Freedom from the problem of freewill

"Do you believe in free will?", asked a friend of mine when we were having a rather philosophical conversation on life. 

When I hear questions on free will, what comes to mind first is a remarkable conversation from the movie 'Last Samurai', between Captain Algren and Katsumoto the Samurai Chief. It goes something like this:

Katsumoto: You believe a man can change his destiny? 

Algren: I think a man does what he can, until his destiny is revealed!

The next thing that comes to mind is the famous Schrodinger's cat in Quantum Mechanics- which, in a way, is 'free to be both dead and alive at the same time' till an observation has been made.

So, what is my answer? At this moment, the best answer I am capable of is as follows : "I don't know! I prefer to think that I have free will till it is proved otherwise!"

Any comments/thoughts?

Impermanence, Non-attachment and 'Here and Now' as affirmations of life

I used to work with a friend whose stated philosophy of life was in terms of 'impermanence', 'non-attachment' and 'here and now'. Initially, I felt that this philosophy was a bit pessimistic. Aren't these, at least in some ways, negations of life, achievements in life and a planned approach towards life?

Later, I started feeling that these three attributes are just 'a statement of fact' about what life actually is - and that they are nether good nor bad. 'Seeing things as they really are' is one of the ways in which 'satori' (enlightenment) is defined! Hence, these in a way constitute and enlightened perspective on life. 

Now, I tend to think that these three could even be interpreted as affirmations of life. Impermanence keeps life from getting stagnant. While it does signify some sort of 'destruction', it also destroys the 'unpleasant' things in addition to the 'pleasant things'('this too shall pass'). Non-attachment (in the sense of 'anasakti' in yogic literature) is a great way of being effective in life (or of enjoying life without getting trapped by it). 'Here and now' (of the present moment) is indeed the only real opportunity for us to live life! 

Also, this trio of 'Impermanence', 'Non-attachment' and 'Here and Now' are interdependent and mutually reinforcing. For example, Impermanence of life would call for an approach to life based on 'Non-attachment' and the focus on 'Here and Now'. Similarly, the focus on 'Here and Now' will enable Non-attachment and a dynamic approach to life that enables us to experience value, joy and meaning amidst the impermanence of life. Again, Non-attachment is a key enabler for being in the 'Here and Now' and for not being disconcerted by the impermanence of life.

Yes, this would mean that some of the popular 'pictures of success' in life, like 'lasting achievement', 'final victory', 'living happily ever after' etc. are  unrealistic and holding on to them can cause unnecessary suffering. It is said that even after one becomes 'enlightened' one goes back to the everyday life - the life that 'both gives and takes away', 'both disappoints and pleasantly surprises' etc. 

None of this means that we can't be fully alive.  It also doesn't mean that we can't  have amazing human interactions/deep human connect or that we can't experience joy or that we can't live life fully and meaningfully) - so long as we don't try to 'possess' or hold on to them. It is just that we must meet life on its terms and not ours! After all, we are a part of life (and not the other way around)! 

Any comments/thoughts? 

Resonance

Resonance happens when the frequencies (or wave lengths match, leading to increase in the amplitude of vibration. Resonance happens not only in physics but also in human phenomena. Resonance happens when someone or something matches our 'natural wavelength' and it can be an amazing and intensely human experience.

I guess, our natural wavelength changes - based on (inter alia) our emotional state. Hence, we resonate with different things or different people (or different emotional states in the same person) as our emotional state varies. Of course, human beings have the ability to tune into the frequency of other people ('empathize') at least to a some extent - though that doesn't invalidate the existence of a 'natural frequency'. 

For some reason that I cannot fully understand, I resonate very strongly with the 'Om' sound when I am intensely sad(when I hit the absolute rock-bottom emotionally). If I stay with that sound for a while, it often has a very soothing or even uplifting effect on me. The interesting thing is that in my case this resonance happens only when I am intensely sad. Else, it just sort of 'washes over' me. Maybe, when I am intensely sad, my outer layers of social conditioning and facades get stripped away and my core self ('true self') get revealed, and, then the resonance happens!

