Back in India. Feeling worn out. The daunting task of finishing the design documents before next weekend stares and makes me feel helpless.
Listening to MS Subbulakshmi again. There are so many songs which became famous because of her. I'm just eternally grateful for having been able to listen to her. Different renditions by her take me by storm at different periods. Today it's "Paalinchu Kaamaakshi" set to Madhyamaavathi. I mean, what a song!! Brings tear to my eyes just listening to it.
On a different note, i had written down the following lines while i was in UK. I have this habit of writing down lines that impress me while watching movies or TV:
You can write about reality with a rubber better than with a pencil.
I can agree with none of my statements. I cannot even agree with this one.
You can always tell the winners and you can always tell the losers.
I'm alone not lonely.
I say never be complete. Let's evolve
You are just dust and ashes to me now.
Enjoy your hole. Have fun rotting by yourself.
Women need to be feel loved to have sex and Men to have sex to feel loved.
Now i'm done believing you
Friday, 5 December 2008
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Disturbed
An argument which happened last week has left me disturbed. It happens with me whenever i end up saying or doing things on which i don't have full conviction. Also, I’m on a major guilt ride because I didn’t end up communicating what i truly feel about the given topic/subject and because emotions got better of me.
It's true that people don't have time. You are perceived based on your actions and words. It's very difficult to fully communicate what you truly feel about a subject.
The challenge has always been in communicating my true belief in what Gandhi famously said on this subject "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides, and my windows to be closed. Instead, I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
Any allegiance is difficult to stand by and that even applies to not having any sort of allegiance.
Painting one negatively is so very easy. We all want to box others. We want to typecast them in moulds we are comfortable with. That's an easy option. To do that a person's denominations help us - Language, race, religion, caste, nation, state, place. So, it becomes all the more important that communication is precise, unambiguous and clear.
It is important to me rather very important to me that i view myself as a liberal. More than what others perceive it is important to me that i'm a free spirit and an explorer. Because heart of hearts i'm convinced that's what i'm. I don't have sense of belonging with anything. I’ve seen for myself how fluid my belief system has been over the years.
Having said that, i can't deny the fact that my language, my race, my religion, my country, my caste, my place in no particular order have had a bearing on what i'm today. How much ever i end up embracing other things my heart does still leap in joy whenever i come across things which remind me of my upbringing.
Am i a cultural bigot? My tastes, my interests, my friends/acquaintances don't seem indicate that i'm one.
All said, seeing it from the context of the argument which has triggered this post, I think I still stand by my argument that any form of imposition is wrong. Freewill within legitimate boundaries should reign supreme. Accommodation of differences is the essence of a matured and forward looking society.
If you are wondering what the fuss is all about – the context is I had an argument with a friend of mine in which I said vernacular languages must be respected, allowed to prosper and imposition of any kind should be resisted. The crux of my argument is that the cornerstone of this nation is its diversity and that the moment we give into the urge to homogenize it will fall apart. Heady respect for local cultures would mean different groups will feel wanted and that would bind this nation even further.
Case rested.
It's true that people don't have time. You are perceived based on your actions and words. It's very difficult to fully communicate what you truly feel about a subject.
The challenge has always been in communicating my true belief in what Gandhi famously said on this subject "I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides, and my windows to be closed. Instead, I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any."
Any allegiance is difficult to stand by and that even applies to not having any sort of allegiance.
Painting one negatively is so very easy. We all want to box others. We want to typecast them in moulds we are comfortable with. That's an easy option. To do that a person's denominations help us - Language, race, religion, caste, nation, state, place. So, it becomes all the more important that communication is precise, unambiguous and clear.
It is important to me rather very important to me that i view myself as a liberal. More than what others perceive it is important to me that i'm a free spirit and an explorer. Because heart of hearts i'm convinced that's what i'm. I don't have sense of belonging with anything. I’ve seen for myself how fluid my belief system has been over the years.
Having said that, i can't deny the fact that my language, my race, my religion, my country, my caste, my place in no particular order have had a bearing on what i'm today. How much ever i end up embracing other things my heart does still leap in joy whenever i come across things which remind me of my upbringing.
Am i a cultural bigot? My tastes, my interests, my friends/acquaintances don't seem indicate that i'm one.
All said, seeing it from the context of the argument which has triggered this post, I think I still stand by my argument that any form of imposition is wrong. Freewill within legitimate boundaries should reign supreme. Accommodation of differences is the essence of a matured and forward looking society.
