest condition of something that existed before. Someone calls this Atman and therefore says that Atman existed always. Atman was never born, never faced death and never changed. It is a thing that can never be seen. It can manifest itself into something else (that is, its presence can be felt in something else). It is infinite and so on.

G: Fine. Do you accept that Atman exists?
S: I will put this differently. The Fundamental Law of existence itself defines Atman or God. This Law defines the existence of all things, whether perceived or not by human beings. You cannot show anything that defies that Fundamental Law. That Law is God; that Law defines the entire Creation. The Creator and the Creation is the result of that Law. Do not ask who created that Law. For the Law itself defines the creation of all things including the Law itself. Creator is fully reflected in the Creation comprising all Finite Existences and Infinite Existence. But Infinite Existence is the source of all Finite Existences. Fundamentally, something basic to all in the creation existed all along the time whether we can perceive that or not. That is my God. If it can transform in so many numerous ways, expand or contract, grow mega-size or reduce to nano-size, it has enormous power. Such enormous power can reside in manifest form or un-manifest condition in anything that exists.
G: Fine. What do you do with such a God? You know this God as you explained. So, what are you implying when you say that you are trying to explore un-manifest God?

Choice of Destiny 012

2009-01-23T22:59:00.000-08:00

Destination God

G: Why do you refer to me as G, Sir? And, to yourself as S when you record our conversation?
S: Since you call me Sir, I am S. Since my surname starts with S, S is suitable. Since I refer to my own Self, S is an appropriate abbreviation. Most importantly, you are helping me in my path to knowledge; I am your disciple or Sishya, which starts with the letter S. So, I refer to myself as S. You are my Guru and you are also a manifestation of my God. Both Guru and God begin with the letter G. So, I refer to you as G. I am serving God as a servant, so I am referred to as S.

G: That may be a nice way of explaining the abbreviations. But how do you think that I am a manifestation of God. What is the concept of God do you believe in?
S: In my concept of God, there can be nothing anywhere anytime which is not a manifestation of God or God pure, not manifested in any form.
G: I understand what you say. You are saying that God is everywhere and in everything all the time. Then you are yourself a manifestation of God?
S: Yes, I am a manifestation of God. But I am exploring the possibility to go beyond this manifestation to know the pure formless, un-manifest God.
G: Isn’t that an exploration in futility? Will you ever reach that stage of knowledge?
S: Most probably, the exploration may turn out to be futile and I may never reach that stage. But I believe as a rational human being I have to make a choice between trying to know and not trying to know. Whatever I have been doing since my birth does not appear to me as something based on a sound rationale. I want to seek that rationale even as I continue to live the future days, as I have done in the past days, doing without knowing the rationale.
G: But great philosophers, the spiritual leaders, and scriptures, The Gita – all these give you enough to know the rationale.
S: You are absolutely right. Great souls and minds have given us precious knowledge about the purpose, the meaning and the ideal ways of living our lives as human beings.
But I have not been able to understand and comprehend them in a manner that would satisfy me and give me a feeling that what I do is based on a rationale that binds all my past, present and future doings. So, I have to try my own way even if I am certain to fail.
As far as I understand, the ultimate realization of the Knowledge is not based on following the precepts Gurus, philosophers, prophets, seers and scriptures have preached or recorded, practicing their advice and thinking about such available knowledge. To realize the Truth on has to move beyond all these. The Gita also prescribes the path to realization?
G: Why don’t you follow such a path that has already been prescribed? Take the help of a competent Guru,
S: All the paths indicated appear simple but very difficult to practice. I do not find myself naturally given to practice the various paths. It would seem I am doomed to failure. Yes, a Guru can definitely help. But chasing or choosing a Guru with all earnestness is again something that does not come naturally to me. So, I do what comes naturally to me without much effort. This is how the Destiny Principle works out in my case.
G: In other words, you are doing as per what you are destined to do in accordance with the Devine Stochastic Destiny Principle that you always refer to. And, you have no other choice.
S: Yes, I am therefore doing exactly what I am destined to do since I have no real freedom to choose. Even if I am doing something that appeals to me as a path towards Knowledge, it is not my choice. Neither is the continuity of the path that I am currently following is certain. Nor can the chance of failure to acquire the knowledge ruled out.
G: It seems that you are not a man of strong will and determination. You seem to be a lazy person without strong convictions.
S: You are probably correct in your assessment. My own assessment is also similar. But I still have no choice but to do what I am doing to know God.
G: We come back to old question again. If everything in this world or the universe is a manifestation of God, you know God already.
S: No. Unless I know the un-manifest, formless God, I cannot fully know the various manifestation of God.
G: Fine. But for that you need to do something, which as I understand you will perforce do as per your Stochastic Destiny Principle. But what is this concept of Pure, un-manifest and formless God you have?
S: My God is the Creator of all.
G: But that is the way God is defined by all except those who do not believe in God.
S: You are right. And, my God is also Creator of Himself in the sense that he is an integral part of the creation. Conceptually and logically, I find difficult to accept a Creator who is not part of the Creation itself.
G: How do you then define Creation?
S: We take a break and come back to discuss Creation

Choice of Destiny 011

2009-01-23T22:57:00.001-08:00

Continuous Stochastic Destiny Process

G: We were to find out why destiny is not deterministic but stochastic?
S: For me, an element or thing or entity or living being in the Universe does not really have a distinguishing independent existence except for infinitesimal moment of time. When you see dust particles do you distinguish among different particles and name each of them? You do not. You may at best classify them into different categories only. Yet different particles travel to different destinations. No destiny is really written nor is required to be written for each particle. The entire thing in which we see dust particles or human beings or the planets and stars are nothing but an umbrella of stochastic dynamic process for each dust particle, each being, each planet and each star and each anything. The state of each thing is always changing whether you can observe that change or not. In this transformation each thing is transformed into a different thing in less than nanosecond. So we are unable to measure or perceive this continuous transformation. In such continuous transformation, what we give names to are only ad-hoc parts/ phases of the transformation process. The baby that came out of the mother’s womb, you may name it Basudeb Sen and you keep the name Basudeb Sen till he dies although each moment we have seen a different human being in Basudeb Sen because of continuous transformation. In reality, therefore, there cannot be a single Basudeb Sen for 50 or 85 or 100 years. What we have given name as Sun is an entity that is continuously changing over million years. It does not make sense to give such names. Yet we do because we are destined to do like that as part of the same stochastic dynamic process. When you really realise that this is what is the reality, you lose your identity with a name or with any particular phase of that process /sub-process that you are destined to observe with your senses. When you lose such identity, what remains is the stochastic dynamic process. That is God. That is where all names, space and time get submerged. That is what I and you and all things in the Universe are. It is in that sense we are all God and therefore we are all equal. But till we (self) realise this ultimate truth, no two things are equal in our senses: so we say Sun is bigger than the earth, someone is elder to me, ice is colder than water, waves are smaller than the ocean, Einstein is superior to me, women are mothers, everything is different from everything else. We are destined to see everything differently by name, space and time because our senses are part of the integrated stochastic dynamic process that creates this property in us. At some point of time within the process, the self realises that this differentiation by name, space and time is an illusion or Maya. And the self, at that point, becomes what it actually is - it is nothing but the power or the rule that binds the entire Universe.
G: The “Almighty” is “Destiny”! And, yet we may have some choice?
S: Maybe Almighty is same as Destiny. Or, maybe they are not the same. I do not know. For me, it is only the Power or Rule that is inherent in that what I observe and describe this power as a continuous stochastic dynamic process. This process is what always existed. All the rest including the concepts of Almighty, God, Destiny, Man, Sun, Moon, smile, law of gravitation, advancement of science, war, love, hatred - everything are only transient manifestation of that Power. What we mean by choice is nothing but an observed relationship between what some persons did and the effect of that. This is no real choice. We had no control over what we did in the past or what happened in the past. What happens now or in the future are conditional upon choices we make now. All so called choices are all the result of the stochastic dynamic process arising out of that Great Power of which we as yet not been destined to know much.
G: So, what appears as choices made by us is really not a choice but a destined event/ action.
S: You are right: we have no choice whatsoever. That I say all this you have heard in this conversation, is not by my choice: it is because I am destined to say this now. Similarly, the person who says that there is a choice is only destined to say so. He really does not have any choice to say anything different.
G: The God or Almighty or Nature, which has control over everything, is only an imagination or idea created by us.
S: You are right. All concepts of God or Almighty or Nature or whatever else, are mere human imaginations. But what we imagine is what we are destined to imagine. What I refer as the Principle of Great Stochastic Dynamic Process is also imagination, which was destined to take place. No one has so far been destined to write down any equation for this process or its sub-processes. Yes, the equations for small sub-sub-sub processes equations have been written down. But the writing down of equations for small sub- processes is itself a part of the Great Stochastic Dynamic Destiny process. The equations for the Brownian motion, gravitation law, the orbit of the Saturn, the path of a tornado, the path of an airplane, the path of a space craft, the path of sound waves or light – all these were part of a processes of stochastic destiny. There discoveries and their applications in the advancement of technology are also part of the destiny process. No scientific discovery or technological breakthrough has happened because of the choice or independent efforts of Man. All that Man did in science and technology as well as in arts and religion was destined to happen at points of time determined by the destiny principle.
G: Why do you say ‘stochastic’ and not deterministic, destiny principle? Destiny can only be deterministic.
S: Stochastic process is a process in which the outcomes of the future are not fixed with certainty. It is not like that if I am at a state of sleep at 6-30 AM in the morning, I will be awake after some time, say 6-35 AM next. It is like this: I am at sleep at 6-30 AM and the probability of my being awake at 6-31 is x<1, at 6-32 is y<1, at 6-35 is z <1, and so on. No outcome in future is certain or has probability = 1 or 100% chance of occurrence. In other words, many outcomes are possible but with different probabilities, each probability is less than unity. It is also possible that the nature of stochastic process itself may gradually change over time. The only thing that seems certain is the power underlying the stochastic process. This is the power we often refer to as God, Almighty or Nature. Since it is certain, it is the only thing that exists, while all other things that we can see or feel or perceive or conceive of, are temporary phenomenon in relation to the vast expanse of time. Even if I know that a child grows into an Adult with the passage of time, we cannot say with certainty which child will become an adult and which will die before becoming an adult. That is why all our forecasts about anything in future are probabilistic in Nature. It is unlikely that the outcomes at different points of time in a future second, minute, hour, day, year, decades, century have been pre-determined or fixed by some one or by the process that the whole universe and its infinite constituents is undergoing. The process itself is such that the outcomes that it generates over time are not ex-ante pre-fixed. Each possible outcome has less than 100% chance of occurring.
G: I guess what you are saying that the destiny or fate is not written down or fixed by any rule or any god or any power. All future outcomes are determined by the Great Process, of which we know very little.
S: What happened in the past is the manifestation of the process; knowledge of the past may help understand the relationships of different simultaneous and inter-temporal happenings in the past in a scientific, deterministic way or empirical, probabilistic way. But nothing is certain. We know if you throw a ball up it will come down. But when you actually throw a ball, it may not come down, throw the probability of the ball coming down is very high indeed. Out of the many times you actually try to throw a ball up, you may not be really able to throw it up all the times. Either your hand will get tired, or you will lose grip over the ball and slips down before you throw it up. While the Law of Gravitation rules without fail, in real time the probability of a ball being tossed up in less than unity and the ball may go up at times to get stuck in a tree or a terrace. The Dynamic Process of destiny is a process that encompasses all Laws of Physical Sciences but also the calendar time path of all events. You may toss an unbiased coin. Although the probability of a head is 0.5, the first eleven tosses in real time may show up the tail.
G: But all these still leave scope for Man to deal with probabilities and uncertainties.
S: Yes, Man does deal with them given whatever knowledge he has. But that Man does so now and does in the manner he does now is only the manifestation of the Grand Principle of Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Process implicit in the Great Power that we sometimes call God or Nature.
G: You mean to say whatever Man did in the past, is doing now and will do in the future is not of Man’s doing of independent choice and effort but the manifestation of the Grand Process of destiny you are referring to.
S: Yes, exactly. Man has no choice of his own. He is bound to do what the Process implies at all times. That he thinks that he has made choices and doing things is also a manifestation of the same process. This includes what I am saying now and what goes on in your questioning mind.
G: But Man has made great strides in science and technology. In the last 100 years we have gone to the stars, produced clones of animals, brought comfort to man’s life. See the progress of information technology, telecommunications, biotechnology and genetics.
S: All that Man has done during the last 100 years or ever since recorded history and before is only as per the destiny principle. Man did not and could invent computers in 2000 BC, as that was not part of the destiny process. The history of science and technology is also a part of the process of stochastic destiny.
G: Then what is the meaning of saying that Man is the best creation of the God or Nature?
S: Everything has only one meaning. We say what we are destined to say. Otherwise, if Man is the supreme creation, whom do we say that we are the great? Only to us, Man. The dogs, the Sun, the trees and the rivers are not listening and appreciating that saying as we do.
G: If we have really no choice but acting over time only in accordance with certain principles or processes, we are no different from animals or water or trees.
S: We are no different. All are the same. That is what Sanatana Dharma is all about.
G: Then as human beings we have no goals of our own.
S: There is one and only one goal or destiny and that will always be achieved: we pursue what we are destined to pursue. We are pursuing continuous transformation of body, mind, soul, appearance, intellect and knowledge over time as per the Great Stochastic Dynamic Process. This is the meaning of repeated cycles of beginning in God, staying in God and ending in God only to begin again.
G: All you say therefore is tautological and so simple. There is no complicated science or high-level spiritualism in all that you say.
S: You are absolutely right. The ultimate Truth can only be tautological and simple. The process of arriving at the Truth and then realising this Truth all the time is the only complicated, long and probably never-ending process.
G: Shall we ever remain bonded in the process?
S: The real answer to this question is simultaneously Yes and No. Yes, because nothing exists that is beyond this process. No, because we, as the manifestation of that process, along with the process itself are nothing but the Great Power we call God. As God, it is our will that created and maintains the Great Process. It is we who have created all sciences and knowledge, and all, concepts including the concepts of Nature, God, Power and the Principle of Stochastic Dynamic Destiny Process. So, we are not bound by it. But all knowledge and concept we have acquired are true only if we are bound by it.
G: This is pinnacle of tautology.
S: My dear G, beloved God, my respected Guru, what other pinnacle can S, that is I as your Sishya (disciple), Sen by surname, my sole Self, am capable of reaching!

