While he was still at college, Albert Schweitzer’s classmates would often ask him, “however do you manage to do so much?” The theologian-turned-musician , who won the Nobel Peace Prize for medical work in Africa, usually laughed or would try to shrug off such questions. But when they persisted, Schweitzer would show a French poem which he had framed and hung up above his work table:
“Higher, ever higher,/ Let thy dreams and wishes rise,/ Let them mount like flame of fire,/ Upwards to the skies./ Higher , ever higher,/And when thy heaven is overcast,/ May thy star of faith aspire/ Till all is bright at last.”
For more than sixty years this extract was Schweitzer's inspiration.
It is still to be found, faded, above his writing-desk in Gunsbach . After graduation, Schweitzer published one of the most famous theological texts of our times called The Quest of the Historical Jesus. In this he defined Jesus as an ultimately tragic figure whose apocalyptic consciousness impelled him to his death.
He also believed that Jesus had died mistaken and forsaken . This conclusion drove him from the study of theology to the work of practical love. He wrote of this period in his life: “I wanted to be a doctor that I might be able to work without having to talk. For years I had been giving myself out in words...this new form of activity I could not represent to myself as being talking about the religion of love, but only as an actual putting it into practice.”
He was 30 when he answered the Evangelist Missions Society’s call for a medical doctor. The selection committee baulked at his incorrect’ Lutheran theology . Although he could easily have obtained a place in a German Evangelical mission, Schweitzer wished to follow the original call of serving humanity despite the doctrinal difficulties.
So amid a hail of protests from his friends, family and colleagues , the Alsatian-born theologian resigned his post and reentered the university as a student of a punishing seven-year course towards the degree of a doctorate in medicine, a subject in which he had little knowledge or previous aptitude.
He did this because he wanted to spread the Gospel by the example of the Christian labour of healing, rather than through the verbal process of preaching. He ardently believed that this ‘service without sound’ would be acceptable in any branch of Christian teaching. Walk the talk.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Monday, April 12, 2010
What Choice Divine Free Will?
Do we possess free will — the power to prefer one thing over another that is unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine resolve? A lot of intellectual, emotional and spiritual investment has been made over many human ages towards the resolution of this inquiry with no final consensus of opinion anywhere near the horizon so far.
But philosophical wrangling aside, one thing is fairly clear: if we don’t have free will, then neither do other animals. Meaning, it makes little sense for panthers or bacteria to have free will and not us. At the same time, if it turns out we do have free will, then so should members of our ancestral lineage — at least to some extent.
And so they seem to. When bacteria are placed in lactose, the decision to synthesise an enzyme called beta-galactosidase is immediate because it’s vital for their existence. But from this if we claim the little organisms choose life over death, anti-free will proponents would counterclaim it’s only due to what their DNA determines them to do.
However, if lactose is not available and death is imminent, other bacterial mechanisms are brought into action that detect any other possible fuel that then alters their action so that they can utilise whatever else is available. The problem is that this can also be ascribed to DNA determination.
But, again, from this to extrapolate that the reason we choose, for example, to see Alice in Wonderland and not 3 Idiots on a particular day is because of what our genes make us do seems totally unfair, if not absolutely absurd. We might as well pardon all serial murderers and rapists.
For, it’s also true that we are now capable of choosing to make things like geneticallymodified plants of certain crops like soybean, corn, cotton and many others that can be tweaked to develop desired properties. Or we can choose to make element 118 as scientists have just done. None of these things are found in nature or anywhere else in the entire universe for that matter.
Our DNA did this? Not our will? If we choose to believe that these things were already predetermined, then what choice do we have than to also believe that God had to make the universe and everything in it not due to some divine resolve but because He had no choice in the matter? Now that’s the kind of un-free will we can live with since it makes us gods too.
Mukul Sharma
But philosophical wrangling aside, one thing is fairly clear: if we don’t have free will, then neither do other animals. Meaning, it makes little sense for panthers or bacteria to have free will and not us. At the same time, if it turns out we do have free will, then so should members of our ancestral lineage — at least to some extent.
And so they seem to. When bacteria are placed in lactose, the decision to synthesise an enzyme called beta-galactosidase is immediate because it’s vital for their existence. But from this if we claim the little organisms choose life over death, anti-free will proponents would counterclaim it’s only due to what their DNA determines them to do.
However, if lactose is not available and death is imminent, other bacterial mechanisms are brought into action that detect any other possible fuel that then alters their action so that they can utilise whatever else is available. The problem is that this can also be ascribed to DNA determination.
But, again, from this to extrapolate that the reason we choose, for example, to see Alice in Wonderland and not 3 Idiots on a particular day is because of what our genes make us do seems totally unfair, if not absolutely absurd. We might as well pardon all serial murderers and rapists.
For, it’s also true that we are now capable of choosing to make things like geneticallymodified plants of certain crops like soybean, corn, cotton and many others that can be tweaked to develop desired properties. Or we can choose to make element 118 as scientists have just done. None of these things are found in nature or anywhere else in the entire universe for that matter.
Our DNA did this? Not our will? If we choose to believe that these things were already predetermined, then what choice do we have than to also believe that God had to make the universe and everything in it not due to some divine resolve but because He had no choice in the matter? Now that’s the kind of un-free will we can live with since it makes us gods too.
Mukul Sharma
Deeds Matter, Words Scatter
Story-tellers and mythmakers have minted gold from twins with opposite traits of the psychological spectrum. Of course polar opposites are stereotypical. The way they divide the world into neat good and bad, black and white, categories is formulaic too. Real life is much too complex and chaotic. This could explain why the trick works in reel life for audiences hungering for certainty in potboilers like Sita aur Gita or classics such as Man in the Iron Mask.
But should authors take the liberty of applying such schizoid schemes to epic figures that have a massive, global hold on the public imagination? Take, for instance, one of the amazing’ or adbhut versions of the epic Ramayana. This has a shadow double (Chaya) of Sita going through travails of being kidnapped and jailed by a demon while the real heroine lounges safely in her father’s palace. Why hasn’t it caught on unlike the one in which the heroine triumphs over her suffering as a single, integrated individual?
Imagine the Bhagavad Gita with the good’/valiant protagonist Arjuna dithering in the same chariot alongside his cheerful double the bad’/ villainous twin who is itching for that Mother of All Massacres. What sense would the Lord’s Song make in such circumstances?
For many it would be pure blasphemy even to imagine such an interpolation. Should we respect such sentiments? How sacred’ is an individual’s artistic freedom? How far should we go in the defence of poetic license’ when it picks up a fight with public faith and militant religiosity? Such questions have begun to buzz with the publication of Philip Pullman’s
The Good Man Jesus and Scoundrel Christ.
As one of Britain’s better-known atheists, Pullman has already cast the Church as an oppressive tyrant and God as a weak old man in his Dark Materials trilogy (made into a movie with a villainous Nicole Kidman). In this allegorical retelling, Mary has twins, Jesus and Christ. The former becomes a charismatic preacher and the shadowy Christ is encouraged by a mysterious stranger to become an agent for his brother’s teachings. Christ, says the stranger, is the word of God. Jesus must die so he can be reborn and humankind can know eternal truth. So Christ becomes Judas and Jesus dies. The resurrection’ of Christ pretty much seals humanity’s fate. Of course you don’t have to buy the spiel. For what you do matters far more than what you say.
Vithal C Nadkarni
But should authors take the liberty of applying such schizoid schemes to epic figures that have a massive, global hold on the public imagination? Take, for instance, one of the amazing’ or adbhut versions of the epic Ramayana. This has a shadow double (Chaya) of Sita going through travails of being kidnapped and jailed by a demon while the real heroine lounges safely in her father’s palace. Why hasn’t it caught on unlike the one in which the heroine triumphs over her suffering as a single, integrated individual?
Imagine the Bhagavad Gita with the good’/valiant protagonist Arjuna dithering in the same chariot alongside his cheerful double the bad’/ villainous twin who is itching for that Mother of All Massacres. What sense would the Lord’s Song make in such circumstances?
For many it would be pure blasphemy even to imagine such an interpolation. Should we respect such sentiments? How sacred’ is an individual’s artistic freedom? How far should we go in the defence of poetic license’ when it picks up a fight with public faith and militant religiosity? Such questions have begun to buzz with the publication of Philip Pullman’s
The Good Man Jesus and Scoundrel Christ.
As one of Britain’s better-known atheists, Pullman has already cast the Church as an oppressive tyrant and God as a weak old man in his Dark Materials trilogy (made into a movie with a villainous Nicole Kidman). In this allegorical retelling, Mary has twins, Jesus and Christ. The former becomes a charismatic preacher and the shadowy Christ is encouraged by a mysterious stranger to become an agent for his brother’s teachings. Christ, says the stranger, is the word of God. Jesus must die so he can be reborn and humankind can know eternal truth. So Christ becomes Judas and Jesus dies. The resurrection’ of Christ pretty much seals humanity’s fate. Of course you don’t have to buy the spiel. For what you do matters far more than what you say.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Save Your Dreams From Setbacks
Harold Varmus, who won the Nobel Prize for medicine for his work on oncogenes, marvels at the role chance and dogged persistence have played in his career. His father was a general physician and wanted the son to follow his example. Varmus obliged by taking premed courses as an undergraduate. But academic life challenged “presumptions about my future as a physician”, and he drifted from science to philosophy and finally to English literature. He was also active in politics and journalism.
Varmus went on to join graduate studies in literature at Harvard University. But within the year, he again felt the lure of medicine. He was rebuffed when he tried to switch fields and went back to literature “uninspired by thoughts of a career in that field”.
After a year, he applied once again to Harvard medical school. But this time around he was rejected more sternly: The dean who chastised him in an interview for being “inconstant and immature” advised him to go and join the military instead! Varmus ended up with a Master's degree in English with a focus on Anglo-Saxon and metaphysical poetry.
However, the freshly minted scholar found that friends, who had chosen medicine seemed more fulfilled and excited about studying matters with immediate relevance to basic human needs. He also felt increasingly haunted by the thought that as a professor of literature his students would likely feel relief if he failed to show up for a lecture, whereas as a physician, his patients would be distraught if he cancelled an appointment.
So Varmus burnt his bridges once again and decided to try his luck at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. Officials here were obviously impressed with his competence in the two cultures of science and literature. He found himself welcomed enthusiastically. Varmus dove headfirst into medical school only to shift after graduation from practice to research, after a three-month stint as an intern in a mission hospital in Bareilly.
He soon found himself at the forefront of cancer research at the University of California, San Francisco, on his way to a Nobel Prize, to become a “global scientist-statesman who bridges science and society to solve the weightiest challenges”. The moral of the story is to never let rejection daunt your dreams. If the school you love rebuffs you, immerse yourself in the one that welcomes you.
VITHALC NADKARNI
Varmus went on to join graduate studies in literature at Harvard University. But within the year, he again felt the lure of medicine. He was rebuffed when he tried to switch fields and went back to literature “uninspired by thoughts of a career in that field”.
After a year, he applied once again to Harvard medical school. But this time around he was rejected more sternly: The dean who chastised him in an interview for being “inconstant and immature” advised him to go and join the military instead! Varmus ended up with a Master's degree in English with a focus on Anglo-Saxon and metaphysical poetry.
However, the freshly minted scholar found that friends, who had chosen medicine seemed more fulfilled and excited about studying matters with immediate relevance to basic human needs. He also felt increasingly haunted by the thought that as a professor of literature his students would likely feel relief if he failed to show up for a lecture, whereas as a physician, his patients would be distraught if he cancelled an appointment.
So Varmus burnt his bridges once again and decided to try his luck at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons. Officials here were obviously impressed with his competence in the two cultures of science and literature. He found himself welcomed enthusiastically. Varmus dove headfirst into medical school only to shift after graduation from practice to research, after a three-month stint as an intern in a mission hospital in Bareilly.
He soon found himself at the forefront of cancer research at the University of California, San Francisco, on his way to a Nobel Prize, to become a “global scientist-statesman who bridges science and society to solve the weightiest challenges”. The moral of the story is to never let rejection daunt your dreams. If the school you love rebuffs you, immerse yourself in the one that welcomes you.
VITHALC NADKARNI
It's Sometimes Simple: Arriving Matters
A friend once said, “But what do we do when we get there after driving 12 hours?” That particular time, the “there” in question was a little hill station which apparently still lay cocooned in its sleepy colonial legacy — but it could have been anywhere the group had decided to go that year to have elicited an identical comment from one or the other of us. For, depending on our profound priorities, some needed an accessible high-end food joint to get hamburgers and pizzas, some a nearby fastwater for fly fishing; others required historical structures within spitting distance, yet others cable TV in their hotel. Whatever the instance, however, the arrogant wail invariably was: “But what do we do when we get there?”
