It's a small world after all...

In the Ramayana, once Hanuman asks Lord Rama to suggest some reading material for him to learn about the Vedas. In response, Rama suggests to him just one Upanishad-- the Mandukya Upanishad . It is one of the shortest and most dense of the Upanishads, that is said to go directly to its teachings (unlike other Upanishads that take longer routes like story-telling and examples).  If you cannot understand the Mandukya, Lord Rama tells Hanuman, then here is a list of 108 bigger Upanishads for you to read.  ~*~*~*~* The Mandukya talks about our "3+1" states of being which is one of the most fundamental states that define our existence.  In order to understand this, let us first look into the five-sheaths or the Panchakosha model of us. Our existence is said to be defined in five sheaths or koshas , which are as described below.  The Annamaya kosha or the gross body, refers to our physical bodies, which subsist on food. The Pranamaya kosha or the "subtle body" refers t

“ We do not belong to this material world that science constructs for us. We are not in it; we are outside. We are only spectators. The reason why we believe that we are in it, that we belong to the picture, is that our bodies are in the picture. Our bodies belong to it. ” --Erwin Schrodinger ~*~*~*~*~* In the way Science is practiced today, and in Analytic Philosophy that underlies most scientific inquiry, the process of inquiry is predominantly objective. Much of scientific studies and Western philosophy (as practiced today) inquires about stuff that are "out there". Indeed, a study is considered scientific, only when the observer is separated from the system being observed, and the process of observation does not interfere with the functioning of the system.  Recently, I was watching a lecture on Analytic Philosophy, in which the professor defined philosophical inquiry as comprising of three major dimensions-- "what is out there?", "how do I know?", an

One of the most misunderstood concepts these days is the idea of dharma (and other related terms like karma ). Dharma is variously translated as "duty", "righteousness", "ethics", "divine law", and even "religion"-- all of which, are incorrect definitions.  Dharma is the most fundamental of the four "drivers" or purusharthas of human behaviour: dharma , artha , kama , and moksha . The most accurate translation I can give for these terms respectively, are: sustainability , capability , agency , and liberation .  The term dharma comes from the root dhrt - which means something that sustains or prevails. Dharma refers to the property of a system of being, that remains invariant through the life cycle of the system.  Dharma is what gives us our resilience to prevail across varying, adverse conditions and not be consumed by causal forces.  Dharma is not just a property of "living" beings-- it is a characteristic of all

 In some of my previous posts addressing differences between dualism and non-dualism and the idea of Maya , I had been addressing what I believe, to be the core dilemma that has characterised Indian thought over millennia.  One of the core characteristics of Indian philosophy based on the Vedas and Upanishads is that, unlike Western philosophy that focuses on objects and the universe external to the inquirer, the Upanishads start by focusing on the inquirer itself . This leads to some deep insights and theories about concepts like consciousness, awareness, and self.  A primary contention of Indian schools of thought is the simpliciter nature of consciousness. That is, it argues that the core of what forms our consciousness, exists by itself-- and is not a consequence of material interactions. Hence, our consciousness does not "emerge" from our brain cells, but rather, our brain cells "tune in" to consciousness that already exists in the universe. In this sense,

 One of the core tenets of Indian philosophy is that the only thing that is real is this all-pervading substratum that is variously called the universal consciousness, Brahman, universal Self, etc.  One of the primary points of difference between Indian thought and Western science, is the nature of consciousness. As mentioned in some of my earlier posts, in Indian thought, we are said to not "have" consciousness, but "reflect" consciousness. In contrast, in Western science, consciousness is considered as a material outcome, or an emergent characteristic of interacting brain cells.  In Indian thought, all material existence only reflects consciousness-- much like how all solid objects reflect sunlight. But sentient beings not only reflect the universal consciousness, but can also create an "image" of this universal consciousness-- the all pervading substratum-- to different levels of detail. This is somewhat like how few surfaces, like glass, mirror, polish

In an earlier post , I had talked about the increasing emphasis on "outcomes" in several administrative processes-- especially in education. The focus on outcomes is inherently a sensible move-- as compared to some previously existing models that (for example), measured the effectiveness of education by numbers of graduates, or literacy by whether someone can sign their names.  However, the strategy and implementation of this focus on outcomes leaves a lot of gaping holes and major concerns. Because a flawed notion of outcomes is tightly tied to appraisals and survivability in academia and industry, it has largely become yet another exercise in compliance. Like any compliance game, it is common to see the emergence of an ecosystem of "outcomes engineering", which promise  "guaranteed outcomes" if their product or methodology is used, or one becomes part of a cartel. The idea of guaranteed outcomes is rather strange. If someone guarantees the outcome of a c

