Pranks on the sands of time

In this Part 3 of a series, I think about God and suffering (in the context of killings) and the dichotomy of good and evil in the human mind. These aren't clear answers but just my 2 cents. I wrote these at this Orkut discussion thread. You can find the other parts linked from here.

Creation: Pattern or arbitrary ?

The ancient question is still being researched heavily and quite controversially.
But my take is, Yes, for the pattern part. The advocates of both sides, Intelligent Design and Natural Selection, both agree there is a pattern. One says there is a pattern by design and the other says there is a pattern in the process, in acquisition of traits. The difference, is only about, who put the pattern in ? Or was there one ?

Is God just a fabrication of the human mind in a world of random possibilities?

:) :) Well, some schools say, the world itself is a fabrication of God's Mind. Or Man's Mind, meaning Man is God.

Is God a temporary diversion from the madness of suffering ?

I don't think such a diversion would work anyway. God or not, when the madness (to mean suffering) hits you, it would no more let you bury your head in the sand nor would it spare you even if your head is in. Lot of people, choose God to cope up in times of suffering, because, well, it works for them and effectively so. If it didn't work, God wouldn't have been operating in that segment any more. There are things in life that truly help you in times of suffering. Like love and care, faith can do it to a great deal, if you have it, that is. Even if all other aspects of Faith are debatable, the therapeutic value of faith needs to be given atleast as much credit as that of love and care.

If not,then where are the answers to this dance of death, to this depletion of hope,to these hungry flaming fires of hell,to this downward spiral?

Reminds me of a quip that Ramana Maharishi used to give his disciples, when confronted with the question of how do I find out the cause of the world's suffering and alleviate it. He often said, first find out the cause of your suffering, we'll catch up with the world later.

What meaning to make of suffering...

The questions assume, to a large extent, the reality of suffering and the value of life. I sometimes think, what are catastrophies or achievements for us, are just childish pranks for God. Consider a kid, playing on the sands of the shore, building castles in the sand. He would build for a while, then he would demolish a section of it and build again. Or his friend would demolish it and they would fight about it. Or build one more together after a little while. And when it's time for lunch, they would move away to play another game, the fights fading away. Even if they fought and cried, their parents would know not to take them too seriously and would tell them so too, indicating the transience of both the castle and its demolition and the fun value behind it.

I myself find this ridiculous at times, because how can suffering be unreal ? Someone slaps you, you immediately know whether it's real or unreal. Your arthritis or asthma is quite sufficient to tell you whether it's real or unreal, you don't require news of massacres in the papers to tell. But there seems to be a school or a section of humanity, that want to question that experience and get to its deeper reality.

The whole problem is that, to understand this in actuality, we have to consider the possibility that suffering may be unreal. Or real only from a relative perspective of the kid. That's a colossal problem for us mortals, because, it requires a different plane of thinking and training. But if the Truth lies there (just in case) and if Truth is what we seek, is there an option but to look in ? Reminds me of Einstien’s quote : The problems that we face today cannot be resolved at the same level we created them.

Is that why the Goddess of the Three Worlds is also called "The Playful One" ?

Spiritual, but not religious

This is Part 2 of a series that handles : good effects of religion, religious distortions and the modern phrase "Spiritual but not religious". The contents are drawn from what I wrote at this discussion thread. You can find the other parts linked from here.

There is someone above...

