When will we listen?

Madhav Gadgil

Madhav Gadgil obviously is a sad man today. All those politicians ruling this country as well as in the opposition are ganging up to rubbish a comprehensive report painstakingly prepared by this man. Before doing so I wonder how many of them had really gone through the report and realize the importance of its implementation.

When the report was first submitted they found to their horror, how much attrition it may cause to their vote-bank if it is implemented.  Hence they immediately employed another man with Rocket Science back ground to make a new study on environment (sic) and provide suitable suggestions- and when I say ‘suggestion’ it is only a euphemism for the word ‘water-down ‘-on the existing report. He promptly did so; even identifying and naming hydro-electric projects as environment friendly and clean energy sources! Though the report was diluted to a very great extend; the political masters are still apprehensive of their real bread and butter namely the Vote-Bank being affected and are wondering how much more water can be added to the already diluted report.

This exercise of continuous dilution of a report to suit their political ends reminds me of a story of a sailor who went about to make a sailors cap from a precious little piece of cloth he got as a gift from his mother. First he approached a tailor for this purpose. The tailor took measurements and agreed to make a cap though he felt the size of the cloth was a bit less than required. The sailor felt that he should have a second opinion on this and approached another tailor with the same demand.

 This tailor offered him to make two caps with the same cloth instead of one.  This surprised the sailor. He thought that he should look out for more options and get someone who can make maximum number of caps out of the same cloth. Finally he found a tailor who promised to create four caps. Happily he placed the order with this tailor and when he got the caps prepared he found to his dismay that the caps were so small in size and is more suitable to be used as finger caps.

Ptolemy was a revered scientist of the middle ages. His postulate of the earth as the centre of the whole universe and all the stars and other heavenly bodies circling around it was the accepted idea then. It also suited the Church. When Copernicus, Galileo and their ilk came in the wake of Renaissance period with evidence to the contrary, every one opposed it tooth and nail. These Scholars even faced threats to their lives for propagating theories which were considered to be heretic.

Same kind of situation seems to be prevalent in the case of human development. Basically, as in the Ptolemy/Copernicus case there are two schools. One is economy and business centered development and the other ecology and nature centered. While the first ones declared aim is to have development at any cost the second group feels that a sustainable economy can only survive in a sustainable environment and all development should be nature-centric to be sustainable. 

  

The vested interests of the ‘economy’ group are very obvious. Short term and immediate gains are their objectives. Instead of educating the common man with the repercussion that the future generation would be facing due to the present generation’s greedy pursuits; they are projecting the immediate inconveniences as mammoth and life threatening. They even are able to woo the humble farmers and the common man by raising the boggy of loss of cultivable land and compulsorily confining to organic farming. Their stakes are quite high and they will go to any extend to protect their concerns.

Today those who bat for a nature-centric approach are in the minority and their task of fighting these vested interests are very great.  The time is ticking away. By the time wisdom dawn on those who matters; will it not be too late?

Our free will and its compatibility

When I wrote an article about ‘Moral dilemma’* in my blog last year my friend Rajagopalan had come up with some fresh  ideas and arguments . It prompted me to write a sequel to the original article (again see in my blog)* Now this one is my third posting on the related subject, again using ideas for inputs from Mr. Rajagopalan.

Writings by David Bain a lecturer in philosophy at the University of Glasgow also have great influence in the following blog.

So now let us interact.

At present I am sitting in front of my computer keying this article; I can see my computer in front of me; and while reading this article on your computer screen you are also doing the same thing; seeing the computer. Now let me ask you; what makes you believe that you are doing that?

‘What a simplistic question’; you may retort. Let me hasten to add that I mean no offence.

 Okay you believe in your senses. But the question is; don’t you know that these senses do mislead many a time?

When you immerse a straight stick in water; half submerged it looks bent. We have seen drawings of ‘Pen-rose stairs’ perpetually and eternally climbing but always taking you to the same spot where you have started.

Now look at the following illustrations. Don’t you agree that those redlines look different in length (on is shorter than the other) though by exact measurement it can be seen that they are of the same length

This Muller-Lyer illusion shows how much we can believe in our senses.  Look at a Barometer and it can predict the possibility of a rain in the immediate future though you are inclined to confirm it by actually going out and checking it. But in all cases you cannot do the same. You cannot get out of the experience and conduct a reality check to confirm that what you experience is right. Coming back to our earlier assumption that a computer does exist in front of you cannot be independently verified.

There is a very well known example frequently quoted and which was originally used by Shankara - the snake and rope illusion. A rope taken to be a snake is a delusion which was cleared when more light was provided.

In our case the existence of the computer can be reasonably confirmed because someone else watching at the same direction or the pet dog looking and seeing the picture flicking across the screen do see something. We can assume the reliability of sensual evidence because there is uniformity to a great extent.

Now let us come to the choice we make for our actions. Do you think that you have really decided to read this article of your own or you were just following something which was originally decided much before you have even thought of reading it?

All of us have heard about the big bang theory and the creation of this universe. Let us imagine that Raju had existed immediately after this bang. Let us also assume that he had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed.

Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

You are now reading this article and no one deny the fact that you chose to read it but at the same time there were causes for your choices (in your brain for example certain events). For those events also had causes in-turn and as a chain going back to the first bang.

In other words your reading of this article was predictable for Raju even much before your existence and you as such could have done nothing about it.

Now of course Raju did not exist and hence he did not predict that you will be existing now.  But the point is that had he been there -with all the faculties mentioned-; he could have.  In other words everything is destined to the last alphabet and you and I just enacting the roles stipulated.  

You may argue that according to modern Physics, there exists a kind of fundamental randomness in this universe and this will upset the scheme of Raju’s predictions.

But does this give you solace?  I doubt, for in this world in the lives of ordinary people when someone does something unpredictably we question it and raise doubts whether he or she had acted freely and responsibly. In other words the so called free will looks incompatible with randomness and casual determination taking us back to our initial argument that no one does anything freely and responsibly.

Now let us take the following stanzas from Bhagavad Gita. 

‘yad ahamkaaram aas’ritya   Na yotsya iti manyase

Mithyai’sa vyavasayas te   Prakrits twam niyoksyat’

(Gita 18-59)

‘If indulging in self-conceit, you think and resolve “I will not fight”, vain is this resolve of yours. Your nature will compel you (to fight)’  Gita 18-59)

“mayai’ vai’ te nihatah purvam eva

Nimittamatram bhava savyasachin”

(Gita 11-33)

‘By me alone have these (opponents lined up in front) been killed already. O Savyasachin (Arjuna) you be merely an instrument’.

Isn’t it the same argument we were struggling to put forward, explained vividly in this great Book.

So we can now say with confidence that immediately after the “Big Bang” when the “Srishti Kalpa” began, Brahman (Raju?) existed. There was no time Brahman (Raju) did not exist.  In fact the worlds existed in him.

Once again taking up our hypothesis about Raju whom we now can call the Brahman “possessed unlimited intelligence and memory, knew all scientific laws that governs this universe and all the properties of the particles that existed  and all these laws and principles were his and all those particles existed and existing are his creations. Existence of any free will is impossibility”.

Here I quote a famous French Mathematician  Pierre Simon Laplace, who said:

 “ An intellect which at a given instant knew all the forces acting in nature, and the position of  all things of which the world consists-supposing the said intellect were vast enough to subject these data to analysis- would embrace in the same formula the motions of the greatest bodies in the universe and those of the slightest atoms; nothing would be uncertain for it, and the future, like the past, would be present to its eyes”  

“prakritim yanti bhutani, nigraha kim karishyati”

“Actions flow inevitably of the working of the Prakriti, No restrains what so ever hence can avail”

None of us ever do anything in our free will and responsibly. Only the very vein and ignorant does think that he is the doer.

Let us now conclude. I am sure that many of you will not agree fully with the above line of presentation. Some may totally disagree and rubbish it and you have all the rights to do so. My only request is; when you reject any conclusion kindly find the true reason for doing so. Kindly diagnose where tha argument has gone wrong.

This at least gives us permission to put every thing in the correct perspective.  There may be surprises still existing. One thing is certain; even when our common sense is remaining in tact; our understanding is widended.

Finally let me quote Eliot;

  “........the end of exploring,

Will be to arrive where we started,

And know the place for the first time.”

And see what the Zen master Daito told his disciple Emperor Godaigo.

We were parted many thousands of kalpas ago, yet we have not been separated even for a moment. We are facing each other all day long, yet we have never met”

 *also see

http://ypmusing.blogspot.in/2012/02/moral-dilemma.html

http://ypmusing.blogspot.in/2012/03/moral-dilemma-more-thoughts.html

Kaumudi’s Sacrifice

It was on 13^th January 1934. Gandhiji was on a visit to Badakara. He was addressing a gathering there. Immediately after his address he requested the crowd to make contributions to the cause they were fighting for. Kaumudi, a 16 year old girl slowly and hesitantly walked towards the dais. She removed a bangle from her hand and placed it before Gandhiji and requested for his autograph. 

While he was obliging her with his signature she offered him her second bangle as well. To this Gandhiji suggested “you don’t need to do this; just give me one bangle and I shall give you my autograph”  Kaumudi responded to this by removing and offering her gold chain also. Seeing her determination Gandhiji asked the girl whether she has the permission to do so from her parents and elders. Silence was her response.

Subsequently Kaumudi offered her ear-rings. Gandhiji reminded her that she should not be making any new ornaments in replacement to those she had donated.  Kaumudi promised that she will be not be wearing any sort of ornaments in her life anymore and also will never pester her parents for that. Handing over her the autograph Gandhiji commented “The sacrifice you are making is very much superior than the ornaments that you have discarded now”. 

Post Script. 

I saw this story in today’s Mathrubhumi daily. I call this sacrifice a mammoth one; much much greater than a million dollar contribution. If you understand the psychology of a normal Indian rustic girl of sixteen and her equation with ornaments you will appreciate it. I do understand it and the story moistened my eyes.

We are celebrating the birth Day of that great man today.  I am dedicating this blog to the memory of that unknown girl from Badakara. Kindly try to tell your children about Kaumudi and her sacrifice. I strongly feel that the present generation should know it.