What indeed? After all if there’s an effort involved, there must be a payoff attached. Also, we lose sight of the question so often that the more streetsmart amongst us tend to fall into the refined trap of subscribing to the often convenient belief that it’s the travelling which matters, not the arriving. (Your vacation begins when you lock the front door. The start of a thousand mile journey is taking the first step. Etc.)
Yet the main reason why all arrivals are not created equal and there’s so frequently a sense of deficit after reaching one’s destination is because the planning was reward oriented to begin with without realising the plan itself was the prize. Apparently Arjuna too was famously ploughing the same furrow on a battlefield in Kurukshetra when he stopped to ask his illustrious charioteer “What’s in it for me?” Krishna had to remind him repeatedly there was no goal involved but that of action without afterthought.
Evolution too, plays out along similar lines. Admittedly its efforts are purposeless and goals blind but in the end after multi millions of years it appears — even if in hindsight — that its progress can be justified because it didn’t necessarily orient itself to the best arrival scenario.
It also doesn’t pat itself on the back for having perfected the adaptability of a humming bird or virus, nor does it regret the many who got ruthlessly eliminated along the way. But if a whole species had an overmind it would probably say to itself, “Hey, what do you know, a whole lot of us made it! At least to this point. Of course what we do from here is another story and some of us, again, may not make it. But it’s worth a try, right?”
Mukul Sharma
What indeed? After all if there’s an effort involved, there must be a payoff attached. Also, we lose sight of the question so often that the more streetsmart amongst us tend to fall into the refined trap of subscribing to the often convenient belief that it’s the travelling which matters, not the arriving. (Your vacation begins when you lock the front door. The start of a thousand mile journey is taking the first step. Etc.)
Yet the main reason why all arrivals are not created equal and there’s so frequently a sense of deficit after reaching one’s destination is because the planning was reward oriented to begin with without realising the plan itself was the prize. Apparently Arjuna too was famously ploughing the same furrow on a battlefield in Kurukshetra when he stopped to ask his illustrious charioteer “What’s in it for me?” Krishna had to remind him repeatedly there was no goal involved but that of action without afterthought.
Evolution too, plays out along similar lines. Admittedly its efforts are purposeless and goals blind but in the end after multi millions of years it appears — even if in hindsight — that its progress can be justified because it didn’t necessarily orient itself to the best arrival scenario.
It also doesn’t pat itself on the back for having perfected the adaptability of a humming bird or virus, nor does it regret the many who got ruthlessly eliminated along the way. But if a whole species had an overmind it would probably say to itself, “Hey, what do you know, a whole lot of us made it! At least to this point. Of course what we do from here is another story and some of us, again, may not make it. But it’s worth a try, right?”
Mukul Sharma
Sunday, April 4, 2010
In Stages, Build That Indifference
Resentments caused by various factors, including ingratitude, leave enduring scars on the psyche. Various techniques - ancient and modern - have been tried. In many cases, these have only temporary effect, as the mind, unable to reconcile, goes back to square one. It is well accepted that it is necessary to cultivate that benign indifference and imperviousness to shallow relationships, let downs, pretensions and unfair responses.
But then, in actual practice, how can this be done? In fact, could one pre-empt even having to face such situations? The answer, perhaps, lies in evolving gradually and in stages, starting from that stage, which is simple and practical. Further progress would naturally follow.
This process is conceived of by sage Patanjali. The starting point, easy to practise, is cultivation of affinity and friendship (maitri) to all those manifestations in life, which would bring with them true joy and peace (sukah), identified through simple observation and discrimination. The next stage is compassion (karuna) to all the suffering (dukah), whereby the seeker, sensitised to his own goodness, divines that he is truly fortunate, in comparison is a major step to freedom from resentments.
Maitri and karuna naturally lead the evolved spirit to appreciate and delight in the virtuous and the sublime (punya), whereby pursuit of excellence in one's chosen fields, which would follow, would ensure that the aspirant is always engrossed in the worthwhile. He would thus have no time or inclination to even think of possible acts of ingratitude or imperfections around.
Invariably and naturally, the fourth and final stage of indifference (upekshana) to all the dross and evil (apunya) would be reached, where one obtains that healthy ego and resilient psyche, which would not ever be affected by any 'dreary intercourse of daily life'. Indeed and in fact, this approach rooted in clarity, poise and precision (yogastah) is verily that state of supreme dexterity in action (karmasu koushalam). This is also that state, where the person would not ever have to even confront any deceits, shallow relationships or pretensions. This is because he would always, through right choices and priorities, be in that evolved company and companionship, marked by virtues and true self esteem - that world where all that he beholds would always be "full of blessings"!
But then, in actual practice, how can this be done? In fact, could one pre-empt even having to face such situations? The answer, perhaps, lies in evolving gradually and in stages, starting from that stage, which is simple and practical. Further progress would naturally follow.
This process is conceived of by sage Patanjali. The starting point, easy to practise, is cultivation of affinity and friendship (maitri) to all those manifestations in life, which would bring with them true joy and peace (sukah), identified through simple observation and discrimination. The next stage is compassion (karuna) to all the suffering (dukah), whereby the seeker, sensitised to his own goodness, divines that he is truly fortunate, in comparison is a major step to freedom from resentments.
Maitri and karuna naturally lead the evolved spirit to appreciate and delight in the virtuous and the sublime (punya), whereby pursuit of excellence in one's chosen fields, which would follow, would ensure that the aspirant is always engrossed in the worthwhile. He would thus have no time or inclination to even think of possible acts of ingratitude or imperfections around.
Invariably and naturally, the fourth and final stage of indifference (upekshana) to all the dross and evil (apunya) would be reached, where one obtains that healthy ego and resilient psyche, which would not ever be affected by any 'dreary intercourse of daily life'. Indeed and in fact, this approach rooted in clarity, poise and precision (yogastah) is verily that state of supreme dexterity in action (karmasu koushalam). This is also that state, where the person would not ever have to even confront any deceits, shallow relationships or pretensions. This is because he would always, through right choices and priorities, be in that evolved company and companionship, marked by virtues and true self esteem - that world where all that he beholds would always be "full of blessings"!
K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Equip To Beat The Self-defeat
Have you heard the story about the fellow who sent flowers to his friend who was opening a new restaurant? When he arrived at the gala opening ceremony, he looked for his flowers. Imagine his shock when he found a wreath of snow-white flowers edged with black satin instead, with a note that said, 'May you rest in peace.' He nearly burst a vessel as called up his florist in a towering rage.
Without missing a beat, the florist replied icily, 'Buddy, I'm not worried about you as much because as we speak, there's this guy being buried who got a dozen blood-red roses that said, 'Good luck in your new location! 'Oh It's another matter that the guy with the roses was six feet underground, couldn't read and the one standing six feet above could! You could laugh about it so long as it did not affect you personally, right? But think, what if it did?
It is entirely up to you to make whatever you will of it. Many people remain blissfully unaware of the extent of freedom that every moment of choice offers them. So afraid are some of us of open-ended uncertainty that choice represents that we are willing to pre-empt or sabotage it by cultivating 'self-defeating'' modes of response. 'Of all human psychology, self-defeating behaviour is among the most puzzling and hard to change. After all, everyone assumes that people hanker after happiness and pleasure. Have you ever heard of a self-help book on being miserable?" writes psychologist Richard Friedman in his NYT column.
'So what explains those men and women who repeatedly pursue a path that leads to pain and disappointment? Perhaps there is a hidden psychological reward,' he says. The Freudian explanation falls back on our socalled innate death drive (as opposed to the erotic impulse). That presumably impels us to pursue our own downfall and death.
Another explanation entails anxiety about success rather than a secret desire to fail; yet another involves low self-esteem, fragile egos or even emotional stress. Results from various studies suggest that cultivating strong feelings of social inclusion, a sort of self-validating or affirmative action directed towards oneself and networking work as antidotes to self-defeating routines.
As the Bhagvad Gita says, the self alone (atmeva) can be the self's own best friend (atmano-bandhu) or worst enemy (ripuratmana). Raise yourself with your own bootstraps. Laugh.
Without missing a beat, the florist replied icily, 'Buddy, I'm not worried about you as much because as we speak, there's this guy being buried who got a dozen blood-red roses that said, 'Good luck in your new location! 'Oh It's another matter that the guy with the roses was six feet underground, couldn't read and the one standing six feet above could! You could laugh about it so long as it did not affect you personally, right? But think, what if it did?
It is entirely up to you to make whatever you will of it. Many people remain blissfully unaware of the extent of freedom that every moment of choice offers them. So afraid are some of us of open-ended uncertainty that choice represents that we are willing to pre-empt or sabotage it by cultivating 'self-defeating'' modes of response. 'Of all human psychology, self-defeating behaviour is among the most puzzling and hard to change. After all, everyone assumes that people hanker after happiness and pleasure. Have you ever heard of a self-help book on being miserable?" writes psychologist Richard Friedman in his NYT column.
'So what explains those men and women who repeatedly pursue a path that leads to pain and disappointment? Perhaps there is a hidden psychological reward,' he says. The Freudian explanation falls back on our socalled innate death drive (as opposed to the erotic impulse). That presumably impels us to pursue our own downfall and death.
Another explanation entails anxiety about success rather than a secret desire to fail; yet another involves low self-esteem, fragile egos or even emotional stress. Results from various studies suggest that cultivating strong feelings of social inclusion, a sort of self-validating or affirmative action directed towards oneself and networking work as antidotes to self-defeating routines.
As the Bhagvad Gita says, the self alone (atmeva) can be the self's own best friend (atmano-bandhu) or worst enemy (ripuratmana). Raise yourself with your own bootstraps. Laugh.
Vithal C Nadkarni
The Growth Beneath Our Morality
At first sight it would seem like the high moral ground so prized by ethicists, believers and moral philosophers just got its foundation rocked by a high Richter. It appears that some deep questions concerning our rules of conduct and ability to judge the goodness or badness of other's actions depend at least partly — if not significantly (or, indeed, totally) — on how optimally our physical brains are functioning. Simply put, neuroscientists at MIT have recently shown they can change people's moral judgements by disrupting the normal activity of a specific area of the brain with magnetic pulses lasting as little as 500 milliseconds.
For example, after volunteers had been subjected to this noninvasive procedure they were presented with the following query: How acceptable is it for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows is unsafe if, after crossing it, the structure remains intact and she's unharmed? Almost all subjects answered that the boyfriend would not have done anything wrong. In effect, they were unable to make moral judgements that require an understanding of other people's intentions and, instead, were judging solely on the basis of the action's outcome. It also means that such people comprising a jury would acquit a person who had shot to kill but missed.
The study's findings will undoubtedly come as a huge bonanza for defenders of the unfaith who are sure to pounce upon them to further what they've been saying all along — namely, morality is not dependent on or guided by some first moral cause. Rather it's just a function of the way a bunch of nerve bundles are arranged in some part of the brain. Tinker with them a little and the whole human edifice of right and wrong, good and bad, values , principles and notions of justice comes toppling down in a broken heap of artificial constructs with zilch truth value.
And they would be right. In other instances too when the brain's ability to function in the way it's supposed to is disrupted — perhaps through trauma, accident , disease or birth defect — people's powers of higher reasoning frequently get affected and they don't behave normally . But that doesn't alter the fact that when, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, the brain does behave the way it's meant to — the way it's designed by evolution — the higher moral ground, for whatever it's worth, is preserved.
For example, after volunteers had been subjected to this noninvasive procedure they were presented with the following query: How acceptable is it for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows is unsafe if, after crossing it, the structure remains intact and she's unharmed? Almost all subjects answered that the boyfriend would not have done anything wrong. In effect, they were unable to make moral judgements that require an understanding of other people's intentions and, instead, were judging solely on the basis of the action's outcome. It also means that such people comprising a jury would acquit a person who had shot to kill but missed.
The study's findings will undoubtedly come as a huge bonanza for defenders of the unfaith who are sure to pounce upon them to further what they've been saying all along — namely, morality is not dependent on or guided by some first moral cause. Rather it's just a function of the way a bunch of nerve bundles are arranged in some part of the brain. Tinker with them a little and the whole human edifice of right and wrong, good and bad, values , principles and notions of justice comes toppling down in a broken heap of artificial constructs with zilch truth value.