Choice of Destiny 010

2009-01-23T22:57:00.000-08:00

Choice of Destiny 009

2009-01-23T22:55:00.000-08:00

Exploring Destiny Principle

G: You have been saying that the Principle of Destiny is what determines what happens. And, we cannot change our destiny. Can you explain this a little more?
S: There are three ways of explaining this Principle. First is the simple tautological proof. The destiny principle is stated in a manner that the statement can never be proved wrong. It Destiny determines what happens and nothing happens that is not destined, it automatically means that whatever happens is what is destined to happen. Of course, you might say that earlier you were weak and were beaten by others in competition but now you have changed your destiny by going through a course under a guru to make yourself strong after which you have started beating all others because of your enhanced power. Interestingly, this example of yours proves rather than disproves the principle of destiny. For, I would say that you were destined to start as weak, then destined to get strength with the help of a guru and finally destined to establish your supremacy over your competitors. Thus, the Destiny principle cannot be proved wrong.
G: Where have I gone wrong by giving the examples to prove that destiny can be changed?
S: The problem is that in each case you see a dramatic change in the course of a man’s life, you are assuming that the change was not destined. You are assuming that a man would remain weak was his destiny. But through his own efforts he has become strong and therefore changed his destiny. Your assumptions are wrong. The destiny included the dramatic change in one man’s life as compared to no change in another man’s life.
G: What are the other explanations of destiny principle?
S: The second approach to explaining the destiny principle is to construct a model of the functioning of the Universe on the basis of assumptions that cannot be proved wrong and then show that destiny cannot be changed. This method is also tautological in the sense that the assumptions are essentially the implications of the Destiny Principle. However, since the assumptions are explicitly stated, this method gives a logical insight of the mind of those propounding the Destiny Principle.
G: Would you now explain this Second approach?
S: I can only try to formulate the model. But I am not sure whether this model is the best representation of the Destiny model. This model makes the following three simple assumptions:
1.The Universe is under a predetermined continuous process of change.
2.This is reflected in a process of continuous actions by and interactions among the entities contained in the Universe.
3.The process of actions and reactions results in a process of continual change in the status and property (of change/ response/ reaction) of each entity.
From these follow the Destiny Principle.
G: How?
S: Because of assumption 3, any entity at any point of time does not remain the same entity the next point of time and thus undergoes continual change in its status and properties. So, the only destiny of an entity is the emergence and extinction of a status within an infinitesimal time interval. Now, due to the assumptions 1 and 2, each entity has to accept the change in its status and property at each successive point of time. The process of change of the Universe determines each action of each entity. The status of each entity at any point of time is what is destined for it, given the process of change of the Universe. No entity can alter the predetermined process of change of the Universe and therefore its own destiny.
G: I have a problem with the predetermined process of change of the Universe. Who has predetermined the process?
S: Maybe God. If you do not believe in God, you have to find out who determined. But so long as it is predetermined the destiny of each entity and the Universe is unalterable.
G: Why do you say that the process of change is predetermined?
S: Let us say it is not predetermined. But is the process a defined, definite process (it is yet not known to us)? If it is a defined, definite process, the status of each entity and therefore the destiny of the Universe and all entities are defined and determined by the process.
Thus the destiny of the Universe and all entities in it cannot be altered. Alternatively, let us say that the process is undefined and therefore arbitrary. In that event, the destiny of the Universe and the entities are totally indeterminate. Any thing can happen at any time in the Universe. In such a case, every thing that happens is not within the control of any entity in the Universe. Thus each entity faces a destiny irrespective of whatever it does. It is like the determination of prices and quantities bought and sold in a perfectly competitive market: Demand and Supply forces determine them but no individual or group of buyers can determine the market prices at any point of time or over time.
In either case, whether the process of change is defined or not defined, each entity in the Universe is dependent on destiny for its future and is unable to influence its future with certainty. However, all the best brains of the mankind have tried to discover the defined, definite process of change of the Universe.
G: Why are you getting into so complicated things?
S: There is no complication. It is simple. If we think that Man can or has built his destiny, then this would mean that Man is outside or independent of the Universe, which is continually changing. This is the fallacy or illusion that a human being is constantly suffering from because human beings are destined to do so. This illusion or Maya is a property of human beings that produces the destined actions from them (they do not do anything on their own). Is it not so very elementary and simple?
G: It seems so at the moment. Now tell me about the third approach.
S: Before I come to the third approach, I need to elaborate on the concepts used in the second approach so that one can understand the assumptions and appreciate how the conclusion about destiny principle is understood.
G: What concepts? You talked in plain English. There is no new concept!
S: Nothing is new but the concepts should be clarified. First, consider the term entity. There are broadly three types of entities. There are form-specific entities like cells of a living body, parts, components or constituent elements of a living or non-living body (hand, finger, fossil, root of a tree, electron, proton, atom, tiger, teeth, fish, water, atom, house, club, schools, kingdom, table, chair, oil, Sun, Moon, Mars, airplane, ship, missile, fruit, fertilizer, shirt, virus, etc). A collection of parts, elements or whole of living or non-living bodies can also be form-specific entities (like family, troops, administrators, rulers, judiciary, dinner-set, books, library, fleet, flock, etc). Then, there are form-free entities (including their parts, components or constituent elements) like electricity, heat, energy, air, pressure, force, sound, etc). Another group of entities may be called formed entities like idea, language, thought, feelings, symbols, logic, mathematics, sciences, technology, rules, laws, codes, customs, religion, sports, warfare, marriage, knowledge, beauty, love, hatred, anger, etc). Components or parts or collection of formed entities are also formed entities.
G: You are giving too many illustrations.
S: It is just the opposite. Considering the infinite number of different types of entities, I am giving too few examples. But beside entities, I have to elaborate on Process. Processes are cause and effect sequences expressed without or with time lag. Processes may be defined mathematically. The processes may have properties like stability, stationarity, etc. The movement of the earth is a process. So is the flow of water from river to ocean to clouds producing rain a process. Similarly, the conception of a child, its birth and growth into adult and till aging towards death and the growth of a tree from a seed are processes. The making of a decision to consume and save are processes. The conversion of fossils into fuels, wheat into loaves, molasses into alcohol and mineral oil into kerosene are all processes. The teaching of mathematics in school is a process as much as the training of a manager into a better manager or the development of love / hate relationship between two human beings.
G: What about the concept of properties?
S: These are physical, chemical, biological, psychological, thermal, genetic, cosmological, astronomical, astrological, sexual, social, political, ethnic, and economic properties. Properties may also be processes. Entities exhibit or acquire these properties and are subject to undergoing these processes as are applicable to different entities. The processes and properties define the actions and reactions of entities at different points of time.
G: What is meant by Status?
S: Status is the snapshot at a point of time giving the condition of the entity in terms of properties, processes, actions and interactions. The status tells us what the entity is doing, what it is capable of doing and the forces operating on it at that point of time. It also tells us the specific sequence/phases in various processes through which it is passing, its composition, its combination or relation with other entities, its location, its feelings, etc.
G: Why are you talking about these various things? What does all this have to do with Destiny?
S: These help define the concept of destiny. If we take the snapshots over successive points of time in the future, we get the destiny of an entity. For example, the destiny of the Sun is what it is going through. If it has been burning for long, today’s Sun is not the same Sun that was burning 20,000 years back. The Earth has been orbiting the Sun for long. It has gone through changes in its composition and weather conditions. Man was not there from the very beginning. Many species have gone under extinction. The landmass has changed in shape. Is it the same Earth? The human society has changed. Each person is changing by the second. A Man of 25 is not what he was at the age of 5. Is it the same Man? This is one form of visualizing the destiny. The other form is to visualize the process that is responsible for the change. If there are processes that are generating changes in the entities’ status and imparting them with properties to act and react, how can the entities independently determine their destiny? The processes that affect the entities define all their actions and the results of their actions. So, the process or processes that describe the Universe define destiny of each entity in the Universe. The entities and their status at different points of time are only a series of transient outcomes of the various change processes at work in the Universe. This is the essence of the Destiny Principle as explained by the Second Approach.
G: What about the third approach to explaining the Destiny Principle?
S: The third approach is one of finding counter examples to disprove any theory that says that Human being as a group or an Individual can determine or influence its destiny in some way or the other. All the three approaches complement each other in our understanding the Destiny Principle. And, all these arguments for and against the destiny Principle are also entities that are again nothing but transient outcomes of the processes of change and the property of human beings.
G: Will you not explain the third approach further?
S: No. It does not require explanation. It has to be demonstrated. In the beginning, you had given examples to disprove destiny, which in fact only proved destiny. That is the way the third approach works. You must remember that to argue for and against the Destiny principle is a property of human beings. Some people argue for because of the experience they have undergone through various processes. Some others argue against because of the same reason. Only their experiences under the change processes differ and the processes have imparted to them opposite properties of action/ reaction. All this again is as per the Principle of Destiny.
G: At this point, I need some clarification. From what you said it seems no one and nothing in the universe has any control over what happens to it or anything in the Universe. There is no real choice. It so happens that there can be a few human beings who are destined by the process to reach peace of mind and happiness independent of their destined environment. But whether a particular person will know that this is not something over which the person has any control. Entire thing is as per destiny, but many who get liberated are destined to go through a path that is based on the concept of God - though in reality God may or may not exist. One who gets liberated (reaching peace of mind and happiness irrespective of whatever happens) gets into the State of Godhood or becomes God. So, one will come to know that he is on the path of liberation only by the process itself. That I believe in this is not my choice. I am destined to believe all these.
G: I think the destiny process can be expressed in the form of mathematical equations with parameters belonging to the domain of real numbers, allotted by our Almighty to each individual. In other words, everything whatever is happening in our life, whatever we are thinking and whatever qualities we are exhibiting, are time dependent variables, showing the results at every point of life following those equations. These sets of equations are our Life-path equations. We are just displaying the equations at every point of our lives from the birth unto death. The people with a very good mathematical background and interest in acquiring knowledge of human features/ behaviours can undertake this kind of research and develop the equations.
S: Maybe you are right. If some mathematicians are destined to find out the equations, one day they will. The Hindu Astrology is an effort towards that end. But nobody knows how their models and their calculations work. They are not precise. More fundamentally, I do not believe in deterministic destiny. I believe in stochastic destiny.
G: What is this stochastic destiny in contrast to deterministic destiny?
S: May we discuss this later.

Choice of Destiny 008

2009-01-23T22:52:00.000-08:00

Exploring Life And Destiny

G: When we have a purpose of life, we know what destiny we should explore for. Then, we make a choice and we change our destiny.
S: The entire lives of all human beings are explorations only. Each human being is in continuous search for discovering the self. This search will continue as rivers continue to search the ocean, the stars the sky, the scientists the knowledge, the devotees the Lord, the lover the loved, and so on. But this search is destined as per the Law of Destiny. When a search ends and a new search begins is yet to be known by Man. At present, there is no hope for anyone to escape from the Universe and hence from the Law of Destiny. If you think you have changed your destiny one day, check on the same day if you have fallen into trap of another destiny. The reality is that you cannot change your destiny. Destiny is the Ultimate Truth. That destiny makes you believe that you determine your destiny, makes you feel that you know your purpose of life and makes you feel that you can change your destiny. Clearly, you are in Illusion.
G: All that you have said appear true. It took so many days for me to swallow what you said on the last occasion. Yesterday, when I was talking to my friend he was telling an incident that in an Earthquake a girl child was saved from the debris after three days. Now a very rich person adopts her and an amount of Rs. 25 lakh was placed as fixed deposit in her name at the time of her adoption. All set to tell me we are only puppets.
It reminds me of a few lines from Omar Khayyam’s Rubbaiyat,
“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety not Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all the Tears wash out a Word of it. “
Now, I am a bit confused. If the Law of Destiny does everything, what do we have to do? What I have to do? Then what is our duty? What do we explore?
S: Thanks for your mail. It is going to take quite a while to digest Law of Destiny. And, that is the time we spend on exploring life.
A Bengali saint named Ramprasad Sen had sung thus centuries back:
“Tomaar (Your) Karma (Duty) Tumee (You) Karo (do), Ma (Mother),
Lokay (People) boley (Say), Karee (Do) Aaamee (I).”
In other words, the Law of Destiny makes things happen through you and I.
But everyone and we think that we do what we are doing.
Even if you subscribe to the Law of destiny, this is not because you chose to do so, but because you are so destined.
G: Ultimately, this is all about your Destiny Principle. There is nothing more to understand.
S: I wish it were so easy to understand and become fully conversant with this Law. If you are destined to become conversant, you will also come to know:
(a) What all destiny covers and what not (i.e. the space/ domain over which
Destiny is defined), (b) What are the assumptions underlying the Law of Destiny, (c) what the different components of the Law of Destiny like destiny of an individual, destiny of a group, destiny of mankind, destiny of other living beings, destiny of non-living things, destiny of ideas, (d) the possibility of destiny prediction, and (e) the use of the Law of destiny. I am currently exploring these aspects.
G: What are your plans?
S: I do not know how far I am destined to go along this line. But it seems to me that the Law of Gravitation is a small part of the Law of destiny, so is the Law of Competitive evolution. All the principles of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Genetics, Astronomy, Medicine, IT and telecommunications as well as of all social sciences including economics and all religions are manifestation of the Law of Destiny. You were destined to question me on this so that I think about these more. And, I thank you for this. This is also consistent with the Law of Destiny. If my destiny permits, you and I will be able to come up with detailed answers to the questions you have asked now.
G: If the Law of Destiny does everything, what we have to do? What I have to do? Then what is our duty, what do we explore?
S: The short answer is: It’s the Law of destiny that causes you to explore life and do that which is your duty. Gita is prophetic as much as it is tautological. This is the way I have understood the Law of Destiny. You and I will do only that is our duty, which is as per the process of destiny. There is no correct or incorrect duty. There is only duty that is programmed by Destiny. So you are destined to make these questions. To ask them was your duty and you could not have stopped yourself from doing this destined duty.

Be happy with what you do if destiny permits you.

Chioce of Destiny 007

2009-01-23T22:48:00.001-08:00

Altering Destiny

G: Though we commonly agree that there are rules of destiny in this world, I have a slight objection to accepting the concept of the destiny. According to my understanding, the birth and death are part of destiny as our living and the attainments are. But, there is also a rule of exception and there are ways to alter this destiny.
S: You are bound to have difficulty in accepting the absoluteness of the principle of Destiny. Even that is as per destiny. So do not worry or get excited.
G: This is what we see in the case of Nachiketa, Dhruva, Vishwamitra and so many others. There was a destiny for them, but they altered it. It is by good thought and determination through meditation.
S: No, they did not alter their destiny. They could not have done so. They acted as per their destiny only. It was destined that they will have a major change in their lives. This happens in many human lives as also in stars. There is no exception to the Law of Destiny in the entire Universe. The examples you have given all the more prove this. The persons you mentioned were destined to turn to good thoughts, to imbibe determination and to do meditation. One cannot have determination unless one is destined to so have.
G: In Tamil, one of the words for God is “Kadawul” where “Kada” means going beyond or cross and “Wul” means inner part (internal) or inside part denoting the mind. If we go beyond and search for Him, then only we can see him. In one of the books, I read that God lived with human beings, but human beings began to pester him asking for silly things and complaining about silly things. So, he decided to hide himself. But because of the intelligence He has given to the human beings, wherever he hid, he was traced. Therefore, he thought about a place where these human beings would not discover him. Thus, he hid himself inside each living being. Men searched everywhere externally but not internally.
S:This is a nice story. It captures the essence of Sanatana Dharma. The Principle of Destiny and God are to be sought inside. The observations may be outside. But, the discovery of the Law of Gravitation was from inside.
G: Now also, the destiny for each individual is to be as a doll. But whoever wants to be a rebel and know the secrets of Nature and alter their destiny, the Nature after testing them enough rewards them. To choose their destiny and live by it or not always lies in the hands of the individual. The Rishis and the siddhas knew the secrets and they worked and altered their destiny. We can see like this, there is a tide in the affairs of each men, either we can reach a new shore or give up and be killed by the tide. If killed by the tide, it is destiny but if we reach new shore it is our alteration of destiny.
S: Well said, but this is incorrect interpretation. Human beings will always have problem in accepting the Rule of Destiny but no option but be bound by Destiny. This is also a part of Destiny. In Sanatana Dharma this is called Illusion or Maya. Look, accepting Half Destiny and Half Human choice is a logical mess. This may give me great satisfaction that as a Man I am great because I have choice and freedom. But then it is better to say that we always determine our destiny. Unfortunately, no one can claim this. So, when one succeeds in his aim, he says he has achieved this by his effort and determination. So he has altered his destiny. If he fails to succeed, he says this is because of ill luck or accident or fate or destiny. This kind of reasoning is fallacious even in scientific endeavor. No Rishi has ever altered destiny. They did and act and lived as per their individual destiny. They also did not have any choice. You cannot be a Christ or Buddha, or Vivekananada or Bill Gates or Bin Laden or Saddam unless you are so destined. Mind you, don’t think that Destiny is arbitrary. Like Law of Gravitation is not arbitrary, Law of Destiny is a coherent, logical principle.
G: The greatest thing about God is that He dwells in each one of us. He has hidden great powers in us. We need to search and invoke it. We face so many trials and ordeals in this life that we abandon our search and we fall in the hands of destiny. He has given us the mind that is so powerful.
S: You are talking about the principle of destiny only but becoming illogical while talking about the power of destiny. If God has given all powers inside us, why we fail searching it. It is because the Law of destiny does not make it possible that all human beings realize all the powers given by God at the same time. It is the Law of destiny that makes one struggle and fail or succeed. No entity or element is independent in this universe and cannot exercise any choice. All elements and entities have to function as per the Law of destiny. The mind is powerful because it derives its power from the Law of Destiny, which is the Ultimate, and the Supreme power/ force/ principle/ intellect.
G: We would have come across some old people who are in the deathbed but still not dying. The elders and religious people used to say that they have some bondage for gold, so they dissolve gold and pour in his mouth. Even after that if a person did not die, they would say he had attachment for the land and they would dissolve the soil and pour in his mouth. Even then if he did not die they would ask his beloved ones to pour milk. Then he would give up the last breath. This is not a story. This has happened in many people’s lives. Sometimes, when we truly wish for something in the mind, it happens. Certain things appear to us in dreams; some indications are given by nature in the form of omens. I am not talking about superstition. Because we lost our knowledge to interpret the things before us, many things are not known to us. Sigmund Freud made a few attempts to read the mind. Psychoanalysts call it ESP. But ancient Indian rishis had made larger contributions in this field of knowledge.
S: Assume what you have said just now is completely true. But the Law of Destiny can explain all these. Remember that Law of Destiny is a logically consistent and coherent principle. Destiny Principle is not for blaming fate or hiding failure or depriving credit of success or consolation for the unlucky. You have to strive hard to understand it and will understand it only if you are destined to do so. But if you are destined to understand the Law of Destiny, you will be first destined to realise that no man can really make any choice independently: all choices are the result of a process over which no human mind has any control.
G: True, destiny has created the planets in this world and also specific orbits created for them. The Saturn in its orbit should have some impact, similarly other planets, on human beings. But this destiny is also subject to alteration when the man knowing it circumspectly determines to alter it with the sense of devotion and determination. If we assume all the happenings are because of destiny then we may have to justify the suicide as part of destiny.
S: To commit suicide is to alter destiny. But one cannot commit suicide unless one is destined to do so. Whether planets have impact on individual human beings is not the issue. The simple Truth is that whatever a person does is only as per the principle of Destiny. I X tells Y that Y will be affected by Saturn and will be soon killed, and then Y goes and wears a stone and worship Lord Kali and then lives for hundred years. The story only proves and does not disprove operation of the Law of Destiny and its absoluteness. The entire sequence of events from X telling Y was all destined.
G: According to me God is some combination of gravitational force, electricity and magnetic force. Each man has some combination of these energies or forces, but when it is acquired beyond the average level, he is able to perform some inordinate tasks, which could not be performed by other human beings. Therefore, by discovering the self we may be led to know the purpose of our lives. Once we know the purpose of our life, definitely we know our destiny and we may alter it. So our duty lies is exploring us. What do you think?
S: We will talk about this next.

Chioce of Destiny 006

2009-01-23T22:48:00.000-08:00

Choice of Destiny 005

2009-01-23T22:47:00.001-08:00

Duty And Destiny

G: The law of destiny seems to be complicated because of the interwoven duties of an individual. Where our actions and those related to us are valued against our previous karma and the derived factor is achieved which is our future karma. Therefore, I see this life as a duty
S: When we cannot but follow destiny that becomes our only and unavoidable duty. We are all doing that duty: no one is capable of not following the path of destiny.
G: I still would argue that we have to prioritize our duties: first, the duties as children of our parents, then as a student, then as spouse, parent, friend, relative, colleague, then as citizens of our country and the world. Finally, comes the duty of self-realization and to attain Bliss. I feel that the stages of life prescribed by the (Hindu!) scriptures of ancient Bharat or India, namely, the stages of Brahmachariam, Grahastham, Vanaprastham and Sanyasam are nothing but the stages of realization of duty. In the Vanaprashtam, we do the duty towards humanity after settling our family and children. The Sanyasam is the stage of duty towards self-realization.
S: Well said. All these stages are part of the general formulation of destiny... the actual stages through which one goes is as part of individual destiny.
G: Therefore, is the dereliction of duty like being a bad son, bad parent, and bad citizen also part of our destiny?
S: Dereliction of duty to parents, wife, children, and society is also part of destiny or destined duty (lack of duty or negative duty or zero duty)
G: Here I feel that the astral science helps to understand the karma factor better. According to palmistry, for men they say the left hand is the fate and the right hand is what we achieve. If we see both our palms we would find there is a slight difference in the lines. It is said every 7 years the line changes. According to science, clasping of our hands in the womb forms the lines on the palms. Then, why do the lines vary from hand to hand across billions of people? Since every being in the world should be duty bound, any deviation / aberration affects the linear equation of karma where a certain percentage of the other variables and constants are also added.
S: I have no idea of linear equations of Karma or duty. When we come to know irrespective of whether we are able to accept or digest this knowledge) that we are only the dolls of destiny, we learn to live comfortably with our destiny, discharging our duties on the destined path ahead.
G: This is what Krishna says in Bhagawad Gita,” Do your duty, don’t expect any fruits of duty, and leave the results to it to God. So what we have to do is only to discharge our duties.
S: Yes, you are right. We have no choice but to do our duty or lack of duty as ordained by destiny. Better to do cheerfully what you are bound by destiny to do. If we destined we will be cheerful.
G: Having acquired skills and not utilizing it, is a dereliction of duty.
S: But both acquisition of skills and the extent of their usage are fully conditioned by destiny. You cannot have any choice really. Man took so many years to discover and use fire and another so many years to know that earth moves around the Sun and so on. Why did it take such a long time to discover all these simple things? It is destiny. Nothing can happen before destined time and everything happens as per destined time path.
G: The best epic to explain the clutches of destiny is Silapathikaram, written by Elango Adigal in Tamil. A Prince who became a Buddhist monk and wrote this epic that tells the story of Kovalan, Kannagi and Madhavi. The timid housewife Kannagi destroyed Madurai, the capital city when the Pandian king delivered an injustice and beheaded her husband Kovalan thinking that he has stolen the queen’s Anklet. The interesting fact about Elango Adigal (saint) is that he was the second prince. An astrologer who visited the palace had told that the second prince only would rule the world. On hearing this, the first prince was disturbed. To prove the astrologer that the predictions were wrong, he became a Buddhist monk. However, he was more popular than the king because of his nature and literary contributions.
S: Your interpretation seems correct because a popular person with literary contributions rules the hearts of people if that is his destiny, while a king may be the ruler of the land if that is the destiny.
G: As I understand, poor does not necessarily mean economically poor, but also people who are short of love, affection, appreciation, acknowledgement and recognition.
S: You are right. Poor does not mean merely poor in terms of income or wealth. Those who are short of love, affection, health, appreciation, and acknowledgement are also poor. If people require empowerment and opportunities to earn more income to come out of poverty, some other people need similar support to come out of bondage and enjoy liberty. Still some others need assistance to get and give love, affection, and recognition. The definition of “poor” is human creation. Inadequacy of something in relation to desired level/ amount/ measure is the criterion to judge whether one is poor or not. However if the principle of destiny is to be believed, then there may always be some people who are poor in terms of something or the other. So, this definition of poor is not very helpful although Man is destined to use this definition of poor.
If we examine the destiny path of different individuals each has a basket of what people call good and bad luck. As in economics, these need to be aggregated and over time. But we do not have market prices and interest (discount) factor to aggregate the different elements on the destiny path. Moreover, even if one had some prices to value them, the problem of interpersonal comparison would remain. For we see many poor people apparently more happy than many rich people irrespective of how you measure poor or rich (income, wealth, love affection, worries, etc.). Was Ramkrishna Paramhansa rich or poor? If he had submitted all his actions and time path of life to God, he did not own any poverty or lack of any thing. If he did not ask for or require anything beyond what his destined life thrust on him, and lived happily, then he must have been a rich person. Were Vivekananda rich because he was recognized by the World or he set up Ramkrishna Mission? I think that was part of his destiny and destiny of the World. He was rich because he submitted his thoughts and deeds to God. He owned nothing and yet did as he was destined.
G: In one of the religious discourse, the speaker was saying the urge for each individual in the world to excel and to attain goals, originate from the moment of our conception in mother’s womb. In the sperm even though over 6 million living organisms are present, only one is able to swim and fertilize the egg in the uterus. In a few cases, two are able. It is this race right from time of our conception that makes us crave for recognition and acknowledgement.
S: Whatever you have said now, all the more clearly points out how, what will happen when and what one will do at any moment is determined by a logic/ principle/ law over which none has any control. That is the principle of destiny. Its operation starts much before a human child is conceived and continues after death. If such a powerful principle determines the logic of conception, it must be more intelligent than human beings. That principle is destiny and that is nothing but God, the indestructible and infinite. Since that principle applies throughout all conceivable universes, man is too small to decide what he will do. Whatever we do individually and collectively get determined by that principle and that is why I term this as the Principle of Destiny. Individually and collectively we do what we are destined to do, we have no choice. And, the laws of destiny determine whatever we do. So far we have come to know only a few of the laws that are part of the Law of Destiny. For example, you have the law of gravitation. Why is this Law there? It is destined to be there. No one can change it but one can use it as per destiny.