Just to flip the coin around and bring a balance in perspective, how about violence, hatred and killings that have been avoided because of religion ? Perhaps no one conducts a survey to find this, because the good things that happen silently are not the ones that get the eyeball attention. Yet, these are indeed among the kind of people you meet day to day, commonplace. People who want to abstain from certain acts that harm others, because they believe in a higher order governed by God, never mind what name. If you don't want to hear the word God-fearing, call it a general respect for 'Dharma-Nyayam'. This is not to say they are perfect, always make the best choices, but they keep God at the back of their mind while choosing an action. This is not in the context of fear, guilt or hypocrisy (each a different thread) but a general abstention from a decidedly wrong action with a simple thought of 'Devudu Unnadu'. This is something you find in the grocer, the tailor and the street vendor. Isn't there a certain amount of religious thinking behind their goodness ? Between this huge collection formed by little drops of water, from the very people around you and from the selective portrayal of graphic images and numbers found in the newspapers, which one will you believe in ? And which one outnumbers the other ? Whether it outnumbers the other or not, why is the goodness due to religion, not attributed to it, as much as the evil so attributed ?
Religious Distortions and disillusionment...

One can understand that phenomena like casteism can be a major putoff in a quick glance of a certain religion. But using that to debunk the primary need for religion, is like the proverbial baby and the bathwater. How about other oppressive phenomena like slavery and racial discrimination which didn't have anything to do with religion ? Where did Man get those from ? The source of these don't lie in religion, but in men who use religion as a vehicle, to further the evil which they would anyway further. Distortions, but not, 'religious distortions' as in 'arising out of religion', but as in 'distortion of religion' by men. Which system that men found and evolved is not distorted by other men ? Distortion is found in every system: science, language, history, governance and the arts. And just like any other system of thought, religion finds its own rejuvenation from time to time: cleansing, re-understanding of the Code, accommodation of evolving ideas, reflection of learnings from the positive ideas that mankind has collectively benefited from and purging of the demerits.

Spiritual, Sir, but not religious ?

If one is an agnostic and doesn't feel a need for God, thats a different thread. But if one believes in spirituality, but not in religion, then, in my view, such a positioning arises because of the following (not that such a stance is 'bad') :

1. Needless over-differentiation between the two, whereas one is a means towards the end in the other. Still better, some believe the differentiation is unncecessary.

2. An inability to use the positive understandings in one's religion to further one's spiritual development and highlighting the misfits rather than the matches.

3. A general disillusionment (from the other perspective, call, unattractiveness) about all things religious, caused by a maze of factors, that lie partly in approach to study, life events, unanswered questions, environment etc.

What got you here will not get you there....

Assume, you were ‘spiritual, but not religious’. You would carry the spirituality 'in the head', and then, what ? Probably you would believe in a principle, like, for example, 'be a good person' or 'reflect on your own reality'. If you ask me, you are already being religious, because you believe in a set of principles, and by design, you don't believe (or believe less) in another set of principles that goes straight contrary to yours. Having believed in whatever principles, you would then step out to 'do' or 'not do' certain actions based on those. (By now, you are totally religious). Why would you do that ? Because, given your current state, you have a picture of what you want to be, and you want to follow your idea of the map that takes you there and abstain from those that don't. This is what religion is all about, a set of principles and a set of actions and abstentions, directed towards a set of outcomes. Just that, a lot of like-minded people have got together to believe in the same sets, instead of individually carrying it in their heads, and the subject, in this case happens to be 'Man and His Relationship with God'. You are free to update your principles, actions and expectations as you walk along, and those represent the various schools/levels in a religion. Some would like to argue that this is what spirituality is all about, yeah, those are the ones that would agree that religion and spirituality are closer or identical, if they have a positive inclination towards religion that is. Those that don't for some reason, would like to maintain that one is the problem and the other is the solution.

Is religion the root cause of all evil ?

Here is a series of posts on Religion and Spirituality. Most of it comes from what I wrote at an Orkut discussion forum. If you have an Orkut id, i urge you to read the complete thread here, offering many more perspectives, I just mention here a simplified version of the questions to indicate the context for the replies.

Part 1 : Is religion the root cause of all suffering ?
Part 2: Spiritual but not religious
Part 3: God and the nature of suffering

In Part 1, I handle the question:

Is religion the root cause of all violence/evil ?