And they would be right. In other instances too when the brain's ability to function in the way it's supposed to is disrupted — perhaps through trauma, accident , disease or birth defect — people's powers of higher reasoning frequently get affected and they don't behave normally . But that doesn't alter the fact that when, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, the brain does behave the way it's meant to — the way it's designed by evolution — the higher moral ground, for whatever it's worth, is preserved.
Mukul Sharma
Radicals Have Relatives Too
Raimon Panikkar, the 92-year-old mysticmaster of comparative religions who lives in Spain is the son of a Hindu Indian father and a Roman Catholic Spanish mother. He's been described as a living monument to inter-religious dialogue. Panikkar studied science and philosophy at university and was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1946. Thereafter he left Europe to pursue religious studies in India at a number of places and eventually went over to teach in America starting from Harvard University and retired as emeritus professor at University of California, Santa Barbara.
“Everything he's written has been an attempt to clarify, first to himself and then also to his friends and readers, the insights and experiences he's had of reality,” writes Milena Carrara in the celebratory volume Fullness of Life saluting Panikkar's seminal, multilingual contributions to a wide range of fields. “Reality which is always seen in its trinitarian aspect he calls cosmotheandric — that is, God, world and man. He insists that these are not separate entities but are common invariants that form one fundamental unity in radical relativity.”
When Panikkar speaks of the experience of life, he does not mean the experience of his own life but life “that is not mine yet which lives within; which the Vedas say never dies; which some call divine” .
Not being a specialisation, the mystical experience of life is open to all mankind, he adds; “Every man is a mystic to the extent in which he is aware of the life which flows within him: his greatness lies in this awareness.”
In Worship and Secular Man, Panikkar goes on to clarify that “only worship can prevent secularisation from becoming inhuman; and only secularisation can save worship from becoming meaningless. “Western culture is attracted by the world of things as they reveal to us the transcendence of reality,” Panikkar writes, “while eastern culture is attracted by the world of the subject, which reveals to us the impermanence of that very reality. Both are preoccupied with the problem of ‘ultimacy,' which many traditions have called God.”
He then goes on to offer nine ways in which one may not speak of God for every attempt to absolutise the symbol ‘God' destroys links not only with the divine mystery but also with people of those cultures that do not feel the necessity of this symbol.
As Shankara says, Neti, Neti.
“Everything he's written has been an attempt to clarify, first to himself and then also to his friends and readers, the insights and experiences he's had of reality,” writes Milena Carrara in the celebratory volume Fullness of Life saluting Panikkar's seminal, multilingual contributions to a wide range of fields. “Reality which is always seen in its trinitarian aspect he calls cosmotheandric — that is, God, world and man. He insists that these are not separate entities but are common invariants that form one fundamental unity in radical relativity.”
When Panikkar speaks of the experience of life, he does not mean the experience of his own life but life “that is not mine yet which lives within; which the Vedas say never dies; which some call divine” .
Not being a specialisation, the mystical experience of life is open to all mankind, he adds; “Every man is a mystic to the extent in which he is aware of the life which flows within him: his greatness lies in this awareness.”
In Worship and Secular Man, Panikkar goes on to clarify that “only worship can prevent secularisation from becoming inhuman; and only secularisation can save worship from becoming meaningless. “Western culture is attracted by the world of things as they reveal to us the transcendence of reality,” Panikkar writes, “while eastern culture is attracted by the world of the subject, which reveals to us the impermanence of that very reality. Both are preoccupied with the problem of ‘ultimacy,' which many traditions have called God.”
He then goes on to offer nine ways in which one may not speak of God for every attempt to absolutise the symbol ‘God' destroys links not only with the divine mystery but also with people of those cultures that do not feel the necessity of this symbol.
As Shankara says, Neti, Neti.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Harmonising One's Faith With Science
Francisco J Ayala, a geneticist who trained as a Dominican priest, has won this year's $1.5 million Templeton Award for making “exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension”. As an evolutionary biologist and geneticist at University of California, Irvine Ayala has tried to keep the spirit apart from the bottle. Science and religion are two separate realms, he argues, and people come to grief when they try to ‘entangle' them, as scientists do when they argue that there is no proof that God exists; or when creationists invoke hand of God to account for evolutionary change.
In 30 years that he has been preaching Darwinian evolution to Christian believers, Ayala has learnt to use tactics of ‘shock and awe' : one out of five pregnancies ends in spontaneously in miscarriage. Does that make God the greatest abortionist in history, he asks, assuming that God designed the human reproductive system.
But Ayala also believes that scientists who attack religion as that self-described ‘Darwin's rottweiler' Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, does or ridicule believers are making a mistake. It encourages either-or thinking and strengthens preachers to bully their flock to choose either Darwin or God.
He advocates a more conciliatory approach that would allow believers to harmonise their faith with science. Nature is not the best of designers, he concedes, pointing to oddities such as blind spots built into the human eye or the narrowness of the human birth canal which forces babies to complete their crucial brain growth outside their mothers' womb (a phenomenon known as altricial birth).
Darwinian teory can also help in explaining red-fangedNature'sfearsome cruelty, he adds, enabling us to remove ‘evil' from the natural world and to replace it with volitional acts of free will and kindness in human affairs. In his Darwin's Gift Ayala says Darwin solved the problem of evil that's been plaguing theology since eons: The earliest formulation of this conundrum is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus.
As for priests, he prefers science-savvy theologians who present a God continuously updating His creative process through undirected natural selection . By addressing religious people on their own terms, Ayala aims to offer a better answer than intelligent design or creationism . May his tribe flourish!
In 30 years that he has been preaching Darwinian evolution to Christian believers, Ayala has learnt to use tactics of ‘shock and awe' : one out of five pregnancies ends in spontaneously in miscarriage. Does that make God the greatest abortionist in history, he asks, assuming that God designed the human reproductive system.
But Ayala also believes that scientists who attack religion as that self-described ‘Darwin's rottweiler' Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, does or ridicule believers are making a mistake. It encourages either-or thinking and strengthens preachers to bully their flock to choose either Darwin or God.
He advocates a more conciliatory approach that would allow believers to harmonise their faith with science. Nature is not the best of designers, he concedes, pointing to oddities such as blind spots built into the human eye or the narrowness of the human birth canal which forces babies to complete their crucial brain growth outside their mothers' womb (a phenomenon known as altricial birth).
Darwinian teory can also help in explaining red-fangedNature'sfearsome cruelty, he adds, enabling us to remove ‘evil' from the natural world and to replace it with volitional acts of free will and kindness in human affairs. In his Darwin's Gift Ayala says Darwin solved the problem of evil that's been plaguing theology since eons: The earliest formulation of this conundrum is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus.
As for priests, he prefers science-savvy theologians who present a God continuously updating His creative process through undirected natural selection . By addressing religious people on their own terms, Ayala aims to offer a better answer than intelligent design or creationism . May his tribe flourish!
Vithal C Nadkarni
Now You Don't, Now You See It
Do we see reality as it is? No, that's not a comprehensive enough question . Do we truly perceive what lies out there? Actually that won't do either. Can we ever possess knowledge, understanding or information and directly grasp in the mind as an inner experience the nature of all existence ? For a long time the standard answer of, say, physics was that yes we can given enough time. Ptolemy didn't know the Earth went around the Sun; Copernicus did. Copernicus didn't know the laws of motion; Newton did. Newton didn't know that matter could bend light; Einstein did. Einstein didn't believe two subatomic particles could communicate instantaneously; experiments show they can. And so on.
In other words, science maintains that as knowledge advances reality unfolds. Which would mean that given sufficient time more and more knowledge about the universe would be available till a time comes when, in principle , all can be known. However , this comfortable conclusion is now being questioned by many physical theorists who are beginning to wonder if what we think of as the “out there” is the true or even only “out there” there is.
For example, to take Plato's cave allegory a little further, think of a flashlight held behind a 3-D ball, the projected image of which falls as a 2-D shadow circle on a screen. Now, the people living in that shadow might consider the circle to be their universe yet, no matter what theories they develop about it, they would never be able to discover the nature of the source — even if some of them realised they were projections of a higher reality. But what if the 3-D ball was also a projection of a still higher reality? Mathematicians routinely deal with the tesseract — the 4-D equivalent of a 3-D cube — as a valid construct but there's no way us 3-D beings can conceptualise it.
Or is there? According to the holographic principle which is a property of quantum theory, the universe is a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram where, like in a hologram, every part of a lower dimension structure contains all the information about the higher dimension whole and can, in theory, be accessed. Perhaps that's what mystics do. Which is probably why the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, even though differences in its expression and interpretation become a cause for conflict among different religions.
In other words, science maintains that as knowledge advances reality unfolds. Which would mean that given sufficient time more and more knowledge about the universe would be available till a time comes when, in principle , all can be known. However , this comfortable conclusion is now being questioned by many physical theorists who are beginning to wonder if what we think of as the “out there” is the true or even only “out there” there is.
For example, to take Plato's cave allegory a little further, think of a flashlight held behind a 3-D ball, the projected image of which falls as a 2-D shadow circle on a screen. Now, the people living in that shadow might consider the circle to be their universe yet, no matter what theories they develop about it, they would never be able to discover the nature of the source — even if some of them realised they were projections of a higher reality. But what if the 3-D ball was also a projection of a still higher reality? Mathematicians routinely deal with the tesseract — the 4-D equivalent of a 3-D cube — as a valid construct but there's no way us 3-D beings can conceptualise it.
Or is there? According to the holographic principle which is a property of quantum theory, the universe is a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram where, like in a hologram, every part of a lower dimension structure contains all the information about the higher dimension whole and can, in theory, be accessed. Perhaps that's what mystics do. Which is probably why the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, even though differences in its expression and interpretation become a cause for conflict among different religions.
Mukul Sharma
Hearty Approbation And Lavish Praise
For relatively pain-free transactions in this world of men and matter, it is necessary to accept the fact that gratitude and reciprocal feelings are not only rare but also that the opposites of these are only to be expected and are inevitable. In this rat-race living, insensitivity abounds not only towards well meant acts but also towards various sublime virtues such as altruism, empathy and social responsibility, besides even to science, music and arts.
Unwillingness to even notice, let alone acknowledge help received, is consequent on an unhealthy ego and also that self centredness, which often takes things for granted, as if others' feelings don't matter.
An incident in the life of Gandhiji is illustrative. After his lunch in a hotel, while in South Africa, Gandhiji thanked the waiter for his excellent service. “Sir,”, replied the waiter, “I'll never forget you because in my 25 years of sincere service, I never heard a word of thanks”.
Comprehension of the obvious and the related issues would enable the wise to accept this “insensitivity bug” as an inevitable hazard of life. More importantly, he would be inspired to guard against himself falling a victim to this. Self-honesty and self-analysis would enable him to divine where he too may have defaulted. He would know that just as it is easy to see a spot in others' backs but not on one's own, it is indeed difficult to observe faults within oneself.
This approach would enable this seeker to remember all those who had contributed to his welfare. He would thus think of his parents, elders, neighbours, bosses, subordinates, simple workers, servants, his own siblings, children, even pets, whosoever.
Having received the butt of unfair treatment from others, who he may have genuinely helped, he would tell himself, “all these have happened just to teach me that at least I should not be like this. I should not merely acknowledge but express my gratitude abundantly in both words and action”.
This also is the process of being “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise”. This not merely saves you from the “insensitivity bug” but more so, is a service you do primarily to yourself, where you would be the principal beneficiary. You would thus not merely feel fulfilled and at peace, but, as Dale Carnegie notes, also “win friends and influence people”. What could be more rewarding than this supreme blessing!
Unwillingness to even notice, let alone acknowledge help received, is consequent on an unhealthy ego and also that self centredness, which often takes things for granted, as if others' feelings don't matter.
An incident in the life of Gandhiji is illustrative. After his lunch in a hotel, while in South Africa, Gandhiji thanked the waiter for his excellent service. “Sir,”, replied the waiter, “I'll never forget you because in my 25 years of sincere service, I never heard a word of thanks”.
Comprehension of the obvious and the related issues would enable the wise to accept this “insensitivity bug” as an inevitable hazard of life. More importantly, he would be inspired to guard against himself falling a victim to this. Self-honesty and self-analysis would enable him to divine where he too may have defaulted. He would know that just as it is easy to see a spot in others' backs but not on one's own, it is indeed difficult to observe faults within oneself.
This approach would enable this seeker to remember all those who had contributed to his welfare. He would thus think of his parents, elders, neighbours, bosses, subordinates, simple workers, servants, his own siblings, children, even pets, whosoever.
Having received the butt of unfair treatment from others, who he may have genuinely helped, he would tell himself, “all these have happened just to teach me that at least I should not be like this. I should not merely acknowledge but express my gratitude abundantly in both words and action”.