Choice of Destiny 004

2009-01-23T22:45:00.000-08:00

Karma, Choice and Destiny

G: I am not able to digest your statement that I have or make no choice at all and I am only playing the role as per my destiny.
S: You need not at this stage. Nor is it possible for you now; at your stage, I also could not. Don’t worry about this. You may or may not be destined to accept what I say I believe in. You are doing your Karma. You have no choice.
G: I cannot accept that we should keep quiet.
S: You will not be able to keep quiet if you are not destined to do so and some one who is destined to keep quiet will keep quiet.
G: How can one tolerate even after watching atrocities forced on us. At any point of time if I think that I may receive some punishment on the X issue, I am unable to bear that thought.
S: Do not keep your mind on what happened in the past and its impact on present and future. Think only of what you do NOW at present. You are only one of the many persons whose interactions result in certain actions/ impact over which you have no control. Each person seems to have decided and acted rationally for him and her and you had to face the adverse consequences. That is what is happening all the while in this world. Sun has to burn for no reason of its own, Moon cannot see the Sun from all its side even if it wishes to and we have tides because of the Moon. Someone looses his parents young; some others have to care for their sick and old parents. Why can’t everyone’s parents die at the same age of say 65 years?
G: But advances in Science can explain the causes of all happenings you are talking about.
S: Yes, Science establishes links between causes and events/ effects. But Science, logic or rationality does not explain why the Sun and the Moon have to exist the way they do: only explanation available is the process in which the Sun and the Moon exist. Science can only explain in terms of differences in body structures, genetics, food and other habits and other external happenings like car accident. But such an explanation does not help. For we want to know why a particular individual is chosen to suffer a particular impact. Science and logic have limited explanatory power. They can only relate present happenings/differences in terms of past happenings/ differences. All this is part of Knowledge and is consistent with the Fundamental Principle of Destiny. With that civilization progresses ahead in an exponential manner every century. But science and logic cannot explain why is that in the Universe each Sun has to be there to burn for such long periods. We cannot really explain why a man died and another man did not die in the same accident.... Why the first person was in the coach of the train that caught fire and the second person did not get the chance to be in the same coach? Why we have to have people with differences. Why can’t the universe have all persons identical in all aspects?
G: I understand that the people are different. But, I am unable to forget those people (right from juniors to seniors) who instigated all to blow our issue out of proportion. N tampered the documents. RN and SR treated me dishonestly, unfairly though they were not my enemies.
S: Those people did what they were destined to do. Their actions now are the results of their actions in the past and thoughts and their future destiny will be influenced by what they did in the recent past.
G: If not for me, but for the good to prevail and to prevent these kinds of people harming others, I feel I need to do something at some point of time.
S: Good prevails ultimately. Your feelings are perfectly legitimate. If you are destined to do something to prevent them, you will do it. But prevention is not ultimately in your hands. No one could stop India being divided in 1947. Even Krishna could not stop the war of Kurukshetra. No one could stop Hitler. No one could stop Hiroshima Atom Bomb. No one could stop Godhra. No one could make India a super-economic power despite 50 years of Planning in the last century. No one could stop the great famine in China, nor its economic liberalization. You do what your conscience tells you and your guts and emotions forces you to do, but don’t expect that you are the person who will deliver the results by your actions unless the results are in the path of destiny.
G: I need further clarity on your definition of destiny. As I understand from your explanations, if a ‘being’ fully submits to God, for him everything is happiness in the world. This is case of Epicureans. On the other hand, if a person does not fully submit himself to God then he is supposed to have fluctuating melancholia.
S: This is your interpretation to which you are entitled. You cannot submit to God by your decision. If you submit to God that is your destiny...many developments happen before you submit to God. Submission to God is a path in which you are trying to be in peace of mind irrespective of what happens in the environment or your body or your mind. The Goal is not submission to God; it is merely a path to free your intellect and State of mind from the bondage of the World
G: Further, as I understand, nature will not allow any being to discover the Truth about itself. If someone attempts to, it creates all trials for him and checks him whether he is fully qualified to know the Truth and secrets about itself. This attempt is to find out the truth I call as Determination. For this, one need not be destined.
S: Whether one has determination at any point of time or not is also determined by the operation of the Destiny Principle. Not all found out the Truth about Law of Gravitation. Only one, Newton did.
G: The point is that one should have the determination to fight against destiny.
S: Determination is a very attractive word. But a thief also requires determination to be successful in stealing jobs. If you are destined, you will have determination. So, determination is not a fight against destiny... determination and lack of determination are parts of a being’s destined path.
G: It is the “never, never give up” attitude we find with a spider or Robert Bruce or Lincoln or Dhuruva or Nachiketa. This determination ensures progress towards achieving positive goals in the service of the humanity.
S: All these great men were great and had determination not because they wanted to be great or decided to have strong determination, but because they were destined to be Great and have determination. None could stop India being divided in 1947. Even Krishna could not stop the war of Kurukhsetra. One merely does what one’s conscience tells in accordance with the Principle of Destiny. It is your guts and emotions that force you to do. You therefore do what you are destined. You have only the right to do destined work. But don’t expect that you are the person who will deliver the desired results of your actions unless those results are in the path of destiny.
G: Even after knowing all these things why I am not able to digest the facts around me? I am not able to find the reason for this. Maybe I have the ego that I have been so good and sincere and have not thought any bad for others. Therefore this arrogance leads me to ask the question: when I have been so good and when I am not at fault why I should suffer?
S: What you are doing is absolutely natural and as per your destiny. That is the part and parcel of destiny of a living being with body and mind. You and I think we are independent separate entities and that if we have done right, others will do no wrong to us. We are destined to think that way. But that thinking does not have any rational basis. Nor is such thinking relevant to the Reality. The water vapor traveled up, combined with others to form rain-clouds and then it came down to earth back as part of rain. But it cannot ask why she was in the sky for 29 hours with another vapor, which stayed as part of cloud for 3 hours before falling down as rain. This is the principle of destiny written in simplistic form.
G: I wish I could meet you instead of discussing with you through emails.
S: Your wish can be fulfilled if we are destined to meet someday, somewhere in future.
G: The insight I get from your writing is convincing. But, we don’t know the purpose of our birth and what we have to accomplish?
S: Yes, we don’t know and we need not know except that the purpose of our birth is to continue in the bondage of destiny and move along the path of destiny. And, we accomplish what we are destined to do.
G: I was pondering over your statements. A few things came to my mind. According to me, the principle of Karma is a linear equation in the hands of God.
S: I don’t know whether it is an equation or if it is linear. But whatever it is, it may not be in the hands of God. Rather God is bound by the principle of destiny and we are all linked to that. Thus, we are both in and part of God that symbolizes the time path of destiny of the Universe and all that the Universe contains.
G: I seem to agree that there is destiny.
S: We agree and probably we are right.

Choice of Destiny 003

2009-01-23T22:43:00.000-08:00

Destiny and Karma

G: I agree that all creations in this world are manifestation of God. But once he creates a human being, he gives a mind and intellect and places the karma before that life. That living being can strive to attain godliness by using his mind and intellect and attain the eternal bliss or he may be carried away by the worldly pleasures. Only the birth of an individual is because of his karma and destiny. The rest lies in the hands of the individual. This is my understanding of the philosophy of karma and destiny.
S: My dear, the Fundamental Principle of Destiny subsumes your theory of Karma and it operates before, during and after birth – all the time. Nothing lies in the hands of the individual... all are destined in the sense that everything happens in what scientific minded persons call cause and effect sequence. What you think you have thought or decided is what you were destined to think or decide. You cannot even exercise choice between following and not following Sattavik life, between submission of all that you think and do to God or do not submit fully to God, and between being happy or sad irrespective of what happens to you and the World
G: I am unable to understand your words “Your actions are all destined including the way you think, decide and do things (even the state of your happiness or sorrow).” If everything is destined, why we need a mind and intellect. Are we the dolls in the hands of destiny? If we are all dolls of destiny, what God does in this universe?
S: Yes, we are dolls of destiny and we do not know our destiny in advance. Even our peace of mind and happiness depends on destiny. God may or may not be there.
G: What is God’s role in helping us? How does the principle of Karma work?
S: According to my understanding, the principle of Karma is the principle that binds past karma with present Karma or future Karma. That means Principle of Karma is the principle of destiny. To my mind, this principle is too complicated to comprehend, as destinies of so many individuals are inter-linked. So to apply Karma principle to one individual’s destiny is only a partial analysis. We have to grasp the general model of destiny. I am at present only thinking about these aspects and cannot really explain now. Maybe I will be able to think out and arrive at my own understanding later when I can venture to explain.
G: Sir, I would like to share a story. Once a student went to a Guru and asked him to enroll him as his student. The guru saw the student palm and rejected him. The student asked why he is being rejected. The Guru explained to him that the line of reasoning in his palm is not strong, therefore he can not be good in studies. Then the student left the place and came the next day. The student showed his palm and asked his guru, whether now he can enroll him. The guru saw a deep cut in the palm made with some sharp instrument. Touched by his determination, the student was admitted and later he wrote the Sanskrit grammar and his name was Bhargavi. These things tell me there is a destiny to create obstacles and test the character / mental strength.
S: Up to this you are right
G: But we write our own destiny when we overcome these obstacles with sheer determination and conviction.
S: Here you may not be correct. Only if you are destined you will be able to overcome obstacles and you will get determination and conviction You may have noticed Smugglers and Goondas also have great determination and conviction. And some of them succeed in what they do. They achieve wealth and comfort. They were destined to what they have done and achieved. They are also destined to face the music later on.
G: As I understand, in this world, every human being born is with a heavenly fire in him. But to realize and achieve the eternal bliss lies in the use of his mind and intellect through continuous introspection. In the process, every life needs an inspiration or some catalyst for awakening.
S: You are absolutely right.
G: The entire thing can be summarized as to “Be of it but not of it”. The so-called ‘detached attachment’.
S: Not absolutely correct. Detachment is from the consequences of whatever happens to external environment and impact of that on you so that you can never be sad; it is like seeing some entertaining cinema... nothing happens to you thereafter. Attachment is only to the feeling of oneness with the entire Universe.
G: I feel the Zen Buddhism, one of the ways to practice Hinduism, is now best to express this ‘way of life’ (Hinduism). According to my understanding of Zen philosophy, the entire belief is based on the word “Circumspect”. Being careful in what we say and do, we realize god. By troubling our body we cannot enjoy good things and at the same time allowing worldly pleasures also will not move us towards God. So the self is more important to realize God.
S: You are right. Zen Buddhism may also be linked to the basic principles of Sanatana Dharma. Yes, self is the most important. But this self means the Atman (God inside one’s own entire existence; all of us exist in God).
G: They have a Zen tea ceremony, where the followers are taught to take the tea with full concentration of taking it and enjoying the tea. Another story is a Zen Monk, burning the Buddha idols made of wood to withstand the cold and next day worshipping Buddha in a piece of stone. The Zen philosophy says for every sinner there is a remedy and future. By serving the humanity, the sins are washed.
S: There is nothing like sin and sinner. Some people are destined to do something that is not good from the point of view of social and natural justice. But such people and what they do are also the manifestations of God and is a part of the destiny process.
G: I think that the entire belief is something in-between Grahastham and sanyasam.
S: Grahastham and Sanyasam are phases of social life. One can become a Sanyasi while staying in his own house or Gruha like Sri Rama Krishna did. Sanaysi is the ultimate seeker of Eternal Truth, which is the state of intellect and mind where one is always pleased with him and the entire world irrespective of what happens in the World. But so far as you are concerned, you can be a Sanayasi working in XYZ company or business and serving your family and simultaneously striving to shun all Tamasic and Rajasic thoughts and deeds. With Sattavik inclinations you try to reach the Ultimate State of Mind And Intellect that is filled only with the Ultimate Truth. But whether you will seek Truth and what manner, if at all, is also part of destiny process and not your choice. What I am telling to you will be very difficult for you to digest. You rather not try to digest all these at this stage. But keep remembering what I said/write. Ponder over them for a few minutes once in two years or whenever you happen to feel that you need to recall these words.
G: This is something like being insensitive to a sensitive issue
S: There is nothing Sensitive really. There is nothing insensitive either. We need to go beyond this classification and see all issues as the same.