If you are wondering what the fuss is all about – the context is I had an argument with a friend of mine in which I said vernacular languages must be respected, allowed to prosper and imposition of any kind should be resisted. The crux of my argument is that the cornerstone of this nation is its diversity and that the moment we give into the urge to homogenize it will fall apart. Heady respect for local cultures would mean different groups will feel wanted and that would bind this nation even further.
Case rested.
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Lazy Saturday Afternoon....Random Thoughts
Struggling to get out of home. Not feeling like cooking. It's three in the afternoon i still haven't had any food. Last night's drinking has left me feeling numb. It was fun watching people dance in the two nightclubs we went to...some danced well...some made a mockery of dancing...Trying out steps they have seen others perform well...or dancing from memory. It was interesting to just sit back and watch....watching people letting go of their inhibitions....the smoke, fluorescent colors, frenzied dancing...I hadn't heard most of the songs they played out there. They did play some customary hits from 80s and 90s. To tell you the truth i felt left out or rather left behind. And I know no effort is going to make up....i couldn't have danced...There's too much danger in dancing...that is when you don't know how to dance!!
As I write this I ‘m sprawled in the couch and watching a Spanish movie i brought in HMV last week. No background score, so intense.....
Thinking of going out and having Italian..it's kinda become a ritual to have penne fresco week in and week out in Bella Italia. More than food i like reading Times newspaper out there.
Eyes are closing on their own. Struggling to stay awake.
Ganguly scored a century today. Couldn't moderate my opinion that he is scoring runs in this last stage of his career outta sheer determination more than outta form and technique. I felt disappointed y'day when Dravid got out after a good start. Every time an Indian test innings starts i look forward to Dravid playing well. It's like a part of me is being on trial. I don't know how it has come to this....the way i identify myself with this metaphor of Dravid's successes and failures:-)
As I write this I ‘m sprawled in the couch and watching a Spanish movie i brought in HMV last week. No background score, so intense.....
Thinking of going out and having Italian..it's kinda become a ritual to have penne fresco week in and week out in Bella Italia. More than food i like reading Times newspaper out there.
Eyes are closing on their own. Struggling to stay awake.
Ganguly scored a century today. Couldn't moderate my opinion that he is scoring runs in this last stage of his career outta sheer determination more than outta form and technique. I felt disappointed y'day when Dravid got out after a good start. Every time an Indian test innings starts i look forward to Dravid playing well. It's like a part of me is being on trial. I don't know how it has come to this....the way i identify myself with this metaphor of Dravid's successes and failures:-)
Sunday, 12 October 2008
Siddhartha, An Indian Tale
My Take
I just finished reading Siddhartha, An Indian Tale (You can download the e-book using the link http://www.transitory.org/kris/ebooks/siddhartha.pdf). I enjoyed reading it. Finished reading it in 2 days flat since it is a very small book. Written by Hermann Hesse, a Nobel laureate, this allegorical novel will definitely set you thinking. This German novel was originally published in 1922 and was translated into English in the fifties. Being a translation you will find the novel’s language a tad unusual. Don’t get deterred by that. Also, let me tell right in the beginning that the protoganist of this book Siddhartha is not the same person as the Buddha, who, in the book goes by the name, "Gautama".
There is a Wikepedia page dedicated to this novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29. And you can learn more about Hermann Hesse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hesse.
Plot Summary:
When Siddhartha, the gifted and popular son of a Brahmin, gets weary of the formal and strict ways of Hindu prayer and sacrifice, he leaves home together with Govinda, his admiring friend. (Govinda is also one of the names of Krishna. Translated literally, it means "the protector of the cows.") They join a group of Samanas, wandering monks living in the woods who try to conquer the inner self by fasting and living like ascetics. After three years of this life, the boys hear about the Buddha and leave the samanas to listen to his teachings. Govinda joins the Buddhist monks. Siddhartha, however, is convinced that only personal experience and not external teachings can lead to true knowledge and salvation. From there he decides to "find himself" and re-enters the world.
He wanders on and reaches the house of a rich courtesan, Kamala, who begins to take a liking to the young man. She tells him that in order for her to teach him the art of love, he must find a job and return with gifts. Siddhartha becomes assistant to a merchant, Kamaswami, and turns out to be quite successful. At first he remains detached and rather amused about how seriously the "child people" take everyday matters, but gradually he immerses himself into a life of gambling and greed. Eventually, unhappy and tired of playing life like an empty game, he leaves again.