Oh No, I don't think so. Why single out religion ? Language ? Land ? It's quite fashionable and simplistic to attribute all violence to organised religion and can be reflected in more youth marking 'spiritual but not religious' on the Orkut profile, but I think it's not the case. (I hope to cover this in my review of 'The God Delusion' some day, but here is a primer).

People fight among themselves for all kinds of things. Yes, religion is one of them, but if you assume to take religion out for a moment, people would still fight. People can fight because they feel 'something is being snatched away from them' or 'another somehow calls himself as superior and dominate them'. In history, people have fought solely on the basis of color or race. Solely for the occupation of wealth or land. For certain sections not allowing a certain freedom for certain other sections, it could be any freedom, freedom to grow and prosper, to speak or express or freedom to choose a taste. Whether one is on the south or north of an imaginary line. The snatchaway or the superiority can also arise from religion, but, that is, only as much as it can arise from anything else.

Just as we hold the color/race/wealth/land as dear to ourselves and we feel jittery about any threat to that preference, so also religion is one preference and a threat to it unsettles man. The tribals usually worship an agreed family of gods, (in a homogeneous tribe), but they still fight for things like the prey they shot or the herb they pluck. It's quite possible people primarily fight on one count, the root cause for the resentment is some other snatchaway or domination, but later bring in religion also as one more count ,where possible, to fight even more. Using religion to enlist more people for the fight. The tendency to fight or kill does not arise out of religion, it's inherent in the unevolved Man as a basic tendency and he would anyway fight, religion or not.

Whats about religion thats not about other systems ?

All is not well with any religion. The demerits in each religion arise from the collective demerits of the people who are attempting to codify it or practise it. Their own personal flaws plus the flaws in the institutionalising attempts. This is true about any system or doctrine that seeks to benefit a collective.

To show that religion is not alone as a flawed system, lets take another unrelated field: Economics. Have we been able to arrive a single economic theory that benefits all of mankind the most ? And if we have, have we succeeded in making most of Mankind agree that it's the one ? God wasn't involved, but still we couldn't decide on a school, we are still looking. I am sure, divergent schools exist in every pursuit of knowledge, in science and in poetry. If you ask each school in isolation, they would like to believe that theirs is the best and has the most merits and sure they will promise that their school would lead to the much-sought 'liberation', whatever that might mean in that branch of knowledge. What flaws are so differently found in religion that are not found in other systems of knowledge or human behaviour ?

Just as Economics pursues the question of money, Religion pursues the question of Man and God. It arises out of a need, in Man, to connect with a possible higher power. Why is that need planted or whether it's a delusion is debatable, but it can't be wished away as non-existent, it's as much real as the question of money and economics.

Why is philosophy insufficient ? Because it handles theory. When you reach the lab, however, you need to know, which action to perform, X or X-dash and which one to abstain from. Not that one action is inherently right or wrong, one chemical is superior or sinful than the other, but given the objective that you are trying to achieve, there is a most optimal action that offers to get that outcome. Religion codifies these objectives and preferred actions that lead to those outcomes, assuming you chose to study God, just like if you chose to study money.

Find your own religion, if you can:

Rub off all religion for a moment. Fine, have we found answers to all the questions we have ? Forget the world...have we found answers to the questions of our own disease and death, of separation and suffering, that seem so real to us, yet baffle us without knowing their cause ? If we can, fine, you won't need religion any more, or what you find will become a religion. There is a precedent, this guy did it, devoting his entire life in the study of this subject. You might happily brush away this need but that doesnt mean it wont get to you, right ?Might as well spend some time knowing its nature.

Oh, is religion providing me all the answers then, you might ask ? No, religion is the training academy for a spiritual objective. Everyone is entitled to join the IPS, but it requires enormous amount of focused training, dos and donts to achieve that. If you don't have the fire, then it isn't for you. If you wish to experience that which Philosophy tells you, in your own lab of Life, that takes a certain amount of training. Religion prescribes the set of actions to achieve the reality that philosophy outlines before us. The rest of the masala in religion, hoaxes, oppression and all, well, is the outcome of the inherent masala in Man, the demerits of the codifiers and practitioners.