The sound of the word 'Om' is considered to represent or even convey the ineffability and the depths of the divine Mystery. It is some sort of an inarticulate exclamation that is uttered when one senses the presence of the divine. So, the sound of the word 'Om' makes sense only in the context of a spiritual experience. Else, it remains just a word. Seen in this light, these resonance with 'Om' happening for me only under certain circumstances makes eminent sense!

'Om' is also considered to be the primordial sound of creation or the original vibration of the universe. In that sense, it has striking similarities with John 1:1 in the Bible ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"). Of course, the reference in John 1:1 is to Jesus as the 'Word' or 'logos' (John 1:14 - "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us"). Therefore, personally speaking, I don't find any conflict between this resonance and my Christian faith- especially since these days I am interpreting the word 'faith' more in its original meaning of 'trust' (trust in Jesus Christ based on personal experience) as opposed to 'belief'!

Any comments? 

Different speeds, Different worlds

 Today, I happened to wake up very early and hence I had quite a bit of extra time at hand. Hence, instead of doing a brisk morning walk, I decided to walk slowly, covering the same distance in double the time. It was quite an interesting experience. I saw a lot of things that I had never noticed before, though I was following exactly the same path. I guess the world 'looks' (or 'becomes') different when we change our pace.

Of course, we see this in multiple scenarios. For example, what we see when we drive around a place is very different from what we see when we walk around the same place. What surprised me was the variation just based on the speed of walking. Maybe, different speeds of walking puts us in different frames of mind. Maybe, different frames of mind makes us see different things apart from possibly impacting the walking speed. Maybe, all these happen! 

This reminded me of a 'puzzle' that had captured my imagination when I started studying Physics. Assume that we have a static charge sitting somewhere peacefully, minding its own business. Now, if I stand still near it, I will experience an electrostatic field. If I walk past it at constant speed, I will experience a magnetic field. If I accelerate past it, I will experience an electromagnetic field. Therefore, I will experience different things based on what I am doing, though the electric charge is just sitting there while all this is happening*. So, the questions becomes 'what is really there'? 

In a way, this highlights the fact that while the 'objective reality' (if there is indeed such a thing) doesn't change, our 'subjective reality' can change our perception of the world. While this (that we can see what we want to see) might seem quite trivial (or as a case of 'blinding flash of the obvious') at first glance, it might not remain so when we realize that our sense-making process and hence the group/organization/societal reality is socially constructed to a very large extent!

Another interesting thing about the 'walking experience' is the how our experience changes when we come back to the same place to walk after a long time, say after a few years. In a way, the experience both changes and remains the same. It is because both the place and ourselves have changed and remained the same in various ways. I guess this (change and continuity at the same time) is what triggers nostalgia! It enables us to remember in a deep sense, that of 're-member' (being a member again) and hence it can indeed be an avenue for renewal. 

*Note: This is happening because of my relative motion with respect to the charge. A static charge creates an electrostatic filed around it. But, a moving change creates a magnetic field and an accelerated charge creates an electromagnetic field. 

Of the Universal, the Particular and Oneness

What is oneness? Does the oneness of the universal and the particular negate the existence of the particular? When a river flows into the ocean, does it cease to exist?

I have been thinking about these questions quite a bit in the last few weeks. These thoughts got triggered primarily from three sources. The first was an exploration of the 'dvaita', 'advaita' and 'vishitadvaita' schools of thought. The second was the Gospel of John in the Bible, especially John 14: 20 ("On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you"). The third was Hegelian Metaphysics that talks about the synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis. 

So, what is my 'final conclusion'? Thank God, I no longer have any compulsion to arrive at any such 'final conclusion'. I have come to realize that, especially in matters like this, it is much better to let my questions and answers evolve (and to observe how and why they evolve in a particular manner). I guess, my recent explorations on the 'Philosophy of Science' also helped a lot. The nature of 'truth' in science is always tentative - based on the available data at a particular point of time - and it get revised (if required) as more data becomes available.