After a spell of depression, he feels the joy of new-found freedom, happy to have had the past experiences. At a river, he meets for the second time in his life the contented ferryman, Vasudeva, and decides to stay with him. (Vasudeva is also the name of an important figure in Hinduism.) The two share a deep love for the river and work together as ferrymen. Meanwhile, Kamala, unbeknownst to Siddhartha, had given birth to his son. When she and her son go on a pilgrimage to see the Buddha, Kamala is bitten by a snake near the river. Before she dies, she recognizes Siddhartha and tells him the boy is his son. Siddhartha takes care of his discontented son and tries to instill appreciation of the simple life and virtue into him. Ultimately, he fails and his son leaves the river to return to the city and live his own life. Siddhartha searches for his son and is worried for him. Vasudeva cautions Siddartha that a father cannot take away the suffering his son will experience since it is his son's suffering and the suffering is necessary for him to learn about his life.
It is after his son leaves him that Siddhartha recognizes the essence of all wisdom is the oneness of all. Together with Vasudeva, he listens to the many voices of the river which come to represent the oneness of all the people, plants and animals. The noise of the mingled voices of the river melds into the sacred syllable, "Om." After the realization, the old ferryman Vasudeva leaves for the forest . Siddhartha's friend of his youth, Govinda, comes by the river, still a Buddhist monk and still searching. When he asks about the teaching that has brought Siddhartha peace, Siddhartha replies that too much searching can get in the way of finding, that time is an illusion and all is one. Everything deserves love, except words: true wisdom cannot be conveyed with words or thoughts. At Siddhartha's request, Govinda kisses him on the forehead, no longer seeing his friend Siddhartha, but rather a sea of people, animals, plants and other objects of the world. In doing this, Govinda discovers the oneness of the universe, just as Guatama and Siddhartha had before him, leaving Siddhartha and Govinda at peace with the world.
I just finished reading Siddhartha, An Indian Tale (You can download the e-book using the link http://www.transitory.org/kris/ebooks/siddhartha.pdf). I enjoyed reading it. Finished reading it in 2 days flat since it is a very small book. Written by Hermann Hesse, a Nobel laureate, this allegorical novel will definitely set you thinking. This German novel was originally published in 1922 and was translated into English in the fifties. Being a translation you will find the novel’s language a tad unusual. Don’t get deterred by that. Also, let me tell right in the beginning that the protoganist of this book Siddhartha is not the same person as the Buddha, who, in the book goes by the name, "Gautama".
There is a Wikepedia page dedicated to this novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhartha_%28novel%29. And you can learn more about Hermann Hesse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Hesse.
Plot Summary:
When Siddhartha, the gifted and popular son of a Brahmin, gets weary of the formal and strict ways of Hindu prayer and sacrifice, he leaves home together with Govinda, his admiring friend. (Govinda is also one of the names of Krishna. Translated literally, it means "the protector of the cows.") They join a group of Samanas, wandering monks living in the woods who try to conquer the inner self by fasting and living like ascetics. After three years of this life, the boys hear about the Buddha and leave the samanas to listen to his teachings. Govinda joins the Buddhist monks. Siddhartha, however, is convinced that only personal experience and not external teachings can lead to true knowledge and salvation. From there he decides to "find himself" and re-enters the world.
He wanders on and reaches the house of a rich courtesan, Kamala, who begins to take a liking to the young man. She tells him that in order for her to teach him the art of love, he must find a job and return with gifts. Siddhartha becomes assistant to a merchant, Kamaswami, and turns out to be quite successful. At first he remains detached and rather amused about how seriously the "child people" take everyday matters, but gradually he immerses himself into a life of gambling and greed. Eventually, unhappy and tired of playing life like an empty game, he leaves again.
After a spell of depression, he feels the joy of new-found freedom, happy to have had the past experiences. At a river, he meets for the second time in his life the contented ferryman, Vasudeva, and decides to stay with him. (Vasudeva is also the name of an important figure in Hinduism.) The two share a deep love for the river and work together as ferrymen. Meanwhile, Kamala, unbeknownst to Siddhartha, had given birth to his son. When she and her son go on a pilgrimage to see the Buddha, Kamala is bitten by a snake near the river. Before she dies, she recognizes Siddhartha and tells him the boy is his son. Siddhartha takes care of his discontented son and tries to instill appreciation of the simple life and virtue into him. Ultimately, he fails and his son leaves the river to return to the city and live his own life. Siddhartha searches for his son and is worried for him. Vasudeva cautions Siddartha that a father cannot take away the suffering his son will experience since it is his son's suffering and the suffering is necessary for him to learn about his life.
