Saturday, December 28, 2013

Imprisoned by Thoughts


Courtesy –
Have you ever realized your thoughts? When you embed your sensations in the words of a language they become thoughts. These sensations are about the world around you hence these thoughts are the gateways for this world to enter YOU. This world intrudes upon you through your thoughts.

Sit comfortably and observe your thoughts. These are either the memory of your past or desires of your future. Thoughts do not exist in present. In the present, only the existence exists. You should understand this thing.
… …
Observe the flow of thoughts. They are always directed outwardly from you. Thoughts drain you out of you. They create a vacuum inside you after you are totally drained out. This vacuum is then filled by the thoughts of the world. When you sit, you find thoughts of office, spouse, children, neighbours, high school camping, strategies to overcome the growth of colleagues and the thoughts of everything. But you are nowhere in your thoughts. Thought are never about you.
… …
Sit and try to regulate the flow of your thoughts. Just try to channelize them. Try to focus your thoughts, say, on your spouse. Soon you find that you have thoughts about everything but of your spouse. Your thoughts slip away from your spouse. Again try to keep your thoughts away a particular object, say, your dog. Soon you realize that the thoughts are again encircle your dog. You try your thoughts to take away from your dog but they come again and again around and about the dog. Thoughts are like untamed beasts. They are not in your control rather you are very much in their control. Therefore your statement that your thoughts are yours is not true. However it may be true to say that you are of your thoughts.
… …
These thoughts are not under your control. They are not of you. These thoughts are not ‘yours’. These thoughts are beyond your power. Rather you are of these thoughts. Moreover, they control you. You are completely filled with these thoughts. You cannot live without thoughts. These thoughts are swaying you in random directions in a random fashion. You are flowing in your thoughts. You are helpless before these thoughts.

These thoughts are not only overshadowing you in your awakened state but they have entered into your sleep also. While with eyes opened, you have hypertension. While trying to close your eyes you have insomnia. Your thoughts have incapacitated you. You want to do but are not able to do. Your thoughts have made you pathetic.

Now you are captive of your thoughts; a prisoner imprisoned in the prison of thoughts.

Get rid of Your Thoughts.
XXXXXXXX                                              XXXXXXXX                                       

Friday, December 20, 2013

The Post Quantum God

The Post Quantum God

This article is a sequel of my earlier article “God of Contradictions”. It would be easy to appreciate it after reading the first one.

The science took lead in attacking the God. And then on being satisfied, after Nietzsche’s declaration regarding the death of the God, the scientists went ahead in the pursuit of giving this world a science suited God which would be well tested on all scientific laws and principles. Almost all scientists tried to defy or define the God. Some of them tried to carve it out of the physical material or obtain it as a product of some difficult chemical reaction.

In the early nineteenth century when the science was coming to its juvenility they concluded that the matter was everything; and the matter was only the thing which existed. Subsequently Einstein in the early twentieth century made some correction and declared that it is not the matter only rather it is the totality of the matter and energy which is conserved. He found that the matter and energy were inter-convertible. It was in fifties of the twentieth century when Schrödinger with the help of his parable of quantum cat made an announcement regarding the peaceful demise of the “Matter”. He said proudly that the matter existed no more.

On another front, during the life time of “matter”, Heisenberg brought the wave theory and told about the wave nature of matter. He said that the matter existed only in the form of wave. It was against the Newton's idea that the matter existed with the particle nature. Then the French scholar de Broglie postulated the dual nature of the matter and said that with some indeterminate factor implicit therein a matter has both the characteristics of a particle and of a wave. It can be, at the same time a particle and a wave both without any contradiction.

It was the first time in the history of science when the contradiction was accepted as an essential part of a scientific theory. However the future was more fertile for the contradictions and probabilities to grow in scientific theories. In the quantum era of sciences, it appeared that the whole universe is nothing more than throwing a dice. The theory of probability prevailed on all scientific results and outcomes. If two fundamental particles were to interact with each other their results were only a probability. Nothing was sure and certain.

This Quantum Theory involved so many contingencies and probabilities that even Einstein could not digest the idea of the existence of the universe only as a probability. According to him "God reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists". He (Einstein) was not easy to listen from the quantum physicists that the existence of the universe is nothing but a chance.

On the experimental level the quantum theory provided new vistas of possibilities. When an electron interacted with a positron (an anti particle of the electron) both of them disappeared and only energy particles (called neutrinos) remained there. Similarly when two neutrinos were brought near each other, a pair of an electron and a positron appeared in the vacuum. This is called a pair production in quantum physics.

It shows that the existence is not the only thing "existing" in this universe but its "potential" is also equally important. It is the potential which comes into the existence and it is the existence which disappears and reduces itself into a potential (i.e. a potential to exist). Remember here that the potential (in the form of neutrinos) comes into the existence (pair of the electron and the positron) and the existence goes into inexistence and becomes a potential. Potential is only a possibility; it is only a probability. It does not exist, it is inexistent but it can give birth to the existence. The science is saying that the existence and the non existence are two aspects of the same thing. They both are inter-convertible. !!!!!!!!!.

Take a short pause. Our language is being stretched to its maximum to explain this concept of existence and the non existence. It is against all the arguments that the existence and non-existence both are the same. Arguments fail to elaborate how a thing can be existent and non-existent at the same time; how an existing thing can be an non-existing thing. How these two can correspond to the same ….. (thing, existence, matter, object, contradiction, non-existence, nothing, none ... not any one of these words is suitable here to give a clear picture). This is again a limitation of the language to describe the world. Languages create a contradiction when they are used to describe the world. (And the Learned ones argue about the contradictions in describing the God which is all encompassing; reference to my article “The God of Contradictions”).

One thing that surfaces here is that the languages are only for serving the routine life purposes. When used to describe the existence or non-existence of the God they start giving problems. The languages always develop out of the routine experience of the people concerned. Languages contain only those words which reflect daily experiences of those who have developed them. Hence, languages are the collections of past experiences of the people who created and developed those languages. By their very nature, languages are not to have diction for the experiences of people which have not been experienced so far. That is why a Sahara region language does not have all words of experience as the language of Inuit people (Eskimos) has. Similarly all other languages of human beings have and contain only those words which describe the common experiences of those human beings. This is why the languages have words which correspond to the objective world.

So whenever someone is to tell something about the existence, the God or the essence or the Absolute, which are not the daily experiences, all details cannot be verbally communicated. Any communication with verbal expressions is bound to create contradictions. To be free from contradiction it must be consisting of some non verbal component of communication.

The problem with this non-verbal component of communication is with its communicability. How one would communicate that non-verbal component of communication to others. Probably it cannot be. So the recipient would have to be subjective to that extent. He has to develop his own methodology to understand what was infact communicated through that non-verbal component of communication. It is quite possible that the transmitter is transmitting something different from what is being received by the recipient.

This non-verbal component of communication would always form the basis of the knowledge (if this word may be used for the knowledge) of the absolute or the God or the existence and it will be subjective only. Therefore any absolute knowledge will have an essential subjective component. Without this subjective component a knowledge cannot be complete; it would not be able to comprehend the contradictions involved and also the probabilities of existence.

For those who do not find this complexity of the subject very interesting, we go back to the interesting level. There are some who say that the love is God. There are some others who say that the truth is God. Still there are some more who say that the beauty is God. You are not at liberty to say that it is not God. It is the subjectivity of the person concerned which determines what is God and it is this subjectivity only which further determines as what is understood by the God. It is again possible that the picture of God in your mind may be entirely different from the picture of God in other’s mind. There is no objective scale to measure the attributes of the God so as to broadcast them for all.

If for you the love is God, even then you cannot determine objectively the nature of the love and the God, which is acceptable to all others. So leave defining the love and the God. Be the love so to be the God. You cannot know the God. For if you claim to know the God then it would be attacked by objective arguments regarding your knowledge and you would not be in a position to explain it as it would be containing that non verbal component of subjectivity. This non verbal component of subjectivity is incapable of being expressed. So don’t know what cannot be known.

The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc cannot be established by the science or the reason or the arguments or any other objective criterion. Ultimately it has to have some subjective component of comprehension. Here again a danger has crept into. Someone may argue that The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc all depend on the comprehension and hence if one, say an insane, does not comprehend them, would it be the end of The God, the Existence, the Essence, the Absolute etc.

It is submitted by the author please do not lead the verbal arguments. These verbal arguments do not correspond to the reality in entirety.

Be love and attain the Godship. If for you the truth is the God then be the truth and attain the Godship. If the beauty is the God for you then do not try to know the beauty, better is to be the beauty to rise to the Godship. Do not know the God, do not try to establish the God argumentatively it is deceptive. Be the God, attain the Godship. 
The scientific objectivity is allowed only to a particular level of existence. Beyond it the objectivity is barred. This article tells how to proceed there in that domain.