One of the core topics of debate in Indian philosophy is on the nature of reality-- more specifically, the difference between reality and existence.  It is fairly easy to see that existential reality-- be it the physical universe, or the world of concepts and ideas, is incomplete. No system of representation of existence can explain itself. Mathematicians and philosophers-- both in the East and the West, have discovered this limit in many different ways.  In Indian thought, reality is thought to be something that pervades all of existence and beyond. It is called by different names-- Brahman , Paramatma , Purusha , etc. that represents the only entity there is, and that is eternal. Existential reality of names and forms and features, is ephemeral, and is described variously as such, with names like Maya , Prakriti , etc.  When it comes to describing ourselves as well, distinctions are made between the core of our being called Atma or Sakshi  (witness), and our existential sense of self

In today's formal education, creativity is a primary virtue. The initial rote learning, compliance and discipline that students are subject to, are eventually meant to make them creative "self actualising" individuals.  Creativity takes on various forms. It could be in the form of creating a piece of technology, or creating artistic expressions.  But regardless of the nature of creativity, in order to be creative, we need to get into a frame of mind, or "paradigm" that promotes creativity. We need to "see the world differently" or imagine possibilities, and so on, in order to become creative.  Oftentimes, we are not even aware of the paradigm that drives our thinking and it takes a lot of introspection to discover how our thoughts are structured, and what other paradigms could there be.  Creativity, as a paradigm, has specific characteristics. In order to get into a mindset of creating something that is not there, we need to be fundamentally unhappy o

Indian philosophy-- regardless of which school of philosophy we are talking about-- distinguish between two forms of reality. The existential reality  of names and forms, including information constructs like knowledge, belief, etc. form what we generally know as reality. This is called Prakriti in the Samkhya philosophy and Maya in different other schools of thought.  But in addition to the existential reality in which we all dwell in, almost all schools of thought posit a deeper substratum that transcends all of existence and beyond. This " transcendental " reality, variously called Purusha , Brahman , or "that which is", etc. is postulated as the only entity there is.  Most philosophical writings are about how to realise this transcendental reality as a fact, and not as a postulate or an assertion, or as a matter of faith or belief. There are several techniques and paradigms (called marga or pathways) that are proposed, that systematically take the inquirer f

When we study algorithms we study a paradigm of problem-solving called "divide and conquer". This approach to problem-solving involves breaking down a complex problem into simpler components and solving each of them separately, and then combining the solutions. Divide and conquer as an algorithmic technique is widely popular, and is easily amenable to parallelisation.  Deeply rooted in Indian history however, I have a mental block-- some kind of a cultural aversion-- against the concept of divide and conquer, because of what this strategy has done to us when we were at the receiving end. Whenever anyone extolls the joy of divide and conquer-- even in a purely algorithmic context-- I find myself cringing uncomfortably.  But regardless of my personal views about this paradigm, divide and conquer as a strategy is also based on a simplifying assumption that the combining of individual solutions to get the overall solution is a trivial problem. This need not always be the case. In

One of the most recurring frustrations I have faced while growing up in my cultural network, has been the pervasive emphasis on faith and submission ( bhakti as it is called), and de-emphasis on asking difficult questions or critical inquiry. We were told to "just do" what is told and that "one day, you will understand everything."  In addition to this, there is also a pervasive sense of smug conviction and contempt towards those who ask questions or those who try to explain their thoughts. It is quite the norm in this network, for people to laugh at others behind their backs-- especially if the other person has opened up in the hopes of gaining clarity. An adolescent experiencing unfamiliar emotions of a heartbreak for instance, will be rewarded with laughter and stern judgment from immediate family, rather than validation of their emotions. It is quite common to see younger generation enjoy life, take risks and embrace failure when they alone-- but not in front o

Traditional Indian society today, is marked by its lack of objectivity. The society is divided into different communities and religions, with communal or religious identity overriding individual opinions in almost all walks of life.  Even within Hinduism or the dharmic culture, there are so many subcultures and philosophies, each of which often live in entrenched clusters, sometimes to the exclusion of the other. Its adherents often argue and fight with one another-- at a personal level --  on things like how specific festivals are to be celebrated, what kinds of food to eat, which deity to pray, and so on.  This is this biggest irony of Indian society today. This is because, the core philosophy of Indian thought is based on observing the objective nature of our self to our experience. Right from the Vedas and the Upanishads and including Sramanic philosophies like Buddhism and Jainism, there is a fundamental acknowledgment about how our "Self" is different from everything t