This also is the process of being “hearty in your approbation and lavish in your praise”. This not merely saves you from the “insensitivity bug” but more so, is a service you do primarily to yourself, where you would be the principal beneficiary. You would thus not merely feel fulfilled and at peace, but, as Dale Carnegie notes, also “win friends and influence people”. What could be more rewarding than this supreme blessing!
K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Do More And Remain Happy
EB White, the American writer, once asked James Thurber, his cartoonist friend, about his mother-in-law : “How's she now?” “As compared to what?” Thurber shot back.
Thurber's reply raises all sorts of scenarios: Do you have that old nag, a smiling saint or a tarantula in mind? So, for instance, what should one expect to get when one compares a person who's just won a million-dollar lottery to a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic. In 1978 a trio of psychologists curious about happiness did just that. In their first group were winners of the Illinois state lottery. These men and women had received jackpots of between $50,000 and $1 million. In the second group were victims of devastating accidents. Some had been left paralysed from the waist down. For the others, paralysis started at the neck. A third bunch of Illinois residents randomly selected from the phone book served as their control group.
The subjects were questioned about the state of their happiness past and present and future expectations. It was a no-brainer to find that, in short term, the winners raved about their lottery in highly positive terms while the victims gave their accidents a big thumbs down. But that only made the subsequent results more puzzling: The winners considered themselves no happier at the time of the interviews than the members of the control group did. In the future, the winners expected to become slightly happier, but, once again, no more so than the control-group members. (Even the accident victims expected to be happier than the lottery winners within a few years.) Meanwhile, the winners took significantly less pleasure in daily activities — including clothes buying — than the members of the other two groups.
Does that mean things remain the same the more they change? Or does it simply mean that Time is a big eraser when it comes to vagaries of fortune? Happiness researchers found something more counter-intuitive — that people routinely mispredict how much pleasure or displeasure future events bring. So should you stop buying insurance or lottery tickets? Should one just sit back in the wheelchair wait for the cloud of misery to pass? Derek Bo, a former Harvard University president, considers such questions in his new book, The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the NewResearch on Well-being. Do more is the short answer.
Thurber's reply raises all sorts of scenarios: Do you have that old nag, a smiling saint or a tarantula in mind? So, for instance, what should one expect to get when one compares a person who's just won a million-dollar lottery to a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic. In 1978 a trio of psychologists curious about happiness did just that. In their first group were winners of the Illinois state lottery. These men and women had received jackpots of between $50,000 and $1 million. In the second group were victims of devastating accidents. Some had been left paralysed from the waist down. For the others, paralysis started at the neck. A third bunch of Illinois residents randomly selected from the phone book served as their control group.
The subjects were questioned about the state of their happiness past and present and future expectations. It was a no-brainer to find that, in short term, the winners raved about their lottery in highly positive terms while the victims gave their accidents a big thumbs down. But that only made the subsequent results more puzzling: The winners considered themselves no happier at the time of the interviews than the members of the control group did. In the future, the winners expected to become slightly happier, but, once again, no more so than the control-group members. (Even the accident victims expected to be happier than the lottery winners within a few years.) Meanwhile, the winners took significantly less pleasure in daily activities — including clothes buying — than the members of the other two groups.
Does that mean things remain the same the more they change? Or does it simply mean that Time is a big eraser when it comes to vagaries of fortune? Happiness researchers found something more counter-intuitive — that people routinely mispredict how much pleasure or displeasure future events bring. So should you stop buying insurance or lottery tickets? Should one just sit back in the wheelchair wait for the cloud of misery to pass? Derek Bo, a former Harvard University president, considers such questions in his new book, The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the NewResearch on Well-being. Do more is the short answer.
Vithal C Nadkarni
The City Slicker As Metaphor
Before he disappeared under mysterious circumstances at the age of twenty in 1934, the American artist, writer and naturalist Everett Ruess, spent his last four years exploring the deserts of the American southwest — always alone. His attitude to life can be found in a letter he wrote to his brother shortly before his death: “I have not tired of the wilderness ; rather I enjoy its beauty and the vagrant life I lead, more keenly all the time. I prefer the saddle to the streetcar and starsprinkled sky to a roof, the obscure and difficult trail, leading into the unknown to any paved highway, and the deep peace of the wild to the discontent bred by cities.”
How came he upon this manifesto which is so prized not only by nascent New Agers but also embraced down the ages by sadhus , saints and sages? How does such a (chronologically ) young mind reject perceived materialism for a pristine return to nature? Why should, indeed, a saddle be necessarily preferred to a streetcar?
What if some Mongol or Native American tribesmen were to tell someone like Ruess that they prefer the bare back to the saddle because riding in this fashion is natural, allows considerable communication with the horse and improves a rider's balance? Would a saddle become automatically repugnant in that case? Also, in that case, we should be preferring raw food instead of having it flame tempered by fire. And doing all our writing by means of stick marks on sand or a goose quill dipped in waterrubbed inkstone instead of using something like a pencil, Biro or word processor. It would be interesting to know what Ruess used for his writings.
But perhaps we do the man a gross injustice here because it's possible he was using his examples only as personal metaphor. The trouble is, we often tend to take that figure of speech, turn it on its head and begin to idolise it.
That's when we begin to suddenly see ceilings as something made of cement and not as the tops of caves or burrows and desire the elemental but essentially unprotective star-sprinkled sky. And what if a person were to find deep peace amidst a herd of people he calls his city? Would such a claim be any more falsifiable than that discovered in the wild? As for nature trails, it's the natural product of walking that occasionally get paved into highways — which, too, can still lead into the unknown. Just like swinging through the trees once did.
How came he upon this manifesto which is so prized not only by nascent New Agers but also embraced down the ages by sadhus , saints and sages? How does such a (chronologically ) young mind reject perceived materialism for a pristine return to nature? Why should, indeed, a saddle be necessarily preferred to a streetcar?
What if some Mongol or Native American tribesmen were to tell someone like Ruess that they prefer the bare back to the saddle because riding in this fashion is natural, allows considerable communication with the horse and improves a rider's balance? Would a saddle become automatically repugnant in that case? Also, in that case, we should be preferring raw food instead of having it flame tempered by fire. And doing all our writing by means of stick marks on sand or a goose quill dipped in waterrubbed inkstone instead of using something like a pencil, Biro or word processor. It would be interesting to know what Ruess used for his writings.
But perhaps we do the man a gross injustice here because it's possible he was using his examples only as personal metaphor. The trouble is, we often tend to take that figure of speech, turn it on its head and begin to idolise it.
That's when we begin to suddenly see ceilings as something made of cement and not as the tops of caves or burrows and desire the elemental but essentially unprotective star-sprinkled sky. And what if a person were to find deep peace amidst a herd of people he calls his city? Would such a claim be any more falsifiable than that discovered in the wild? As for nature trails, it's the natural product of walking that occasionally get paved into highways — which, too, can still lead into the unknown. Just like swinging through the trees once did.
Mukul Sharma
Godel, Einstein And Proof For God
Kurt Godel used to walk every day with his friend Albert Einstein at the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton. Einstein told a colleague that
in the later years of his life, his own work — which had married space to time and spawned the atom bomb — no longer meant much to him and that he used to come to the institute merely “to have the privilege to be able to walk home with Godel.” If Einstein had upset our everyday notions about the physical world with his theory of relativity, his younger friend had had a similarly subversive effect on our understanding of the abstract world of mathematics. Godel , who has often been called the greatest logician since Aristotle , seemed to be unfazed by Einstein's reputation and did not hesitate to challenge his ideas. Although Einstein and Godel seemed to hover on a higher plane than the rest of humanity, they had also morphed into ‘museum pieces' , to use Einstein's words. Einstein did not accept the quantum theory and Godel believed in ghosts, rebirth and time travel and thought that mathematical abstractions were every bit as real as tables and chairs, a view that philosophers had come to regard as laughably naive. “Both Godel and Einstein insisted that the world is independent of our minds, yet rationally organised and open to human understanding. United by a shared sense of intellectual isolation, they found solace in their companionship,” writes Jim Holt in Time Bandits, his profile of the two mega-scientists in The New Yorker. Of course their politics differed . Einstein supported Adlai Stevenson and Godel voted for Eisenhower in 1952, which prompted the genial relativist to exclaim that his brilliant companion had “gone completely crazy”. As usual, Einstein turned out to be prophetically right, but only after his death. After Einstein's demise, Godel became ever more withdrawn. At some point, he tipped over the edge. Fearful of being poisoned, he would have his wife, a former cabaret dancer, test his food. And when she was no longer there, he succumbed to malnutrition. Along with inventing “proofs” for the existence of God, Godel's work also ushered in a unique philosophy of mind that challenges reductionists and those trying to mechanise it with mindless programs. For all his quirks, Godel also showed that the truth (satyam) could be both beautiful (sundaram) and transcendent (shivam). |
Vithal C Nadkarni
Death Changed Ayer’s Life
One afternoon in May 1988, an elderly patient with pneumonia was admitted to London University’s Middlesex Hospital. The senior consultant on duty instantly recognised the patient as A J Ayer, professor of logic at Oxford and one of Britain’s most eminent philosophers. Ayer was the public face of atheism in Britain, often arguing on radio and TV, as well as in print, for the ‘non-existence’ of God.
He was immediately put on oxygen and sent to the ICCU where he started to improve. He asked for and got Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time from his son-in-law . Another of his legion of friends brought him a supply of smoked salmon — which his kind nurses pretended not to see.
As Ayer wrote later, he carelessly tossed a slice of this salmon into his mouth. It went down the wrong way and he choked and suffered clinical death for four minutes before doctors could revive him.
In his own account of afterlife published in the London Daily Telegraph three months later, he said, “The earliest remarks of which I have any cognisance... were made several hours after I returned to life...addressed to a French woman in French, ‘Did you know that I was dead? The first time that I tried to cross the river, I was frustrated — but my second attempt succeeded.’ It was most extraordinary. My thoughts became persons.”
He went on to describe what he so vividly recalled on the other side, “I was confronted by a red light (and became) aware that this light was responsible for the government of the universe. Among its ministers were two creatures who had been put in charge of space,” he wrote.
Ayer told a doctor visiting him after the revival that he had seen a Divine Being and that he’d have to “revise all my various books and opinions” . But he wrote something quite different later for the newspapers:
“My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no God.”
Was it because of faulty memory or because he had excess of brain chemicals such as DMT? Whatever the reason, friends and family did notice that Ayer was a changed man after his return from hospital; “He became so much more nicer after he died,” quipped his wife. And the priest with whom he’d sparred so often became his closest friend.
He was immediately put on oxygen and sent to the ICCU where he started to improve. He asked for and got Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time from his son-in-law . Another of his legion of friends brought him a supply of smoked salmon — which his kind nurses pretended not to see.
As Ayer wrote later, he carelessly tossed a slice of this salmon into his mouth. It went down the wrong way and he choked and suffered clinical death for four minutes before doctors could revive him.
In his own account of afterlife published in the London Daily Telegraph three months later, he said, “The earliest remarks of which I have any cognisance... were made several hours after I returned to life...addressed to a French woman in French, ‘Did you know that I was dead? The first time that I tried to cross the river, I was frustrated — but my second attempt succeeded.’ It was most extraordinary. My thoughts became persons.”
He went on to describe what he so vividly recalled on the other side, “I was confronted by a red light (and became) aware that this light was responsible for the government of the universe. Among its ministers were two creatures who had been put in charge of space,” he wrote.
Ayer told a doctor visiting him after the revival that he had seen a Divine Being and that he’d have to “revise all my various books and opinions” . But he wrote something quite different later for the newspapers:
“My recent experiences have slightly weakened my conviction that my genuine death, which is due fairly soon, will be the end of me, though I continue to hope that it will be. They have not weakened my conviction that there is no God.”
Was it because of faulty memory or because he had excess of brain chemicals such as DMT? Whatever the reason, friends and family did notice that Ayer was a changed man after his return from hospital; “He became so much more nicer after he died,” quipped his wife. And the priest with whom he’d sparred so often became his closest friend.
Vithal C Nadkarni
The Race That Was Never Lost
Many years later, older and wiser now, the hare and the tortoise had become good friends who would often meet of a weekend at the local pub to quaff the froth while reminiscing their youth. One day, loaded with an ancient paradox, the hare turned to his barstool mate and said, “I know everyone thinks you won the race by being slow and steady and all that guff but you do understand why I couldn’t catch up and overtake you after I woke up from my nap, don’t you?” Tonguing a whisker of foam off his upper lip the tortoise replied, “I suppose because there was an arbitrary finish line imposed which doesn’t happen in real life, right?”
