Follow by Email

Sunday, September 26, 2010

More Understanding of the 'Ultimate Principle'

Here is a comment posted on

Recently I came across one of your basic thought vide And undoubtedly your DOF, BFN and the other forthcoming books and all that is seen in your blogs including the ideology (at least to some extent) of FTI  are the functions of this knowledge/thought of yours. As such this thought even though dealt in at your personal blog doesn’t make it personal but a social one as all these contribute to the social cause. In this sense alone, I post this comment here rather than at the above link. You may remove it from here to there only to harm feedback to DOF.
You wrote-
1.       Re:
My main message to everyone is simple: Find the truth YOURSELF. That means everything you think you know (and I think I know) is subject to question. Our lives are therefore only a preliminary essay in the truth; a feeble attempt to seek answers. Any ambition beyond that is, that we may actually know something, is delusional.
In this connection,
Do you think everybody is capable of finding a truth himself/herself on their own?

a.       If your answer is yes, then there will be as many truths as the number of persons in the world. It’s entirely absurd since truth can be only one. i.e. defining the same thing as many ways as the number of persons will only mess up the things.
Example: It is just like asking everybody to define his own unit of length (say for example), then one will measure in cm, other in inches and so on. This system will run smoothly as long as everybody is isolated i.e. unsocial and when these all will be required to live socially there will only be a conflict since each will pursue his own unit assuming that his alone is truth. And this is what exactly is happening in present age. Different religions [assuming to be a unit (~of measurement) or set of conventions originally invented to streamline the life of social human beings] are pressing for their own ways assuming them alone to be truth. I am afraid if your theory of freedom also promotes the same! Because the responsibility and accountability along with such other things which you propose to impose on this freedom are themselves likely to be the results of these individual conventions (truths i.e. as many definitions of responsibility, accountability etc as the no of individuals) which you seem to be promoting!

b.       If answer is no, then everybody has to follow the same set of units or conventions {to be called as TRUTH} and everybody has to obey it. It amounts to saying that the rest of the people should believe in the interpretations of these conventions/units by a specialist, expert, scientist (to be called as Gnani in Indian tradition). Here note that the Gnani (Don’t feel taboo since he is just a specialist like you) is a one who alone knows the usefulness of the conventions/units to be defined just like a technician. Everybody cannot be made to understand why it is so defined as such or what it means [i.e. they are supposed to test only the final product like TV or mobile without going into intricacies of how it works since every individual cannot afford it] because that convention/unit (Truth~Gnan) would be the result of convenience and usefulness which takes into account all the facets of human being over a period of time and is judged in every possible way by such an expert. (How it is to be done is a different thing altogether e.g. approach of FTI.)

     Example: All the people within a same religion obey the beliefs (conventions/units) and hence fewer conflicts compared to the situation in case 1 as above. Of course, even in this case problems arise not because of the beliefs (conventions/units) themselves but because these are not interpreted (change meanings) accordingly as per the time and space by taking into account physical (scientific) advances etc by an expert (Gnani). Thus it is not a question of beliefs but question of interpretation of the same by experts.

c.       May I know which answer do you prefer to your very very basic proposition either 1, 2 or something else?


Hence a basic question of finding a truth by individual doesn’t arise at all!!

2.       Re:
"Who exactly am I?" This question will need a response more subtle and complex than the mere routine description about my career or life journey. But unfortunately, I'm not quite sure at the moment who, or more precisely, what I am. Does my consciousness, also found equally among all human beings, exist outside space and time – or does it have properties like any other form of energy? I'm going to explore this issue in one of my future books, but it currently appears unlikely to me that I'll make any major breakthrough. Let me park this question for now, anyway, and revert to more mundane, material things that we are more comfortable talking about.