The final objective is always spiritually pristine, it probably doesn't depend on which religion or which ritual, which route you took to reach the peak. But you have to choose one and take that uphill route consistently and do things prescribed on that route. And this is true about every route, it will take you there, provided you take it well. All routes have a few basic things in common and a few specifics different. Need to connect regularly with a higher power for inspiration, care for the community and cultivating a good character are some basics that take different forms. I think, probably, the consistency of application, matters more than which route you choose.

Free Will and the Video Game called Life

A friend made me sit and watch this Ted Talks video on the human brain last night and it turned out to be a worthwhile session. It gave a fillip to an idea that has been brewing for the past couple of days. Though the video itself has nothing in common with this post. At least, it fired my brain and kicked me out of the blogger's block, that has lasted over two months now.

About how much freewill does a man have ? Oh, the question, I know, is atleast as old as my great-grandmother and probably even hers. But there is a modern phenomenon that resembles the handling of the questions of Life and Free Will. Gaming.

We have heard before about 'Life is a game; Play it'. I am thinking of narrowing it down further. Life is like a video game. Role-play it. I haven't played many video games, so my tech knowledge is not much, just what I have observed, heard and outlined in a broad way. I like the hint from this book, that, as Man evolves, lot of things today he does for War, like flying advanced aircraft, he would do it in a spirit of Games, without the killing.

In the beginning of a video game, you get to choose a lot of things, your profile, your level of difficulty/speed, the cool looks of the bike, probably the colour of the cap of the prince, number and type of bombshells and life-chances/energy chances and so on. But once you choose these and the word 'GO'-es, you have pretty much only the steering wheel. There is hardly anything you can choose after you start off. How much free will ? But it will be fun, though. The events in your life, the twists and turns, the preset or random obstacles that come your way, the preset or random credits you get on the way to bolster your confidence, are they determined by your actions ? Yes, they are determined by the way you handle the steering wheel of your life. So much for Karma and the ability in your hands to make choices enroute.

But that isn't much. You have free will enough, alright, but only as much you can do at the steering wheel. That much, Oh, and Man thinks he has all the power and free will in the world. Why isn't that free will not much ? Because the complete exhaustive set of objects, events and methods have been programmed already into the video game. Gosh, is that why they use these very terms in object-oriented programming ? You get to choose five or ten or fifteen parameters from a hundred or a thousand that have been programmed for. But do you get to do more than that ?

This design of Life covers only the most basic of video games. However, in the next level, there are also MMORPGs where the players get to choose lot more complex things, like characters with roles. The abbreviation might as well have referred to Life in general, Massively Multi-player, Online, Role-playing Games!!. They can not only play games by choosing roles for themselves, but also with hundreds of players. Let me quote here briefly from the wiki page:

In nearly all MMORPGs, the development of the player's character (as in role) is a primary goal....there is the eventual demand on players to team up with others in order to progress at the optimal rate....

They might have as well put the same text on the wiki page on Life.

Now that's certainly an improvement on the level of free will in Life, we do get to play it with hundreds of others and improve our character and become better day by day. Take it to the next level of Meta. What if someone wrote a meta-game-writing software, that is a software that allows you to build your own games by choosing a hundred parameters. Remember, not just choosing roles, but building entire games, out of raw material stuff that the software will set out before you. Wouldn't that be the next level of free will ? Life does seem to provide such chances, in that sense, Life is probably the most meta-level-ised, most genericised, video games of all kinds. Today you could be a master violinist, tomorrow you could choose to try out mountaineering and in a said amount to time and a said amount of effort, assuming you have a average startup qualifications, you can probably acquire as much mastery with your foot, as you did with your finger. That definitely is a relief and makes us feel better, doesn't it ? Your life is in your hands, Choose the reality that you want to manifest and there...Booom..... there does it bubble and bloom, dive and dance before you. Your choice made, at time X, and your results, here it is Monsieur, your custom suit, delivered to you at time X + N. I have also wondered that why most video games are modelled on gaining points through combat ? Don't the characters perform good deeds like, patting someone for their good work or give a food packet in charity and get a smile in credit for that ? Or combat the evil within and gain points ?