“Wrong!” said the hare. “If there had been no finish line whatsoever I could still never have overtaken you. Hell, I couldn’t even have caught up with you.” Seeing his carapaced companion’s brow furrow in perplexity he continued, “See the reason is, the moment I reached the spot where you had been, you would have already moved a little distance ahead in that time. Then when I had caught up with you once more you would have moved a short distance in front again. And so on. Realising classical mathematics had outdone me, I knew there was no way I could win. So I gave up and a fable was born instead.”
The tortoise looked at him thoughtfully over the rim of his supping vessel and said, “Okaaay. So what you’re saying is that it takes all the running to stay in the same place because motion is an illusion. But, your point is...?” The hare paused before answering. Then taking a deep breath he blurted, “To prove my logic that I can never overtake you, all we have to do is have another race.”
“Agreed,” said the tortoise, “But on condition I get a head start and you don’t fall asleep. That still satisfies your logic doesn’t it?” The hare’s eyes lit up. “Done!” he exclaimed and they were off to the applause of the forest animals who had gathered to witness the rerun. Within a few seconds the hare had overtaken his sluggish opponent and was waiting with tears in his eyes at the finish line.
“I don’t get it, what went wrong?” he sobbed brokenly when the tortoise finally reached. “How come I lost again?” Gently leading his friend away to their favourite watering hole, the tortoise said, “Well, calculus has been invented since but more importantly, sometimes” (and here he quickly inserted a moral): it takes all the thinking to stay in the same place.
“Wrong!” said the hare. “If there had been no finish line whatsoever I could still never have overtaken you. Hell, I couldn’t even have caught up with you.” Seeing his carapaced companion’s brow furrow in perplexity he continued, “See the reason is, the moment I reached the spot where you had been, you would have already moved a little distance ahead in that time. Then when I had caught up with you once more you would have moved a short distance in front again. And so on. Realising classical mathematics had outdone me, I knew there was no way I could win. So I gave up and a fable was born instead.”
The tortoise looked at him thoughtfully over the rim of his supping vessel and said, “Okaaay. So what you’re saying is that it takes all the running to stay in the same place because motion is an illusion. But, your point is...?” The hare paused before answering. Then taking a deep breath he blurted, “To prove my logic that I can never overtake you, all we have to do is have another race.”
“Agreed,” said the tortoise, “But on condition I get a head start and you don’t fall asleep. That still satisfies your logic doesn’t it?” The hare’s eyes lit up. “Done!” he exclaimed and they were off to the applause of the forest animals who had gathered to witness the rerun. Within a few seconds the hare had overtaken his sluggish opponent and was waiting with tears in his eyes at the finish line.
“I don’t get it, what went wrong?” he sobbed brokenly when the tortoise finally reached. “How come I lost again?” Gently leading his friend away to their favourite watering hole, the tortoise said, “Well, calculus has been invented since but more importantly, sometimes” (and here he quickly inserted a moral): it takes all the thinking to stay in the same place.
Mukul Sharma
Gratitude Is Precious But Rare
Ingratitude and all the pretensions that go with this vice, can indeed be galling, especially when one observes that these emanate from those whom he may have sincerely and significantly helped. Shakespeare refers to such ingratitude as ‘the most unkindest cut of all’ (Julius Caesar — III, 2) and as ‘sharper than a serpent’s tooth’ (King Lear — I, 4). In his As You Like It (II, 7), he writes: “Blow, blow thou winter wind,/ Thou art not so unkind/As man’s ingratitude”.
The Tamil great, Valluvar notes, (Kural 110), “There may be salvation for those who have killed all other virtues, but not for the one who has killed gratitude”.
Well accepted though the merits of gratitude may be, it is, like precious stones, rare. Ingratitude, on the other hand is spread all over, common as the autumn leaves. Like germs in the air, it impacts on almost all who have to interact and transact in this sad, mad, bad world of men and matter. The wise, however forearm themselves through forewarnings from the evolved self within.
Ensconced thus in authenticity and inner power, they cease forever to even look forward to any acts of gratitude or approval from ordinary folk. Thus applying the concept, “When you forget, others remember”, they obtain goodly responses from just where and whom, these would be needed.
Realised souls would also divine that most acts of ingratitude or lack of response emanate from those whose ego is unhealthy and shaky. Many would pretend they are ‘self-made’ and would have made it, even otherwise, on their own! Acknowledging help received, they feel, would lower their value in their own eyes and those of others!
The wise observer would also comprehend that common folk take all help for granted, as if these were their birth rights. A case in point is that of a leading opposition leader, who was shot dead, about two years back, by his own younger brother because the former refused to yield to the latter’s continual demands.
Memories of all acts of earlier help received often get drowned in feelings of self righteousness, enhanced expectations and anger. This is the way of the world. There are only a very few exceptions.
These exceptions, however, are the truly precious ones, because, like acts of repentance, even in isolation, these bring that ‘joy in heaven’, as conceived of by the Bible (Luke: 15,7). The fact that these are rare only serves further to add to their lustre!
K Vijayaraghavan
The Tamil great, Valluvar notes, (Kural 110), “There may be salvation for those who have killed all other virtues, but not for the one who has killed gratitude”.
Well accepted though the merits of gratitude may be, it is, like precious stones, rare. Ingratitude, on the other hand is spread all over, common as the autumn leaves. Like germs in the air, it impacts on almost all who have to interact and transact in this sad, mad, bad world of men and matter. The wise, however forearm themselves through forewarnings from the evolved self within.
Ensconced thus in authenticity and inner power, they cease forever to even look forward to any acts of gratitude or approval from ordinary folk. Thus applying the concept, “When you forget, others remember”, they obtain goodly responses from just where and whom, these would be needed.
Realised souls would also divine that most acts of ingratitude or lack of response emanate from those whose ego is unhealthy and shaky. Many would pretend they are ‘self-made’ and would have made it, even otherwise, on their own! Acknowledging help received, they feel, would lower their value in their own eyes and those of others!
The wise observer would also comprehend that common folk take all help for granted, as if these were their birth rights. A case in point is that of a leading opposition leader, who was shot dead, about two years back, by his own younger brother because the former refused to yield to the latter’s continual demands.
Memories of all acts of earlier help received often get drowned in feelings of self righteousness, enhanced expectations and anger. This is the way of the world. There are only a very few exceptions.
These exceptions, however, are the truly precious ones, because, like acts of repentance, even in isolation, these bring that ‘joy in heaven’, as conceived of by the Bible (Luke: 15,7). The fact that these are rare only serves further to add to their lustre!
K Vijayaraghavan
Leave Your Cravings To Be One With All
Have you heard the story of the monk and the sandwich vendor? “Make me one with everything.” So goes the monk’s humble request to the foodstall peddler. But when the Buddhist hands over a $20 bill to the chef in return for his deck sandwich, he waits for a long time for his change. Finally, when he asks for it, he’s politely informed that “change comes only from within” .
Jokes apart, the vendor sounds like the Zen Master Ikkyu more than the monk does. Born in 1394 Ikkyu was an illegitimate son of the emperor Gokomatsu . He was known by some as the emperor of renegades , a wild wandering monk and teacher, sometimes called Crazy Cloud.
But Ikkyu is also said to have understood the beauty of both high and low culture, and he gently celebrated the ironies of life in a series of poems and drawings as he practised Zen Buddhism medieval Japan. Listen to his verse on change:
“Natural, reckless, correct skill;/ Yesterday’s clarity is today’s stupidity / The universe has dark and light, entrust oneself to change/ One time, shade the eyes and gaze afar at the road of heaven.”
Ikkyu was reputed to be very clever even as a boy. His teacher had a precious teacup, a rare antique . One day Ikkyu happened to break the cup and was greatly perplexed. Hearing the footsteps of his teacher, he held the pieces of the cup behind him. When the master appeared, Ikkyu asked: “Why do people have to die?”
“That’s natural,” the older man replied. “Everything has to die and has just so long to live.” With a smile, Ikkyu, produced the shattered cup and added: “It was time for your cup to die.”
The moral of the story is about change and that every journey, even the ones you want to last forever , must inevitably come to an end. Whether you view it as a tragedy or a comedy depends on your stance and your involvement. For even the things that one gets attached to are constantly changing. Hence attachment to them only leads to unrest and sorrow.
But when one knows things as they truly are (yathabutam) or annicca (impermanent) hence liable to cause dukkha or sorrow, one ceases to get agitated by them. One also ceases to take refuge in them. Just as attachment to things is to get fettered by them, even so detachment from them is to get freed from them. In Buddhist ethics, the perception of impermanence is the first step to the eradication of all cravings, which has the attainment of Nirvana as its final goal.
Jokes apart, the vendor sounds like the Zen Master Ikkyu more than the monk does. Born in 1394 Ikkyu was an illegitimate son of the emperor Gokomatsu . He was known by some as the emperor of renegades , a wild wandering monk and teacher, sometimes called Crazy Cloud.
But Ikkyu is also said to have understood the beauty of both high and low culture, and he gently celebrated the ironies of life in a series of poems and drawings as he practised Zen Buddhism medieval Japan. Listen to his verse on change:
“Natural, reckless, correct skill;/ Yesterday’s clarity is today’s stupidity / The universe has dark and light, entrust oneself to change/ One time, shade the eyes and gaze afar at the road of heaven.”
Ikkyu was reputed to be very clever even as a boy. His teacher had a precious teacup, a rare antique . One day Ikkyu happened to break the cup and was greatly perplexed. Hearing the footsteps of his teacher, he held the pieces of the cup behind him. When the master appeared, Ikkyu asked: “Why do people have to die?”
“That’s natural,” the older man replied. “Everything has to die and has just so long to live.” With a smile, Ikkyu, produced the shattered cup and added: “It was time for your cup to die.”
The moral of the story is about change and that every journey, even the ones you want to last forever , must inevitably come to an end. Whether you view it as a tragedy or a comedy depends on your stance and your involvement. For even the things that one gets attached to are constantly changing. Hence attachment to them only leads to unrest and sorrow.
But when one knows things as they truly are (yathabutam) or annicca (impermanent) hence liable to cause dukkha or sorrow, one ceases to get agitated by them. One also ceases to take refuge in them. Just as attachment to things is to get fettered by them, even so detachment from them is to get freed from them. In Buddhist ethics, the perception of impermanence is the first step to the eradication of all cravings, which has the attainment of Nirvana as its final goal.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Towards Gaining Unique Insights
When it comes to a meeting between science and religion, two words usually sum it up: they don’t . We’re not just talking about extremists on either side like totally unbelieving scientists who froth at the mention of a first cause or the unwaveringly faithful who insist on divine creation.
It includes middle-roaders who say science and religion are two sides of the same coin since they both spring from human minds, while tacitly maintaining an eternal edge always separates the sides. And it includes those scientists who see some sort of deep mysterious beauty in the cosmos but remain atheists and religious mystics who shun dogma but retain a personal faith.
Therefore it’s refreshing to come across someone who can say: “I’ve never encountered nor do I expect or conceive of a place where there would be a conflict (between science and faith), partly because I know my science well enough to know not to trust it 100%, and I know my religion well enough to know not to trust my understanding of it 100%.”
That’s Guy J Consolmagno. Consolmagno obtained his MA degree in planetary science from MIT and his PhD from the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. After postdoctoral research and teaching at Harvard College Observatory he entered the Society of Jesus and took his vows.
In addition to over 40 refereed scientific papers, he has also co-authored several books on astronomy for the popular market. Today he is a research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory who believes that religion needs science to steer it away from superstition to keep it close to reality and to protect it from creationism which is a kind of paganism.
Fortunately a rising number of people are beginning to believe, too, that science and religion should work alongside one another rather than as competing ideologies. Perhaps neither empiricism nor theology will ever provide a complete understanding of the universe, but at the very least they should be complementary approaches to gain unique insights.
Or as Consolmagno puts it: “( This view) allows me to have more than one perspective on the big mystery of life, and that’s cool because the more perspectives you have the better. But I don’t expect them to agree. I don’t want them to completely agree, because then I lose the benefit of having more than one point of view.”
It includes middle-roaders who say science and religion are two sides of the same coin since they both spring from human minds, while tacitly maintaining an eternal edge always separates the sides. And it includes those scientists who see some sort of deep mysterious beauty in the cosmos but remain atheists and religious mystics who shun dogma but retain a personal faith.
Therefore it’s refreshing to come across someone who can say: “I’ve never encountered nor do I expect or conceive of a place where there would be a conflict (between science and faith), partly because I know my science well enough to know not to trust it 100%, and I know my religion well enough to know not to trust my understanding of it 100%.”