a.       This question should have formed the part of “Creation, stardust and carbon”. Without above question soul of this chapter is missing. In this sense this comment is relevant here.
b.       It is an answer to this question that breaks the barrier of an individual from the social one since an answer can only be a unique and then there remains nothing such as a personal except some mundane things! It is a question which sowed the seeds of all the religions and they evolved as an answer to this question. Answers were different hence the different religions. However their answers they were able to carry the people with them, the reason being not the absolute truth of the answers but the existence of the answers itself. What we need today is a unique answer consistent with the science [which I tried at “The Ultimate Principle” –which you have taken for as a personal one.] which alone may show us a way to carry the people with us for the sake of better society like FTI is promoting and not for the sake of people itself for gaining popularity alone.
c.       When you parked that question, was not that a death? Here death means living without eyes. Without an answer however we proceed that will all be only blindfolded!  Its aftermath say DOF etc will ever be an eye opener then? People (except few intelligentsias) will never follow you because you expect the majority to understand on themselves which has happened never in the past nor will ever happen in the future. Not all the People (by their limitation in the genes itself) possess the power to identify the truths by themselves which you expect. Majority understands the language of sentiments, emotions, sympathy and a similar language. It is this language consistent with the final truth that we need to specialize in order to establish the ideal society by way of FTI. We need this majority to bring a change for once and all.

3. If you think anything above as personal then rest assured that FTI will also be a personal approach of yours   or a group of few which majority will hardly side with for their inherent weakness!

Is it likely to make any basic impact on BOF or BFN or FTI?  I think yes in r/o style of approach and not the goal itself.

N.B.  I don’t have literary skills. Apologies if such omissions occur inadvertently.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

Proper understanding of the 'Ultimate Principle'

Shri Sabhlok replied as follows to the 'Ultimate Principle'.

Dear Ramesh, thanks for the detailed note you sent. Just a few points (I'll also send by email).
Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created
True, in a closed system energy can’t be created. However, as Rajaji notes in one of his books, “Out of nothing, nothing can come. The causeless beginning was Sat, being with consciousness”. Anyway, this is the whole point. I have no answer on this. Your assumption is yours. I don’t comment on it.
Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist.
Clearly, I’m lost. Just because energy (according to you) could not have been created, it doesn’t make it non-real.
Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth. And Dvaita states that Maya is truth. The secret is that one is non-existent without the other. 
All this is a philosophical viewpoint. I have no comment since this doesn’t interest me.
Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings. However you put up the theory of creation all hold equally good. It needs only to satisfy the common sense of the common man. Its purpose can’t be more than that.
I talk for the benefit only of common men and women. I don’t care for uncommon men and women. If these theories can feed them, please use them. Else this information is irrelevant. 
Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings. 
I disagree. I need to ask many, many questions! Who is this Gnani? You? Then please write a book explaining how to create a wealthy and healthy India using your principles.

I replied it as follows:

Dear Sabhlok,
Please proceed to read the following only if you think the ‘Creation, Stardust and Carbon’ is an essential and serious enough chapter of your DoF. Or else I suggest you to acknowledge in DoF itself that this chapter is not of that substantial nature and the discussion on this may be avoided.
I regret my last comment failed miserably to kindle and arouse the much expected curiosity and get the same quenched adequately about the very basic question of scientific creation of universe which, in your view, however, turned out to be a pure personal matter which bothered you the least.
Before I post my future comments on this blog I expect a healthy, deep and sincere attitude as the same has come under doubt for the reasons detailed below and since these may have a lasting effect on both your books.
1.      Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created…….You replied ending that it is my personal assumption and that you have no comments and that further you did not elaborate on ‘sat and consciousness’. May I request you to read the same once again and see whether it is scientific or personal one? Just because it is beyond your personal comprehension doesn’t make it necessarily a personal thing and devoid of the pure science and which at the same time is so relevant to your concerned chapter. Don’t you think you are insincere in accepting your inability to comprehend the same? Don’t you think this attitude of yours make this chapter of yours less serious and devoid of adequate responsibility?
2.      Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist…..You replied that it doesn’t make the universe a non real. Note that ‘Things do not exist’ is a result of the above science (the principle - which you should either understand or be unable to do so but could never call it personal) and that ‘universe is not unrealis what we see and perceive. The secret of universe and also the success of science lies in reconciling these seemingly contradictions which are a result of the same scientific approach. You have poorly failed to realise this implication of the comment and comment on it accordingly.
3.      Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth and…….you ended saying these are philosophical views. Here you have safely ignored the scientific answer provided to the above contradiction by the Advaita and Dvaita. Here you failed to draw a proper line of difference between philosophy and science. It is a result of you strong pre-conviction that these (Advaita etc) are only philosophy- a personal and private things! Do you have any right to call a thing a philosophy when it is in consonance with the science simply because of your pre-conceived ideas and your inability to see the pure science in so called philosophy?
4.      Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings… You replied that you care only for commons….and that my comment is to feed those who feed on it. Is not your theory of Capitalism and Freedom for the commons ones? Then why does not it find instant acceptance by the common Indians/and elsewhere? The answer is- to begin with, every common thing is an uncommon thing till the common understands it. Thus you failed badly to understand that ‘it is a matter of understanding by the common one’ and not a matter of ‘commons and uncommons’ itself. You also indirectly meant (by ‘all are common’) that all men are equal in intelligence and wisdom and in similar respects. They why this different opinions and debates in real life? And why one should listen to Swami Vivekanand and similars? Why not leave all our efforts to set the things right, right now if all are equal? Being all equal there won’t be any cause to fight for!!!. My essence is that all men are not equal, but some are more equal and among these again some are more equal and so on. Thus it forms the pyramid and not a flat in r/o ability, intelligence, qualifications, skills (and also in r/o of governance to be discussed separately) etc. You took the things entirely wayward!!!
5.      Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings……… here you decried the Gnani as defined by me (or rather by the principle) and instead exhorted to me to use the above principles to create wealthy and healthy India.  Do you means that in this blog and other similar things we are trying to play against each other and making a time-pass? You fail to see that seating somewhere on the scale of knowledge, wisdom, understanding etc we are not only writing a book but also trying to create a great wealth and health and much more for the Indians through this blog and my comments (ultimate principle – outcome of your chapters insufficient approach) are part of that effort and thus discharging our duty as a Gnani (at least to some extent- till it finds total acceptance)
Thus don’t you think such a sort of understanding on your part is something unmaking of you? My last comment (The ultimate principle as a pure science- and never as a personal thing even though it is my version) is likely to have a lasting effect on your approach (and not in r/o the goal of eradication of all the ills which human is suffering from- with which I myself have identified long ago) and everything in the world. However I do don’t expect this sort of the attitude and superficial level of depth of understanding on your part as detailed above since it will make our effort more tedious and exhaust us unproductively.
In case you find anything in the above comment anything such as a personal (remarks) or private things, then you or me or anybody else will have to forfeit his right to think about the others since the life itself is a thing of personal/private concern (whether it affect the other or not~ treating human unsocial)! I hope you will never agree to this!
I will be grateful to you if you let me know how I misunderstood you or lack the sufficient knowledge in the above reasoning if any (except a sort like yours as above!)

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The Ultimate truth, the secret of the Universe unveiled.

During the course of the online discussion with FTI and Shri Sabhok there came the occasion wherein I have tried to unveil the secret of the Universe. It reads as follows......

Dear Sabhok,

I regret I got disheartened after a glimpse of ‘Discovery of freedom’ wherein I noticed few misinterpretations/misunderstanding about some issues of Indian philosophy and in this sense alone as ‘adharmic’ in nature. To start with I herein touch only one of the very very basic and fundamental secrete (?) to which you have referred to in the chapter ‘Creation, stardust and carbon’. It relates to the ultimate secret of the universe, its origin and its scientific revelation.

If I am not mistaken you ended with the hope on present day materialistic science to solve the ultimate secret of ‘Energy’ or ‘Universe’.

You also referred to ‘Advaita’, however ended with saying that such things raise more questions than they address without mentioning even a single question about the same.

“The comment here onwards is my own original version or interpretation and I do not pass the responsibility to any other even if I quote others”

Now find herewith the ultimate secret of the universe which is so implicit throughout the work of ‘Maharshi Veda Vyasa’ which the modern world is yet failing to understand for want of pure scientific and unending curiosity ironically for which it is so well known. I apologies for this principle (law) when revealed half (one of the two as mentioned in the following table) may cause havoc as well, as it is just like double edged sword. Hope you understand it to its core. It runs like this..

The ultimate principle: The following two halfs taken together constitute this principle.