So, let me just share my 'current thinking on this matter': 

To me, the particular (e.g. the individual) and the universal ('God') are integrated - in the sense of being of the same essence (same nature) - though this does not totally negate their separate existence. The particular is the universal without ceasing to be particular. 

There are two types of oneness, oneness among the particular entities and oneness between the particular and the universal. Individuality (and diversity) at the level of the particular is indeed possible, while maintaining the essential unity (like 'each apple from the same apple tree can be slightly different - while very much remaining as an apple - and as the fruit of the same apple tree'). We must remember that the 'synthesis' of 'oneness and otherness' is much more than a simple 'negation' (as it also includes the element of 'preservation').

'Inseparable' doesn't necessarily mean 'indistinguishable'. 'Togetherness' (thou art with me) can also be a form of oneness. "I am in you and you are in me", doesn't necessarily mean the 'you' and the 'I' are totally indistinguishable. Yes, they are deeply integrated, and, to me, Jesus is a perfect example of this integration (of 'being fully human and fully divine at the same time'). I also feel that the main purpose of Christianity is to be more like Jesus Christ (to enable us to develop our human nature and our divine nature at the same time and to integrate them)! 

This also brings to mind an interesting fact about the famous 'Sabarimala Temple' in my home state Kerala - that the deity and the devotees (pilgrims) are called by the same name ('Ayyappa'). One needs to observe 41 days of 'vratham'(severe austerity measures) before undertaking the pilgrimage. Also, the traditional route to the temple was through a dense forest where one had good chance of being attacked by wild animals. So, when the devotee reaches the temple after observing the 'vratham' and after the dangerous and difficult journey through the forest (keeping one's mind focused on the deity all the while), the devotee 'becomes one with the deity'. This is also amplified by the words 'tat tvam asi' ('thou art that'), written on the temple indicating that the devote has become (one with) what the devotee was seeking!

Yes, I do feel that 'oneness' is the cornerstone of religious experience!

Any comments?

Of rituals, culture and spirituality

This post was triggered by a discussion based on an article that spoke about the decreasing importance given by the young generation to rituals and how that could impact our culture and spirituality.

My immediate response was that rituals becomes more meaningful when we know the meaning behind the rituals. We tend to be not so enthusiastic about those rituals that we feel are 'empty'(of meaning).

Sense-making is a function of place and time, and, it happens within the prevailing worldview, culture and the intellectual atmosphere. In the case of some rituals, original meaning/intent just has to be explained to make the rituals meaningful to a new group of people (e.g. the young generation). In the case of some other rituals, a significant reinterpretation is required. In a modern society, with more choice and awareness at the individual level (as compared to earlier times), expecting everyone to follow the rituals without evaluating them is a bit unrealistic.

 Yes, in the case of many of the rituals, the meaning is not in the rituals itself, but it is in the state of mind and the connect (to oneself, others and to the divine) that the ritual (if performed 'properly') helps to attain!

 Let me try to illustrate this with two examples, the first from Christianity and the next from Hinduism:  

During the holy communion,  when the bread and wine are blessed, they 'become' (in the subjective reality of the communicant) the body and blood of Christ. Now, this transformation in the subjective reality can't take place without tuning fully into the ritual by means of prayers, singing etc. 

Let me also add a personal perspective here. When it comes to the meaning of holy communion, some sort of 'U-Curve-like' phenomenon happened in my case. At first, I didn't think too much about the meaning and implications of holy communion, beyond taking it a way to remember Jesus. Later, I did a lot of thinking about the meaning of holy communion and and I became a bit uncomfortable, as I interpreted it to be some sort of 'ritualistic cannibalism' - till I realized that in many ancient societies, the main motive behind ritualistic cannibalism was not shortage of meat - it was to get the powers of the person who passed away. 

In the case of holy communion, this is explicitly affirmed in the prayers that prepares one for holy communion. For example, "so that you can be in us and we can be in you" in the prayer of humble access. To me, the main objective of Christianity is to become more like Jesus Christ - fully human and fully divine  at the same time (please see 'Miracle' for more details) and to become one with Him. From that perspective, the ritual of holy communion, if done properly with understanding, can be a great enabler! We can also say that the ritual of holy communion becomes meaningful, only in the context of the religious/spiritual experience that allows one to feel the oneness with Christ.   