It is after his son leaves him that Siddhartha recognizes the essence of all wisdom is the oneness of all. Together with Vasudeva, he listens to the many voices of the river which come to represent the oneness of all the people, plants and animals. The noise of the mingled voices of the river melds into the sacred syllable, "Om." After the realization, the old ferryman Vasudeva leaves for the forest . Siddhartha's friend of his youth, Govinda, comes by the river, still a Buddhist monk and still searching. When he asks about the teaching that has brought Siddhartha peace, Siddhartha replies that too much searching can get in the way of finding, that time is an illusion and all is one. Everything deserves love, except words: true wisdom cannot be conveyed with words or thoughts. At Siddhartha's request, Govinda kisses him on the forehead, no longer seeing his friend Siddhartha, but rather a sea of people, animals, plants and other objects of the world. In doing this, Govinda discovers the oneness of the universe, just as Guatama and Siddhartha had before him, leaving Siddhartha and Govinda at peace with the world.
Definition of Style By Richard Templar in his book 'Rules at Work'
Style = Tasteful, Formal, Civilized, Sophisticated, Elegant, Cultured, Refined, Discerning, Recognizable, Expensive, Loose
God in Stephen Hawking's A briefer history of time
My Intro:
Yesterday I finished reading Stephen Hawking's ‘A briefer history of time’. Reading it, I must candidly admit, my inadequacy in Physics stood thoroughly exposedJ Most of the concepts were more than handful for me. With such commoditized science books a layman like me tends to broadly understand the conclusions the author draws. That’s that. The reasoning involved in drawing those conclusions is either too detailed or too complex to understand. That said, I still would recommend this book to you guys for it makes one appreciate the vastness & complexity of the universe we live in and how insignificant our existence really is. Questions, which plague us forever, get discussed in elaborate detail: How did the Universe start? Where is it headed? Time’s nature? There are also lots of interesting anecdotes about different scientists who have made significant contributions in arriving at the current level of understanding. Hawking’s ruminations on God interested me most. I have given them below:
Excerpts from the Book
Page 15, Chapter 3: The Nature of a Scientific Theory
There is this question about initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that God, being omnipotent, could have started the universe off any way He wanted. That may be so, but in that case God also could have made it develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that God chose to make it evolve in a very regular way, according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.
Page 23, Chapter 4: Newton’s Universe
Newton was very worried by this lack of absolute position, or absolute space, as it was called, because it didn’t accord with his idea of an absolute God. In fact, he refused to accept the lack of absolute space, even though his laws implied it. He was severely criticized for this irrational belief by many people, most notably by Bishop Berkely, a philosopher who believed that all material objects and space and time are an illusion. When the famous Dr.Johnson was told Berkely’s opinion, he cried, “I refute it thus!” and stubbed his toe on a large stone.
Page 87, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
Is it really possible for scientists to calculate what all our actions will be in future? A glass of water contains more than 1024 molecules (a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros). In practice we can never hope to know the state of each of these molecules, much less the complete state of the universe or even of our bodies. Yet to say that the universe is deterministic means that even if we don’t have the brainpower to do the calculation, our futures are nevertheless deterministic. This doctrine of scientific determinism was strongly resisted by many people, who felt it infringed God’s freedom to make the world run as He saw fit. But it remained the standard assumption of science until the early years of twentieth century. One of the first indications that this belief would have to be abandoned came when the British scientists Lord Rayleigh and Sir James calculated the amount of blackbody radiation that a hot object such as a star must radiate.
Page 93, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
Quantum mechanics therefore introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science. Einstein objected to this very strongly, despite the important role he had played in the development of these ideas. In fact, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum theory. Nevertheless, he never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement “God does not play dice.”
Page 102, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
In the classical theory of gravity, there are only two possible ways the universe can behave: either it has existed for an infinite time, or else it had a beginning at a singularity at some finite time in the past. For reasons we have discussed earlier, we believe that the universe has not existed forever. Yet if it had a beginning, according to classical general relativity, in order to know which solution of Einstein’s equations describes our universe, we must know its initial state – that is, exactly how the universe began. God may have originally decreed the laws of nature, but it appears that He has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not intervene in it. How did He choose the initial state or configuration of the universe? What were the boundary conditions at the beginning of time? In classical general relativity this is a problem, because classical general relativity breaks down at the beginning of the universe.