Sl no First half (all items grouped under it are identical) Second half (all items grouped under this are identical) Remarks
1 Advaita Dvaita Work of Maharshi Veda Vyasa.(?)
2 Purusha (~male) Prakriti (~female) Similar sage or –do-
3 Shiva Shakti ,,
4 Brahman Maya ,,
7 Energy can never be created Nor it can ever be destroyed. The fundamental law of science.
8 Electric loop Magnetic field -do-; These are never separable, and one is the cause of the other. One is meaningless without the other.
Both these halfs together form a complete and give the universe its present form. The secret unveiled. These are two sides of the same coin which are never separable nor do they cross ever. . …

Explanation: (In the reverse order.)

1. When it is well known that energy can never be created it is utterly nonsense and meaningless even to make effort to account for the existing one. This proposition is very simple but very difficult to grasp and digest. It is purely scientific.

Because there can never be any explanation for the existing energy. To make simple – the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist.

As such is it ever possible for the science to account for the existing universe according to its own law? It is never.

The first fall out of the above principle is that the time and space, the two basic concepts exist relatively and are meaningless when talked absolutely. (If I am not mistaken Einsteins theory of relativity states the same. If not I apologies the same for mentioning his name and theory)

2. Similar reasoning holds good for the electric loop and magnetic field for it’s futile to find the origin of each in themselves. (my knowledge about these is limited. If contrary is true this example may be struck, it won’t make any difference upon the above principle)

3. Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth. And Dvaita states that Maya is truth. The secret is that one is non-existent without the other. Tragedy is that both failed to understand the same independently except the work of ‘Maharshi Veda Vyasa’ who took both into account at a time in all his work including the Vedas- (He was not a writer of it only in the sense that existing energy can never be accounted for and hence its existence even before the existence of the universe--- be careful likely to get confused horribly. I can’t write everything for it may run too long)

Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings. However you put up the theory of creation all hold equally good. It needs only to satisfy the common sense of the common man. Its purpose can’t be more than that.

Dvaita states that the common is a common. The principles of advaita are out of the scope of the commons. For theirs sake there must be origin or else only havoc will ensue. Hence the need to accept the Maya or the Existing Energy as the ultimate truth (purely for the sake of Human beings.)

Thus both schools are true at their individual level but by this time you may have understood that they are just two halves of the basic principle ‘ Energy can never be created nor it can ever be destroyed.’ And as such two sides of the same coin each being meaningless without the other.

4. Shiv-Parvati (Shakti) etc ( and it may include the entire Hindu tradition) are just two sides of the above depicted coin. Similar reasoning holds good for Prakriti-Purush and Brahman- Maya etc…….. Or alternatively the Shiv-ling which consists of two parts are actually consists of these two halve. The main linga indicates the “Advaita” and on which this linga is supported, the lower portion indicates the “Dvaita”. ..and Only in this sense this tradition is worth sustaining.

Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings. You know only the scientist or technologist alone holds the authority to design the machine. None other is eligible to do the same. Others do by virtue of their knowledge can become a scientist or technologist, the thing is different. If this rule is broken only the distortion is outcome.

Therefore the Dharma is one which Gnani defines who takes into account the entire gamut of truth into account. And the other only follow it.

This comment is incomplete and will be resumed after your considered questions that may follow this. I am eager to know your doubts………at least, in the process, I may get rectified.

Monday, September 6, 2010

comment on the post

Dear friends,
It is the ‘Dharma’ which gives the animal the form of ‘Being Human’. It was the Hindu Dharma which gave the now thinking animal a form of Being Human. Similar efforts were made by the Jain, Boudha, Christen, Islam etc Dharmas including Hindu which were turned into Religions (English term) due to Veil nature of this animal (Human Beings). It is originally the Dharma which defines the Politics, Governance, Society and so on. Religion is the term which the foreign culture has given the name to this Dharma. Due to inappropriate conceptions of the Dharma, the term Religion not necessarily implies the same thing as the Dharma does.

When Politics is separated from the Dharma, the politics become the law of the animals not of the Human beings. If problems are created with the Politics, then effort to establish the Dharma with its pristine purity should be made and that it could never be separated from the Dharma which is its seed, the father.

At FTI if it is true that the Dharma is being separated from the politics by confusing the Dharma with the English term Religion, it will be more disastrous than any past happenings in the history of the human race.

Is there anybody who can clarify the stand of FTI? Dear Sabhlok, Shantanu……..