Now, let's come to the second example. I grew up in Kerala. In many of the temples in Kerala, there is the ritual of 'pradakshinam', that involves circumambulating the (sanctum sanctorum of the) temple. These days, you will see many people running around the temple at 'breakneck speed' which takes away meaning of the ritual. The original idea was that you should do the 'pradakshinam' with your mind focused on the deity- and your speed of walking should be only as much as that of a nine-months pregnant woman who is walking with a jar of full of oil balanced on her head (without spilling it, of course). So, if it is done properly, this ritual definitely becomes a great mindfulness exercise and a great way to focus on the divine. Yes, if one just runs around the temple at 'breakneck speed', just to observe the form of the ritual (without bothering about the spirit behind it), the ritual becomes meaningless indeed! 

Where does this leave us? Rituals are useful when they are done properly and with adequate understanding of  (and resonance with) their intent (underlying meaning/purpose) Yes, we should not 'de-ritualize' our society. Rituals can bring in a 'sense of the sacred' and that of profoundness to our lives. They can also help in facilitating psychological transitions (see 'accelerated learning and rites of passage') and in attaining altered states of awareness/higher levels of consciousness. Rituals can also encode, amplify and reinforce cultural elements. Yes, 'de-ritualization is a move towards 'de-spiritualization' and hence towards alienation'!

Any comments?

സ്ഥലജലവിഭ്രമം (sthala-jala-vibhramam) : Confusing between land and water

In my home state Kerala, there are many stories about a very interesting person called Naranathu Bhranthan. Naranathu Bhranthan was considered to be a 'siddha' (an 'enlightened' or 'realized' being) though some of his behaviors appeared to be rather 'strange'. That was indeed why he was called 'bhranthan' ('bhranthan' means a 'mad man' in Malayalam language). 

One of his famous habits was to follow a 'Sisyphus -like' procedure. He would push many big stones to the top of a hill in the morning. Then, he would push them down, one by one, and, laugh loudly as they roll down the slope. Unlike Sisyphus, Naranathu Bhranthan was doing this out of choice and that too not on a full-time basis. 

These days, I often feel like Naranathu Bhranthan. For 48 years I rolled 'stones of certainty' up the hill of life. Now, I am pushing them down one by one. I haven't yet learned to laugh like Naranathu Bhranthan though!

I did find a metaphor that strongly resonates with my current situation in life - 'my current problem comes from confusing between land and water' - what is known as  'സ്ഥലജലവിഭ്രമം' (sthala-jala-vibhramam) in Malayalam. 

Till now, I was walking on land ('terra firma' or 'solid ground') and I had developed a lot of survival skills suitable for such a terrain and also elaborate maps to navigate the terrain. Now, I find myself in water where there is nothing to hold on to. Also, there is no shore to swim to!

So, all I can do is to keep swimming! Maybe, that is all I need to do, and, over a period of time, I will become more of an aquatic animal that can breathe underwater and even the swimming will become optional! 

Maybe, fearing the water too much is irrational- in a way, all human beings start as aquatic animals - floating in the amniotic fluid in the womb (albeit with the umbilical chord). It is interesting to note that both science and many of the religious traditions hold that life originated in water. Yes, "if you trust the sea, you don't have to fear the waves"! 

Any comments?

Of wisdom and grace

 How does one acquire wisdom? It has been said that "you can be knowledgeable with another person's knowledge, but you can't be wise with another person's wisdom". So, where does this elusive wisdom come from?

To me, wisdom comes mainly from the 'little epiphanies' or 'Aha! moments' when life makes a deep impression on us. Since, it is not just a matter of will, I think it involves some degree of divine grace. Yes, one definitely needs to make the effort to be open to grace or at least not to resist it! 

In a way, the process of acquiring wisdom is not unlike the process by which pearls get formed in an oyster - when it gets hurt or when something irritates its skin. 

Any comments?