Choice of Destiny 002

2009-01-23T22:40:00.000-08:00

Dharma & Destiny

S: How do we learn about Dharma?
G: You search yourself to find out the Knowledge or read the scriptures supposedly containing help and guidance to acquire that Knowledge.
G: I am always of the opinion that we need Guru in this world to acquire Knowledge. Guru can spot out his students and make them contribute to the Humanity. In Ramayana, Rama’s skills came to the knowledge of his father when the sage Vishwamitra told him. Those sages preached Sanatana Dharma or Universal Principles of Life. The principles are in the nature of Guidelines. These do not constitute a Manual of Procedures. Religions may prescribe manuals for life. Dharma does not. Similarly, Drona spotted Arjuna as his elite student and Krishna chose Arjuna to fight the war of Kurushetra. The Guru spotted the student. Narendra transformed into Swami Vivekananda is only because of Ramakrishna Paramahamsa spotted him.
S: None spotted any. The teachers and their disciples were destined to meet for the continuation of the cycle of human civilization. Guru is there in the Atman of every living being. No body contributes to humanity. Humanity progresses as per Natural Law or God. We are in the illusion thinking that Rama, Vishawamitra and Ravana are different, that Drona, Arjuna and Duryodhan are different, that Narendra (vivekananda) and Ramakrishna are different. Truth is that all these persons are the same. All are the manifestations of the Natural Law or God. Ultimate Goal of practicing Sanatana Dharma by a human being is to realize that Truth.
G: I do not agree with you that Guru-Disciple combinations do not contributes to Humanity. It is the same with the case of Chanakya who chose Chandra Gupta. Chanakya’s contribution is a lasting contribution. Since Chandra Gupta’s descendants did not follow Chanakya’s preaching, the same dynasty’s rule could not last long.
S: So you agree that Chanyaka’s preaching was not followed after a while. Really speaking, no one except God can make any lasting contribution. And, the Guru-Disciple combination cases you have cited are definitely cases of contribution to humanity. But there cannot be any lasting contribution. Even Krishna’s contribution of Gita is not a lasting contribution. We do not follow the preaching of Gita all the time. The Principles of Dharma or Destiny is the only lasting, permanent contribution. But these principles make all other actions, forms, ideas or contribution as non-permanent, non-lasting. Great sages have come, but over time the society forgot the preaching of the sages. Fresh sages came to preach the same things again and again. That is the
Principle of Destiny.
G: Sir, I am still unable to accept your view. You seem to undermine the greatness of Great people. The Ego and Pride or rather the Self-respect and the Conviction are positive sides of Great men. They also have a noble cause that they seek to serve.
S: Yes, everyone has some reason to do something.
G: It is like the Mother’s feeling for her Children. It’s the inner feeling that gives her the right and motivation to do the best thing for her children. In this world we know, every entity born has to die, be it a corporate or individual. Even Gods who have taken human form were no exceptions. However, the institution created by these Men of Pride and Ego also continues in this world. Even after forgetting the names, their role model /service to humanity is carried on. Example: Woods introduced educational reforms in India in 1857. This helped create so many barristers and intellectuals that ultimately led to the downfall of the British Empire. Lord Rippon’s reforms on local management gave the confidence to the Indians that they can govern themselves. Or, consider Napoleon’s care for his subordinates and his show of skill from the front.
S: I am not undermining great people. Great people are indeed great. They are of superior qualities than you or I. But what they did was nothing but what they were destined to do. Whatever happened was destined to happen. And the people with self-respect and conviction in the positive sense had to do what they did. But in general people with self- respect and conviction have a problem of being biased to their own point of view. Their ego and pride make them think that they are greater than others and sometimes they say that they are doing for the society but actually they want to do these things to earn fame for themselves or establish that they are great. That is the problem. Krishna did all the things; he was criticized, cursed and yet he was not all affected by praise or criticism. He knew that everyone is playing his or her role as per his/her destiny as part of natural law.
G: I believe that only the neutral people are forgotten by the world, e.g. Vidhura in Mahabharatha. The good and bad will always be remembered by the world. Therefore, the Pride and Ego should be used to serve the Humanity. It is the infinite love or hatred leads to the positive or negative Ego and Pride. It is the right that we try to muster courage to call all the human beings as Brothers and Sisters, as Swami Vivekananda did. Courage comes from self-esteem, ego and pride.
S: But there were neutral people like Vidhura and Krisna who had no Ego or Pride. They never lacked of courage. They also did what they were destined to do.
G: You seem to say, “ the work you do is on the destined path of emerging/ unfolding future but the realization of your objective or desired result of your work may not be on the destined path of future.” About this, I would like to submit that desired result or objective might be like Thomas Alva Edison’s invention of Bulb after 999 failures. In every “end” there is a new “beginning”. Putting an end to each experiment we need to write a new story with a beginning to serve the humanity with a noble objective. And each story may be new and unique with a tinge of emotions, sacrifice, failures, successes, betrayals and touch of reality, but one day to be discussed by human beings. But at least one story of our life may be on the destined path of future.
S: Your understanding is only partly correct.
G: Please explain why you have a different view?
S: One of the Fundamental Principle that is part of Knowledge or Dharma is that the Destiny Process is part of Natural Law. Your actions are all destined including the way you think, decide and do things (and the consequences like the state of your happiness or sorrow). So only in the future you come to know that what you did was what you were destined to do. The objective of any of your actions or thought may not materialize. The actual results of your actions may be different from what you thought of when you did something (action). So the actual results are those that are destined and were lying in destined path of your life or future after your action. You may remain happy irrespective of what results your previous actions lead to: your destiny makes you happy or sad irrespective of what action you do or what results those actions bring.
G: You are talking of Fate or Luck. No body will accept such things in the twenty first century.
S: Even that somebody does not accept something is because of destiny. Whether Edison or anyone else, all did what they were destined to do as these actions were on the path of their life cycle destiny. In history we write them as successes and failures, we feel good or bad. These are interpretations we give but they are only patterns that we identify by looking at past incidents and our lives. These may help us predict the future to a certain extent. But such predictions are probabilistic only. We cannot know the future with certainty. There may be examples of Great persons making discovery without any failure and others who have tried 999 times but could not discover anything

Choice of Destiny 001

2009-01-23T22:28:00.000-08:00

God In Dialogue with Self
[This dialogue emerged out of e-mail dialogues, initially with a former, junior colleague and later out of e-mail and face-face interactions with many others including siblings, relations, friends, and former colleagues. How interesting to note that almost all had their own spiritual beliefs and dilemmas. I sincerely thank them all for their contribution to my thoughts and to the emergence of this Dialogue over the years, even as I await more interactions in future. For most part, the thoughts reflect undigested readings of books and articles on Hindu Philosophy and Upanishads authored by both foreigners and Indians including learned Bengalis like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Swami Vivekananda and Rabindranath Tagore. The entire responsibility of my weird views certainly rests with me and I would be happy to join you in ridiculing such views.]

PART ONE: CHOICE OF DESTINY

1. Hinduism & Dharma

G: Sir, in Hinduism, the religion allowed exchanges / challenges / criticisms. This had led to reforms, adaptation, change and development of new or modified principles. Thus, Hinduism is a religion that has developed through the ages based on interactions, debates and discussions, very much like science has progressed. The basic principles of Hinduism are, therefore, time-tested and have the progressive adaptability to deal face the challenge of Time.
S: Dear, please note first that what we all now refer to as Hinduism is a religion that, I suspect, did not call itself or name itself as Hinduism. In other words, those who pioneered the basic principles of this religion did not call themselves as Hindus. Others and foreign scholars coined the words Hindu and Hinduism, probably because the people who lived in the Indus valley and surrounding regions were commonly referred to as Hindus. Much later, following what outsiders coined, the people in the country named Bharat which outsiders named India, started calling their land as Hindusthan and the religion they inherited from the long past in this land as Hinduism
G: That seems an interesting interpretation of history. Hindus did not call them Hindus, outsides named them. But isn’t their religion, Hinduism, an old one that is time-tested?
S: Please note again that Hinduism is not based on any ‘ism’ religion. What we really have with us is a body of knowledge received from people who inhabited India millenniums before Christ. This body of knowledge is called Dharma. Sometimes, Hindus call that Sanatana Dharma. The philosophies and principles of Dharma expounded by the sages and saints of the ancient ages were reflection of their endeavor to seek Knowledge and Truth and explain the ground realities of life.
G: But Hindus have their epics and stories that preach religion. They have methods of worship, rituals and practices that are different from those of other religions.
S: You are correct. But Sanatana Dharma is independent of those methods of worship, rituals and practices. That the philosophies and principles of Dharma led to the development of a religion is a different story. When you put knowledge into practice in life, you may have to adopt various standards, norms of behavior including methods of worship and rituals. You also have to have stories or epics to illustrate the way the Dharma is practiced with what effect and when Dharma may not be practiced with what effect.
G: OK. But did the body of knowledge called Dharma evolve through debates and deliberations.
S: Yes, it certainly did that way. This knowledge of Dharma and the resultant religious practices got enriched through deliberations and debates. And, Dharma has been and adapted in different ways by different individuals and groups to form their own life-guidance principles and practices called religion. That is why sometimes, Hinduism is called as a way of life rather than a religion.
G: About this way of life practiced by Hindus, the name given by the Arabs to our forefathers residing around and south of the river Indus is now called Hinduism by adding ’ism’ is to the term Hindu. Thus, our emergence as Hindus following a religion called Hinduism is of very recent origin, after Buddha preaching spread from Bharat to other countries and after the birth of Christ. The, what is the religion that we have inherited?
S: We did not have any religion to start with; we only evolved religions. We have inherited Dharma, the universal principles of living that is reflected in humans as an integral part of the Nature or the Universe or the Creation. These principles explain the Creation and its various parts and facets including the ways of life of different human beings. These principles are themselves part of the Creation. Though not prescriptive in nature, these principles work themselves out to influence different people in different ways and lead human beings to evolve different rules and regulations that get known as different religions.
G: What you are saying is Greek to me. What we practice now, as Hindu religion is not a prescription of Dharma!
S: You are correct and that is the reason I would consider Hindu Religion or any other religion as practiced today or any time as particular cases evolved by human beings due to the operation of Sanatana Dharma. Sanatana Dharma or Eternal Universal Knowledge as gathered by the ancient wrishis, munis, sages and learned persons who at some point of time in history started living in the land to the South of the Himalayas. Since the very beginning Sanatana Dharma has gone through continuous evolution and become progressively liberal and flexible to explain all that happens in the Universe. Thus this Knowledge also explains the development of various religions including the Hindu religion. This body of Knowledge of the Principles of Creation or Universe naturally has served across civilization and yugas (ages). These principles explain why most people believe in the existence of God as the creator and source of all knowledge and power reflected in the creation, maintenance and destruction of anything and everything in the Universe.
G: I really cherish Hindu religion for its flexibility. It seems to cater to all problems and all aspects of life throughout the ages. I think all other religions are also based on this basic belief system. I find many of the prescriptions, illustrations and stories common across all religions.
S: You are correct. Actually, all religions, including the various versions of what are normally referred to as Hindu religion, may be considered particular cases of Sanatana Dharma, the General Theory. To my mind there is no single Hindu religion. Based on the different principles of Dharma and philosophical knowledge handed over by the ancient sages in the form of Dharma, different ways of life have evolved in different regions in and around India. Virtually innumerable variations in life are consistent with Dharma. That is why Sanathana Dharma has no quarrel with any other religion or sect. While religions and sects may have quarrel among themselves, Sanatana Dharma accepts all religions as acceptable including those theories that do not believe in the existence of God as a creator of all. That is why this Dharam or religions based on Dharma are not “ism” religions. “ Ism” religions tend to differentiate and seek special status in society. For brevity, let me refer to Sanatana Dharma as only. Dharma does not differentiate among people adopting different ways of life. “Ism” develops rigidity, conservatism and narrowness. Dharma shuns ‘isms’ but does not quarrel with any ”ism”.
G: But there are fundamentalists among Hindus.
S: Yes, there are fundamentalists in all religions. That there are fundamentalists is also due to the operation of the Principles enunciated in Dharma. But Dharma is independent of fundamentalism. You remain subject to the principles of Dharma whether or not you adopt any particular way of life consistent with Dharma. Dharma does not ask any one to practice Dharma and form a group on that basis. Living a particular way of life is not a prescription of Dharma. No fundamentalist can find Dharma as a source of inspiration or justification.

Irrelevance of Relevance 005

2009-01-23T22:14:00.000-08:00

G: Despite the discussions we have had so far, your theory of the Irrelevance of the Relevance and the examples fails to convince me.
S: That it is so itself is a proof of my theory. What I considered as Relevant, you still consider that to be irrelevant. That is how the Natural forces interact to generate outcomes. Whatever we do is nothing but playing games like the children do. Better enjoy a story of how adults play children’s games.
G: What is this story?
S: Mr. Fakir, an erstwhile small farmer from Ingur district, and Mr. Amir, a renowned industrialist. They had a chance meeting in a small restaurant at a New York Airport. Mr. Amir was enjoying a cup of coffee waiting for his next flight to Los Angles. This is what they were discussing:

“ Fakir (F): Good Morning, Mr. Amir. Enjoying your Coffee, Sir.
Amir (A): Yes. Thank you.
F: Sir. There’s headline CNN news on our country and your company, Sir.
A: You know about my company!
F: My name is Fakir, Sir. I have come to USA because of the new car factory your company is setting up in my native village.
A: How did my car company cause your travel to US, Mr. Fakir?
F: I am very happy, Sir, that your company helped me to come to USA and enjoy a better life.
A: Mr. Fakir, I am unable to understand the link between your coming to US and my company.
F: Sir, please notice the CNN headlines. ‘Legislators break Assembly House Furniture: Furor over Amir Car Land deal’.
A: Yes. In our democratic country, every political party seems to know what is the best for the country but they seldom agree on what is the best. They do not seem to know how to account for costs and benefits of the land transfer to our company.
F: Sir, I do not agree with you that they do not seem to know only what is best for the country. As far as I see, the politicians do not seem to know anything except street shouting, fighting, and lecturing to the illiterate and half-educated majority of our countrymen. And, of course, they know how to act as medieval kings collecting money from others by ingenious methods of extortion and spending growing amounts of public money without contributing anything worthwhile to the country.”