If there is no boundary to space-time, there is no need to specify the behavior at the boundary – no need to know the initial state of the universe. There is no edge of space-time at which we would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. We would say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would just BE. As long as we believed the universe had a beginning, the role of a creator seemed clear. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, having neither beginning nor end, then the answer is not so obvious: what is the role of a creator?
Page 134: Chapter 11: The forces of Nature and Unification of Physics
There seem to be three possibilities:
There really is complete unified theory (or a collection of overlapping formulations), which we will someday discover if we are smart enough
There in no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately but are never exact
There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner
Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were a complete set of laws, that would infringe God’s freedom to change His mind and intervene in the world. Yet, since God is all powerful, couldn’t God infringe on His freedom if He wanted to? It’s a bit like the old paradox: can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? Actually, the idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up!
With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to recognize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy: there is always a degree of uncertainty. If you like, you could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention, with no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it would by definition not be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility above by redefining the goal of science: our aim is to formulate a set of laws that enables us to predict events only up to the limit set by uncertainty principle.
Yesterday I finished reading Stephen Hawking's ‘A briefer history of time’. Reading it, I must candidly admit, my inadequacy in Physics stood thoroughly exposedJ Most of the concepts were more than handful for me. With such commoditized science books a layman like me tends to broadly understand the conclusions the author draws. That’s that. The reasoning involved in drawing those conclusions is either too detailed or too complex to understand. That said, I still would recommend this book to you guys for it makes one appreciate the vastness & complexity of the universe we live in and how insignificant our existence really is. Questions, which plague us forever, get discussed in elaborate detail: How did the Universe start? Where is it headed? Time’s nature? There are also lots of interesting anecdotes about different scientists who have made significant contributions in arriving at the current level of understanding. Hawking’s ruminations on God interested me most. I have given them below:
Excerpts from the Book
Page 15, Chapter 3: The Nature of a Scientific Theory
There is this question about initial state of the universe. Some people feel that science should be concerned with only the first part; they regard the question of the initial situation as a matter for metaphysics or religion. They would say that God, being omnipotent, could have started the universe off any way He wanted. That may be so, but in that case God also could have made it develop in a completely arbitrary way. Yet it appears that God chose to make it evolve in a very regular way, according to certain laws. It therefore seems equally reasonable to suppose that there are also laws governing the initial state.
Page 23, Chapter 4: Newton’s Universe
Newton was very worried by this lack of absolute position, or absolute space, as it was called, because it didn’t accord with his idea of an absolute God. In fact, he refused to accept the lack of absolute space, even though his laws implied it. He was severely criticized for this irrational belief by many people, most notably by Bishop Berkely, a philosopher who believed that all material objects and space and time are an illusion. When the famous Dr.Johnson was told Berkely’s opinion, he cried, “I refute it thus!” and stubbed his toe on a large stone.
Page 87, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
Is it really possible for scientists to calculate what all our actions will be in future? A glass of water contains more than 1024 molecules (a 1 followed by twenty-four zeros). In practice we can never hope to know the state of each of these molecules, much less the complete state of the universe or even of our bodies. Yet to say that the universe is deterministic means that even if we don’t have the brainpower to do the calculation, our futures are nevertheless deterministic. This doctrine of scientific determinism was strongly resisted by many people, who felt it infringed God’s freedom to make the world run as He saw fit. But it remained the standard assumption of science until the early years of twentieth century. One of the first indications that this belief would have to be abandoned came when the British scientists Lord Rayleigh and Sir James calculated the amount of blackbody radiation that a hot object such as a star must radiate.
Page 93, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
Quantum mechanics therefore introduces an unavoidable element of unpredictability or randomness into science. Einstein objected to this very strongly, despite the important role he had played in the development of these ideas. In fact, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for his contribution to quantum theory. Nevertheless, he never accepted that the universe was governed by chance; his feelings were summed up in his famous statement “God does not play dice.”
Page 102, Chapter 9: Quantum Gravity
In the classical theory of gravity, there are only two possible ways the universe can behave: either it has existed for an infinite time, or else it had a beginning at a singularity at some finite time in the past. For reasons we have discussed earlier, we believe that the universe has not existed forever. Yet if it had a beginning, according to classical general relativity, in order to know which solution of Einstein’s equations describes our universe, we must know its initial state – that is, exactly how the universe began. God may have originally decreed the laws of nature, but it appears that He has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not intervene in it. How did He choose the initial state or configuration of the universe? What were the boundary conditions at the beginning of time? In classical general relativity this is a problem, because classical general relativity breaks down at the beginning of the universe.
