अनुभूति का आवरण

 मैं जो देखता हूँ क्या वो सच है? अद्वैत वेदांत के अनुसार जगत मिथ्या है।  ब्रह्मा एकमात्र सत्य है। जिस प्रकार  रस्सी भ्रम से सर्प प्रतीत होता है  उसी प्रकार यह जगत  भूलवस् माया स्वरूप जान पड़ता है।  जगत एक आवरण है पर उस आवरण के पीछे क्या है हमें पता नहीं।  पाश्चात्य दार्शनिक कान्त कहता है कि हमे वस्तुओं के   प्रतिभास मात्र का अनुभव है, यथार्थ वस्तुओं की न  प्रतिभूति है न क्षमता।

यह आवरण क्या है जिसके पीछे यथार्थ जगत छिपा है ? यह  आवरण है हमारी अनुभूति। जिस जगत की हमें समझ वह  जगत हमारे अनुभव का  परिणाम है पर हमारा अनुभव व्यक्तिपरक है। हमारा अनुभव हमारे संवेदना का परिणाम है।  वस्तुओं के प्रति हमारी संवेदना शक्ति विभिन्न है अतः जगत के प्रति हमारी आत्मनिष्ठ  समझ भी  विभिन्न है। पर जगत विभिन्न कैसे  सकता है ? जगत तो एक ही है।  फिर मेरा संसार आपके  संसार से अलग कैसे ? अगर मेरे पास आंखे नहीं  होती तो मेरा संसार आपके संसार से काफी अलग होता।  मेरे संसार में वस्तुओं का रंग नहीं होता उनका स्वाद और स्पर्श होता। क्या मैं अपने संसार  को कम वास्तविक मानता ? मगर , तब आप कहते की मेरा संसार अधूरा है। पर क्या आपका संसार पूर्ण है ? क्या आपका संसार यथार्थ है? 

The Hymns to creation of Rig Veda

The Hymns to creation of Rig Veda

Following is the Nasdiya Sukta of Rig Veda as translated by A.L. Basham:-

नासदासीन्नो सदासीत्तदानीं नासीद्रजो नो व्योमा परो यत् | किमावरीवः कुह कस्य शर्मन्नम्भः किमासीद्गहनं गभीरम् ॥ १॥ न मृत्युरासीदमृतं न तर्हि न रात्र्या अह्न आसीत्प्रकेतः | आनीदवातं स्वधया तदेकं तस्माद्धान्यन्न परः किञ्चनास ॥२॥ तम आसीत्तमसा गूहळमग्रे प्रकेतं सलिलं सर्वाऽइदम् | तुच्छ्येनाभ्वपिहितं यदासीत्तपसस्तन्महिनाजायतैकम् ॥३॥ कामस्तदग्रे समवर्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् | सतो बन्धुमसति निरविन्दन्हृदि प्रतीष्या कवयो मनीषा ॥४॥ तिरश्चीनो विततो रश्मिरेषामधः स्विदासीदुपरि स्विदासीत् | रेतोधा आसन्महिमान आसन्त्स्वधा अवस्तात्प्रयतिः परस्तात् ॥५॥ को अद्धा वेद क इह प्र वोचत्कुत आजाता कुत इयं विसृष्टिः | अर्वाग्देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यत आबभूव ॥६॥ इयं विसृष्टिर्यत आबभूव यदि वा दधे यदि वा न | यो अस्याध्यक्षः परमे व्योमन्त्सो अङ्ग वेद यदि वा न वेद ॥७॥

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.^[11]

(Courtesy: Wiki)

This sukta of Rigveda is a speculation about the creation of the universe and the one who created it. Rigveda, according to historians, was formulated around 2000 BC. It is called Apurushaya i.e. it is not a work of mankind. Hence, probably it is the first instance of serious speculation about the nature of origin, the genesis, and the creator.

One thing that is striking about this hymn is that it is very agnostic or sceptical. The author/ authors do not claim anything with certainty unlike other account of genesis. Perhaps, it is characteristic of serious philosophical inquiry.

The one, who is the creator as referred from this hymn was alone in the beginning. He breathed without any breath. Then a desire came top his mind to multiply. To became many from the one. This desire was the seed to creation. Gods came later, later then the creation itself.