That’s Guy J Consolmagno. Consolmagno obtained his MA degree in planetary science from MIT and his PhD from the University of Arizona’s Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. After postdoctoral research and teaching at Harvard College Observatory he entered the Society of Jesus and took his vows.
In addition to over 40 refereed scientific papers, he has also co-authored several books on astronomy for the popular market. Today he is a research astronomer and planetary scientist at the Vatican Observatory who believes that religion needs science to steer it away from superstition to keep it close to reality and to protect it from creationism which is a kind of paganism.
Fortunately a rising number of people are beginning to believe, too, that science and religion should work alongside one another rather than as competing ideologies. Perhaps neither empiricism nor theology will ever provide a complete understanding of the universe, but at the very least they should be complementary approaches to gain unique insights.
Or as Consolmagno puts it: “( This view) allows me to have more than one perspective on the big mystery of life, and that’s cool because the more perspectives you have the better. But I don’t expect them to agree. I don’t want them to completely agree, because then I lose the benefit of having more than one point of view.”
Mukul Sharma
Learn To Know The Now & Turn Wiser
When Barbara Ehrenreich was diagnosed with breast cancer she did what any veteran of the women’s health movement would do: she started researching , looking especially for support and information from other women who had the disease. The journalist who began as PhD researcher in cell biology says she found a lot.
“Yes, I found useful tips and information,” she adds. “But I found something else shocking : a whole culture had grown up around breast cancer and it certainly did not contain the sisterhood I was searching for.”
Ehrenreich, who is also known for her earlier expose of welfare reform Nickel and Dimed: On (not) getting by in America, describes the subculture of breast cancer as being “very pink and femme and frilly — all about pink ribbons, pink rhinestone pins, pink T-shirts and of course a lot about cosmetics , all very commercialised.”
But the worst of it, for her, was the perkiness and “the relentless cheerfulness of the breast cancer culture” . Equally distressing was the notion of suffering being essentially good for you; that the survivor would turn a better person for it — more feminine, more spiritual — someone better that a ‘mere cancer-free’ person.
One health channel went so far as to describe breast cancer as “a form of spiritual upward mobility : something that a woman should be happy to experience.” Was this cheeriness a result of a defensive reaction to what was undoubtedly an extremely traumatic experience? If so, why wasn’t it seen in other ailments such as diabetes, TB or heart disease ? Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer alludes to a reverse phenomenon of transformed victimhood. She has been championing the idea of mindfulness and its impact on disease outcomes.
In her lectures about her book Counterclockwise people sometimes ask whether the idea that we have more control over our illnesses than most of us realise inevitably leads to blaming the victim. “Their reasoning must be that if we can control either the severity of our symptoms or the entire disease process, than those who suffer are suffering by their own hands since they did nothing to help themselves,” Langer comments in her blog.
But such an understanding couldn’t be further from the truth, she adds. For blaming (as well as praising) entails going back into the past, away from the present. One becomes smart and wiser by learning to know the now.
“Yes, I found useful tips and information,” she adds. “But I found something else shocking : a whole culture had grown up around breast cancer and it certainly did not contain the sisterhood I was searching for.”
Ehrenreich, who is also known for her earlier expose of welfare reform Nickel and Dimed: On (not) getting by in America, describes the subculture of breast cancer as being “very pink and femme and frilly — all about pink ribbons, pink rhinestone pins, pink T-shirts and of course a lot about cosmetics , all very commercialised.”
But the worst of it, for her, was the perkiness and “the relentless cheerfulness of the breast cancer culture” . Equally distressing was the notion of suffering being essentially good for you; that the survivor would turn a better person for it — more feminine, more spiritual — someone better that a ‘mere cancer-free’ person.
One health channel went so far as to describe breast cancer as “a form of spiritual upward mobility : something that a woman should be happy to experience.” Was this cheeriness a result of a defensive reaction to what was undoubtedly an extremely traumatic experience? If so, why wasn’t it seen in other ailments such as diabetes, TB or heart disease ? Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer alludes to a reverse phenomenon of transformed victimhood. She has been championing the idea of mindfulness and its impact on disease outcomes.
In her lectures about her book Counterclockwise people sometimes ask whether the idea that we have more control over our illnesses than most of us realise inevitably leads to blaming the victim. “Their reasoning must be that if we can control either the severity of our symptoms or the entire disease process, than those who suffer are suffering by their own hands since they did nothing to help themselves,” Langer comments in her blog.
But such an understanding couldn’t be further from the truth, she adds. For blaming (as well as praising) entails going back into the past, away from the present. One becomes smart and wiser by learning to know the now.
Vithal C Nadkarni
The Wise Guy And The Sensitive Cop
Like Jen, the protagonist in her memoir Eat, Pray, Love Elizabeth Gilbert was a plucky blond American woman in her 30s with no children and no major financial worries. As the book opens, she was going through a messy divorce, followed by a stormy rebound love affair.
Awash in tears in the middle of the night on the floor of the bathroom, she began to pray for guidance, “You know — like, to God.” God answered. He told her to go back to bed. She embarks instead on a year-long pilgrimage to Italy, India and Indonesia!
“I wanted to explore one aspect of myself set against the backdrop of each country, in a place that has traditionally done that one thing very well,” Gilbert writes. “I wanted to explore the art of pleasure in Italy , the art of devotion in India and, in Indonesia, the art of balancing the two.”
As she studied Italian and searched for the world’s best pizza with new-found friends, Gilbert was still stalked by depression and loneliness which she casts as ’Pinkerton Detectives’ — depression , the wise guy, and loneliness , ’the more sensitive cop’ .
They frisk her, “empty my pockets of any joy I had been carrying” and relentlessly interrogate her about why she thinks she deserves a vacation, considering what a mess she’s made of her life.
After literally eating herself out of depression, she came back to the US for Christmas holidays and went to an Indian ashram for yoga and meditation; then onwards to Bali, to be with a seemingly ageless medicine man. It seems he had read her palm before her trip began and predicted that Gilbert would have more good luck than anyone he’d ever met and that she would live a long time, have many friends and experiences.
Her only problem in life was “You worry too much!” In real life, Gilbert’s story turned out to be exactly like the wise man’s prophecy : the memoir based on her odyssey became a megabestseller and she went on to acquire acult following as an author.
Now she had a new worry about her best days being already behind her! People constantly began to ask her if she felt she was doomed as a creative writer. What if she could never replicate the phenomenal success of her last book? Again Gilbert met her inner demons head-on and got a clean’ answer: If you don’t grab an idea or a poem when it flies by, then it will go looking for another muse, she says in a TED talk. The lesson was: grab an idea, or know that it will be fleeting.
Awash in tears in the middle of the night on the floor of the bathroom, she began to pray for guidance, “You know — like, to God.” God answered. He told her to go back to bed. She embarks instead on a year-long pilgrimage to Italy, India and Indonesia!
“I wanted to explore one aspect of myself set against the backdrop of each country, in a place that has traditionally done that one thing very well,” Gilbert writes. “I wanted to explore the art of pleasure in Italy , the art of devotion in India and, in Indonesia, the art of balancing the two.”
As she studied Italian and searched for the world’s best pizza with new-found friends, Gilbert was still stalked by depression and loneliness which she casts as ’Pinkerton Detectives’ — depression , the wise guy, and loneliness , ’the more sensitive cop’ .
They frisk her, “empty my pockets of any joy I had been carrying” and relentlessly interrogate her about why she thinks she deserves a vacation, considering what a mess she’s made of her life.
After literally eating herself out of depression, she came back to the US for Christmas holidays and went to an Indian ashram for yoga and meditation; then onwards to Bali, to be with a seemingly ageless medicine man. It seems he had read her palm before her trip began and predicted that Gilbert would have more good luck than anyone he’d ever met and that she would live a long time, have many friends and experiences.
Her only problem in life was “You worry too much!” In real life, Gilbert’s story turned out to be exactly like the wise man’s prophecy : the memoir based on her odyssey became a megabestseller and she went on to acquire acult following as an author.
Now she had a new worry about her best days being already behind her! People constantly began to ask her if she felt she was doomed as a creative writer. What if she could never replicate the phenomenal success of her last book? Again Gilbert met her inner demons head-on and got a clean’ answer: If you don’t grab an idea or a poem when it flies by, then it will go looking for another muse, she says in a TED talk. The lesson was: grab an idea, or know that it will be fleeting.
Vithal C Nadkarni
A Very Fine And Great Difference
Arjun says to Krishna: You praise both the renunciation of work as well as its unselfish performance — so which is better? Krishna’s answer is that the renunciation of work and its unselfish performance both lead to the soul’s salvation . But of the two, the unselfish performance of work is better than its renunciation. The reason? Action is better than inaction ; even the maintenance of one’s physical life cannot be effected without action and the true worker is also the true renouncer for he does his work in a detached spirit. So, naturally, one wants to know how working in a detached spirit would pan out in daily life.
Today’s ET carries the story of how Ford now wants to roll out compact cars and ultimately drive in all models into India in order to realise the dream of its founder , Henry Ford, to open up the highways for everybody. This is because the company’s new chief executive (CE) has realised the flawed strategy of rolling out the rickety Escort model way back in 1998 and the folly of not producing right-sized and right-priced vehicles here which subsequently saw it cede space to Asian rivals such as Hyundai and Honda.
But this would mean that the CE also has a dream. He is apparently motivated enough to undo past damage, see the company make a turnaround in the future and make its presence felt in a much bigger way than before. This would ultimately translate into profits and more business and then even more profits which would, in turn, mean he would be held in high esteem for the reversal of Ford’s fortunes and it becoming a force to reckon with in the Indian automobile industry .
It appears at least, that neither has he renounced work nor is he working in a detached spirit. Yet a person like the ceef executive could also comment along with Radhakrishnan that we must be inspired by the hope of embodying ideals in earthly institutions. In a tired age we adopt the gospel of renunciation and endurance; in an age of hope and energy we emphasise active service in the world. Or as the Christian philosopher Boethius said: “He never goes to heaven who is content to go alone.” And if the CE’s right, the end result for Ford would still be the same because “before enlightenment trees and mountains appear like trees and mountains whereas after enlightenment trees and mountains appear like trees and mountains.” If only we knew the difference.
Today’s ET carries the story of how Ford now wants to roll out compact cars and ultimately drive in all models into India in order to realise the dream of its founder , Henry Ford, to open up the highways for everybody. This is because the company’s new chief executive (CE) has realised the flawed strategy of rolling out the rickety Escort model way back in 1998 and the folly of not producing right-sized and right-priced vehicles here which subsequently saw it cede space to Asian rivals such as Hyundai and Honda.
But this would mean that the CE also has a dream. He is apparently motivated enough to undo past damage, see the company make a turnaround in the future and make its presence felt in a much bigger way than before. This would ultimately translate into profits and more business and then even more profits which would, in turn, mean he would be held in high esteem for the reversal of Ford’s fortunes and it becoming a force to reckon with in the Indian automobile industry .
It appears at least, that neither has he renounced work nor is he working in a detached spirit. Yet a person like the ceef executive could also comment along with Radhakrishnan that we must be inspired by the hope of embodying ideals in earthly institutions. In a tired age we adopt the gospel of renunciation and endurance; in an age of hope and energy we emphasise active service in the world. Or as the Christian philosopher Boethius said: “He never goes to heaven who is content to go alone.” And if the CE’s right, the end result for Ford would still be the same because “before enlightenment trees and mountains appear like trees and mountains whereas after enlightenment trees and mountains appear like trees and mountains.” If only we knew the difference.
Mukul Sharma
When You Forget, Others Remember
Resentments arise due to various reasons — missing on opportunities (the sad cases of, “it might have been” ), difficult times faced earlier,facilities denied or annoyance over unfairness all around (including those affecting one’s society or country).
A very common manifestation of such resentments or grudges, however, is anger over ingratitude or lack of appreciation. These damaging feelings, even where justified , have to be erased through comprehension of certain truths. Doing good ‘in the sly’ is a ‘twiceblessed’ virtue, where the giver also benefits, when he contributes without expectations — the Bhagavad Gita injunction (2,47) on work without motive. All kindly acts do not always bring “equal and opposite reaction” . All such acts done should also be viewed as closed chapters in life.
Of course, even Gods need approval , as most religions prescribe lavish praise of His attributes! More so, humans need acknowledgement and affirmations. Nevertheless , the true seeker would look forward to these from only worthy souls. Having something to give, he would, as a flower attracts bees, obtain unto himself the needed approval from the right sources, including from his own evolved self. Benign indifference (upekshana) to the gross and superfluous would also open doors to greener pastures, new opportunities and also inspiring companionship (satsang ), marked by mutual approval and true regard for one another.
