Follow by Email

Sunday, September 26, 2010

More Understanding of the 'Ultimate Principle'

Here is a comment posted on http://discovery.sabhlokcity.com/your-views/


Recently I came across one of your basic thought vide http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/. 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?

d.       Key to my intention in asking above is that NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE (INCLUDING ITSELF) IS ABSOLUTE AND THE UNIVERSE TAKES THE FORM WE THINK IT TO BE MOST CONVENIENT  (e.g. at present as an energy)- A COROLLARY OF ‘THE ULTIMATE PRINCIPLE’.

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment