Revolutionary Evolution.

Okay, this gives enough fodder for a post. I really don't understand why it is so difficult to accept the theory of evolution. My understanding fails if someone says evolution is against the theory of intelligent design. I don't see how they combat with each other. Why should natural selection be considered as an unguided process ? For me, evolution is just metamorphosis of things from one state to another. While it is true that natural selection doesn't pre-suppose any intelligent engineer, it doesn't rule that out as well. The silence of Buddha misconstrued as a nod for atheism marked the alienation of Buddhism in India. Similarly, holding evolution and intelligent design in opposition will only divorce science from its honest inquiry. In my opinion, any consistent doctrine should involve both - the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design.

Acceptance.

After sometime, life becomes just acceptance. No, not submission or defiance but acceptance. Submission involves active surrender with passive resistance and defiance is active resistance and passive surrender. But mere acceptance is just taking what comes by, no agitation whatsoever. Soon enough, you realize there is no need for one to be in conformity or holding challenges in the toils of life. Survival of the fittest seems to be the law of the jungle. So does the pangs of the subjugated. You become indifferent to defense and deference. Acceptance is more like the process of thinking than the conclusions of thought. Conclusions of thought generally results in submission, defiance or confusion, but the process of thinking just keeps one going. Acceptance is similar to the silence of death after a chaotic bloody war or a calm before a storm, living neither in the fear of the past nor in the insecurity of the future, but in the present, nay, it is verily the present.

Untying the Knot.

Renunciation is not difficult. It is quite possible to stay away from sense pursuits. But, its just another form of indulgence. We indulge in things which makes us stay away from the sense objects. A man of renunciation is a man yet to find the tranquility of the mind. The silence of the graveyard is not to be confused with the equipoise and stillness of the mid-ocean. So, any conscious effort just binds us to some thing else. The Gita says, "Only when the mind gets rid of all its affiliations, the vision of the Supreme dawns on human consciousness". How do we reconcile between these two thoughts ? How do we untie the knot in the mind which fixes on something even with the slightest conscious effort ? Buddha questions this to his disciple. When the disciple is not able to find answers, Buddha says "Simple, you can untie the knot when you know how the knot is made on the first place." To observe how the mind operates is by itself the beginning of the mind's de-conditioning. To me, distractions are as important as concentration during meditation attempts. When we know how distractions are caused, we know how to get rid of them as well. That's when we come in face to face with the stark naked Reality.

Familiarity.

I like the word 'familiarity'. If there is any word that gives meaning to the process of understanding, I think it is this word. I believe there is no new knowledge anywhere in this world. Its all just re-discovery and becoming familiar with things. Things or ideas exists all by itself. Its just the manifestation or "becoming familiar with" we call as gaining or imparting knowledge. I am sure, if one doesn't understand things, even if he mechanically goes through it for some time, he'll be an expert in the topic. No wonder we gave utmost importance to srutis. Swami Vivekananda boldly proclaims "Religion is the manifestation of divinity already in man" and "Education is the manifestation of perfection already in man." How true! To be spiritual and intellectual we just need to get used to our already existing divinity and perfection. Von Newmann was amazingly right when he said "Young man, in mathematics you don't understand things, you just get used to them." I think this applies not only to math but also to life, in general.

(1/Epsilon) and Epsilon.

Yesterday I saw the documentary "N is a Number" by George Csicsery. Its a nice piece of work about Paul Erdos (pronounced as "air-dish"), one of the greatest mathematicians of the century. He surpassed any other mathematician by the sheer volume of papers-about 1600 with the co-authors all around the globe. To me, Erdos presents himself as a truly spiritual person. Just that his religion is Mathematics and his God-Combinatorics. He thought about mathematical problems 24-7. The very characteristics of a great spiritual person at the height of realization was present in him. He was not able to stand physical pleasure and didn't marry. His possessions where just two half-empty suitcases. He never stayed in a place, roamed all around the world giving lectures and gave whatever money he got as an endowment. Totally dispassionate life. More than these things, a childlike behavior found in spiritual maturity was found in him (he was very pleased with the emergence of velcro footwear as he found buckling his sandals difficult). He just loved kids and called them 'epsilons' ('epsilon' usually denotes a very small quantity in math). He passed away in 1996 with the great amount of collected works yet to be amassed. He never strived to be a mathematical god, he was just one by himself.

Blogs and Identity.

I think blogs represent the personality of the blogger at least quite a bit. A maxim goes "One can fool some people for sometime, he can even fool all the people for sometime, but never all the people all the time". So, I am wondering how far blogs speak about people's nature. It would be interesting if some study is taken on this. On a different note though, given that a blog is a great medium for self-expression and has a potential to influence readers thoughts, it is quite likely that a blogger with good repute can be approached by a management for publicity. If such politics enters the blogsphere, the credibility of the blogs would go for a ride. Hope such things doesn't happen.

(Mis) Management ?

You guessed it right ! It's about IIPM. The mis-management is setting up the blog world ablaze (those who are not aware of the issue, please type in "IIPM" in Technorati and read posts). The crux of the matter is, an IBM employee Gaurav writes about the credibility of IIPM in his blog and gets a legal notice and protests from them. I am really curious to know how this whole thing would turn around. Since it has been noticed by the MSM (Main Stream Media), it would be interesting to watch whether the issue fizzles out or hits loud with a bang. Whatever happens it is definitely going to test the integrity of the bloggers. A.Sandip, IIPM's all-India dean says "We are not concerned about the blog, and in no way has the written matter on the blog affected us, but we are going to take legal action against the blogger for defamation. The person is identifiable. It is a legal notice against the person and not the blog." If any of you guys find some logic in these words please let me know !

I Exist.

In the figure, there are numbers from 1 through 6 horizontally and vertically. For each horizontal number is it possible to choose one and only number in the vertical column (and hence the selection can be represented by a dot), so that the line joining the corresponding dots do not intersect the diagonal ? For instance, one such selection, (1,5), (2,6), (3,4), (4,6), (5,6) and (6,6) is shown here and they are represented by magenta dots, but the line joining them meets the diagonal in (6,6). We can observe that no such selection is possible (which doesn't meet the diagonal). The point where the line joining the dots meets the diagonal is called the 'fixed point' [here it is (6,6)]. This interesting result is called the Fixed Point Theorem in mathematics. The dots in the diagonal have the same values like (1,1), (2,2) etc.

Now, consider the fact that we always think 'I exist' in every moment. Whatever state we are in, it can always be said 'I exist doing so and so'. For example, 'I am angry' means 'I exist in an angry state', 'I am writing this post' can be rephrased as 'I exist writing this post' etc. Also, when we say 'I exist' we mean 'I' and 'existence' are different ('I' is the subject and 'exist' is an object). Assuming that 'I' and 'existence' are functions of time, we can plot every moment of our living like a graph where the horizontal axis would mean the existence in time and the vertical axis would be the notion of 'I' in time. This is shown in the figure. Just as how the lines joining the dots had a fixed point, our continuous stream of living should have a fixed point where the notion of 'I' coincides with our 'existence'. Probably, that fixed point is the samadhi state (state of undifferentiated being) experienced by yogis.

P.S : It may be a valid question to ask what happens in deep sleep. Probably, the notion of 'I' just remains (identical with the y-axis). We can never express the state that "I am in deep sleep now".

Contempt ?

This is really interesting. Karunanidhi says yoga keeps him going. Yoga is a philosophical school established by Sage Patanjali in third century BC. Sage Patanjali was a hard core theist. It is interesting to note that people are furtive enough to use the best aspects of Hinduism while showing great aversion to the system that preserved them.