But ultimate stunning thing is that according to the authors/ author is that even the creator knows not what he has fashioned or whether he has fashioned anything at all. The one primeval who is residing in the highest heaven may have created something knowingly or unknowingly i.e in his ignorance or dream. Ultimately, what are our dreams but sum projection of our desires, anticipation, hope and fear. Maybe, the world as it seems could have been dreamt by the one at the beginning. 

John Rawls and Just Society

What is truth to scientific theories, justice is to social and political institutions. A theory however elegant if false cannot be justified, similarly an institution however efficient cannot be legitimate if unjust.------John Rawls.

Is it right to sacrifice rights of few to make masses happy? Is it right to sacrifice few to save many? Is it right to take organs of a healthy person without his consent to save lives of five? Utilitarianism seems to answer affirmatively to these perplexing moral questions. But, John Rawls seem not satisfied. He is a fierce advocate of human rights. For him, a just society constitute of rational, free an equal peoples.

What is a just society? For answering this fundamental question, he resorts to a thought experiment. How would divide a cake if you do not have any prior information as to which part of the cake you would get. Probably, you would divide it fairly. Suppose, if you had any prior information regarding which piece of the cake you would get, you would not have been such honest. This, John Rawls called, famously, as veil of ignorance.

How to conceive a just human society by veil of ignorance.  What is more important distribution of income or possession of human rights. If faced by such choice as to whether one would like to be born into a rich inegalitarian society with minimal human rights or a poor egalitarian society with atleast basic human rights, a logical person would chose second. This fact has been psychologically proven too. So, John Rawls concludes a just society could be conceived behind veil of ignornace where no party has any prior information and advantage but everyone agrees to similar conception of a just society.

But provided that we have such unequal and highly inegalitarian society; could it be justified? For this, Rawls gives two cardinal principles on whether such inequality which is pervasive feature of todays society could be justified.
(1) The inequality should be accessible and open to all.
(2) Such inequalities could be justified only if the benefits of it accrues to the advantages of least well of.

Am i really free?

It is a long held belief that Brain and mind is correlated. Current research in neuroscience also seem to support this view. According to this view, different parts of brain is associated with different functionalities associated with speech, memory, cognition, imagination and so on. An individual characteristic and personality traits to a large extent depend upon the underlying structure of his brain. It is like, brain is a substratum on which mind and behavior are imposed or derived from. For example, Einstein's brain, which is largely researched in past, is saliently different from normal brain. Parts of the brain which are associated with imagination and mathematical calculation is outgrown to parts of brain associated with speech and verbal understanding in his case. And, as we know he was quite an imaginative thinker but struggled with the language.

This begs a question if brain structure is already predefined from the time of birth, and individual characteristics and personality traits depend to a large extent on structure of his brain, then does he have any choice in his making. Could Einstein achieve what he achieved if not endowed with such a brain? Was brain his creation? Do i have any choice in my making provided much of what i could achieve is already predetermined?

William James talk of stream of consciousness. Much that i do or don't choose to do happens in that stream of consciousness. The thoughts that arise and vanish, the imagery i create in my mind, the memories on which i dwell, the endless cycle of self-criticism, the inner-conflicts, the never ending process of self-doubting and churning of thoughts all happens in that space of consciousness of which i am a witness. What is that space? That space is the stream of consciousness, hopping around, bumping at one thought to another, jumping from one action to another.

Are those thoughts really mine? The actions that i chose to do, are they product of my volition? One of the startling facts of thinking process is that thoughts and images in mind arise spontaneously. Much of that are involuntary. Am i in control of all those thoughts and images of which i become aware and conscious? And, given that willing precedes actions, are those acts really mine when much of that i will is also involuntary. After rigorous self introspection, it becomes clear that Thinking process is automatic. We like to think that we are in-charge of our thoughts but it's other way, thoughts is incharge of us- much that we do or think.

Given that we just become aware of  thoughts, can we claim authority over those thoughts? Can we say that the thoughts that i perceive in my stream of consciousness are mine? Who induces the thoughts i perceive in my sphere of consciousness in me? Whoever produces is the de-facto in-charge of my thinking, willing, actions and life itself.