God of Contradictions

God of Contradictions

Birth of the God and its early childhood:

Learned ones say that in the early years of his birth, man needed an answer to all the mystic questions posed by the nature. Wherever he had no reason he invented a super-reason. He called this super reason – the God.

Subsequently this concept of God was coupled with  life, norms of life, moral conduct, social values, rituals and performances. As the consciousness of man developed and he evolved a systematic study of surroundings his this super reason and the mysticism around it started being questioned. The super reason and all related mysticism were then known as religion and this systematic study of surroundings is known as science. The friction between the religion and the science has been an essential part of the human history of civilization.

The God and its theory have always been under the attack not from the scientists only, which goes a few hundred years back in time, but also from those members of the society who claimed themselves to be analytics and are as old as is the society and the concept of the God. They claim that they are as old as is the God. History calls them as atheists.

A number of arguments were led and countered for the God. A number of battles were fought either as crusade or jihad in the name of God. The human history has never let the God, sit calmly and peacefully.

The fiercest attack by the science:

Prior to the development of science the battle between the theistic and atheistic groups were mainly argumentative. These arguments were led with varying sentence structures, different syntax and well developed syllogism. Their refutation was a bit easy. When the science joined the fray it claimed to have changed the scenario in its entirety. 

The science started dispelling the arguments of God on the basis of facts. The sciences broke the myth that the God is on the seventh sky. Science tracked the interstellar distances and told with factual correctness that there was a vacuum and other celestial bodies and not the layers of the skies.

Religious people said that there was heaven and there were angles, enjoyment and many other things of leisurely life. The science declared that there is not even a possibility of any life in the universe except on the earth, at least not within a radius of several million light years around our Milky Way galaxy. 

They said every thing is done by the God in this world. The sciences told that there is a principle of causality. Provide the causes the effect will take place. It is as certain as that.

Similarly other beliefs of the religion and the God were dispelled by science. 

The theists took a new stand (Please take a pause for a moment). They said that science has itself proposed a limit of knowledge. Beyond which sciences cannot go. They take such instances from science itself. Heisenberg proposed the uncertainty principle. He said whatever the techniques and methodologies are adopted there is a limit of precision with which the position and velocity of a sub-atomic particle can be measured. 

The sciences cannot go beyond that limit of precision. Similarly Einstein said that there was the upper limit of speed which can be attained. It was the speed (precisely it is called the velocity) of light. It shows that the human efforts to explore the nature are constricted by the tools of the nature itself. No man, if continuously remains busy in observing the universe can “look” beyond an area of 70-80 light years of universal existence. This is approximately the life span of that man. Those who have read about the dimensions of universe as billions of light years know that any period less than 100 light years is a very small distance. It shows that if a man continuously keeps looking in the depths of the space around then he can view only a negligibly small portion of the universe even after spending his whole life.

Is this nature so evolved (or made, as the theists argue) that it is not to reveal itself on the human minds? Theists say yes. They say it is only for the God to know every thing and not for the humans who are just one among all the creations in this universe. They argue something like “apple argument” at the time of Edam’s expulsion from the heaven. From their arguments it appears that God wants to maintain a gap between his expertise and the human accessibility.
Scientists find this argument against the proposition that the God is kind and has mercy and compassion for his creation. If He is compassionate enough then why He wants to keep the secrets of nature inaccessible from the human approach?

Whatever be the next argument but please mind it here that these arguments at this point have re-entered the pre-scientific era (When the words, sentences, syntax and syllogism was resorted to find the truth). In these arguments (in the previous para)  they are again contending their validity based on the logic, syntax and syllogism. So the sciences are not so designed as to answer all the questions of theists. This is somewhat similar to the religion which is so formulated that it is unable to answer all the questions of atheists. 

Then would this problem of God’s existence be solved again using those pre-scientific tools – arguments, logic, reason, sentences, syntaxes, syllogistic approaches? In the early twentieth century Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his “Tractatus” that the language is like a tool box. The words have nothing inherent in them; their meaning largely depends on the way and in the manner which they are used in. Later on the philosophers of Vienna circle followed him and put forward their principle that using the ambiguities of languages we pose such questions which are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. 

Philosophers of Vienna circle, infact explained that when the question are posed away from the area of existence and only in the intricacies of the language these become pseudo questions. These questions have nothing to do with the problems of existence. This is merely a verbal jugglery. Most of the questions regarding the God, the soul, the heavens, the sin, the evil etc. are such pseudo questions.

