Enlightened ... There are no special effects.

"Is there a thing that doesn't exist?" was the question my son Krishna asked me last night. It has been his habit to listen to my ramblings before he goes to sleep. His point is - my voice gives him good sleep. And I see the reason on why I didn't become a teacher. Coming back to his question - it made me happy, for he asked a difficult question. It made me happier as I can answer this one to my satisfaction. So, I started. "The answer in a single word is No. But let me explain. We perceive everything through our minds. Thousands of inputs from the sensory organs and a memory help our mind make sense out of what the eyes see, ears hear etc. So, to perceive something, the mind must be present. That is the basic premise. To answer your question, we must first define what that "thing" is (that doesn't exist). You can define that thing as something not in your memory. For example, a creature with three legs, four arms, eight eyes and three ...

This blog is in response to Ram's blog on  Science and Religion, a debate . I see both science and religion as two tools that try to set aside the subjective experience with a more objective observation. I choose to place my views with examples.  I like examples. If a religion preaches that attending a worship session is good for you, (medical) science preaches that aspirin is good for your heart.  Both tend to apply an observed phenomenon on a small sample to the masses.  Just as aspirin may be good for your heart, attending a sunday mass could be good for your emotions.  In both the cases, there are side effects.  Not attending a mass can induce guilty conciousness; aspirin is known to have side effects.  Note that I'm not referring to the act of attending the mass or taking aspirin, but am just referring to the preaching's impact. Rarely do we see priests paying true attention to the individual.  Doctors are slightly better.  But considering the healthcare in most populo...

When I was about 19-20, on the day of Vinayaka Chaturthi, my father was performing the pooja. My brother and I wanted to go to our uncle's place - some 15 kilometers from where we were, to watch a cricket match on TV.  We didn't have TV at that time.  We were rushing our father to finish the pooja fast so that we don't miss even a minute of the game.  My mom was quite upset that we preferred a game over God.  I asked my father - "What would you do when you were my age and got a chance to play/watch cricket?".  Sounded like a good question at that time.  My father didn't say anything, but finished the pooja quickly and we went off to watch the game. Apart from this, I've asked my mom and other elders on a number of occasions on why should we do this or that - to justify my actions and inactions.  The responses can be broadly classified as follows: Some science  (often supported by statistics) that no one understood were behind  the rituals.  An example woul...

Yesterday Prakash blogged about sentiments on Nano . On the points that Prakash had mentioned: 1. Bridge the status for many people Are we looking at a more or less equal status of people because all of them can have a car? Is this the end of all differences and do we start treating people equally? Nano is just a product that would attempt to cash in on the small segment of city people that can afford a bike but can't afford a Maruti 800 or such a car.   Status differences are there and will be there. There will always be a comparison. 2. Allow people to convert their dreams in reality The one who managed to buy a Nano would want to sell it the next year and move up to a bigger better car. So, if someone can dream of a Nano, the next dream would be an i10 or Getz or Maruti 800. 3. Ensure safe travel Agreed. A car is safer than a bike just because you can't drive a bigger vehicle as crazily as you would drive a bike. But sir, what about the safety of the poor souls that hap...