Teaching: Past, present and future

In ancient India, education was imparted in Gurukuls, and teachers were called Gurus. To translate the word Guru as teacher, would, however, be a gross misrepresentation. The Guru of ancient India not only imparted education to the kids but also stood as the symbol of knowledge in the society. The Guru was also the adviser to Kings and other people in the society. The concept of Guru in ancient India is beautifully depicted in this well known Sanskrit sloka:

Guru Brahma Gurur Vishnu

Guru Devo Maheshwaraha

Guru Saakshat Para Brahma

Tasmai Sree Gurave Namaha

Guru is verily the representative of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

He creates, sustains knowledge and destroys the weeds of ignorance.

I salute such a Guru.

As time went by, the above verse met the same fate as that of many ancient things. The words remained, but the meaning was lost.

Free Will, Destiny and D-Will

While delivering a lecture in New York on Jan 10, 1896, Vivekananda said:

There cannot be any such thing as free will. The very words are a contradiction, because will is what we know, and everything that we know is within our universe. Everything within our universe is moulded by the conditions of space, time, and causation. Everything that we know, or can possibly know, must be subject to causation, and that which obeys the law of causation cannot be free.

The Paradox of Difference

Everybody claims to be different from others, and yet we are all so much the same!

Religion : A statistical property

Creationists have surely given a very hard time to evolutionary biologists. This is not because the arguments of creationists are rational, but simply because of the opposite reason. And given the important positions that many creationists occupy in the social ladder, it is not even possible to just ignore them and move on. Creationists are, basically, religious people who like to adhere to their beliefs in all circumstances irrespective of the fact that exists evidence that falsifies their beliefs. However, all religions of the world are not opposed to the idea of evolution. This fact tempts one to conclude that religions belonging to one set are more scientific than the religions belonging to another. But, as of now, there is no data available to verify this statement. Also, in the history of mankind, many great scientists, specially mathematicians, were actually very religious.

Bushisms and Obamatrix

It is great injustice that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize before Bush. Bush had also done exactly what Obama did. Both of them gave the world so much reason to laugh. And Bush deserves it more, because to laugh on Obama's statement, one has to do some research and realize the comedy. It takes some time and effort. But don't worry Bush, you will get it in 2010. May be both should also get the Nobel Prize for Medicine, because laughing keeps a person physically and mentally fit. Now, if you think that my previous statement was a poor joke, I am just trying to catch up with the PJ talent of The Nobel Foundation. I am afraid that the Nobel Foundation will beat me hands down in the competition by awarding the Nobel Prize for Economics to Obama too for his policies (no comments!) to bring back the US financial sector from the abysmal state it has been since the Lehman collapse. All the best, Mr. Prez!

3-Iron

3-Iron is a Korean movie directed by Ki-duk Kim. I watched it a few days back with one of my friends. The movie is fabulous. Just great!! Alongwith the rest of the movie, I also really loved its ending. I mean, not just the story part of it, but the way it was shown. A clip of the ending is available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9D5PADmrrU. The sound track is also awesome!! Since I found this clip on YouTube, I have watched it more than 10 times in 2 days!!

What we truly are

"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices."

Objective Subjectivity

The debate between an objective view and subjective view has been going on in my mind since a long time. I have never been able to decide which is better and ought to be followed. In Indian Philosophical thought, though we have the idea of one Absolute entity, but there are so many different paths one could follow. There are so many schools of thought viz. Advaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaita, and may be more. Which one of them is the best? Some say that its a matter of preference. And some try to prove the supremacy of their own convictions. So, is it completely left to the individual to decide? If thats the case, then he/she may choose any of these or may come up with a belief system of his own and this may contradict the existing systems. It would also not be correct to say that an individual is free to choose as long as he chooses something from the existing ideas and does not start his own new theory. When there is no clear 'best' philosophy, then how can we prevent others from coming up with new ideas? It is quite possible that there is a 'best' philosophy waiting to be discovered. But allowing complete freedom to an individual could also be dangerous, because a person who is not bound to anything may get easily misguided by others or his own mind. So, there is a need for an objective idea also.

Eyes to see and Legs to run

One of the most commonly asked questions in modern times is, "Which will win in the end: Science or Spirituality?"

Life in a Metro

Recently, I watched the movie "Life in a Metro". Really nice movie. Depicts the "modern" aspects of the lives of people who live in metropolitan cities. The characters that I am going to talk about are Rahul, Neha and Shikha. But there were also a few more who played a very good role. This movie raises some issues that need to be addressed.

comments on "Touchy Ego"

When I forwarded the article Touchy Ego to some of my friends, I got a mixed response. Some of them were very pleased to read this article and some of them replied back saying that this was meaningless. I would like to make some comments on this article and the response I received.

Touchy Ego

What follows is a wonderful article. It was not written by me. I got this as a forward and dont know who the real author is. I liked it so much that I decided to put it on my blog.

Sat-Chit-Ananda

It is well known that there are three prominent theories pertaining to God and this world. One is Advaita, other is Vishistadvaita and third is Dvaita. It has been a source of conflict between many as to which of these three is actually true. Although many people say that these represent different levels of reality and that Advaita is really the most superior one, but things are not very clear. Why should a dvaitin accept this view? Today while reading "Brahmasutras", one thought dawned on me. It is said that Brahman is Sat-Chit-Ananda. We can relate these three words to the three theories mentioned above. "Sat" is "Existence" which means that Brahman is aware of its own existence and does not acknowledge the existence of anything separate from it. So, this "Sat" element is like Advaita. Now, "Chit" is knowledge. This is like Vishishtadvaita in the sense that in this theory, there is a supposed difference between Jiva and Brahman and it is by knowledge of its true nature that a Jiva can reach Brahman. "Ananda" resembles Dvaita. This is clear because a bhakta who believes in dvaita is completely filled with the divine joy of chanting the Lord's name.

So, Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita resemble the three aspects of the Supreme Reality namely Sat-Chit-Ananda. And one cant exist without the other. So, there is no contradiction between the three theories and neither of them is higher or lower. They all represent three different aspects of the same reality.