What is the real question?

The God, the soul etc. are the states of existence. People whenever refer to the existence they do it with the help of languages which they have developed during the course of their history. In the language of Inuit people the word corresponding to the snow are many more time than the words in other European languages collectively. The words related to the God in Indian languages are several times more than the words in any other language. So when you translate an instance of snow from the Inuit language into some Sahara region language, having almost no word for snow, then you may not find a proper word to describe a particular instance related to snow in that Inuit language. It reflects the limitations of the Sahara language and not the limitation of the snow or that particular instance of snow. Similarly whenever any instance of transcendental experience is told in worldly languages and if it does not convey the full meaning to the listener then it shows the limitations of the worldly languages and not that of the transcendental experience.

Whenever any description of the God is made and it appears to be creating a contradiction in terms then, infact,  it is a contradiction or limitation of the language and not that of the God. It must be understood that the languages generally fail to express the existence. These languages are just ad hoc tools to deal with the factual position at the empirical level. “Dasein” in Heidegger’s philosophy, “chi” in Chinese tradition, “Braham” in Indian life are some such concepts which cannot be translated in any other language of the world. It shows only a limitation of the other languages of the world and not that of “Dasein” or “chi” or “Braham”. It should be understood clearly.

There fore when something is told about the God or the existence or the essence and it appears to be giving rise to a contradicting situation then prior to making a final statements about the God or the existence or the essence or the absolute, reconsideration must be made to the languages in which it is told. That would help in reformulating the real questions.

“Reason” is only a small faculty in the human brain:

Human beings have various faculties in their brain. These are emotional, aesthetic, logical, practical, verbal, spatial, temporal, interpersonal, affectional, social, motivational and a hundreds more. Modern psychologists call them multiple intelligences.

Some people love their children, their country and their values and there is no reason behind it. Some others do not love their children, their country or values. This is always a matter of choice. No argument, applicable to all can be given asking every body to choose the same option e.g. to love or not to love one's children, country or values. This is one’s choice to comprehend one’s children, country or values. He has arrived at these conclusions subjectively. No objective intervention is possible for shaping one’s internal choice. Arguments are advanced objectively and correspond to only those aspects of life which are equally objective. 

But this opens a new window for those who argue about the God or no-God. Argument is not everything. A lot of existence lies beyond the domain of this ‘argument’. Argument is only to see the harmony between two sentences. Arguments do not survive beyond the words and sentences. Whatever is non verbal is non argumentative. Love, compassion, bliss, blessings and prayer (in the heart) etc. are all examples of non argumentative existence. Either you are in love for someone or you are not. No argument can be forwarded for being or not being in love. 

The same is true for God. You may realize God or you may not. But it is all about you and nothing about the God. Whenever you realize about the God it is totally a non verbal grasping of things and it cannot be injected into you with a syringe of arguments. Those who lead arguments in favour of or against the God, infact tell about their arguments, premises of their arguments. And there is nothing about the God.

If the arguments are accepted for or against the God then it will be tantamount to show that the human reason goes beyond and is all-encompassing everything including the existence, validity, cause, effect and purpose of the God. This would be tantamount to say that the God, who by definition is all inclusive of the human beings, non human beings, animals, non living beings, celestial bodies, interstellar space, black holes, supernovas and all those things which are not yet known and would be known in future through the discoveries of science etc., is subservient to the human reason which has yet to know the whole creation and its amplitude. This then would be an anti-argument to the aforesaid argument that the God can be known through the human reason. 

Again it would go to the domain of verbal communication. Again Wittgenstein would be referred to and again the Vienna circle would come to check the verifiability and falsifiability of arguments. You would again be back to the point zero and you would be standing trapped in a fallacy of arguments. 

Arguments of reason about the God will do it again and again. A contradiction is about to be encountered always whenever you proceed to lead arguments for or against the God. Your reason has a limitation as Heisenberg and Einstein proposed the limitations about the scientific research. There is always a limitation on “knowing” the God. You can never know the God. You can never know the God in a manner as you know about your pencil or diary or dating schedule.
There is only one way out. If you cannot know the God then the way is to be the God. This will be the subject matter of my next article titled as “The Post Quantum God”.

This article tells that the contradiction is a hurdle only at the level of the languages; the existence is not hampered by the contradictions. Languages have their own limitation therefore they cannot be the last arbiter to decide regarding the existence, god or the essence.