G: Before you continue further, let me say that you are yourself are playing a mischievous game to ridicule the politicians and democracy.
S: Well, I could do that. But that is not the relevance of my story. It is all about how different sections of the society consider what is a relevant argument and what is not. May I continue with the story?
G: Please do.
S: Mr. Amir was obviously interested in discussing about politicians. So the discussions continued as follows:

A: You know as an industrialist, I cannot afford to annoy the kings and the potential kings of a democracy. To survive as a businessman, I must keep good relations with all political parties. But I am interested in knowing how my company helped you to come to USA.
F: Sir, that is because your company wants to set up a car factory back home in our village.
F: Please elaborate. Mr. Fakir.
F: Sir, I am benefited just because you planned to set up your car factory there. I come from the rural, agricultural locality where your company is setting up the factory to manufacture low cost Amir car for relatively poor countrymen. My father in-law inherited from his forefathers a large tract of agricultural land in the same locality. The Govt. took away the major part of the land he held about two decades back to distribute these lands to landless farmers. That was named the great land reforms revolution.
A: I have read about this great land revolution. Land owned by rich peasantry in excess of a certain individual/ family ceiling was kind of confiscated and then distributed among the landless farmers: this was hailed as great socialistic achievement of ensuring land to the tillers. This resulted in rapid growth in agricultural production and productivity. But what did your father in-law do after losing the land?
F: Fortunately, the land was still in his name. As the legally required documentation formalities were not properly completed during the last twenty years, mutation of ownership in favour of the farmers who received the land as gift from the Govt. was not completed. So my father in-law could still sell the same land to locally influential land dealers at a very good price.

G: You are again trying to project the State as a kind of villain.
S: That indeed is not my intention. But can you rule out the possibility of what story indicates about the credibility of agricultural land ownership records? You cannot. But this is Relevant when judging the credibility of the State’s power. Let me continue:

A: Why did these dealers give a good price to your father in-law? The land truly belonged to the farmers who got the land from the State.
F: The land dealers being influential knew about the possibility of land deal with your company in advance and used their information to buy the land from my father in-law and others. Ultimately, they sold the land to the govt. at a price equal to about double the market price. Within a short period of three months they made 20 % return on their investment and earned a measure of goodwill in govt. circles for facilitating quick land acquisition.
A: So, you mean that both your father in-law and the land dealers benefited because of our decision to set up a car factory there. But how did you get benefited?
F: I happened to fall in love with and marry the only daughter of my father in-law. So, he gave my wife a part of the sale proceeds he received. I used part of money he gave her to get trained in information technology enabled services. This helped me to get a job in a multinational financial services company operating a BPO facility in my State’s capital city. After three months’ training, I will be posted as Assistant Client Service Operations Manager in my city. I am taking the same flight with you to Los Angles and could not resist picking up a conversation with you and than you.
A: It was so kind of you to do that. I am happy that I met a person like you who could account for at least three sets of people who benefited even before my company invested a rupee in the car factory.

G: So, you agree that the State power can benefit lot of people.
S: Hold on Sir. Whenever the State tries to bring benefit to the people the State also inflicts a cost. Moreover, the beneficiaries from State decision about whom we have heard so far in the story are not supposed to be the intended beneficiaries of State’s action. Let me continue with the story:

F: Sir, I must tell you that there may also be some who may suffer because of your car factory.
A: I hear that some landowners in your locality are not willing to sell their lands to the Govt. for ultimate transfer to my company for setting up the car factory. That is why they are agitating. That is why there was this revolutionary act by opposition political party in the Assembly House in your State capital. The small farmers who lost the land and did not get compensated must have been adversely affected.
Fakir: I am one among such small farmers who lost the land once given to them free by the State, Sir. A small piece of land was given by the Govt. to my father as a landless farmer two decades back. I along with my four brothers inherited that land. But it was really uneconomic for four of us to cultivate that small land. It was too small. The Govt. helped my father to get this land free for twenty years during which he earned from the land and gave us some education. We were not much interested in continuing as farmers on a small plot of land. Even then losing the land was emotionally painful. But the land dealers gave us some money so that we do not create any fuss. So, we got some money. Two of my brothers have decided to set up small food-cum-stationery shops to cater to the demand of the construction workers for the factory and subsequently to the demand from the employees of the proposed car factory. The other two brothers have been working in nearby towns as semi-skilled factory labour for the past three years.
A: So, the farmers like you and your brothers are not adversely affected. But all farmers are not going to get small business opportunities to earn their living or may not have got any money from the land dealers. In any case not all are as fortunate as you or your father in-law.
F: You are right. Some farmers, who got their land from the govt. two decades ago, had got their name in the land ownership records. They have got good compensation from the govt.: they got nearly double the market value of the land they gave to the govt. Not all landowners, who sold their lands to the govt., are real farmers and with the sub-division of ancestral land among siblings, the small land plots are in any case becoming uneconomic to cultivate. It would have been useful if your company had set up, instead of a car factory, an agricultural cultivation factory and employed the farmers as agricultural workers. I understand some of the farmer families would get employment in your factory.
A: Yes, when the car factory comes up, it will absorb some displaced farmers as factory workers. There is a proposal to train some farmers in skilled work required by the factory. And, during the factory construction period, the farmers can find employment as land preparation and construction workers. But it seems that some of the real farmers will not get compensated.
F: Yes. Even after two decades, some sharecroppers, who were given land by the Govt. free, could not get their ownership registered in the official records. They are unable to legally claim compensation for the land they were actually cultivating and now being acquired by the govt.
A: The govt. should compensate them also.
F: Yes. That is likely to happen now that the govt. has come to know of the ground level reality.

G: So, you see in democracy, the State is so responsive to the ground reality.
S: You are right. But only after considerable agitation, the State comes to know what the ground reality was. The compensation was not originally designed properly to ensure that all the genuine owner-cultivators get the compensation. That speaks volumes about the efficiency and credibility of State machinery even in a democracy and the additional cost inflicted on the society and the economy for no reason or rhyme. That is the point I consider relevant. Let me continue the story:

A: In that case, the entire land deal will be fair to all. Everyone will be protected and satisfied.
F: Still some people would have transitional problems once they lose their land you are getting for the car factory.
A: This happens even when a factory closes down because of permanent loss of its commercial viability. New factories come up to absorb some of them. Others have to be taken care of by the Govt. by giving them training in other vocations and skills, finding for them redeployment opportunities as also providing them some financial help to tide over the transition process. Our factory may create some new employment directly. But more employment will be generated outside our factory. Our vendors, suppliers and transporters will create employment. The people working in the factory will generate demand for goods and services from new local shops that will hire people from local farming families.
F: Maybe, that will happen. But people say food prices will rise as a result of transfer of land from agriculture to industry.
S: How will the prices go up?
F: According to the opposition party politicians, the transfer of such a large tract of land from agriculture to industry will mean loss of agricultural output. The output of rice and potatoes will decline. This will mean prices of these will rise.
A: That may not be true. Actually, the land that the factory will take away from agriculture is a small percentage of total agricultural land in your State. So, agricultural production need not go down as a result of our factory taking away some land. We must try raising the productivity of agricultural land by consolidation of fragmented land and introducing large-scale commercial farming. Then we can produce more agricultural crops even by using much smaller land area for farming.
F: That is why I was suggesting that you set up large agricultural operations factories, if not instead of, but in addition to a car factory.
A: We may not be very good at running an agricultural factory. But when the govt. allows, some others who are more competent than us in this field will set up such large agricultural factories when the Govt. allows such things. At present, that is not permitted by the govt.
F: That is unfortunate. We will need more and more land for residential homes, schools, colleges, entertainment parks, offices, factories, shops and roads to meet the demands of our huge and growing population with rising incomes. This would mean transfer of more and more land from agriculture.
A: Do not worry. One day, the State will realize what it needs to do about increasing agricultural productivity and production so that industrial, housing and transport growth in your State does not get constrained.
F: But till that happens more factories means less agricultural output. We will have to import food grains and other commodities from other States and countries to keep the prices in check and feed our countrymen.
A: Such imports will take place automatically. Other States and countries will export their agricultural products to your State and your State will export various goods including small cars from our car factory to the outside. At one point of time, your state had numerous tanks and ponds. These were supplying various types of fish to the kitchens of your State where fish is daily item of consumption. Later, water in those ponds and lakes were drained out and residential and other buildings constructed in their place. Your state now imports fish from other states where fish is not a daily item of consumption!

G: Your story repeatedly comes back to point out the deficiency of the State.
S: What my story does not relevant. What is important and relevant to the people in democracy and the minds that are exposed to scientific methods is that either the State and its machinery as also the ruling and opposition political parties do not have adequate brains that can apply scientific methods or they just do not care about being scientific and knowledgeable. It is only after some citizens start crying and protesting that the State machinery collects relevant information and come out with facts. Common citizens like Mr. Fakir do not get to know the truth but has to depend on politicians’ propaganda and misleading information. As the story reveals, the political establishment does not care to disseminate correct and credible information in time:

F: But why did you take away good agricultural lands producing three crops a year for the car factory? You could have taken barren or low productivity lands.
A: We require a large stretch of contiguous land that enjoys convenient links to good transport and other infrastructure. The contiguous tract of land we chose for the car project unfortunately contains a small percentage of highly productive lands. Some three-crop producing land is interspersed with some one or two-crop producing land. So we cannot help. This seems unavoidable.
F: But good quality land should get higher compensation.
A: Ideally yes. But in the 21st century, all land under agricultural operations must produce as many crops as possible and all agricultural land that industries are not taking away should be upgraded to produce multiple crop wherever and whenever possible.
F: How would you like to value the land plots you are purchasing?
A: The ruling market price could be a basis for valuation.
F: Ruling market price does not really reflect the true value of the land being acquired by the govt. for your car company. A competitive market for selling and buying land does not exist. So, land cannot be valued at the ruling market price.
A: I agree with you. That is why I understand that the govt. is giving a price that is nearly double of the ruling market price. But how do you really value of the land being acquired by the State for onward sale to your company?
F: It is so simple. You have to find out the opportunity cost.
A: You are right. Each piece of land acquired should be transferred at its opportunity cost.
F: The opportunity cost is nothing but the aggregate sum of the present values of annual income, net of all costs, which the land owning farmer will have earned by using the land for agriculture for the next 30 or 50 years. To arrive at today’s values, each future year’s annual net income from the land has to be discounted at the interest rate on long-term government bonds.
A: Ah! You are talking about the valuation methods we adopt when we make investment and other resource use decisions in industrial companies.
F: If that is the method you found suitable in your companies, why can’t the decision to transfer land from agricultural use to industrial and other uses be made with the help of such methods of accounting for costs and benefits?
A: I agree with you. We should use scientific accounting methods to arrive at correct decisions.
F: In that case, transfer of land from agricultural to car manufacturing factory should be at least at the opportunity cost, i.e. at the present discounted value of the future stream of net income from agricultural use of the land. If a new factory is viable after purchasing the land at that opportunity cost price, the land can be transferred to the car factory. Otherwise, it is a net loss to the society.
A: I agree.
F: Have you done such calculations to find out whether the society will be a net gainer by transferring agricultural land in favour of the proposed car factory?
A: Not really. This is what should be done by the State because it has taken the authority to decide on land use. Maybe they have done but such calculations do not seem to be available in the public domain.
F: Yes. We have a non-transparent, opaque democracy managed by elected political despots. We cannot expect such calculations to be made or, if made, disclosed to the public.
A: Please do not ask me to comment on this.