If there is no boundary to space-time, there is no need to specify the behavior at the boundary – no need to know the initial state of the universe. There is no edge of space-time at which we would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. We would say: “The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary” The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would just BE. As long as we believed the universe had a beginning, the role of a creator seemed clear. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, having neither beginning nor end, then the answer is not so obvious: what is the role of a creator?
Page 134: Chapter 11: The forces of Nature and Unification of Physics
There seem to be three possibilities:
There really is complete unified theory (or a collection of overlapping formulations), which we will someday discover if we are smart enough
There in no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately but are never exact
There is no theory of the universe: events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner
Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were a complete set of laws, that would infringe God’s freedom to change His mind and intervene in the world. Yet, since God is all powerful, couldn’t God infringe on His freedom if He wanted to? It’s a bit like the old paradox: can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? Actually, the idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up!
With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to recognize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy: there is always a degree of uncertainty. If you like, you could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention, with no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it would by definition not be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility above by redefining the goal of science: our aim is to formulate a set of laws that enables us to predict events only up to the limit set by uncertainty principle.
A story and six quotes
Story:
The Zen master, Hakuin, was praised by his neighbors as one living a pure life. A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child. This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment, at last named Hakuin. In great anger the parents went to the master: “Is that so?” was all he would say.
After the child was born, it was brought to Hakuin. By this time, he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbors and everything else the little one needed. A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth – that the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fish market.
The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask his forgiveness, and to get the child back. Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: “Is that so?”
Quote 1: “That man sees people dying all around him every day, every moment, yet he thinks that he is not going to die!” – Yudhistra, the eldest of the pandava brothers, when asked as to what the most amazing thing in this world
Quote 2: Man has to face two tragedies in life, one when his desire is fulfilled and the other when it is not – George Bernard Shaw
Quote 3: Experience is merely whatever happens to us, whatever occurs. The confused mind views experience that arises of a cognitive contact as permanent, with an inherent existence from its own side. It confuses the experiences and appearances that arise out of beauty, wealth, fame, and power to be of a different substance than those arising out of anger, hatred and despair
Quote 4: It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves – Edmund Hillary
Quote 5: A problem cannot be solved by being in the same condition in which it was created – Albert Einstein
Quote 6: Personal responsibility…taking responsibility for your behaviour and not forever supposing that society must forgive you because it’s not your fault – Celebrated historian & Pulitzer price winner, Barbara Tuchman, when asked what she thought was most needed in the coming century.
The Zen master, Hakuin, was praised by his neighbors as one living a pure life. A beautiful Japanese girl whose parents owned a food store lived near him. Suddenly, without any warning, her parents discovered she was with child. This made her parents angry. She would not confess who the man was, but after much harassment, at last named Hakuin. In great anger the parents went to the master: “Is that so?” was all he would say.
After the child was born, it was brought to Hakuin. By this time, he had lost his reputation, which did not trouble him, but he took very good care of the child. He obtained milk from his neighbors and everything else the little one needed. A year later the girl-mother could stand it no longer. She told her parents the truth – that the real father of the child was a young man who worked in the fish market.
The mother and father of the girl at once went to Hakuin to ask his forgiveness, and to get the child back. Hakuin was willing. In yielding the child, all he said was: “Is that so?”
Quote 1: “That man sees people dying all around him every day, every moment, yet he thinks that he is not going to die!” – Yudhistra, the eldest of the pandava brothers, when asked as to what the most amazing thing in this world
Quote 2: Man has to face two tragedies in life, one when his desire is fulfilled and the other when it is not – George Bernard Shaw
Quote 3: Experience is merely whatever happens to us, whatever occurs. The confused mind views experience that arises of a cognitive contact as permanent, with an inherent existence from its own side. It confuses the experiences and appearances that arise out of beauty, wealth, fame, and power to be of a different substance than those arising out of anger, hatred and despair
Quote 4: It is not the mountain we conquer, but ourselves – Edmund Hillary
Quote 5: A problem cannot be solved by being in the same condition in which it was created – Albert Einstein
Quote 6: Personal responsibility…taking responsibility for your behaviour and not forever supposing that society must forgive you because it’s not your fault – Celebrated historian & Pulitzer price winner, Barbara Tuchman, when asked what she thought was most needed in the coming century.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)