Now that you have taken video game to the next level of abstraction, shouldn't the question of Free Will be taken too ? How much Free Will, do we have, even at the this level of choice ? Still, not much, buddy. Why ? Because you didn't get to do the programming. Thats what drives, whatever it is you are driving. Sure there are open-source video games, you get to read the code, learn from it, fix bugs and contribute to newer branches and features and probably work with others together to take the game as a whole to the next level. Life allows that too. People who reach a certain level of awareness, not only have their lives in order, they endeavour to raise the lives of those around them, making better steering wheels, showing others how to handle them in those lower level games. Showing how to play our roles better and improve our character (this time, it means a set of principles) and how to perform better even while playing with a lot of other people at same or different levels.

So, is that all, have we achieved free will ? (Oh, finish this, and say yes, please). No. Because we still have to work within the game, within that game we started. You can start a new game yourself, all of it open-source. You can start tens of them, a bike game, a market game, a combat game, a music game, whatever. You seem to have the free will to do that, but wait a minute, that is, as they say, a different ball game. It would no more remain the game, with the same name, which you played in the first place. In Life, do we have such a choice ? If you didn't like earth and its Life, do you get to shift to say, Saturn for a while, and get back after the riots have cooled off ? Oh, don't bother, Sometimes, Saturn seems to control our lives here, instead !!. Even if a geographical location shift were possible, it would still be the same game called Life. The same programmer. The same program, everyday extended with new features and a million parameters, out of which you get to choose very few. May be a few more bonus ones on a sunny day. And hope to have Saturn on your side.

Thats not much of free will. But I should qualify this conclusion, because, thats how it looks from where I stand and see, and only to the level of Meta I can handle. Because I am going to go above my own head in the next paragraph. I tend to subscribe to what Sri Ramakrishna, used to say often about Free Will. That our free will, is "like that of a cow that is tied to a pole and gets to graze the grass around it". It might think, in all its cow-level meta, that it has quite a lot of free-will. But you and I, who are at slightly better Meta than the cow, know the length of the rope and its circumference. The cow, though not meta enough to work out the formula, will surely come to terms with its limitations and pet ideas of free will, once the grass (or the meta) is grazed enough and exhausted. Then, it looks up to the Master, and he releases it from its pole and allows it to graze further beyond. [Don't mention to the cow, that it will be tied to another pole, :) :) , thats part of the original game. ]

There, however, seems to be an even higher possibility, That we are 24x7, co-creators of all of world and Life, just that we forgot, and such Illusion seems part of the design. [Don't say you didn't put that into the design, stupid, you put it and forgot]. Uf! Suddenly, you are promoted to the Board of Directors! Even higher is the school that, 'we' is wrong usage, and all of it is actually ONE single stuff and the dream and waking states are just parameters in a combo box, and one is as real (or as unreal) as the other. Well, there is only one Director, and Thou Art That ! Now, don't ask me, which video game most maps that level of abstraction ? As I said, Life is a meta-kaa-baap-kaa-meta, when it comes to gaming. It seems the Matrix game has characters that are aware that they are under simulation, and they even have a rare one, that has self-substantiated itself out of the game. (What the hell is that supposed to mean in Life ?)

The higher truths about Life and Free Will, we may not be able to comprehend now, we dismiss it in sarcasm and quips, but there may be few die-hard game programmers out there who have seen the software design of the Game called Life and come back. If their experience is anything to go by, we just have to increase our meta and re-meta it until we experience those very truths we find as abstract. It won't be meta anymore, it would just give us the feeling of having designed an amazing game for billions of species to play. Till the end of Time. And start all over again with a different profile. Happy Gaming!