G: The Govt. has already started getting these calculations made. Some relevant information is being made public. I understand a white paper may be released. And, all this has become necessary since the opposition parties have gone into violent agitations along with indefinite hunger strike by their leaders.
S: It is sad that the political parties behave like despots lording over citizens. The white paper should have been the first step before the decision to acquire land for transfer to proposed car factory was taken and publicly announced. If the opposition parties were responsible and accountable rather than despotic leaders, they would have themselves produced such a white paper for public scrutiny and debate as soon as the Govt. announced its plan to acquire land. Just because you are political party leaders and supporters you cannot play irrelevant games like the children do. This is what is relevant to judging the quality of democracy and the efficacy of the use of the powers of the State.
Those who have faith in State and democracy have blind faith in them. They are incapable of questioning the quality and credibility of democracy and the use of the powers given to the State. They suffer from cause-effect obsession syndrome or are pure and simple engaged in the lucrative business of fooling and oppressing the common citizens.
G: You continue with your story.
S: Fine, the story is even more pathetic:

F: It seems you are getting the land cheaper. You should pay higher prices for the land you are buying from the Govt. Land cost is a small percentage of the cost of setting up a project. If you give a 50% higher price, your total project cost would not have increased by more than 25 or so.
A: You are right. But the people who have invested in our company expect me to buy land and other things at the lowest possible cost without undermining quality. I am obliged to do that. If other states offer me land at a lower price, I have no moral right to buy land in your State at a higher price.
F: I agree. But if the other states are offering you land at lowers costs without they themselves calculating the net benefits of the proposed land transfer, the possibility of the country having to bear a net loss on account on the land transfer remains. Moreove,r all lands are not equally valuable. Here you are getting a land with much better infrastructure links than some other alternative land offered in areas without minimum infrastructure. So the prices will be higher here and yet your car project investment will earn better return by being located here rather than in alternative low priced locations.
A: These possibilities remain. I have not estimates and calculations to provide you with correct answers to your questions.
F: I thought so. No one seems to care about the using the calculus appropriate t evaluate the Stte’s decision to transfer land from agricultural use to industrial use. But it seems that the govt. is a big loser from your car project.
A: No, that is not true at all. With the new car factory and activities linked to it, more employment, more income and more income tax and other revenues will be generated. Over a period of time the govt. will also benefit considerably.
F: How can we be certain without having access to credible calculations of all costs and benefits?
A: You are right. But I guess that the Govt. will not be a loser.
F: Maybe your guess is right. But the Govt. might have gained more by competitive auction among companies who wish to set up manufacturing unit to produce cars or other products on the same land. Maybe some other company would have a higher price than the price your company is currently willing to pay.
A: Maybe or maybe not. But if competitive bidding was introduced, we my hv a different strategy to approach the State govt.
F. I thought so. Thanks to your car project, every one in the State seems likely to be benefited, except a few who would have temporary difficulties and they can be assisted to tide over that transition phase. But no one seems to have used scientific methods to calculate the cost and benefits.
A: You are right.
F: It is because of the reluctance to apply scientific methods to calculate costs and benefits that we have heated controversies and bandhs? Also, such useless and costly controversies and bandhs may happen again and again when factories, townships, airports projects are proposed and the govt. has to go in for land acquisition. Each bandh is a cost to the society without any benefit: so are the protracted emotional debates in the media, the legislature’s offices and political propaganda meetings. All this is sheer wastage of national resources: money, paper, time and effort.
A: You are right. Maybe in democracy we have to bear this additional cost.
F: I do not agree with you, Sir. We are reluctant to use proper quantitative accounting of effects of alternative decisions. When we are in the political arena, our politicians and elite classes forget everything except counting of potential votes in favour or against, emotionally charged public speaking without any substance, and muscle power. Muscle power technology and street shouting technology are the pillars of our democracy: accounting technology is for other commercial business applications.
A: You have a brilliant idea. How did it occur to you? You are not a Chartered Accountant or MBA.
F: No, Sir. I am only a bachelor of commerce. It seems accountancy and accountability is not what our democracy likes to adapt to.
A: Good observation. We could discuss this if we meet again.

G: I am trying to comprehend the relevance of your story.
S: You should. Just think if two persons can have such a conversation on their own without much quantitative information, what were the political parties and their great leaders as also the govt. machinery doing? Playing games at the cost of the society? But let my story end in a positive note, before we close this series of dialogue sessions:

F: You are a respected and reputed industry house of long standing and with considerable focus on societal welfare. Why don’t you consider granting options to buy 10 shares of your car company per acre of land given to you by the farmers with an exercise price equal to your company’s market price as of 31st March 2009 and options exercisable between 31st March 2012 and 31st March 2015? With that the farmers will feel that they have an upside. This would prove that you have purchased the land with a greater measure of fairness.
A: Thank you for a novel suggestion. But I regret we have to hurry now. They have announced the last and final call for our boarding.
F: Yes, Sir. Thank you for spending some time with me.
A: I enjoyed the time with you. Good luck to you, young man. May our country be filled with citizens like you and you become worthy leaders.

S: End of my Story
G: Thank you for your Irrelevance

Irrelevance of Relevance 004

2009-01-23T21:40:00.001-08:00

G: Can we have one more global example of cause-effect obsession syndrome, cause-effect inverse and relevance of irrelevance?
S: Oh, sure. First, let us deal with what causes some people to seek right to intellectual property (IP) and its protection from being copied for commercial purposes. Those who have anything that is novel that they have designed or discovered or invented may have a need for IP protection. They want to make money from their own IP or at least want to get recognition for their contribution. Some of those who think and can demonstrate that they have created something novel and the use of that creation by others should be subject to their permission which they may grant at their discretion, if necessary against payment of some monetary consideration by those they have agreed to allow such use.
G: The cause is the desire on the part of the creator to benefit from his/ her creation and the effect is the demand for IP.
S: Yes. But there is an underlying reality that is not so explicitly stated. If X has invented something that can be successfully commercialized and money made without any possibility of copying on commercial scale by others, there is no need for IP protection. Unfortunately, for most creations copying is generally very easy. Therefore, restriction on copying is what is being sought. The cause-effect obsession syndrome starts then as follows: if you allow free copying no one will have incentive to create or innovate things that can help human society to progress. So, IP right is nothing but negation of human right to copy.
G: Right to copy!
S: Yes, freedom to copy can be regarded as a fundamental human right. Without copying human civilization cannot exist. From the childhood you learn to copy and parents urge you to copy them so that you can live. You must copy how to walk, how to keep yourself clean, how to eat and drink, how to talk, how to read, write and communicate, sing, dance and so on.
G: So, the cause-effect inverse here is that if you do not allow free copying right, human society cannot make progress. If I am not allowed to copy running and innovate as to how I can increase my speed of running, how do I catch a thieve running away stealing my money from my pocket?
S: You are right. That is why many creators themselves want that their creation be freely copied without any restriction. They enjoy that many people benefit by costless copying of their inventions. The greater is the incidence of copying the greater is their delight.
G: So, you are against copyright laws.
S: Please do not jump to conclusion without logical justification. I recognize the natural need and right to copy. I also agree to the need for copyright laws. If copyright laws are not there, authors will not write for a book, publishers will not publish books, music companies will not record songs, movies, dramas and events on tapes, audio/ video cassettes, compact disks etc. But despite all copyright and patent laws, we have official sales of recorded music industry falling behind the sales of illegal copying based pirated music distribution industry. A similar thing happens in pharmaceuticals industry. The official industry has to innovate to make unauthorised copying and piracy uneconomic and restricted. That is the technological and marketing challenge the official industry has to take up.
G: So, you say that both copyright and copying will continue.
S: Yes. But one should note that not all things that you see some other person do can be copied or at least easily copied by you or others. There are a few possibilities of copying: a novel creation can be easily copied sooner or later, or difficult to copy even after a long time, or almost impossible to copy in the foreseeable future. There are a few possibilities on the cost of creation: a novel creation without much cost (resource, time and/ or effort) or with substantial cost. For simplicity, we can have six possible combinations: (a) easy creation & easy copying, (b) easy creation but difficult copying, (c) easy creation and impossible to copy, (d) difficult creation and easy to copy, (e) difficult creation and difficult copying, and (f) difficult creation and impossible to copy. For (c) and (f) categories, there is no problem. Problem arises in the remaining four cases.
G: Creations of category (a) also does not pose any problem. For that which is easy to create, there is nothing that the first creator can demand to be compensated for. The same thing may have been created soon even if the first creator had not been the first to create.
S: You are right. Categories (b) and (e) also do not pose much of a problem because there is an embedded IP protection for quite some time, copying being difficult. Real problem arises in the case of (d) category creations: if you do not protect the commercial interest of inventions/ innovations that cost much time, effort and money but easy to copy, adequate effort and money may not be attracted to the creative process of innovations and inventions. As a result, the society may suffer from slower progress of the human society.
G: For (d), therefore everyone will agree to Intellectual Property Right (IPR) and IPR protection.
S: I also believe that everyone will agree.
G: Then where does the debate originate?
S: It arises from how the inventions or creations are classified as novel creations of category (d) and how long the protection is granted for them. Failure to identify creations of category (d) as such or inadequate protection period for such category creations may hurt the process of creations and therefore the interest of the creators and the progress of human society, though the copiers may be benefited.
G: On the other hand, creators of (a) category creations may try to show that their creations are category (d) creations. This will also hurt the process of innovations besides hurting the society’s interest.
S: You are right. Thus, the problem arises not with IPR protection as such but with the way the IPR protection is ensured in the case of (d) category creations: short, unambiguous laws on IPR, proper identification of IP creations of category (d), and the enforcement of such IPR. This clearly is not an easy task and cannot be handled of run-of-the-mill, ordinary bureaucrats. It requires highly perceptive scientist personnel capable of quick decisions on IPR protection applications and IPR protection intelligence and police personnel with adequate powers and accountability.
G: But this is an almost impossible task in large population countries with high propensity to copy clandestinely without paying the creators any consideration
S: Yes. That is why India and China may find it difficult to have strong and effective IPR regimes.
G: But there are non-profit foundations which do lot of collaborative research on the basis of what is called open source model of development as in the case of software development. These foundations and the people who participate in open source software and other scientific problem solving do not seem to worry about IPR or the pecuniary or reputation/ recognition prize rewards.
S: You are right. This is new model of development of science and technology is driven by motivations like the psychologically good feeling of being challenged by various unsolved problems or of being part of an open community of problem solvers or simply the scope of learning new things. Often, such open, collaborative efforts results in faster cracking of problems than the time taken by the closed door, secretive scientific and technological in-house research undertaken by company R&D and research institutions.
G: If that were so, why do we emphasize on IPR?
S: First, complete open source process of creative innovation and invention may not suit all areas of science and for large companies to depend on. Second, such open, collaborative efforts at problem sharing and problem solving may actually increase the efficiency of problem solving within companies and research institutions. Third, the open-source, collaborative efforts can also lead to new regimes for IPR protection laws. Those who participate in the open, collaborative processes may get something in the nature of free stock options: options in this case will be on the sharing of gains from patents based on collaborative generation of solutions to scientific and technological problems.
G: Ultimately, strong IPR regimes will help countries like India and China to gain faster.
S: Yes, relatively low income countries with large population of scientifically trained minds should do better by giving up the practice of copying and start participating in open source development of science and technology. It is a cause-effect obsession syndrome that leads us to believe that IPR protection is in the interest of already advanced, rich countries and multinational companies. When we look at open source process of scientific and technology research, we develop a cause-effect inversion. Then, we start seeing that effectively designed and implemented IPR regimes are relevant to poor countries like us: reliance on unauthorized copying the creations of foreign innovators and denying IPR to foreign innovators actually hurt countries like us more than the advanced Western countries.
G: But you can’t expect poor countries to spend huge amount of resources to innovate.
S: The issue is that can poorer countries remove their poverty through copying. Both the goal of lifting huge populations from poverty and the means of copying are wrong. The goal should have been to enable each of their citizens to become as rich as possible. If you aim low, you achieve only that. If you aim high, you apply your brain better and succeed. But whether you aim low or high is not within your choice. The means to achieve the goal should have been to allow creative and productive talents in science, technology and entrepreneurship inherent in human beings to flower.
G: How can poor, uneducated people identify and use their talents? You have to educate them first. That is why the State plans programs to do that.
S: State can only plan. The State cannot implement and get the results. People achieve the results individually and groups at their pace. Directing, controlling and cajoling them do not help. If State plans for the people, the people think that it is the State that has the responsibility for and capability of achieving what the State plans.
G: If the State does not arrange for economic and social development, who will?
S: You suffer from Cause-Effect Syndrome. You think planning is the cause and achievement of desired goals is the effect without any scientific basis. Did all inventions and discoveries in this World result from State planning? Confront the Cause-Effect Inverse by finding how state planning and initiative had caused the following effects: the proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun and the Sun does not revolve around the Earth, the discovery of the theory of relativity, the building of the first airplane, the use of the wireless technology, the development of the principles of management, the technique of double-entry book keeping, the popularity of cricket or soccer or Lawn Tennis all over World, the proliferation of amusement parks and shopping malls, the development of plastic money. State is irrelevant to the progress of human civilization.
G: But some States do better than others!
S: Yes, that happens because some States allow greater economic freedom to citizens and allows merit and talent to compete in exerting their influence on how the State functions. Such states may do better than other states that curb individual freedom, encourages acquiescence, rewards loyalty to the Ruling class and requires merit and talent to seek State patronage.
G: You mean to say that India’s economic development in the last 60 years was possible without the State’s direction, control and initiatives.
S: Whatever India or any other country has achieved so far is purely because of individual enterprise. The results achieved are not because, but in spite, of the adverse effect of State’s active meddling with economic affairs of the country.
G: Why do you say in spite of the State?
S: Because State planning and control has constrained the progress of education, dynamism of entrepreneurial risk taking, motivation to excel, and so on. When the whole World was available for Indians to acquire knowledge, to trade with and gain, to compete with and succeed, the Indian State ensured that the people of India live virtually isolated from the World. Economic freedom was snatched away from the citizens by the State in India. Citizens that live in economic serfdom perpetuated by the State’s over-riding power cannot deliver outstanding results on a sustained basis.
G: Why did India choose the State-ist model, if what you say is true.
S: There is one and only one reason: You choose as your nature permits you. That’s getting back to Stochastic Destiny Principle, as you would like to point out.
G: But since the economic liberalization started in 1991, India has become less Statist.
S: That is your illusion. Instead of a fixed short chain that you tug in the neck-collar of the dog you can use an expandable-and-contractible chain also. That is not freedom.
G: How is this relevant to IPR. You have a tendency to digress!
S: This is another example of the Relevance of the Irrelevance. When you are so obsessed with State-ism, you cannot imagine the potential of economic freedom to the citizens. Unless the individuals are free, exploitation of creativity is constrained. The citizens are forced to copy rather than innovate since the State does not believe in IPR.
G: But we have copyrights and patents since long.
S: Yes, some legislation exited till the recent changes took place. But we know how high has been the incidence of violation of copyrights, trademarks and patents as also the extent of piracy in recorded audio/ videotapes and CDs, drugs, automobile spares and so on.
G: In such a huge country, enforcement is not an easy task.
S: It all depends whether one chooses to be equal to the task. One makes choice one is naturally inclined to make. That’s your destiny. But that does not justify the poor enforcement record. Poor IPR laws and poor enforcement encourages copying, breeds mediocrity, discourages innovations and kills motivation to excel, which hurts economic and social progress. Copying clandestinely, according to me, is an activity of people with low self-esteem.
G: If you are poor, you are prone to copying.
S: You are right. Some poor people find no alternative but to steal to live their lives. Some other poor people organize muscle power to become bandits to commit robbery or become terrorists. Some other poor people just tolerate their poverty. It all depends on the natural inclinations of the individuals. Violation of copy rights, trademarks and patent laws, however, are committed generally by rich people, even if they belong to poor countries.
G: You do not seem to be interested in prescribing solutions.
S: Prescribing solution is easy. In fact, our discussions point to alternative solutions. The responsibility of choosing a particular solution and the success or failure of a chosen solution lies only with those who want to solve the problem. They choose according to their natural inclinations. That is in accordance of the stochastic destiny principle.
G: As usual, we have to close this session without reaching an agreement.