The trick thus lies in becoming authentic within, delighting in one’s chosen field and interests. One would then no more look for tell tales of changes in persons , as he would know that in this world of make believe and pretence, many would rather choose not even to notice, let alone acknowledge any help received. The aspirant would thus apply Henry Thoreau’s concept, “Things do not change ; we change” , not ever being affected by any “dreary intercourse of daily life” .
It is indeed a paradox that praise and approval often come to the one who does not thirst for these, as if they were dire needs. Bertrand Russel points out, “... human nature is so constructed that it gives affection most readily to those who seem least to demand it”. This also is the expression of the law of powerful silence or the law of least effort. True, when you yourself learn to forget particular issues, with which you had been obsessed thus far, others commence to remember!
A very common manifestation of such resentments or grudges, however, is anger over ingratitude or lack of appreciation. These damaging feelings, even where justified , have to be erased through comprehension of certain truths. Doing good ‘in the sly’ is a ‘twiceblessed’ virtue, where the giver also benefits, when he contributes without expectations — the Bhagavad Gita injunction (2,47) on work without motive. All kindly acts do not always bring “equal and opposite reaction” . All such acts done should also be viewed as closed chapters in life.
Of course, even Gods need approval , as most religions prescribe lavish praise of His attributes! More so, humans need acknowledgement and affirmations. Nevertheless , the true seeker would look forward to these from only worthy souls. Having something to give, he would, as a flower attracts bees, obtain unto himself the needed approval from the right sources, including from his own evolved self. Benign indifference (upekshana) to the gross and superfluous would also open doors to greener pastures, new opportunities and also inspiring companionship (satsang ), marked by mutual approval and true regard for one another.
The trick thus lies in becoming authentic within, delighting in one’s chosen field and interests. One would then no more look for tell tales of changes in persons , as he would know that in this world of make believe and pretence, many would rather choose not even to notice, let alone acknowledge any help received. The aspirant would thus apply Henry Thoreau’s concept, “Things do not change ; we change” , not ever being affected by any “dreary intercourse of daily life” .
It is indeed a paradox that praise and approval often come to the one who does not thirst for these, as if they were dire needs. Bertrand Russel points out, “... human nature is so constructed that it gives affection most readily to those who seem least to demand it”. This also is the expression of the law of powerful silence or the law of least effort. True, when you yourself learn to forget particular issues, with which you had been obsessed thus far, others commence to remember!
K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Breathe Consciously And Live Mindfully
In the Stranger, Albert Camus, the Algeria-born French Nobel laureate, narrates the story of man who is condemned to be executed in a few days. As he sits in his cell on death row, the prisoner notices a small patch of sky through the skylight.
Suddenly, he seems to feel the deep touch of the present moment, of life itself. He vows to spend his remaining days in mindfulness, in full appreciation of every moment that’s inexorably slipping away towards his sentence . He sticks to his resolve for the remaining days.
At last, just three hours are left for his execution when a priest comes into his cell to receive the prisoner’s confession and to administer the last rites. But the man only wants to be alone. He tries one way after another to get the priest to leave and when he finally succeeds, he mutters to himself that the priest lived like a dead man. (“Il vit comme un mort”). He sees that the one trying to save him was less alive than the one about to be hanged.
Camus’s story came to Thich Nhat Hahn’s mind when he took a taxi in New York. The noted Vietnamese Zen Buddhist Master saw that the taxi driver was not at all happy. “He was not in the present moment . There was no peace or joy in him, no capacity of being alive while doing the work of driving. And he expressed it in the way he drove,” Nhat Hahn writes in his classic manual on mindfulness, Touching Peace. “Many of us do the same. We rush about, but we are not at one with what we are doing; we are not at peace. Our body is here, but our mind is somewhere else — in the past or the future, possessed by anger, frustration, or dreams. We are not really alive; we are like ghosts. If our beautiful child were to come and offer us a smile, we would miss him completely, and he would miss us. What a pity!”
The antidote to this tragic situation lies in getting off your autopilot, to live mindfully. For “our true home is in the present moment,” Nhat Hahn advises. “To live in the present moment is the miracle. The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the Green Earth in the present moment, to appreciate the peace and beauty that are available right now.” He then prescribes a series of exercises for living mindfully, beginning with conscious breathing. This leads to love being directed towards ourselves and to the world.
Suddenly, he seems to feel the deep touch of the present moment, of life itself. He vows to spend his remaining days in mindfulness, in full appreciation of every moment that’s inexorably slipping away towards his sentence . He sticks to his resolve for the remaining days.
At last, just three hours are left for his execution when a priest comes into his cell to receive the prisoner’s confession and to administer the last rites. But the man only wants to be alone. He tries one way after another to get the priest to leave and when he finally succeeds, he mutters to himself that the priest lived like a dead man. (“Il vit comme un mort”). He sees that the one trying to save him was less alive than the one about to be hanged.
Camus’s story came to Thich Nhat Hahn’s mind when he took a taxi in New York. The noted Vietnamese Zen Buddhist Master saw that the taxi driver was not at all happy. “He was not in the present moment . There was no peace or joy in him, no capacity of being alive while doing the work of driving. And he expressed it in the way he drove,” Nhat Hahn writes in his classic manual on mindfulness, Touching Peace. “Many of us do the same. We rush about, but we are not at one with what we are doing; we are not at peace. Our body is here, but our mind is somewhere else — in the past or the future, possessed by anger, frustration, or dreams. We are not really alive; we are like ghosts. If our beautiful child were to come and offer us a smile, we would miss him completely, and he would miss us. What a pity!”
The antidote to this tragic situation lies in getting off your autopilot, to live mindfully. For “our true home is in the present moment,” Nhat Hahn advises. “To live in the present moment is the miracle. The miracle is not to walk on water. The miracle is to walk on the Green Earth in the present moment, to appreciate the peace and beauty that are available right now.” He then prescribes a series of exercises for living mindfully, beginning with conscious breathing. This leads to love being directed towards ourselves and to the world.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Blindsided By The Unimaginable
Odd, atypical and unexpected things always surprise us. But, generally speaking, this is a short-term reaction, one from which we routinely rebound to normal and move on with our day-to-day life. More bizarre occurrences induce a heightened sense of shock or amazement, which lingers longer in memory and can sometimes lead to life changing behaviour patterns. People who have had so-called out-of-body or near death experiences, for instance, often say that their attitudes towards life has undergone a radical shift of perspective and that they have subsequently become far more tolerant, kind and compassionate.
There's also a third category of magnitude involving the extraordinary . When we're confronted with something, so unimaginably different and alien that we possess no vocabulary or concept to articulate or even process it, the mind does one of two things: it either denies its existence altogether or accepts it without acknowledging any part of its continuing validity. Some exobiologists believe that if we ever find extraterrestrial life, it might turn out to be so totally outside our ability to conceptualise it that we may fail ultimately to recognise it at all.
The story goes that when Captain Cook's ship arrived off Australia in 1770, the vessel drew no reaction from the natives. According to the historian Robert Hughes: "It was the largest artefact ever seen on the east coast of Australia, an object so huge, complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding." It was almost as if the ship could not be seen. Botanist Joseph Banks who accompanied Cook was also baffled by their indifference: "... they pursued their way in all appearance entirely unmoved by the neighbourhood of so remarkable an object as a ship must necessarily be to people who have never seen one."
Our own 'native' reaction on being told that the godhood resides in us is somewhat similar. Those of us who have no problem worshipping a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal - qualities which should make us baulk at the very incomprehensibility of the notion - simply cannot come to terms with how we could be that! But we nod and smile and accept the words of the wise and then go right back to our normal worshipping. Which is why it remains out there as a purely intellectual construct and doesn't affect us any further.
There's also a third category of magnitude involving the extraordinary . When we're confronted with something, so unimaginably different and alien that we possess no vocabulary or concept to articulate or even process it, the mind does one of two things: it either denies its existence altogether or accepts it without acknowledging any part of its continuing validity. Some exobiologists believe that if we ever find extraterrestrial life, it might turn out to be so totally outside our ability to conceptualise it that we may fail ultimately to recognise it at all.
The story goes that when Captain Cook's ship arrived off Australia in 1770, the vessel drew no reaction from the natives. According to the historian Robert Hughes: "It was the largest artefact ever seen on the east coast of Australia, an object so huge, complex and unfamiliar as to defy the natives' understanding." It was almost as if the ship could not be seen. Botanist Joseph Banks who accompanied Cook was also baffled by their indifference: "... they pursued their way in all appearance entirely unmoved by the neighbourhood of so remarkable an object as a ship must necessarily be to people who have never seen one."
Our own 'native' reaction on being told that the godhood resides in us is somewhat similar. Those of us who have no problem worshipping a deity that is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal - qualities which should make us baulk at the very incomprehensibility of the notion - simply cannot come to terms with how we could be that! But we nod and smile and accept the words of the wise and then go right back to our normal worshipping. Which is why it remains out there as a purely intellectual construct and doesn't affect us any further.
Mukul Sharma
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Muster Up The Will To Change Oneself
Angelo Siciliano was a £97 stripling. One fateful day, when he’d gone to the beach, a bully kicked sand in his face. Humiliated, young Siciliano joined the YMCA to try out exercise routines to develop his physique. It was while watching a lion in the zoo that he had an Aha moment: “Does this old gentleman have any barbells, any exercisers?” he asked himself. “And yet how is it so strong and husky? And then it came over me,” he reminisces in his memoir. “The lion’s been pitting one muscle against another!” Siciliano concluded that lions and tigers became strong by muscle resistance and went on to develop his famous 12-step method which transformed the scrawny weakling into the “world’s most perfectly developed man”.
Siciliano also changed his name to Charles Atlas after being told that he resembled the statue of Atlas supporting earth on top of a hotel in Coney Island, where he worked as a strongman.
The Charles Atlas brand revolved around the insult that made a man out of a mac (changed later to “a champ from a chump”). This is not so much about patented weights and pulleys as about belief. Most of us are very good at describing what is. But how many can muster up the will to believe what can be? That calls for giving up old habits of thought and action.
This is not as tough as it may seem. Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer’s research shows that small changes, small gestures repeated slowly and steadily, can make big differences, but “(first) we need to open ourselves to the impossible and embrace a psychology of possibility,” she writes in Counterclockwise.
Rather than starting from the status quo, this argues for a starting point of what we would like to be. In the case of Charles Atlas it began with inner vision of a perfectly formed man superimposed on the reflection of the scrawny weakling staring back from the mirror. It’s a subtle change in thinking. But too many of us believe the world is to be discovered, rather than a product of our own making and thus to be invented.
“Pursuing the psychology of possibility is itself empowering,” Langer insists. “It feels good to have a personal mission, it contributes to a more positive outlook in general, and it works against the idea that the rest of us are soon to follow suit and fall apart. As we actualise the possible, we may find out other interesting things about the world.”
Siciliano also changed his name to Charles Atlas after being told that he resembled the statue of Atlas supporting earth on top of a hotel in Coney Island, where he worked as a strongman.
The Charles Atlas brand revolved around the insult that made a man out of a mac (changed later to “a champ from a chump”). This is not so much about patented weights and pulleys as about belief. Most of us are very good at describing what is. But how many can muster up the will to believe what can be? That calls for giving up old habits of thought and action.
This is not as tough as it may seem. Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer’s research shows that small changes, small gestures repeated slowly and steadily, can make big differences, but “(first) we need to open ourselves to the impossible and embrace a psychology of possibility,” she writes in Counterclockwise.
Rather than starting from the status quo, this argues for a starting point of what we would like to be. In the case of Charles Atlas it began with inner vision of a perfectly formed man superimposed on the reflection of the scrawny weakling staring back from the mirror. It’s a subtle change in thinking. But too many of us believe the world is to be discovered, rather than a product of our own making and thus to be invented.
“Pursuing the psychology of possibility is itself empowering,” Langer insists. “It feels good to have a personal mission, it contributes to a more positive outlook in general, and it works against the idea that the rest of us are soon to follow suit and fall apart. As we actualise the possible, we may find out other interesting things about the world.”