Don't die for a Cause, Live for it.....

After my earlier writings on Bhagat Singh, a friend of mine sent in a link to a recent article on Periyar's stance on Bhagat Singh in those days. The article is based on a recently published book on Bhagat Singh. I should have discussed it after reading the book but I think the contents of the article, even when taken alone, has stuff enough for a blog post, particularly since it mentions an essay written by Bhagat Singh "Why I am an atheist".

I wouldn't ask someone to give up his life by engaging in violent action in the cause of something that is dear to his heart, even against an oppressor. Not that I value Life more than the Cause, but because I think it is better to use Life to further that cause, rather than to give it away on a quick-fix route. Don't say "I'll die for this cause", but say, "I'll live to show how to live for this cause". I called Bhagat Singh a martyr in comparison with Nathuram, because Bhagat Singh gave up his life in acting against an external 200-year-old oppressor, not on a skirmish of money transfer. It's how a spouse or a kid who is oppressively abused at his/her home wanting to break away from the family is different from the kid who thinks of running away because his Dad scolded him. But after Bhagat Singh chose to offer his life (which I think is not always the best thing to do), I would always differentiate such an offering as martyrdom given the context, zeal, selflessness, external oppressor and the awareness wave it created , as against other flimsier reasons for murder of oneself or others. This is not to say that such martyrdom should be replicated (as if it's that easy), but the zeal behind, selflessness and singlepointedness should be replicated towards a cause that is as noble and supreme as the ideal was to the martyr.

There are probably a couple of points in the article where I agree, where Periyar laments that nobody, no leader even condoled the hanging of Bhagat Singh and many senior leaders didn't try to take up the matter with the British in any way. That was real bad, how thankless !

I also agree on Bhagat Singh's general exhortation that exploitation of man by man and nation by nation should end.

That said, would I agree with Bhagat Singh's other views or beliefs ? Oh hardly, which is why I put the agreement first. Here are those where I disagree and most of these disagreements are in the outdated utility of his views in the current times, not on their backdated relevance.

Belief in socialism and communism as a panacea for all the evils of the society was a belief wave of those times, not because of their proven intrinsic healing properties, but more because of the frustrations of imperial colonialism. This would soon get proven by time with, if not the crumbling of such institutions, atleast with the wane in the fascination for these schools and increasing disillusionment about their healing properties. They were definitely worth the try, though.

Among the governance schools that mankind has tried out, Democracy seems to be the one that is working out the best in the current phase of civilization and Man's search for happiness in society. While I personally have a fascination of benevolent autocracy at times, I think, democracy, with all its demerits, will hold the fort as Mankind moves towards better and better forms of this school, hopefully plugging its loopholes on the way. So is the case with free markets, with whatever little freedom it might mean in the actual sense of practice, under democratic intervention through regulation.

"Till people live without unequal status, our struggle will continue. It cannot be brought to an end by killing us..." Oh come on, flip this argument around, will inequality come to an end by killing yourself or others ? How do you define inequality ? How do you define a Utopian possibility of a single equal society where everyone is somehow equally endowed and happy ? Or should we endeavour for the equality of opportunity to make choices and rise ? How about people using the same equality of opportunity to make choices and fall ? Or befall others ? Assuming you define equality successfully, is it something you can achieve ? Even if you were to achieve all equality of the material (which by itself, is an infinitely complex problem), Man would still be unhappy about inequalities in his mind. This is not to say we should glorify the absurd inequalities, but we should pursue the endeavour to remove the absurdity acknowledging the fact that such a pursuit can span civilizations and no single hammer can quickly rest the hall to peace forever.