Irrelevance of Relevance 003

2009-01-23T21:40:00.000-08:00

G: You seem to believe that human beings cannot design and implement a more efficient and unfair system than the natural system or free market system!
S: I do because that is the hard truth. The cause-effect paradigm leads you to the conclusion that extravagant exploitation of non-renewable natural resources and inefficient use of such materials affects ecology and environment. That is what you have observed from past history. But that does not necessary imply that the rich nations are doing just that, unless you have a cause-effect obsession syndrome. You want advanced West to reduce their contribution to pollution and allow emerging economies to increase their contribution to pollution. So, you fix standards, start carbon credit and start trading in carbon credit. That is a good market system idea, but that cannot solve your basic problem. Ideally, you want an overall absolute limit on each kind of pollution that human beings generate per year or per decade and you want each human being in the world to have the right to pollute only up to a limit determined by the overall absolute limit divided by the total human population. But, this seems so funny that you create the right or entitlement to pollute environment. And, you want to have larger entitlement for Indians and Chinese to pollute!
G: I see the point you are trying to make. It looks so silly. But as human beings we have to do something.
S: That is what you are naturally inclined to believe. Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing! Of course, people like you will try to do this. You will do this because of Natural Law that is playing out through your nature and inclination. But other natural forces will also operate. They will operate directly or through other persons with inclinations different from you. The future will be result of interaction of different natural forces. You cannot achieve anything better than what Nature allows you to do.
G: You are coming back to your stochastic destiny principle again.
S: You are absolutely right: that is the ultimate truth. Creation and destruction are natural processes that cannot be controlled by the mere wish of human beings except by chance.
G: But we must be concerned with ecology and environment when we know the truth.
S: If you are by nature inclined that way, you will do just that. In fact, it is the western world that shows greater concern than the poor countries. So the poorer countries want to preach that the already rich countries should develop technologies that would protect ecology and environment. And, they want a fair share of the entitlement to damage ecology and environment.
G: They should.
S: They need not. If we are so concerned with ecology and environment, each one of us should be completely avoiding doing anything that is scientifically proven to have an adverse effect on the environment and ecology. There is no need to seek greater entitlement to damaging environment and ecology. But human beings are naturally conditioned to pick up fights because of self-interest and jealousy. For that you do not need to demonstrate your ability for reasoned argumentation.
G: Are you trying to make an oblique reference to my identity of “ Argumentative Indian”, a la Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen.
S: If you think that to be argumentative is a great characteristic, you should be proud of such an identity.
G: Isn’t argumentative a great characteristic?
S: It’s for you to value your characteristics. For me all characteristics are great and powerful: they can lead to great creations as well as destructions. I maybe thankful for just being what I happen to be as a result of the interaction of different natural forces in the past. But past is no more relevant to me except as a pleasurable trip back in time or tools of my natural tendency to play the game of reasoning and analysis. Past, in its various parts, has been contributing to making what I am and what I will be in future. Past is not relevant to me: it is the process that yields the present that I am.
G: You mean to say that you are not an argumentative Indian?
S: I am all that Indians commonly features. I am as argumentative as an Indian can be. But I am also as acquiescent as an Indian can be. I am as religious as an Indian can be. I am as Western as an Indian can be. There is no particular Indian that I think dominates me all the time. The exact process in which the past centuries and millenniums have contributed in my making is not known to me. I cannot be proud about anything that I have not myself done. I can only be thankful to the past.
G: But in our discussion, being argumentative is relevant.
S: I agree. But being argumentative does not necessarily mean that we are rational and reasonable human beings. Being argumentative is not necessarily a virtue. It may merely be a form of easily accessible communication that avoids physical fight, avoids violence to settle disputes and that help people to learn if they wish to learn.
G: Hold on. We have been in argumentative mode since long time. Now you say that we are not rational, reasonable human beings!
S: See. Let us not mix up things, though this is so natural for argumentative people to do.
We are trying to be rational as far as we can. That’s what human beings can do. We cannot ensure rationality. Consider the fact that poorer nations like India and China want to grow fast and catch up with the advanced richer countries, for which they need to consume great amounts of hydro-carbon fuels and thereby inflict a damage to ecology and environment. To minimize the overall damage, the current rate of damage by richer countries therefore needs to be brought down. That is argument for fair sharing of entitlement to damaging environment to ecology and environment.
G: That is true. The richer nations, particularly the USA cannot be allowed to inflict such huge damage as they are doing every year now.
S: This type of argumentation will not solve a dispute. This is another example of Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome. If the dispute and the poor claim entitlement to damage based on population, argumentation of this type will soon end and yield to settlement through wars by the use of money, muscle, technology and intellect. That is what is natural and happening even now.
G: So, you are saying that scientific reasoning with the rich countries will fail to change their behaviour.
S: They will change their behaviour in their own interest, not because of the argument put up by poorer nations. They know that the stock of minerals and fossil fuels are finite and hence will try to find out ways of getting more of their needs per unit of energy or any finite natural resource.They may even accommodate the poor nations out of sympathy. Your argument is flawed and irrelevant to solving the ecological and environmental problem of the World.
G: Why do you say so? You do not agree to fair sharing?
S: To feed the billions of Indian and Chinese, if we use chemicals fertilizers and pesticides, we will hurt ecology and environment more. If we do not want to use polluting chemicals to feed the billions and give them decent dwellings, we will need to cut down forest cover and damage ecology and environment. No civilized person will raise the question as to why poor nations dramatically cut down on their population by half. You can’t stop producing more and more poor people. You do not think of fair sharing of the entitlement to produce numbers and burden our planet.
G: That kind of argument is hitting below the belt.
S: No. It’s the Cause-Effect Inverse to expose the Cause-Effect Obsession Syndrome from which one suffers and as a result produces invalid, biased arguments. You do not like that the issue of population size and its impact on environment and ecology because that is your weakness. If you had fewer numbers to deal with, you would have required much less of energy and materials to make them rich. But even with huge populations, you still like to imitate the life-styles of the rich West and its extravagant use of finite resources that leads to ecological and environmental damage.
G: Then, what is the solution?
S: I do not know. But mere argumentation cannot solve the problem so long as you argue only to promote your interest at the cost of others. That’s not reasoned argumentation; it is mere shouting. You know how much water billions of poor people will require when they become rich. You know how much of non- biodegradable plastic material waste they will generate to damage ecology. Yet you cry that the rich waste is unfair!
G: What then is the alternative?
S: There is nothing. There is no choice. You are destined to shout thinking that you have strong reasoned arguments when actually you really do not have any argument to justify your existence that burdens this planet. That is the natural law operating through you. You produce more poor people and when by natural consequence they become terrorists you justify the growth of terrorism by blaming the extravaganza of the rich West. That poor countries suffer is relevant but their argumentation is irrelevant so far as ecology and environment is concerned.
S: You are saying that whether poor countries remain poor or become rich, disaster is unavoidable.
G: Yes, that is the inevitable unless Nature reveals the solution by enabling scientists and technologists to find new technologies that remove the current constraint on resource availability and environmental and ecological impact of resource use.

Irrelevance of Relevance 002

2009-01-23T21:32:00.000-08:00

S: Should we discuss the example of the worldwide concern about protection of ecology and environment?
G: In such a straightforward issue, I do not think there can be any debate. The way human beings are exploiting natural resources, the World is heading towards an ecological and environmental disaster.
S: So, you mean that protection of environment and ecology is relevant to everyone.
G: Yes. This is the relevant perspective for everyone.
S: You want to say that everyone in the World know the scientific truth about how human beings are exploiting the environment and the non-renewable natural resources. This is first cause-effect relationship you depend on. Then you want to say that since everyone’s life and the lives of the future generations are at stake due to environment pollution and ecological damages being caused by human behaviour, everyone should be concerned. That is another cause-effect relationship you invoke. That is why you say that Environment and ecology concerns are relevant to everyone or the human society.
G: You got me correctly. That is what I want to say.
S: Unfortunately, you are wrong. First, everyone in the World does not know the scientific truth about human behaviour and environmental and ecological disaster. Only some people know.
G: Yes. If some people know the scientific truth, that is enough. All persons may not know at a given point. But truth is truth. Truth implies that human beings should change their behaviour. It is suffient if some persons who matter and have the power, know the truth t.
S: That’s how you perceive. But for those who do not know the truth, your perspective is irrelevant. Second, even if everyone knew the scientific truth, not all are interested in protecting the future. In fact many may not have any view about the future after their death.
G: Yes, some persons are very selfish. They do not care about the future generations. They are fools. They are not relevant.
S: Correct. For these people, your perspective is irrelevant. Let us assume for your sake, that everyone knows the scientific truth and are not selfish and care for future generations’ welfare. Still, the issue may not be relevant to some of them because they do not know what solution will change human behaviour.
G: Human beings should to try to find out solutions. That is why I think what I say is relevant to all who knows the truth. It is most relevant for the knowledgable culprit. It is the economically advanced West that is responsible for exploiting the environment and ecology in a non-sustainable and damaging way..
S: I do not agree with you. The debate on this subject will continue for long, if not ever, again and again. For that is the way Nature’s laws operate. There will be crises coming again and again because of the natural greed of human beings and consequential Natural Resource exploitation on a massive scale in ways that hurt the ecology and the environment.
G: So, you seem to agree
S: No. I do not agree with you. The ultimate disaster is not round the corner. Human beings will not be an extinct species in a short while. Human beings will continue to be doing other things in the meanwhile: invent technologies and changing life styles that will reduce the dependence on exhaustible natural resources, increase the use of renewable natural resources, increase the efficiencies of the use of natural resources, conserve ecology and protect environment as well as make possible comfortable living in adversely changing ecological and environmental conditions. We therefore need not anticipate a complete devastation in the foreseeable future.
G: You seem to have great faith on human capability to innovate, invent and adjust. But the West, particularly America seems to be interested in making the environment progressively adverse to normal, healthy human existence.
S: I do not agree that the West or America will continue to be the major contributors to ecological and environmental problems of the World today. The major contributors will soon be just two countries, China and India. They are poor and is on rapid growth trajectory. Their consumption of materials will bulge simply because of their size of population. If at all, it is the West that will come out with more efficient technological solutions to achieving rapid economic growth with less environment-polluting effect. In the meanwhile, we expect advanced countries to slip down the lower standards of living? We want to say that “ Hi, country ‘X’. You have enriched yourselves in the past by polluting environment and hurting ecological balance. Now, you stop. It is our turn to become rich by damaging the environment and ecology. We want reservation of less rich countries like us in future entitlement to pollute environment and contribute to ecological disaster”. Does this seem logical, rational, consistent or scientific?
G: Yes, we should get our turn! But we are not so mean. Rather we would like to work towards environmental and ecological protection. Let the West reduce its exploitation and consumption of natural resources in a manner that reduces depletion of finite stock of non-renewable sources of energy and other materials. Let them reduce pollution and protect environment. This will allow poor countries to consume more of such resources to grow fast economically.
S: Extra-ordinarily brilliant logic. The only problem is the relevant has become irrelevant here.
G: How?
S: It is known that earth has a finite stock of non-renewable natural resources. You want a fair distribution of each of these among all the people in the World. So, you may think of dividing each natural resource equally to each person irrespective of where the resource is located and where each person is located. As if, for each natural resource, you have a giant international company that has issued equal number of its shares to each person in this world. But then how do you deal with people of subsequent generations and the growth of population? You cannot solve this problem. Even if you had overcome this problem somehow, you face another problem. How do you take account for the exploitation of past generations that had exploited these resources? Better forget the past. Start fresh now. How do the shareholders use their shares to buy the natural resource they want to consume? So, you allow for trading in these shares and you allow a free international market for each natural resource to develop.
G: But markets are not always efficient and fair.
S: So, you would most likely suggest that we appoint some World Government or international democratic forum to solve the problem. But you cannot because you are tied to your nationality and you will need to develop of a system bureaucracy to deal with International Dispute resolution. That can be more inefficient and unfair than the market system. Your statist, bureaucratic efforts are as much a natural force as the free competitive market system. The actual outcomes may depend on the interaction of these forces.