Vital C Nadkarni
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Nurture Qualities To Flourish & Flower
The notion of a positive psychology movement popped into Martin Seligman’s head soon after his election as president of the American Psychological Association. He was weeding the garden with his five-year old daughter, Nikki. He seemed to be in a tearing hurry and was rapidly beginning to lose patience while his daughter merrily kept throwing weeds into the air and dancing around. Finally, he yelled at her. She walked away, only to return and say, “Daddy, I want to talk to you. Do you remember before my fifth birthday?” she asked. “From the time I was three to the time I was five, I was a whiner. I whined every day. When I turned five, I decided not to whine anymore. That was the hardest thing I’ve ever done. And if I can stop whining, you can stop being such a grouch.”
That was a turning point for her father, nothing less than a full-blown epiphany. He had learned something about his daughter, something about raising children, something about himself, and a great deal about his profession. Raising Nikki was not about correcting whining, he writes in his classic treatise on positive psychology. She did that herself. Rather, he realised that raising Nikki was about taking that marvellous skill which he called “seeing into the soul,” amplifying it, nurturing it, helping her to lead her life around it to buffer against her weaknesses and the storms of life.
Raising children, he realised, was more than fixing what was wrong with them. It was about identifying and nurturing their strongest qualities, what they own and are best at, and helping them find niches in which they can best live out these positive qualities.
In retrospect, Seligman admits that his daughter had “hit the nail right on the head” with her comment as far as his own life was concerned. “I was a grouch. I had spent 50 years mostly enduring wet weather in my soul, and the last 10 years being a nimbus cloud in a household of sunshine.”
Any good fortune he had was probably not due to his grouchiness, but in spite of it.” In that moment, he resolved to change. He went on to develop therapeutic initiatives that focused on positive rather than negative aspects. The rationale seemed simple enough: If one only focused on the problem, one might not see the solution. The goal was to nurture the very qualities that enabled individuals and groups not just to survive and limp along but to flourish and flower.
That was a turning point for her father, nothing less than a full-blown epiphany. He had learned something about his daughter, something about raising children, something about himself, and a great deal about his profession. Raising Nikki was not about correcting whining, he writes in his classic treatise on positive psychology. She did that herself. Rather, he realised that raising Nikki was about taking that marvellous skill which he called “seeing into the soul,” amplifying it, nurturing it, helping her to lead her life around it to buffer against her weaknesses and the storms of life.
Raising children, he realised, was more than fixing what was wrong with them. It was about identifying and nurturing their strongest qualities, what they own and are best at, and helping them find niches in which they can best live out these positive qualities.
In retrospect, Seligman admits that his daughter had “hit the nail right on the head” with her comment as far as his own life was concerned. “I was a grouch. I had spent 50 years mostly enduring wet weather in my soul, and the last 10 years being a nimbus cloud in a household of sunshine.”
Any good fortune he had was probably not due to his grouchiness, but in spite of it.” In that moment, he resolved to change. He went on to develop therapeutic initiatives that focused on positive rather than negative aspects. The rationale seemed simple enough: If one only focused on the problem, one might not see the solution. The goal was to nurture the very qualities that enabled individuals and groups not just to survive and limp along but to flourish and flower.
Vithal C Nadkarni
Resentment, Most Costly Indulgence
While all the seven failure traits elaborated by Dr Maxwell Maltz are highly relevant, ‘resentment’ is the most damaging of all these. The person concerned, perceiving injustice, wrongs or ingratitude nurtures a vague hope that his antagonism and intimidation would bring change of heart on the other person or situations without. But this imagined ‘cure’, as noted by Dr Maltz, is worse than the disease. This unabated resentment, he also points out, “is a deadly poison to the spirit, makes happiness impossible and uses up tremendous energy, which could go into accomplishment”.
Such resentments are manifest signs of a self-image of not just a “pitiful person, a victim, who was meant to be unhappy” , but also one who needs unfavourable and hostile situations around him as alibis and excuses to justify this self-image chosen for himself. The person thus easily finds causes to attribute motives, ill intentions and hostilities, where none may exist.
To go into the root causes of resentment , which process alone would also root it out permanently , it is thus necessary to be brutally frank about oneself, rooted in that abiding self-honesty that would expose to one’s own evolved self’s various complexes within , besides startling, yet glaring truths. This dynamic approach would enable one to comprehend that just as a harmful self-image was of his own making, changing that, to form a new one, is also in his own hands.
This process, as Dr Maltz points out, is that “creative goal striving” , where one becomes responsible for his own success and happiness. This also is the pathway to real freedom from impediments, both from within and without.
Such freedom is thus through selfanalysis , understanding and acceptance , leading to the needed major paradigm shift. This analysis would also reveal to the seeker that resentment and anger are often the same — the two sides of the same coin. In its passive form, anger is resentment manifest as brooding , self-pity , depression, unhappiness and masochism.
Comprehending the various aspects of this complex, yet ‘not, after all so complex’ issue would be pathway to truly and enduringly changing one’s self-image . The new found self-image , bringing with it freedom from that costly indulgence of resentment and other retarding traits within, would also indeed bring with it a new chapter in all aspects of life and living.
Such resentments are manifest signs of a self-image of not just a “pitiful person, a victim, who was meant to be unhappy” , but also one who needs unfavourable and hostile situations around him as alibis and excuses to justify this self-image chosen for himself. The person thus easily finds causes to attribute motives, ill intentions and hostilities, where none may exist.
To go into the root causes of resentment , which process alone would also root it out permanently , it is thus necessary to be brutally frank about oneself, rooted in that abiding self-honesty that would expose to one’s own evolved self’s various complexes within , besides startling, yet glaring truths. This dynamic approach would enable one to comprehend that just as a harmful self-image was of his own making, changing that, to form a new one, is also in his own hands.
This process, as Dr Maltz points out, is that “creative goal striving” , where one becomes responsible for his own success and happiness. This also is the pathway to real freedom from impediments, both from within and without.
Such freedom is thus through selfanalysis , understanding and acceptance , leading to the needed major paradigm shift. This analysis would also reveal to the seeker that resentment and anger are often the same — the two sides of the same coin. In its passive form, anger is resentment manifest as brooding , self-pity , depression, unhappiness and masochism.
Comprehending the various aspects of this complex, yet ‘not, after all so complex’ issue would be pathway to truly and enduringly changing one’s self-image . The new found self-image , bringing with it freedom from that costly indulgence of resentment and other retarding traits within, would also indeed bring with it a new chapter in all aspects of life and living.
K VIJAYARAGHAVAN
Mind Accounts For Bondage, Freedom
Three decades ago, Harvard psychologist Ellen Langer carried out a novel experiment to check if thought patterns alone could reverse aging. What she uncovered borders on the miraculous — the amazing power that mind seems to have over matter.
This has long been celebrated in traditional systems around the world, but it has been soundly disparaged by the votaries of western medicine rooting for a Cartesian split between the body and mind.
Earlier, Langer had found that merely by giving nursing home residents an ‘illusion of control’ over their decisions made them live longer. In later studies, she’d found that she could make hotel maids lose weight simply by telling them that their work burned as many calories as a typical work-out.
In the 1979 study, conducted in a retrofitted monastery in New Hampshire, Langer and her colleagues found that instructing a group of elderly men to talk and act as though they were 20 years younger could reverse the aging process! Of course this was supported by a sort of total immersion effect in surroundings that obliterated all signs of the present.
So one group of men was made to “spend a week in the ‘nifty fifties,’ a time when an IBM computer filled a whole room and panty hose had just been introduced to US women,” Langer writes.
After just one week, the men in the experimental group (compared with controls of the same age) showed dramatic improvements in joint flexibility, dexterity, had less arthritis in their hands. Their mental acuity had risen measurably, and they had improved gait and posture. Outsiders who were shown the men’s photographs judged them to be significantly younger than their counterparts in the control group.
“This study shaped not only my view of aging but also my view of limits in a more general way for the next few decades,” she says.
“Over time I have come to believe less and less that biology is destiny. It is not primarily our physical selves that limit us but rather our mindset about our physical limits. Now I accept none of the medical wisdom regarding the courses our diseases must take as necessarily true.” As the Sanskrit proverb says, verily the mind alone accounts both for bondage as well as freedom!
The story of that electrifying experiment narrated in Langer’s best-seller Counterclockwise is now bought by Hollywood, with Jennifer Aniston cast in Langer’s role on the screen.
This has long been celebrated in traditional systems around the world, but it has been soundly disparaged by the votaries of western medicine rooting for a Cartesian split between the body and mind.
Earlier, Langer had found that merely by giving nursing home residents an ‘illusion of control’ over their decisions made them live longer. In later studies, she’d found that she could make hotel maids lose weight simply by telling them that their work burned as many calories as a typical work-out.
In the 1979 study, conducted in a retrofitted monastery in New Hampshire, Langer and her colleagues found that instructing a group of elderly men to talk and act as though they were 20 years younger could reverse the aging process! Of course this was supported by a sort of total immersion effect in surroundings that obliterated all signs of the present.
So one group of men was made to “spend a week in the ‘nifty fifties,’ a time when an IBM computer filled a whole room and panty hose had just been introduced to US women,” Langer writes.
After just one week, the men in the experimental group (compared with controls of the same age) showed dramatic improvements in joint flexibility, dexterity, had less arthritis in their hands. Their mental acuity had risen measurably, and they had improved gait and posture. Outsiders who were shown the men’s photographs judged them to be significantly younger than their counterparts in the control group.
“This study shaped not only my view of aging but also my view of limits in a more general way for the next few decades,” she says.
“Over time I have come to believe less and less that biology is destiny. It is not primarily our physical selves that limit us but rather our mindset about our physical limits. Now I accept none of the medical wisdom regarding the courses our diseases must take as necessarily true.” As the Sanskrit proverb says, verily the mind alone accounts both for bondage as well as freedom!
The story of that electrifying experiment narrated in Langer’s best-seller Counterclockwise is now bought by Hollywood, with Jennifer Aniston cast in Langer’s role on the screen.
Vithal C Nadkarni
All Hooked Up And Nowhere To Go
The US moral philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, once came up with an interesting thought experiment. In it, we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. A society of music lovers determines that only person A can save the violinist’s life by being hooked up to him for nine months. They break into A’s home while he’s asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to him.
A may want to unhook himself, but he is then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is a blameless person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
Thomsonobviously had other issues in mind when she devised this ingenious armchair exercise in ethical behaviour, and one that strikes us immediately is whether a woman has the right to have an abortion following rape. But even if we leave that contentious debate to the pro- and antichoice lobbies to bang their heads out over whether a foetus becomes as much of a ’person’ as, say a violinist, we can still apply the experiment to other kinds of more ordinary hook ups. Like arranged marriages for instance.
Generally speaking such matrimonies manage to function fairly well over time to a greater or lesser extent — perhaps due to personal, familial or societal reasons and people from monarchies to persons on the street have practised it for millennia.
Atypically, however, sometimes the situation begins to resemble that faced by the person who wakes up to find himself hooked up to the violinist. And, more often than not, only that person wants out. Should such people be allowed to exercise their right to happiness knowing that it could result in intense unhappiness for the innocent other who may also have been hooked up without choice or knowledge?
Ironically, so-called love marriages , advocated by the less conservative as the preferred pairbonding alternative, don’t weather the moral dilemma too well either. Barring the purely biological imperative for mating, is there really any choice being exercised when people fall in love?
For, if not, then the same argument as given for arranged marriages holds. In other words, what right do we have to consciously fall out of love and unhook from our lovers when we know the other party could die a slow and protracted emotional death?
A may want to unhook himself, but he is then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is a blameless person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
Thomsonobviously had other issues in mind when she devised this ingenious armchair exercise in ethical behaviour, and one that strikes us immediately is whether a woman has the right to have an abortion following rape. But even if we leave that contentious debate to the pro- and antichoice lobbies to bang their heads out over whether a foetus becomes as much of a ’person’ as, say a violinist, we can still apply the experiment to other kinds of more ordinary hook ups. Like arranged marriages for instance.
Generally speaking such matrimonies manage to function fairly well over time to a greater or lesser extent — perhaps due to personal, familial or societal reasons and people from monarchies to persons on the street have practised it for millennia.
Atypically, however, sometimes the situation begins to resemble that faced by the person who wakes up to find himself hooked up to the violinist. And, more often than not, only that person wants out. Should such people be allowed to exercise their right to happiness knowing that it could result in intense unhappiness for the innocent other who may also have been hooked up without choice or knowledge?
Ironically, so-called love marriages , advocated by the less conservative as the preferred pairbonding alternative, don’t weather the moral dilemma too well either. Barring the purely biological imperative for mating, is there really any choice being exercised when people fall in love?
For, if not, then the same argument as given for arranged marriages holds. In other words, what right do we have to consciously fall out of love and unhook from our lovers when we know the other party could die a slow and protracted emotional death?
Mukul Sharma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