"only Bhagat Singh’s principle is needed in India" ? That's just Periyar's political wand. Just ignore. We are anyway discussing here why it may not be as fascinating. Among others, He justifies the "use of force in terrible necessity" and non-violence as an indispensable policy for mass movements. I think while it might have had some relevance in relation to abuse by an external oppressor, but it might create utter chaos if individual citizens subscribe to this idea and use force depending on their view of terrible necessity. Leave it to the law enforcers, please.

While some responses to the article have praised his humanism, other online responses the article have handled the fallacious comparison between caste system and economics, untouchability and povery, so I won't go into it. I also won't go into the possible "political" reasons for Periyar to vociferously align with Bhagat Singh or even Bhagat Singh to align with atheism. I would rather look at the reasons for their value and not for their motive.

The other reasons of Bhagat Singh to align with atheism are mentioned in his essay, "Why I am an Atheist", referred to in the article in the context of religion being a tool of exploitation. For one, the essay is definitely a great stirring read, but the meat isn't new, it's as old as God, just the dialogues are different. I wanted to discuss this after I read The God Delusion, but let's have a primer.

If you cut out the part where Bhagat Singh explains that vanity, upbringing etc are not among the reasons, the other main reasons are :

1. He studied a lot on the subject and then found his atheism. He doesn't mention what his studies revealed, I think probably the other reasons mentioned here are the ones. Moreover, Bhagat Singh himself admits that he did a detailed study of the "negative" side, that is, how to deconstruct the God concept, he didn't study much on the "positive" side. Oh, thats bad study, but I will credit him for his open admission.

2. Some of the stuff is rhetoric, hey look at this, hey look at that, don't you know this, aren't you looking and so on. So cut that out too, but I should say, even after cutting, he does go on to some core reasons.

3. "Religion is the cause of a lot of evils and therefore, I don't believe in God": The earlier misconceptions about communism would get disproven by time, but this one still persists. What about other things that cause evil, is that a good reason to say their underlying substratum doesn't exist ? Cobwebs are a good reason to clean the house, but is that a good, (apparaently analytical) reason to deny that the house exists or not to have a house anymore ? Why can't we all stop using petrol and go back to stone age because it causes pollution ? Okay, if religion caused inequalities by caste, which religion caused inequalities by colour in some other part of the earth ? What about inequalities in skill sets, in food, in lotteries and a hundred other variants of inequality. Religion is a major force, and oh we have inequality all over, so we think all inequality must have been caused by religion. People wearing yellow t-shirts eat more apples than those wearing blue ones so there is something about yellow.

We shouldn't admit the evil offshoots of religion, and there are many, but thats a reason we should practise better religion if we believe in God, and even if we don't believe in God, we should find out what causes evil/suffering irrespective of whether God existed or not. As to my take on what's the root cause of all evil, I would turn to one religion that studied this as one of its tenets. Turns out, it has nothing much to do with God.

4. "The God concept was created because of human weakness" : Even if this were true, it hardly gives a reason to prove or disprove the existence of God or otherwise. Since you are the one claiming to be on the side of reason, you got to come up with a better one.

5. "Why did God create the world ? " : If this question was discussed at length, it would have been a different angle, but Bhagat Singh seems to focus on the "Suffering" aspect of creation. He asks the creation question in the context of "Why did God create a world that has so much suffering in it ?". The question presupposes that God should keep the world happy, otherwise he is no God. Look around the world, you won't require God to cause suffering, Man himself is more than capable of it. Moreover, you should first prove God caused it in the first place. Or may be find out, who causes any suffering to whom. And after you find out, you can say, so-and-so is causing it. There are some schools that ask the question "Is there suffering ?" from a particular plane, and, to be fair to the study of the subject, you should ask the question too and find the answer. In fact, if you answer that, quite possible you may not have much questions left.

6. "Who created the world ?": The "Ask Darwin" and "Chemical Accident" arguments aren't new. But if you have to use them effectively as a persuasive argument for atheism, these alternatives should first provide a complete explanation of creation. You might go on pointing out that School A is incomplete and foolish, but to get the point across, you should have School B in your hand and say, here it is, this one answers all your questions. It's well known even in scientific circles that the various disciplines delve most on the How of creation and science, as a discipline by itself, will not be able to provide a complete explanation on the why and who, atleast for a lot of time to come. We are still very far away even from asking these questions in our labs, so come up with something concrete and complete, I'll wait.

I liked the part towards the end of the essay, where Bhagat Singh stays an atheist till the end. Tough job. "You have enough fires, you find God..." - Ladder 49. But I have a faint thought : did he stay so just because he didn't want to roll back ? What if, just what if he was wrong, particularly since he had not found complete correct answers to the God questions he was asking. I am just speculating here, I am sure you can speculate about my being wrong too.

Does that make you curious on what are my arguments in favour of theism ? Thats another thread some day. Frankly, I don't know God well enough to qualify to comment on Him. I like Him though :) . I thought atheists are the ones who knew everything !!

Mobile Panchangam

Today is Ugadi and I received one of those little gifts which banks sometimes give away to customers, a little pocket annual calendar from State Bank of Hyderabad. It has essential information for any given day according to the religious calendar. These are quite common and many calendars in which you can tear away the date every date, often give useful info according to the calendars of many religions, including for example, the month according to the Hijri Calendar and include even a thought for the day. I was wondering why some mobile service provider can't give the same information on SMS for a given day. Panchangam for the day, by SMS, on demand, SMS charges apply. We get all kinds of info on SMS, cricket scores, thought for the day, reservation status, stock quotes and oh yes, coming closest is even astrology for the day. While these services may have something in common with similar operators in other countries, the Panchangam SMS will be a very india-specific service. Setting aside questions of belief or otherwise in the Panchangam, I was wondering if the service will have a market. In my view, yes. If you allow me excitement, quite a big one, in a vast country of believers, where people subscribe to things like virtual pooja. At the minimum, it might have as much reason to be present as a service, as is the astrology option present now. The Panchangam SMS can contain things like Thithi, Star, Good and Bad timings, Rahu Kalam and name of the festival, if any. Who might find it useful ? Anyone who believes in these things, and sometimes keeps track of these in his mind by quickly looking it up in an almanac, somehow can't reach one but has a cellphone. Maybe he is discussing a business transaction. Or planning an investment. Or going on an adventure trip. It will be great if the user can specify which calendar, like Hindu or Hijri.

I was discussing this idea with a friend during my riverside walk and I came to know that, to be technically precise, things like thithi are dependent on the local sunrise time and might actually differ from place to place. This might make things a little more difficult, though user can also the SMS the PINcode of his location!!. The mobile service providers now do give a lot of local content, but I think the categories of content might be similar to those that are offered in other advanced countries. Whereas this one would be a new idea, totally relevant to India. As to users who might find such content useless, Oh yes, lot of people might feel the same way about the other services mentioned above. Also, even when provided, it might not accurately fulfil the needs of some hardcore panchangamites who follow specific panchangams even within the Hindu Calendar, like the Srirangam Kutti Sastrigal Panchangam. But I think, overall, the service might attract a lot of users and also benefit both the customer and the service provider. Particularly, since, in India, localized services like JustDial.Com, which are entirely free to the individual customer, still have found a successful revenue model while giving useful advice, even for free. These days, it looks like in India and China, there would be a volumes market for almost anything, given their vast population. I would also love it, if Google can integrate Panchangam into their Google Calendar, as part of their efforts in offering localized content. Thats a little too much ? Google SMS is already in India and they have started SMS alerts in India for events in the user's Google Calendar. Hehehe, they just have to add a feature, "Subscribe to Daily Panchangam", with Hindu or Hijri, PINcode etc as default settings. At the rate of feature addition of Google, I am sure they'll take it further, and even notify you on upcoming special days like Akshaya Tritihiya and generate ad revenue from jewellery shops. Google Panchangam, how does it sound ?