Sei sulla pagina 1di 341

Why Do We Study? Today I want to talk about education about the purpose of exams, and the purpose of studying.

I have been seeing this every year that people would start studying only some days before the exams as a rule, as if that is the only season for studying. And that's not just it. The problem is that they think they need to study only for there are exams. In worse cases I have seen they would get a set of important questions and study only those questions as that would be sufficient to score enough marks which they desire. And in the worst cases I have seen them buying exam question papers from illegal sources, and be free of all the toil of studying and preparation.

This makes me wonder why do we actually study. I study to gain knowledge. And I believe there is no "season" for gaining knowledge. I recently gave final exams of M Com degree. I would say I studied that course because I wanted to gain knowledge of that field. After attaining the knowledge I could identify myself as a master of commerce (as the degree suggests). The important thing to note here is that the knowledge gives me the title and not passing the exams. I would be a master of commerce even if I do not appear for exams. Only if I understand all the matter in the course books I am it. Exams dont really matter.

However, it is through exams that your knowledge is tested and only then you can claim the title. So exams are necessary to test you before certifying. But those people who study only from exam point of view should ask themselves that even after passing the exams, even after scoring good marks are they really worthy of that title? Of course, it will ensure a career for them, earn them respect; but in truth, do they really deserve it? They have studied only those portions which were going to be asked in exams, so they scored well. But what about the knowledge? Knowledge is lapsed.

I believe if something is given in your course books then it has to be studied with full efforts at understanding it, no matter how unimportant it is from exam point of view. Only then you truly deserve the degree. And there is no season for studying. When you are genuinely interested in some thing you can study it throughout your life, everyday! Even if exams are not there you will study as long as you want the knowledge.

They are not true knowledge seekers. They think education is just a tool that has to be used for securing career, and they want to use it just as much as required for attaining

their mean objective. They dont really desire to be enriched in mind, which is the basic purpose of education.

Remember, you should not study for there are exams. But exams are there to ensure that you have studied everything. So when you keep such attitude of studying only for exams you actually make the very purpose of exams void! Is it Right to Own an Animal? UPDATE (May 2011): As I see it now, this article is written with a very limited knowledge and understanding. I have grown significantly since then. The readers should know that I no more consider the article important, and as such, comments on this article will NOT be replied to.

This article might give some pain to pet owners, because it tells why we should not keep a pet. In fact, I believe its a crime, a sin, to own an animal; even if that is in the form of a pet. Here pet does not mean your street dog which you occasionally feed and take care of. By pet, I mean that animal which you "buy" from the market; exotic breeds, which are shipped across the world from their natural habitat.

It is not right to keep a pet.

My first point is that humans do not have the right to own a creature. Just as we humans would not think it fair to be controlled by some other powerful creature; it is not fair that you control any other life. Every creature has a right to independence, just as we human like to think we do.

Many of the pet owners are under a grave misunderstanding that they are giving the creature a better life. They are so caring, and they think if their pet did not have an owner like them then it wont be such happy in its life. I would not blame those pet owners for such thinking, for it seems they really have good intentions towards the other creature. The problem is with human thinking. Humans always think small. Let me tell you one thing straight. Humans are living the most miserable, most destructive and the worst life on this planet. Tomorrow if the world is fully destroyed (which has already started happening) the reasons lie in thoughtless human activities like pollution, global warming, and relentless exhaustion of resources (not to mention inter-human fights, and

wars!). At every step of the life humans are defying Natures laws and making their own life and the whole world worse. This clearly shows that humans, despite having so-called intelligence, can not even understand themselves, their own world, their own wants and desires and what is good for them. How can they ever imagine that they understand what is better for the other creature? First we have to be the best species on the planet then we can think of giving some other a better life. God is the creator of all, and He gives everyone the best lives. Humans should not look at God's world with their own spectacles. When you think you will give some creature a better life you defy Gods will. It means an insult to God, because God has already given the best setting for every creature. It is when humans have stepped out of the Gods world and taken control in their own hands the world has started paying the cost.

Just imagine, how can you decide what is comfortable for the animal? You like sleeping in bed. Does that mean your dog likes it too? What about its desire and the right to be with its own species? What about its sexual instincts? It should mate when you want puppies; or starve of sex if (God forbid!) you dont want puppies! It should go out and play when your schedule allows. Should eat when you eat, sleep when you sleep. These are just some examples. There are countless things that dont go common for human life and animal life that we humans are not even capable of imagining.

Some pet owners say their pet likes their love and the comfortable life they have given it. But even if a pet likes the life you are giving it, it is harming it in an indirect way. Comfort is something that everyone likes, and the same might be the case with your dog. It might love living in your house comfortably. But if you think deep you should understand that comfort makes one weak. Just look at ourselves. How weak we are today, compared to our primates. This is because we have done away with the natural struggle of life like, the struggle of looking for food, protecting ourselves from predators etc. Today we are living a very sophisticated life and so no need for such exercise. Even if we have become weak today we can more or less live with it because our life does not require that physical power anymore. But the animal that you own is not a human, and the life you are giving it is not natural for it. You should understand that the species needs the ability to struggle with their natural environment. By giving some creature a comfortable life you are changing its composure from what is intended for it by Nature. It might like the comfort, but it is not good for long survival of the species.

In truth, most of the people keep a pet for their own entertainment and wellbeing or because its in fashion. Whatever the case, I believe if you leave the creature in its natural setting then there can not be a better life for it. Humans just have to broaden their perspective. Nature is great. By defying Nature we are suffering. Take this as a lesson and do not deprive another creature of its natural life.

How Poverty Can(not) Be Removed?


There is no solution to the problem of poverty. As long as humankind is poverty will remain.

Every sane person today considers poverty as a problem, and would like to contribute towards its solution. Some believe they can do so by being a part of economic development of the underprivileged. They would want to provide free education to the poor, so as to make them productive to earn. Some would want to provide food, clothing and financial help or support to the poor to reduce the extent of poverty. There are many ways seemingly good people are contributing today, thinking it would remove poverty one day. To give you my opinion on it, I pity their attempts. Be it economic development of the underprivileged or financial help and support to the poor, they are all lame approaches which can never remove poverty. I call them lame approaches, because they are not really solutions to the problem, but masks. By doing so, you can only mask the poverty, not solve it. For removing the problem one has to study the root cause of it and then attempt to curb it from there. So for a change, stop following the crowd and do some real analysis.

First of all we will determine what is called poverty. There are many definitions of poverty, but here we will take the most rational one. Poor are not those who live below poverty line as stated by the government. Poor are not those who have little or no money and few or no material possessions. Poor is one who can not have the basic necessities of life. Thus, my definition of poverty says

Poverty is the state wherein one is unable to fulfill the basic necessities of life.

Now in todays world of disparities the term basic necessities is subjective. For example, for the people living in the forest of Africa who have no importance and use of material possessions only adequate food is basic necessity of life, without which they would be considered poor, whereas, for me living in the developing country like India television, cell phone and washing machine are basic necessities of life, without which my lifes quality would be considered poor. If you are in the developed country as the US then even a car is a basic necessity. Thus, the definition remains the same, but in different worlds its implications are diverse.

After understanding what poverty is, now lets move on to find out its root cause. Like

many other of our problems poverty too is essentially human phenomenon. There is no poverty in animals. It shows that in natures care no one is poor, but every one is equal. Imagine the primitive stage of humankind where humans lived almost naturally. There is no poverty, no different classes, and no difference in standard of living. There is complete equality throughout. That is because when nature creates lives it places enough resources to support lives, and as long as every one is using ones respective share of resources no one is left without resources and poverty can not arise.

What happened then which gave rise to poverty? When humans got intelligent they developed hunger for social power and desire to control. It gave rise to the tendency to possess more than others, to impact others lives and attain control thereby. Humans started collecting and possessing more resources than their natural requirement. This led to scarcity of resources as people started possessing others share of resources. When something is scarce it is valuable. Thus, scarcity resulted in value of resources; and when resources become valuable they no more remain just resources, they become wealth. For the first time thus, wealth came into existence. Those possessing wealth became rich, and those whose share was snatched became poor. Different classes were thus created and different standards of living came into existence.

This happened, because intelligent humans, by nature, can not live without the hunger for power and desire to control. Equal standard of living is not acceptable to human nature.

We learned the root cause of poverty. Now consider the present day situation. Unlike the early stage described above, today we have inserted the element called money as a connecting link between resources and the consumers of resources. Resources are no more directly available for consumption. First you have to earn money, and then you can get the resources in exchange of money. Without money there is no access to resources. So, instead of directly possessing resources todays humans want to possess money. Wealth is changed in form. Money is wealth today.

The so-called economic development is aimed at providing income opportunities to every one. Assuming that one day the whole world will be economically developed, every one will be earning enough money to fulfill the basic necessities of one's life. Yes, poverty will be removed through the route of economic development. Every one will have enough money. That means no different classes, no difference in standard of living. But dear fellow humans, is that state of equality acceptable to your nature? If it was, then wealth would not have been created on the first place, poverty would not have been born. Equal standard of living, meaning adequate income to everyone, goes against the

very purpose of existence of money!

Humans have already proved throughout history that they can not live with equality. So the entire exercise called economic development is futile, as far as solving poverty is concerned.

As for the provision of financial help to the underprivileged, it is not just lame, but ridiculously lame. You can only help others when you have more than your natural requirement. Do you have the courage to accept the truth? When you have means to help the poor, it means you are already the root cause of poverty that you are lamely intending to solve!

Poverty is not a problem, but paradoxically, wealth is. Poverty is an outcome of creation of wealth. How can something be solved which is not a problem on the first place!

I ask humankind: In the world that you have made around you, can you stop desiring to be wealthy? Can you chuck the hunger for power, control and possession? When these questions are answered you will also know whether poverty can be removed. Who Did You Vote For? (!) BE CAREFUL in interpreting the following post. The view expressed below is infantile. I no more hold the same view about voting.

(Worldly mans conversation with the philosopher)

Its Election Day. Who did you vote for?

None.

None? What do you mean..?

I dont vote.

You dont vote? And the reason being..?

Personal ones.

What kind of a person are you, whatever will happen to the country! Are you, tell me, how much have you studied?

Excuse me. What connection has it with voting or not voting?

Connection it has! Are you educated? How much have you studied?

Well, in that case, more than you. Is that enough?

Acting smart, huh?

Nope.

Dont you ever realize its the responsibility of every Indian to elect for the country?

Of every Indian, yeah, but I am NOT an Indian.

Ha! Not an Indian. Then what are you? A PAKISTANI?

I am NOT an Indian, nor a Pakistani, nor an American, nor a Russian. I am just one of the creatures born on the face of the earth and I would like to be identified as just that.

And who feeds you..?

Not you!!

India! Which land you live on? India. You live here, feed here. You can not run away from your responsibility as an Indian. You ARE an Indian!

Man, you see that dog? It lives here, feeding on this land. Does that make it an Indian too?

Of course, it IS Indian.

Okay. As you just said its the responsibility of every Indian to vote, then why doesnt it pain you when the dog does not vote? Why not make it vote?

Are you insane? Or are you kidding me? Do you have manners to talk with elders? Its a dog! You see? An animal. They dont have to vote, if I must tell you!

Its an animal, right. Let me tell you something, sir. You humans suffer from a disorder to assume things, to take control. You guys never ask, just assume for the entire world and effect the decisions. Why do you assume that I am one of your kind? I am an animal, too. I would be ashamed to be a human.

Ashamed to be what? You think being just an animal is better than being a human? Is that what you mean?

Yeah.

Insane!!

Not insane! They do not war. They are not rich or poor, all equal. They do not starve and die of an essentially human thing, poverty. They do not get depressed. They do not suicide. They do not have to work their ass out for earning money which would only further complicate their lives. They need not God, to forgive them, for they never commit a sin! They dont play your-country-my-country game. They do not invent things which would enslave them. And they have never, NEVER EVER, put the entire existence of the world at stake for their absurd living.

Humans are the most intelligent creatures, dont you forget that! We have made the world inhabitable!

The world had been inhabited by thousands of creatures for millions of years long before the humans showed up. The God had already made the world most inhabitable. Dont mistake humans with the God. As for your intelligence, one of these statements is true: Either humans are NOT intelligent; or intelligence is an evil thing.

What are you talking? Non-sense.

Your entire life is non-sense. No wonder you are quite unaccustomed to sensible talk.

Sensible talk, huh? Then why not live the sensible life? Why live the absurd human life? Taking the benefits of being human, and when it comes to contribute to the humanity it becomes absurd.

You know what, as I already mentioned, you humans suffer from a disorder to assume for others, to control others. Who on earth, you think, decides who will live as what, I? No, its YOU, and your kind!! Will you, tell me, will you let me live with my natural freedom? I will eat wherever I want to eat, sleep where I want to sleep. Wont pay money for a thing which nature has made for use. Will YOU let me have those privileges? NO. You will put me in the jail. Kill me! Thats you! The controllers.

Sounds like you are a gone case. I am wasting my time talking to you.

Yeah.

Dont vote!! Are You Happy or Content? Everyone in the world wants to be happy. The purpose of human life seems to be attaining happiness in all the things we do. It is so human, and hence, so immature. Even after running behind happiness all life you seldom feel satisfied with all the things you have got. That means theres something wrong with the whole exercise of living for happiness. Before aspiring something you have to understand the nature of it. When you understand the nature of happiness, you will understand that the pursuit of happiness is futile.

In truth, happiness does not exist in real; meaning, it is never a lasting thing. What you call happiness is just a temporary state of mind after the pain ceases.

Lets understand this with the help of examples

You know, in life you are not always happy or in pain. Some times you are just neutral. Between pain and happiness there is a state of neutrality, wherein you are neither happy nor in pain.

Suppose you are living in that neutral state. Life goes on smoothly without happiness or pain. Now one day you meet an accident, which injures your arm awfully and puts you into immense pain. The infection develops and it becomes difficult to heal the wound in short time. Your life becomes very painful and full of sorrow as the wound does not heal for days and gives you constant pinching.

After a couple of months as your wound is still not healed the doctor decides to apply the new treatment. Miraculously, the new treatment works wonder and your arm becomes good in no time. Now this brings you great happiness as the awful pain of months ends finally. So, this is the state of immense happiness or is it? This is the same state in which you dwelt prior to the accident and the injury. It was, then, the state of neutrality. How come the same state of neutrality now seems to be the state of immense

happiness? This is, in fact, a temporary state of mind called happiness.

After a couple more months you are back to the normal life and the accident and the injury have become things of the past no more thought over. And the state of immense happiness is again morphed into its real hue which is neutrality. Happiness is faded away. Or we can say it was a temporary feeling which died out after a while.

Because happiness is not a real thing, it can not last. It is always, always for a while.

Another, and more human-centric, example: It talks about expectations and craving. Unlike an arm injury which is a physical pain, expectations and craving are psychological pains. When your mind is laden with expectations and craving for something there is a feeling of distress within, which is a psychological pain.

Suppose you are using a simple black-and-white screen mobile phone, and life goes on smoothly. No need to tell this is the state of neutrality where contentment can be felt. One day you see an advertisement of a high-tech color mobile phone with touch-screen and it moves you. You want to possess it desperately now. Its very costly. You start saving money for it. The desire is so strong that you cant wait to own it. The thought of not being able to own it puts you in distress. Such desire to own or posses something is a psychological pain; it wont let your mind rest.

After a couple of months you have saved enough and you go buy the new phone. The desire is satisfied, the pain ends. As a result, a temporary state arises which you would call the state of immense happiness. This is the same state which you had experienced when you bought your simple black-and-white screen mobile phone too, and you had called it happiness then. If that was happiness, then what is it now?

The fact is that it was a temporary state then, and it is a temporary state now. Wait for a couple more months and the new mobile phone too will become just another thing you own, losing all its charm. The temporary state of mind called happiness will fade away and the life will slip into the state of neutrality until you give way to another pain.

This shows that what we call a state of being happy is nothing but a temporary state after the pain is ended. Soon the happiness would fade away and it would become the

state of neutrality from where you can either give way to another pain and enter the endless cycle of sorrow and happiness OR find contentment in it, latter one being the essence of life.

The essence of life is not happiness but the state wherein there's neither happiness nor pain but contentment; because happiness is anyway not real, and pain is what no one would want.

More than the physical pain, its the pain of the mind that has made human life so miserable today.

Enlightened is the one who has transcended the human experiences as pain and happiness. He would not be moved by worldly pleasures, nor be hurt by broken expectations. He is in perfect bliss which is contentment. Are Parents Their Children's Responsibility? I have often seen it that after the children have grown up to be independent if they don't behave and live in a way their parents and the society have expected them to, then they become contemptible.

I object.

I ask what are these expectations of the parents and the society? That children, after they have grown up to be independent, should live to fulfill the unachieved dreams of their parents; should be the support for the parents in their old age; should live with parents all their lives; should earn enough to feed the needs and luxuries of the whole family which includes the parents, and so on.

I am not an anti-parents guy. I am not against the children living up to the expectations mentioned above. Fulfilling those expectations of the parents and the society would be, no doubt, greatness of a person. But the point is, not fulfilling them does NOT render a person a social criminal!

It's easy when the dreams and expectations of the child are in with those of the parents,

but what if the child is born with different flesh from their parents? What if the child is born with the talent of an artist while the parents dream of their child being a doctor? What if the child fancies a profession through which he will be able to earn barely enough to keep both ends together while their parents thought their child will be a millionaire? What if the child wants to attain spiritual bliss and seeks to go on to live as a monk in the Himalayas while their parents expect their child to be the support of their old age?

There are endless possibilities of situations which would put a person in great dilemma. Here, most of the children are forced to submit to the dreams and expectations of the parents and the society, and consequently one human life fails!

What causes them to submit? It's the resonating voice of the society saying this mostridiculous-thought-in-the-world: Your parents have done many favors on you. First, they brought you into this world. Then, they brought you up with hardships, fed you and nurtured you And they are the ones who made you what you are today. So, you are indebted to them for your life. It's your duty to live for the ones because of whom you exist!

As against this, what I am saying in this article is this: Children are the responsibility of the parents; the parents are totally responsible for bringing up, feeding and nurturing their children. But, the parents are NOT the responsibility of children. Not rationally, nor morally, nor ethically!

The Indian reader with conventional mindset will stop reading it here and probably will never set an eye on my article ever again. But I will still write the truth as long as I have perfectly rational justification for it.

I will again say I am not an anti-parents guy. But I am a truth-seeker, and there come situations in life wherein you have got to know the truth, so as to avoid getting stuck into the dilemma.

Let's understand quickly the responsibility thing: No human is responsible for another human except against the solicited favors. Meaning, you are indebted to or responsible for someone only if you have received a favor from him which you had asked for. Even unsolicited favors do not make you indebted.

I won't waste more time explaining above statement because, by some mental exercise, you can gauge its soundness for yourself. After all, rationality is a universal thing.

Why Are Parents Responsible for the Children?

As per the explanation of responsibility given above, parents are responsible, in totality, for the children as the children are deemed to be "solicited favors" onto parents.

There are many reasons why humans produce children, all concentrated around the wellbeing of the parents themselves. When the parents are in the process of producing a child they are not thinking about how their life is going to be while bringing up the child. They are just enjoying good sex. That's one, and the basic, reason why the children are produced, and it is concentrated around the wellbeing of the parents alone.

For some parents the child is a token of love. The child would bring lots of love in their lives. For some, the child is a psychological desire. For some, the child is a way to keep the race going on and a means to pass on the heritage. For some, the child is a tool to live the unachieved dreams with. For some, the child is a social need. For some, the child would be a financial support in the far away future. There are countless reasons why humans bring a child into the world. And most of the time, more than one of those reasons are in place. Which ever the case, the reasons are always centered around wellbeing and convenience of the parents, be it physical, psychological, social, or financial.

For this wellbeing and/or convenience when they produce a child it is fully their responsibility to nurture it because in the form of child they are producing a life which is as human as themselves, and has the same feelings and sense of experience as they do. The life has actually taken place for them. It's a greatest favor on them and so it makes them indebted to it to the absolute degree. It is their responsibility to nurture the child until he is able to survive in the world independently.

Why Are Children Not Responsible for the Parents?

As per the same explanation of responsibility children are absolutely not responsible for the parents. First of all, they are not indebted to the parents because whatever parents did for them was already their responsibility.

Children owe nothing to the parents except if there are favors which were solicited, or those things which are received over and above the responsibility of the parents after the child became able to survive independently which may include share in the property, investments and/or other financial matters.

I don't intend to discourage children from caring about their parents. If someone is bound with the parents not by responsibilities but by love and emotions then that's the coolest thing in one's life! I am just stating the truth for those who are into the dilemma, so as to help them be free of the forced-upon feeling of guilt and the possible depression which might follow, which the world is not going to understand and acknowledge.

If you analyze all the reasons why children are produced (except for the basic one, called sex), you will see that they are all human reasons. And all human reasons can be summed up in one line: Parents need security physical, psychological, social, or financial security through their child.

Now this goes for all the parents

It is okay to seek security from your children, as long as they are happy with it, but if you are making them sacrifice their dreams to your need of security then you are being utterly unjust to your children.

If you can understand rationality, then by now you already know that your children are in no way responsible for you, so for God's sake don't overburden them and let them free to live their life the way they want to. You can, of course, advise them when they are choosing the wrong path, but you can not force them towards something which you think is right. And besides, if they take a wrong path then they will learn a lesson, which will

rather make them more diligent with life, and that would be good for them.

And, if you are worried about your future then keep this in mind: If you can not create security for your own life on your own be it physical, psychological, social, or financial security then it is absolutely your personal failure. Your children have got nothing to do with it.

The same applies for those who are children today and will be parents some day.

UPDATE (September 2011): While rationality is a very useful tool to understand about life, my new belief is that it's not an ideal one to make life good. I believe having a "complete", happy family can be one of the greatest achievements of human life. But it can only be hoped that one becomes post-rational (a non-rational state which comes after and includes rationality, unlike pre-rational or irrational) to understand that.

Having said that, everything said in the article is still right rationally. What Is Friendship? Can It Be Permanent? In a social world there exist many kinds of relationships. Some relationships come with birth, while others are developed in the course of life. Without relationships human life is inconceivable. However, it is important to know which relationship is important for life.

As I said, some relationships come with birth. You don't have to do anything to get into those relationships. Like your relationship with your parents, and with the immediate members of your parents' families. Even if you don't know some of the members of your parents' families you are related to them. So, they are the relationships which are come with your birth. The other type is those relationships which are developed in the course of your life. Your neighbors, teachers, boss etc. fall into this type.

Take a distant look and you will see that both types of relationships I mentioned above are important for your life as a social animal. Take a close look and you will see that all relationships are merely the tools to fulfill your social needs. Parents would take care of you while you are growing up; teachers would feed your mind with knowledge which you will require for dealing in worldly affairs; neighbors would help you when you have run short of sugar; and boss would give you a salary to fuel your living, and so on. These are all fulfilling just your social needs.

As humans we do have a more important need than the social needs. It is the need of the mind. It is our psychological need which is, in a way, more important than the social needs. That need is the need for friendship. I believe that the most important thing out of all relationships you need as a human not just as a social animal is friendship.

Friendship is not a relationship. It's the quality of a relationship. Don't mistake friendship for just another type of relationship. Any relationship can be friendship if it has the quality. You can be friends with your parents, teachers, boss anyone.

What Is Friendship and Who Is a Friend?

A friend is the one who understands your thoughts and respects them.

Why your thoughts? Because you are what you think. Your character is a sum of your words, actions, and the overall living; and all of these things are guided by your thoughts. So, if someone understands your thoughts and respects them then it means he understands and respects what you are. When you find such a relationship only then it is friendship. Any relation, who does not understand and respect your thoughts, does not know you and, is not a friend.

Friendship is understanding and respect. This is a simple, yet very comprehensive definition of friendship.

Important thing to note here is that it is not necessary for a friend to understand your each and every thought. This is because the shape of your thoughts is affected by factors such as your own experiences, your domestic environment, and the kind of books you have read etc. These factors may differ for different people. In the depths of our mind we all have some thoughts that we rarely think of expressing because we don't see the person who would understand them. If so is the thought, and your friend is unable to understand it then it would not render the relationship any lesser than friendship provided that he has the realization that everyone has some thoughts which may be difficult to understand for others. The respect remains intact only when there is this realization. Thus, when I say understanding of your thoughts it is general

understanding and not specific. In any case, respect is must.

I say most important thing humans need out of any relationship is friendship. Now you will understand the statement. Have you ever noticed that you feel attached only with those who understand and respect you? Because that is the only way your mind feels attachment with someone. Understanding with respect is a pleasure which the human mind needs as much as the body needs sex. Unless one satisfies the basic need of your mind there is no way it will feel attachment with one.

Observe those around you whom you call friends and relations. You will see that you have segregated the people; categorized them as the most important, less important, least important and unimportant people. Some you call "best friends", while others are "just friends", and so on. Ever observed on what basis you categorize people? The only basis you use is how much the person understands and respects you.

You feel more for those who understand you better, and you would feel nothing for those who don't understand you at all. It's the law that governs social aspect of the human mind.

You should have noticed that deep thinkers have fewer friends. If you are among deep thinkers then you would know it very well. Those who are having numerous friends are, without exception, the people with ordinary thoughts; because when you think ordinary it is easy to find people who understand you and friendships develop quickly. Look at the life of the great philosophers. Most of them have lived without friends; because friendship can not exist without understanding and respect.

Friendship completely rides on understanding and respect.

Can friendship be permanent?

I have often said that nothing is constant and permanent in the world not even true love. How can a friendship be permanent then? However, when I am saying this I don't mean it as a rule.

Theoretically, yes, friendship can be permanent, but often times when people say the words as "forever friendship" or "friends forever" they are saying it not rationally but out of excitement. Of course, when the relationship is going great you would love to think it lasts forever and get carried away with the thought. But now that you understand what friendship really is which is understanding and respect of one's thoughts you can think rationally over it.

Are your thoughts consistent or they keep changing? As you keep moving on in your life you keep learning new things which would keep refining your thoughts. So, when your thinking changes, you change. Today someone understands you and is your friend, but how can you count on him for tomorrow, when you yourself will have changed? And if you can change, so can your friend. It is likely that tomorrow either you will change and remain no more understandable or respectable for the other person, or vice versa.

As long as the friends are walking on the same path there is no reason for the friendship to break. But on the contrary, there is no reason for it to continue, if it's the otherwise and that shouldn't be shocking or surprising.

Now you can calculate how many friends you have got today. They may be anywhere; in your parents, your neighbors, teachers, boss, and so on.

You must be having many people in your life who you call your friends, maybe because you don't know another word to identify them with, or you don't know what friendship really is OR your definition of friendship is different.

Do You Believe In Luck? (Two Theories of Luck) I often hear people asking, "Do you believe in luck?" and it always makes me wonder what they mean by "luck", and what to answer to it when they ask such a question. Through this article I will put my explanation of the word.

Luck as Destiny

Most of the people I have seen believing in luck believe that whatever happens in our life is not really in our control. Furthermore, the rationale behind such belief is that events in our life happen as written! That is, our destiny is somewhere written beforehand. So, everything that happens in our life is predetermined. That written "plan" is what is referred to as destiny.

Luck is destiny.

Lets take a hypothetical incident and see how these people would interpret it.

Its raining, and four boys are playing in the garden. All of a sudden lightning strikes one of the boys and kills him immediately. The mother of the boy who died is in great grief and is asking God, "Why my son, out of all four!"

People believing in luck in this way would say that it was already written who will die, and no one could avoid or change it. He died because he was "unlucky". In other words, he was "destined" to die at that moment.

I have seen such type of people who don't care much about the kind of life they live. They live life as it comes. When asked, they say it does not matter whether you live with planning or without it. After all, you will only get what is written in your destiny. However hard you work, if you are destined to be poor then you will remain poor. And if you don't work but are destined to be rich then you will win a lottery and be rich. It's all luck. Destiny! This is the mentality of the people who believe in luck in this way.

Well, thus far don't see a reason to believe in destiny. You see, believing in destiny is not the same as believing in God. I am saying God because both destiny and God are nonquantifiable and beyond rationality. But one at least has some motivation for believing in God. That is, if one believes in God then one will pray for wellbeing and it will please God and He will grant one wellbeing. Well, it doesnt really happen but just assuming that there is such God, one at least has some motivation for believing in Him. But what is the motivation for believing in destiny? Unlike believing in God, believing in destiny is not going to change anything. Just as they say, the event will happen anyway. All it will do is free one from the mental exercise of understanding and reasoning of some seemingly

extra-ordinary event in one's life. Is that a good reason for believing in destiny?

Then I have a better reason for not believing in destiny.

If you strongly believe that everything in your life happens as written and you can not control or avoid it then somewhere down inside your activeness is lessened, because you believe that if you are destined to have something then you will have it anyway, and if it is not your destiny then you will never have it however hard you try. Moreover, you will stop taking credit for the good things that happen to you and thereby lose out on important self-confidence building experiences of life; and at the same time you will stop bearing accountability for the bad things that happen to you and thereby lose out on learning important lessons of diligence with life. By attributing everything to destiny you be loser both ways!

When you believe in destiny you don't put in your entire efforts because you are always skeptic about whether the thing is in your destiny at all. When you believe in destiny you believe that destiny governs your life. Destiny is active. The stronger your belief that destiny is active, more passive you be.

Stop believing in destiny for a change. There is nothing written. No destiny. That means everything is in your control. You yourself can shape your destiny. When you will realize that there is nothing written about your life and you are in complete charge of your life you will have the reason to do everything most actively.

Isn't active living more full of life than passive living? It is needless to say when you are active the events in your life are more in your control. Of course, it wont always be in control (and I will explain why), but if so happens, then that is what would have happened anyway if you had believed in destiny!

In short, believing in destiny would not change anything except making a loser of you. But by not believing in it you can take full control of your life and be active. Stop being a loser. Feel completely alive!

Luck as Coincidence

Rationally speaking, there is nothing like destiny.

If there is no destiny then it is important to understand why you are tempted to believe in destiny. Let's understand it with help of another example

Rohan and Mohan are two friends who have given their degree exams. Rohan is good at studies and is pretty sure that he will pass it with good marks whereas Mohan is not-sogood at studies and is doubtful whether he will make it through. Surprisingly, when the results come, Mohan passes and Rohan fails the exam. They can't believe it. The one who is good at studies fails and the one who is poor at studies passes!

This example represents very commonly experienced phenomena of our life that tempt us to believe in destiny. But before jumping onto any such conclusion you have to understand the dynamics of efforts and rewards.

The efforts and rewards are not always directly related. Besides your efforts, there are many factors in place that shape the rewards. Considering the above example, even though Rohan is good at studies and has put in his best efforts his paper might have gone through the hands of a very strict examiner, or the examiner's mood was bad when assessing his paper, or his answer-book containing important portion of answers was detached and missed out. The possibilities are endless and unimaginable. So, his failure can not be attributed to something called destiny just because you are unable to understand what might have gone wrong. The same works in case of Mohan. Even though he is poor at studies his dynamics favored him somehow and he passed. Destiny is nowhere in the picture.

To continue the argument till eternity you might say then why the dynamics worked in favor of one and against the other. It so happened because it was written!

There is a better explanation for it. What happened in the above example is called coincidence. When the event is beyond reasoning and comprehension is it coincidence.

Luck is coincidence, or a set of coincidences.

Luck is not destiny. There is nothing written. Happenings of seemingly extra-ordinary events in people's lives are nothing but coincidences.

Coincidences are not bound in any rules. They are accidental. When a good coincidence takes place in someone's life you can say that he is lucky, and vice versa.

These two theories of luck Luck as Destiny and Luck as Coincidence are allencompassing. That is, you must accept one of them. Now, as for the "Luck as Destiny" theory, I gave you a pretty good reason for not believing in it. So, the only rational thing would be to accept "Luck as Coincidence."

And why, out of million sperms released only the one that was fastest became victorious to be born and you took place. It's a coincidence! In the unimaginably vast universe only our planet has got life on it. It's a coincidence. Intelligence in human beings is a coincidence! The entire existence is a coincidence! If you can digest such big coincidences then how can you not digest the phenomenon as in the above example? There is no destiny. Coincidences are all over!

Now before you start thinking that after all coincidences govern your life and that you still won't have control over it let me tell you I have still not disclosed the most important part about the whole luck thing. It's in understanding the "coincidence".

What is coincidence?

When some seemingly extra-ordinary event is beyond reasoning and comprehension, we call it coincidence. But the fact is that in the existence nothing is extra-ordinary. Everything in Nature is governed by precise dynamics. The dynamics that causes the existence to be is beyond comprehension of human mind and that is the reason when something goes unexpected and uncomprehended it seems extra-ordinary to us, and we name it as coincidence.

The most important thing to understand about coincidence is that it is never targeted at someone. So, there is no question of coincidences governing your life.

Example: You are about to step out of your house and just then it starts raining. Well, it is a coincidence for sure and nothing wrong if you call it your "bad luck" if you didn't want the rain. But, if you think that this coincidence was targeted at you by Nature then you are wrong! The rain is an ordinary event in Nature and there is dynamics (or science) behind it, just like in case of everything else. It does not always rain only when you are about to step out. It rains even when you are sleeping inside your house. And besides, whenever it rains there is someone who is about to step out of some place. Does that mean the rain is always targeted at some people? That it always rains to spoil someone's time?

No. Just because sometimes ordinary events of Nature fall in the way which is not desired by you at the moment it does not mean that Nature has targeted it at you. Likewise, sometimes the ordinary events of Nature fall in unexpectedly pleasant way then too it does not mean that the favor was bestowed upon you by Nature.

Whether the event was extra-ordinary (in good or bad way) or not depends on your own situation and perspective at the moment. Thus, coincidence is not a natural phenomenon, but has everything to do with the person's mind.

Conclusion

You can surely call pleasant coincidences your "good luck" and unpleasant ones your "bad luck", but there is no reason to think that something miraculous as "luck" governs your life. There is no reason for giving up control of your life. Yes, your life will surely be affected by the dynamics around you, but then you are also a part of the dynamics in that your existence also affects the whole! Makes sense? So, you had better be active rather than counting on your luck! Religions and nationalities, and restricted love I am not a Hindu. Nor an Indian. I refuse to be identified as a part of any religious / national group as such.

Yeah, I am born in India and I live there too, and for that reason if you tell I am Indian then there is nothing objectionable in it. But if you impose on me your values and waysof-living saying every Indian should have them, then sorry! Chuck the business! I am no Indian!

I would like to be identified as a universal being who is not bound in the meanness as religions or nationality!

A Hindu can not love a Muslim. An Indian can not love an American. Of course, Hindu and Muslim, or Indian and American can be friends, for worldly purposes, but they can not love each other. However much you fight in your mind against this statement, it is true that any two groups can not love each other. Because if there is love, there can not be groups on the first place. The moment you say you are Hindu you have limited your love. Confined it within the boundary. You believe in Hinduism or Islam only when you are convinced in your mind about the superiority of one religion over the other. If you believe in Hinduism then in your mind you believe that the followers of Islam or Christianity are inferior to you. How can love develop between two people when one believes oneself to be superior to the other? There can only be a contract between such people, not love.

Same is with nationality. When you say you are Indian it is okay. But when you say India is the best, there is a problem. How many places on Earth have you been to? Unless you have spent a considerable time of your life in every country how can you decide which one is best? I tell you how it is. It is called fanaticism! And two fanatics can never love each other.

Today if the followers of one religion are fighting with the followers of other religion then for this fight every single human being who believes in any so-called religion is responsible. If nations go on war then every single person believing nationality is the cause of it. The problem is not with the religions or the nations. What are they, after all? Just the names. The problem lies in the fanatic mentality. Problem lies in the minds of people who have confined their love within the boundaries such as nationality and religion. War is not destructive only when it is fought on the battlefield, it is destructive even when it exists inside your mind which, unfortunately, it does all the time. When you believe yourself to be belonging to any group there is a silent war inside your mind which is destroying the universal unity.

The one who truly understands what religion is believes in all religions, or does not believe in any of them both meaning the same thing. There is only one religion, which is the Religion of Truth, and it says that the world is one, and it should be regarded as one. The truth can only be one. What is true for one human being is true for another human being. It is a simple logic. It is impossible that for one group of humans Hinduism is right, and for another group of humans Islam is right. Only one can be right. But here we have countless so-called religions! What else to call it but sheer stupidity of humankind! When you understand the purpose behind all these religions you will see that they are all manifestations of the same truth. They are all meant to teach humankind the same thing. That is, how to live ideally and harmlessly. When you understand this very well in your mind there will remain no religion for you. Only the truth, which is universal, will be visible.

What is the need for nations? Why cant the whole world live as one big country? The Nature, who has created the world, has not drawn lines on the planet, then why have humans drawn lines on the maps and divided the world into pieces! Why the rivalry and wars! Unless the whole humanity is mad, religions and nations can not be!

Religiousness and patriotism are not bad things at all, but only when your religion is a universal religion and your patriotism is for the whole world. In any other sense, these two words are very dangerous words in any language! Ideal Depiction of God There is no such thing as God. When I am saying this I am referring to the God of the theism. I am an atheist. The only reason I don't stand with atheists is because they seem to have a problem with the word God itself. Whereas, for my convenience I have kept the word in my dictionary, to mean something else which is not what the theists call God, and which is what I am going to talk about here.

God (of the theism) does not exist

The concept of God evolved when man was unable find reasons, because the human mind can't work without reasons. When man saw things like lightening and thunder he didn't know the reasons behind it. So he assigned it to some supreme being. Said God is angry, God is crying (when it rained), etc etc. But how stupid it sounds today! Why?

Because today we know how and why such things happen. Yes, there are still many things which the human mind has not comprehended yet; and probably never will. But non-availability of answers doesn't imply the existence of God!

God has always been used to fill the blanks that we don't understand. God is the absence of knowledge. When the mind is filled with knowledge of workings of this world, there's no need for God to exist.

The ideal depiction of God

If at all we are to use the word God then the most plausible answer to the question "What is God?" is: The power who created the existence is God. We shall not raise questions as how he looks and which religion manifests him the best because there is no need for that. It's just some power. It's only us humans who like to personify the power for the sake of comprehension. The "existence" here is not only human existence, but the whole existence. Saying that, if we used the word Nature for that power then that will be more expressive and scientific. Some of us already admit that Mother Nature governs the existence.

I redefine God thus: God is Nature.

Call it "some power" or whatever else you want to.

If you understand this way of seeing God then you will see how it is said that God is everywhere; because Nature is everywhere. Every living and non-living thing in the universe is Nature. The whole of existence, thus, is God. You and I, too, are God!

God is both, the creator and the creation. To understand it more scientifically, the creator and the creation are different forms of the same energy which is God.

When it rains the theists say God sent the rain. Scientists observe the process of heating of ocean-water and formation of clouds which result into rain. Then they stand opposed

to each other. The problem with humankind is that they have always put science against God (Thanks to the religions!). I say the Sun is one form of the energy. The heat that is emits is another form of the energy. The water and the vapor it turns into are also the forms of the same energy. Rain is the combined creation of different forms of the same energy. That energy is God. And it's well within the purview of science and rationality. There's only the energy which keeps changing forms. After all, the whole universe is evolved to this stage out of a single element. That element is God.

What God is not?

It would be irrational if you

Fear God. Visit temples / churches to see God. Worship God through rituals. Say prayers. Ask wishes. Talk to God. Believe that God is overlooking you. Believe in Gods judgment. Believe that God will do justice to you. If you have any sort of faith in or expectations from God.

It's to be understood that this "energy-God" is not a "being". Not at all a "thinking being" with intelligence who you can talk to, or who oversees you and who judges you and does justice in the end and whatever God-believers live for.

Why the energy-God

If at all, I would call this energy (and thereby entire existence) God for the reason that the word God has a connotation of being something supremely great. Thus, reverence is already attached with the word God. I want everyone to revere the whole creation. To love every single element in the universe. For that's the best way to live. There's no other reason for keeping the word God alive. Who Was Baruch Spinoza? Baruch Spinoza (also known as Benedict de Spinoza) was a Dutch philosopher. Spinoza's life is full of inspiration for the people of 21st century. Today, I want to discuss the details of his life and thinking.

He was boycotted in the whole of Christian and Jew community because he didn't accept Jesus Christ as God. Prior to Spinoza, a Roman philosopher called Bruno, too, was put afire for making a statement as Nature is God and God is Nature, and that God is there inside every man.

Philosophy of both these men is explained in a few lines of the following poem -

When you, with the help of language Call a river a river, Do you know? It is a flower, too. It is a sun, too. It is all of Nature.

When Spinoza was expelled from many lands due to his atheist-like beliefs about God and was not getting lectureship in any college he was offered a help of $500 a year by one of the wealthy men of then. But he did not accept it. At the end of much insistence he said: My yearly expense is $50, and only so much I will accept. The rest of the money you may give others needing it. To earn more than is needed is an offense towards the mankind. After saving as much as one's need one should help others as we all are a part of God. When you help them, God would be happy. Love all as you love God.

Spinoza was born 374 years ago in a Jew family. At the time when all the Jews were expelled from Spain he took birth in Amsterdam, Holland, in a successful merchant's house. He was brought up at the place in Europe full of opposition for Jews. He did not want to run business and earn money. He never digested things as a man condemning another man, or a religion fighting against another religion.

He read many scriptures. At last, he concluded that God is in the form of Nature. God does not have a separate body. As he went on reading Christian, Jew, Hindu and other scriptures, his faith in the religions kept dwindling and finally vanished. He rebelled against the belief of humans never dying, then being popularized by some Christian priests. As a result he was excommunicated at the age of 24. It is interesting to know the method and the words the fat-headed Christian priests adopted to set an opposition for him.

Henceforward no one should talk with Spinoza. Or write to him. Or read what has been written by him. No one should offer work to him. No one should stay in the house with him. Everyone should keep a three-feet distance from him. And what ever book he does write should not be read.

Withstanding such contempt the young philosopher went on to live alone, but never joined any religious group. His father relinquished him. He could become a Hebrew scholar and a priest, but did not. His sisters did swindle him over inheritance from his family property. Friends went aloof. His heart grew evermore hard towards those trading religions. He said all the monks are thriving on the ignorance of learned wealthy men. They do not know the true element. Or do they know but do not teach the truth to people. Because if they said, Man, you are yourself a part of God, and thus grow your own potential and you will become one with God, then the whole bazaar would no more remain. The monks earn billions worth of properties and respect just being the brokers of God and religion.

Spinoza's real name was Baruch, which he had to change, owing to his boycott, to Benedict. A merciful family in Amsterdam gave him the place to live. He started giving tuition to the school children. Then he felt that earning only from teaching religion is a bad business. He said, every scholar should take up some or the other work involving bodily movements. So, being an all-rounder he took upon the work of making spectacle glasses. By this he hardly earned enough to keep going. But still he took tuition fees only if offered. He adopted the sutra: Work keeps one virtuous whereas every learned man

who fails to acquire a trade will at last turn out rouge.

After teaching philosophy to children, Spinoza lived some years on the income of spectacle glasses. The lady who had given him the room brought tiffin for him. He ate, but not fully. He kept track of his, though small, income. Gave away to poor children what ever he earned over and above his needs. He wore slovenly, simple cloths.

His simple advice was concerning self preservation. He denied accepting the advices of Self Control and Suppression then being given by the priests. He said desire is the essence of being human. What is a man after all? A man is formed out of desires. Gratify the desires. Do enjoy. Pain and grievances will come even if you put control on yourself. But if along with fulfilling your desires you conserve yourself then there is no harm in enjoying. The world is your father's property, use it to the fullest. You have to go to the other side of passion. Instead of condemning the lust, you have to enjoy it, understand its nature, and cross it.

Jews boycotted him. Not only that, he was charged for having rejected God and disrespected the Jesus, and given ten years' imprisonment. During that time he wrote his important book. It was only published after his death. He had many against him, but also, many who respected him. One wealthy man of Amsterdam sent him a gift of $1000, but he did not accept it. One other did leave all his property to Spinoza in his will. Spinoza said to him: I do not need it; your brother needs it more. Even then, that man left $250 a month after his death to be given to Spinoza. Spinoza did not accept that too. After that, the king of Holland, Louis the 14th offered him a life-time pension, on the condition that he submitted his book to the king. He refused.

Do you see a philosopher monk like Spinoza today? When he came to know that he has caught TB due to the particles of the glass he worked with he did not have enough money to get it cured. The University of Heidelberg offered him professorship. He politely said to the chancellor of the university: If I accepted the professorship, you will not allow me to express some of my beliefs. So he did not accept it too. People asked him the reason for such a foolery. He said: I was separated from wealth and respect at the very time I was boycotted; all is for good. Wealth and fame are the only reasons for all the pain of the humankind.

The love towards a thing eternal and infinite alone feeds the mind with a pleasure secure from all pain. The greatest good is the knowledge of the union which the mind has with

the whole Nature. Baruch Spinoza.

This article was originally written by the Gujarati-language writer Kanti Bhatt. Translated into English by Darhan Chande. Can You Freely Talk About Sex? In my previous article What Counts: Outer Looks or Inner Beauty I talked about sex for the first time on this blog and as was expected I received more unfriendly reviews than friendly ones. Some friends called me pervert. Some removed me from their friend-list in a rather insulting way. However, on the whole, its been amusing. I would like to share one review that conferred on me yet another insight (which makes me write this article). Heres what this person says

You have now raised a question in my mind about your IQ with this write up. Perhaps removing your hands from your pockets will improve your philosophy.

Big applause for this!

Now, since I may talk a lot about sex in future on this blog I thought it extremely imperative to give my sensitive readers some growing-up-pills. So here I am, again talking about sex.

First of all, perverts are not those who talk about sex as freely as they talk about anything else. Real perverts are those who are "shaken" (agitated) by the sight of the word SEX! Perhaps all they know about sex is jerking off and fucking. They can't understand sex any better.

I see more than half of the miseries of human beings (especially, the youngsters) are directly or indirectly connected with sex. That certainly makes sex a very important issue and necessitates me to think about it to find out why sex governs peoples thinking and in what ways its creating problems in their living.

And why, it does not stir you when one talks about love, nature, science, or anything else. Whats so powerful about sex thats so moving you?

Is sex an ugly thing? The whole world exists because of sex. Sex is present in every living thing. Butterflies are colorful because of sex. Flowers are fragrant because of sex. Birds sing because of sex. All these beautiful things exist so that sex can take place and the world continues. Sex is such a common thing thats prevalent in every bit of life on the planet. If you can not talk freely about the commonest thing as sex then theres certainly something wrong in your mind.

This also calls to mind how some people oppose even giving sex education to children in schools. These morons are real perverts. They believe sex has extraordinary powers that will badly influence minds and disrupt smooth functioning of the world if its talked about in classrooms. Thus, they are preventing sex to come as a commonplace thing to people which it actually is. If looking at the word SEX all they see is tits and balls then its their problem!

You can talk about gruesome things as murder, world wars, nuclear weapons, alright; but talking about sex is pervert!? Start thinking better than bullshit, folks!

Remember, just as every movie which shows nude love-making is not porn, every piece of writing which talks about sex is not a product of pervert mind. Why Do You Love Your Country? For the sake of ease I have addressed this article to Indians. But it is meant equally for all the countries of the world.

I am an advocate of universal unity. For me, theres only one country to love; and thats this world. I dont see any sense in people playing your-country-my-country game. I dont have any problem with your loving what you call your country but its your narrow focus that I find troubling . If things were in my hands I would not produce citizens of the nation but citizens of the world. Quite a many people around me are matured to say we are Indians first and then of Gujarat (one of the states in India) but a very few I see matured enough to say we are of the world first and then Indians. This is the difference between citizens of the nation and citizens of the world.

Mother Nature, who has created the world, has not drawn lines on the planet, then why have humans drawn lines on the maps and divided the world into pieces! Why the rivalry and wars! I would go so far as to say that unless the whole humanity is mad nations can not be!

As I see people loving and taking pride in the little pieces of lands which they call their country it makes me think what they really mean by country and what could be the reason they happen to love one piece of land with borders drawn around it more than the other same pieces of lands.

If you dare to think rationally then there are batter reasons for being citizens of the world than there are for being country-focused the way you are. In fact, all the reasons youve got for loving your country are rather no-reasons. You are just brainwashed into loving this phony entity called country which is actually nothing else but a system of politics.

Imagine what would build into the childs mind who is made to recite songs like Sare jahan se achcha hindustan hamara (meaning, our India is the best in the world) at the age when he is not even capable of gauging how big the world is, let aside experiencing the world. And then this piece of shit every Indian child is made to say every morning in school

(Its called Indian National Pledge)

India is my country and all Indians are my brothers and sisters. I love my country and I am proud of its rich and varied heritage. I shall always strive to be worthy of it. I shall give my parents, teachers and all elders, respect, and treat everyone with courtesy. To my country and my people, I pledge my devotion. In their well being and prosperity alone, lies my happiness.

Pardon my language but it sounds utterly irrational and boils my blood to see it; because this psychological treatment (called brainwashing) is not much different from that given

to children for making terrorists of them.

Its an appeal to every country: Infuse in childrens mind the truth, which is: One humanity, one world. Write songs about the unified world; write the world anthem, and replace everything focusing on the country with those focusing on the world. I bet if you give up your narrow attitude and teach your children to love the world instead of loving the country then no one can stop the world from becoming a peaceful place. Remember, loving the world doesnt mean being apathetic towards ones surroundings. Its just about assuming right perspective which is much needed in these times.

Today I want to give you good reasons to shift your focus from the country to the world; to be the citizen of the world. First we will see what country actually is (not what you are brainwashed into thinking), and why you happen to love your country

Country is a political system with which your life is woven since you are born within the boundaries of the system. And you love your country first because you were brainwashed into doing so and then continue to love it after growing up also because your economic, social (and whatever other) interests are connected with this system and are being governed by it. There is no other meaning of country and no other reason why you love it.

Now I will take up all the major reasons I could find why people say they love their country and explain how they are irrational, and thereby give you better reasons to shift your focus onto loving the world.

Philosophy and thoughts

You might say you love India for you like Indian philosophy and thoughts.

Listen, philosophy and thoughts have everything to do with persons, not with the piece of land called India. Philosophy and thoughts have come out of some peoples mind and not erupted from the piece of land concerned. In this case yours is like when you admire the thoughts of Ayn Rand you will say I admire Ayn Rand. And when you admire the

thoughts of Vivekananda you will attach Vivekananda with India and say I love India for it has given us Vivekananda." If you admire philosophy and thoughts in this way then you must give each and every land its due love.

You know, philosophy and thoughts dont have boundaries. Great values are brought about by great people, and great people are great not because they were born on a particular land. They would be great wherever they take birth. Thoughts have nothing to do with whats called county. Its a mistake to think they've anything to do with a piece of land.

Own place

You might say you love India because its your own place.

Okay. Its natural for one to develop some attachment with ones own place. I see. Its like you love your house more than the other houses even if yours is smaller (or dirtier) compared to the others.

But dont you see theres a huge difference between your house which you have lived in for quite a while and know every corner of, and a country of which you have probably not even seen more than 50% part. I dont know how many parts of what you call your country you have been to. I conducted a little survey by asking 20 random people I knew how much of India they have seen. 15 out of 20 said theyve not been to more than 4 states and only one person had been to 6 states of India. India has 28 states as of today if I am right. And besides having been to some state doesnt necessarily mean seeing whole of the place! That means, for the majority of people in India most of the country is unseen. In such a case what to understand of their love for their country? Because when they say they love their country they suggest that they love a country of which most part is as remote to them as US or China. Could it be called blind love?

Culture

You might say you love India because of its culture.

I will tell you what culture is. Culture is values and knowledge shared by a group of people. In a sense, every individual carries in himself culture which may be different from that carried by the other. As people deal with each other in routine and be interdependent their individual values and knowledge have to form into collective values and knowledge to create a larger culture which is common for a group. Look at India. India is called the land of many cultures. Almost all of its states have their own culture. But as you can see collectively its called Indian culture. Why? Its because today these people are not living independently. They are interdependent and they have to be so in a cooperative way. They are formed into a larger group called India. Whenever such merger of people into a larger group takes place the cultures have to take up a larger form to maintain smooth functioning. This is the reason all these cultures are collectively called Indian culture.

Belonging to one state of India what you really are aware of is the culture of that state. Its very unlikely that you would know the cultures of the other states. So, actually what you love is the culture of your state. But still you say you love Indian culture and thereby you are covering all the unknown cultures too which fall within the political boundary of what is called India. This is precisely the reason national unity is maintained. And thats certainly a good thing.

Now further expand your perspective. Today you see that the countries are not living independently, too. The whole world is interdependent. In that case dont you think it calls for further forming and acceptance of larger culture which would be called the world's culture? For how long will you hold this narrow perspective by which you see Indian culture as more important than the world's culture? The human culture? Understand that by accepting higher importance of the human culture your countrys cultures won't cease to exist. But then there wont be your culture and my culture. Everything will be our culture. The world's culture.

Now consider this

Terrorist attacks in Kashmir agitate you even though Kashmir is far, far away from your place. You would say thats because its a part of India, your country. How about bomb blasts in Pakistan? Do you feel anything about it? You would say its not our concern.

Right. Suppose if tomorrow Pakistan and India again become one country as they were before then would that make you happy? Yeah! Suppose then if Taliban spreads terror in Karachi (a city in Pakistan now) would you feel concerned? To whomever I have asked this has said: Yes, because it would be a part of our country then.

This makes it clear that not the philosophy and thoughts, nor the feeling of own place, nor the culture what you actually love is a political system called India because your interests are governed by it; and thats the reason your love never goes beyond the boundaries of the system. When the boundaries of the political system you are born in expand, so will your love. What sort of love is that?

The only people who are benefiting from the existence of different countries are politicians. Where politics is more important than truth any hope for peace is futile.

Please dont wait until some mighty aliens come to dominate our whole world to realize that we are one humanity, one world. Is Friendship Driven by Purposes? A friend in need is a friend indeed.

This is, in fact, a very ugly quote. It clearly shows practical mindset. Still everyone agrees with it. That means everyone in the world, when making a friend, (at least) subconsciously expects some sort of help or favor from the person. When the time comes it is sought, and if declined then one would call to mind something like this quote, and boom! Friendship is doomed!

Actually the thing is without purposes friendship (for that matter, any relationship) is not possible. You might feel agitated when I say this. Not your fault. Sometimes the purposes are so hidden in your subconscious that even you will never know about it. I will try to familiarize you with the hidden functioning of human mind in this regard.

I have explained what friendship is in the article titled What Is Friendship? For those who have not read the article I would quote my definition of friendship here:

Friendship is understanding and respect.

A friend is any relation who understands your thoughts, and respects them. It means the one who understands and respects what you are.

Now you tell me, what is the first thing you get when you make a friend? What does understanding and respect mean? It means you earned importance. And who doesnt love being important in other peoples eyes! So, isnt earning importance a purpose? The desire for importance is very strong in human mind. Thats precisely the reason you are always ready for making new friends. Do you ever think that Okay, I have had enough friends now and I am quite happy with all the friends I have. I need not another friend? No. What happens then? You go on making new and new and new friends. And then you have more friends than you have time for. Then you have to prioritize friends. If need be, eliminate some. On what basis you would prioritize friends? Of course, you will consider the welfare of none other than yourself. Its a natural process, and so subtle that you dont even realize doing all that.

People dont agree with it when I say prioritize friends. I understand, it does not sound good. But let me tell you its true. Havent you ever categorized your friends? Best friend, just friends, hi-hello friends Sounds funny, but yes, you do have those categories even though the titles may be different. When you look at the definition of friendship you know that anyone who stands up to it (meaning, who understands your thoughts and respects them) is a friend. Say, you have hundred relations; all standing up to it; so all are your friends. But do you consider them all equal? Its difficult both mentally and practically. Thats the reason you would make those categories. You will allocate your friends into the category which you think appropriate for each one, the calculation of which would be based on your own welfare alone. Now, what all things you take into consideration while deciding the right category for a friend, you alone know. You categorized friends means you prioritized friends. Prioritization is only done considering self-welfare. And selfwelfare is only ascertained considering ones needs and their fulfillment.

The needs and purposes taken into consideration may vary from materialistic to spiritual; from sex to moral support; from fun to knowledge, and so on. The list of needs and purposes is endless. It depends upon your circumstances and the depth of your person. In any case, friendship would remain only as long as the needs and purposes of friends are reconciled. Moreover, better the reconciliation better would be the friendship. Every friendship starts with a purpose, materialistic or spiritual; and then this reconciliation constantly decides its path.

Looks like an ugly game, doesnt it? Yeah, friendship is a nice name of the ugly game. But along with this, another thing to understand is that this game, however ugly, is indispensable. Every one has to play it if one wants to live in the world of "intelligent creatures".

It sounds ugly just because we have idealized the concept of friendship, which is wrong and needless. Friendship is doubtless a good and healthy social activity, but certainly not of supremacy which it is exalted to.

The reason behind writing this article is not to discourage friendships, but to break the idealized belief. So that the next time you lose a friend or your friend hurts you then you shouldnt get affected because now you know the dynamics behind friendship. What is perfect happiness? In Are you happy or content? I wrote that happiness is not a real thing in that its only a temporary state of mind experienced after the pain ceases.

Human life hugely comprises of desires and expectations. These are all pains. Psychological ones. When a desire or an expectation is fulfilled the pain comes to an end, and the state of mind temporarily experienced then is called happiness. Happiness is not real in that its always transitory. After a while it would fade away and another pain would start. This cycle of happiness and pain goes on endlessly in most peoples lives.

If you are a truth-seeker then its imperative to understand that happiness is not a thing to pursue. Happiness actually suggests a disorder in you. If you are feeling happiness then that means things are not quite right with you; you are still prone to miseries; because happiness can not exist in absence of pain. If theres never a pain in your life you can not feel happiness.

Absence of pain is not happiness, but contentment. The way to free yourself from miseries is contentment. In contentment theres neither happiness nor pain. This state can also be called perfect happiness or bliss. But I prefer to call it contentment. Contentment lies in the state of neutrality which is right between the states of happiness and pain; and thats what your mind seeks. Consider happiness and pain as extremes. Both are useless, unnecessary. That happiness is an important thing is your false

perception.

You must have noticed that when you desire something there begins in your mind some unrest which continues until you have got the thing. This unrest is psychological pain. When you get the thing the pain comes to an end and what is then felt is happiness. But how long does it last? Not for long time; because thats not the minds nature. In some time your mind again slips into the state of neutrality wherein you can choose to find contentment. But what you do instead is give way to another pain and so the cycle continues.

When I say happiness suggests a disorder do not feel startled. Let me rephrase it. HAPPINESS IS A DISORDER. Now you can surely feel startled! Let me explain it. Happiness is a disorder in that it is never separate from pain. Its a plant which grows from pain and produces fruits of pain. Happiness is something which would never let you transcend pain. Thus, in order go beyond pain you first need to understand the futility of happiness. When you transcend happiness you would automatically be free of pain.

Consider these instances

You feel happy when you find a great job.

You feel happy when you win a competition.

You feel happy when you graduate.

There can be countless other things that may make you happy. Now let me tell you these are, in fact, incomplete sentences. Read the complete sentences which might give you some insight.

You feel happy when you find a new job because now your life standard will improve and you will be able to do things which so far you only wished you could.

You feel happy when you win a competition because now you will earn respect and people will look up to you and remember you as a winner for the time to come.

You feel happy when you graduate because that has opened the doors to further goals and now you are geared up to pursue your higher dreams.

Do you realize something now?

When you win a lottery you feel happiness. You think you are happy because you won the lottery. No. This happiness is not because of what just happened, but because of what will now follow. You won a lottery; now you will buy things, and fulfill long cherished wishes and desires. The thought of it is precisely whats making you happy.

Your pursuit of happiness is like a journey which never ends. First you chase some point as destination. Then as soon as you have got to that point you look up to another distant point as destination. Yes, you are happy upon reaching each milestone, but that happiness is not quite because you reached there, but because you now see yourself closer to the next point. As soon as one chase finishes, new one begins. As soon as one pain converts into happiness another pain is given way to. The problem is this: Happiness is always linked with the future.

You are happy not because you got something today, but because of the thought of what you will do (or what will happen) tomorrow with what you have just got. What if you cant do that tomorrow? What if it doesnt happen tomorrow?

What is called perfect happiness or bliss in spiritual terminology is nothing but contentment. Being happy with what you have today, because you have it, not because of what you will be doing with it tomorrow. The moment you expect something from tomorrow the unrest has started in your mind. Then as long as it is not done the unrest remains. The pain is there. And if you fail to do it, then it gets worse!

Some people say they dont want lasting happiness. They have accepted life as a continuous cycle of happiness and pain. They would even argue with you saying pain is important in life because without it they wouldnt feel happiness. Do not listen to them. They are weak-minded and cowardly hypocrites. Ask them, if they are so convinced that

life is a cycle of happiness and pain, and that pain is necessary, then why on earth they are always striving to keep as much away from pain as its in their power. Why do they cry in sorrow? Why do they grieve over it when they lose a friend, or get depressed upon losing love?

In truth, everyone wants lasting happiness. What most people dont know is that happiness can not be lasting. Theres no such thing as lasting happiness. The thing which is closest to the idea of lasting happiness is contentment, which I also call "perfect happiness".

How to attain perfect happiness or contentment? To attain contentment in life you must give up each and every type of expectation and all your desires. You will say hows that possible in this world. It is possible. All it needs is practice and conscious perseverance. Live in Today. What you have today is the best thing that could ever happen to you. Stop counting on friends and relations. Theres no place for attachment of any kind. Dont even expect things from God. Yes, make friends and relations, make plans, dream; but take it as if the life is a game and all this is a part of the play. Do not forget the reality, that friends, relations, even God are all fictitious. No one in the world is here to make your life better. You are your own shepherd. Then even if you lose in the game you will be content to have played the game. Theres no place for pain; and thus, no question of happiness.

Contentment alone is bliss. The choice is yours. What is perfect happiness? In Are you happy or content? I wrote that happiness is not a real thing in that its only a temporary state of mind experienced after the pain ceases.

Human life hugely comprises of desires and expectations. These are all pains. Psychological ones. When a desire or an expectation is fulfilled the pain comes to an end, and the state of mind temporarily experienced then is called happiness. Happiness is not real in that its always transitory. After a while it would fade away and another pain would start. This cycle of happiness and pain goes on endlessly in most peoples lives.

If you are a truth-seeker then its imperative to understand that happiness is not a thing to pursue. Happiness actually suggests a disorder in you. If you are feeling happiness then that means things are not quite right with you; you are still prone to miseries;

because happiness can not exist in absence of pain. If theres never a pain in your life you can not feel happiness.

Absence of pain is not happiness, but contentment. The way to free yourself from miseries is contentment. In contentment theres neither happiness nor pain. This state can also be called perfect happiness or bliss. But I prefer to call it contentment. Contentment lies in the state of neutrality which is right between the states of happiness and pain; and thats what your mind seeks. Consider happiness and pain as extremes. Both are useless, unnecessary. That happiness is an important thing is your false perception.

You must have noticed that when you desire something there begins in your mind some unrest which continues until you have got the thing. This unrest is psychological pain. When you get the thing the pain comes to an end and what is then felt is happiness. But how long does it last? Not for long time; because thats not the minds nature. In some time your mind again slips into the state of neutrality wherein you can choose to find contentment. But what you do instead is give way to another pain and so the cycle continues.

When I say happiness suggests a disorder do not feel startled. Let me rephrase it. HAPPINESS IS A DISORDER. Now you can surely feel startled! Let me explain it. Happiness is a disorder in that it is never separate from pain. Its a plant which grows from pain and produces fruits of pain. Happiness is something which would never let you transcend pain. Thus, in order go beyond pain you first need to understand the futility of happiness. When you transcend happiness you would automatically be free of pain.

Consider these instances

You feel happy when you find a great job.

You feel happy when you win a competition.

You feel happy when you graduate.

There can be countless other things that may make you happy. Now let me tell you these are, in fact, incomplete sentences. Read the complete sentences which might give you some insight.

You feel happy when you find a new job because now your life standard will improve and you will be able to do things which so far you only wished you could.

You feel happy when you win a competition because now you will earn respect and people will look up to you and remember you as a winner for the time to come.

You feel happy when you graduate because that has opened the doors to further goals and now you are geared up to pursue your higher dreams.

Do you realize something now?

When you win a lottery you feel happiness. You think you are happy because you won the lottery. No. This happiness is not because of what just happened, but because of what will now follow. You won a lottery; now you will buy things, and fulfill long cherished wishes and desires. The thought of it is precisely whats making you happy.

Your pursuit of happiness is like a journey which never ends. First you chase some point as destination. Then as soon as you have got to that point you look up to another distant point as destination. Yes, you are happy upon reaching each milestone, but that happiness is not quite because you reached there, but because you now see yourself closer to the next point. As soon as one chase finishes, new one begins. As soon as one pain converts into happiness another pain is given way to. The problem is this: Happiness is always linked with the future.

You are happy not because you got something today, but because of the thought of what you will do (or what will happen) tomorrow with what you have just got. What if you cant do that tomorrow? What if it doesnt happen tomorrow?

What is called perfect happiness or bliss in spiritual terminology is nothing but

contentment. Being happy with what you have today, because you have it, not because of what you will be doing with it tomorrow. The moment you expect something from tomorrow the unrest has started in your mind. Then as long as it is not done the unrest remains. The pain is there. And if you fail to do it, then it gets worse!

Some people say they dont want lasting happiness. They have accepted life as a continuous cycle of happiness and pain. They would even argue with you saying pain is important in life because without it they wouldnt feel happiness. Do not listen to them. They are weak-minded and cowardly hypocrites. Ask them, if they are so convinced that life is a cycle of happiness and pain, and that pain is necessary, then why on earth they are always striving to keep as much away from pain as its in their power. Why do they cry in sorrow? Why do they grieve over it when they lose a friend, or get depressed upon losing love?

In truth, everyone wants lasting happiness. What most people dont know is that happiness can not be lasting. Theres no such thing as lasting happiness. The thing which is closest to the idea of lasting happiness is contentment, which I also call "perfect happiness".

How to attain perfect happiness or contentment? To attain contentment in life you must give up each and every type of expectation and all your desires. You will say hows that possible in this world. It is possible. All it needs is practice and conscious perseverance. Live in Today. What you have today is the best thing that could ever happen to you. Stop counting on friends and relations. Theres no place for attachment of any kind. Dont even expect things from God. Yes, make friends and relations, make plans, dream; but take it as if the life is a game and all this is a part of the play. Do not forget the reality, that friends, relations, even God are all fictitious. No one in the world is here to make your life better. You are your own shepherd. Then even if you lose in the game you will be content to have played the game. Theres no place for pain; and thus, no question of happiness.

Contentment alone is bliss. The choice is yours. How to Get Rid of Desires and Expectations? First we should ask, what's the point of living if we are to live without any desires and expectations? What is a human being without desires and expectations? No different from a vegetable! Since we have got a thinking and analytical mind we are bound to distinguish things, see right and wrong and choose our experiences. We can't live

randomly, like less conscious animals and plants, simply because our mind is so developed. And to choose what experiences we would like to have is, in a broad sense, to have desires and expectations.

However, it is true that all (affective) suffering in life is because of desires and expectations; for suffering of the mind is nothing but the experiences that we do not wish to have. Since we all like to experience more of happiness and less of suffering, it is understandable of one to consider a possibility of getting rid of the source of suffering, that is, desires and expectations.

It is important to understand that our biological wiring is not conducive to our happiness. Because Nature (or the universe) doesn't have any "intentions" for us, much less intentions of our well being. It just acts by chance and randomness. All the order that we see in Nature points towards only one systematic process, which is evolution. And for evolution of living beings to become successful, suffering is indispensable. Survival of the fittest, you see? Having a good, happy life is a human purpose. Not everything that we biologically feel inclined to do is good for our human purpose of life. Our biology is formed through evolution only to serve Nature's purpose of propagation of genes!

Through intellectual development, however, we can overpower our biological wiring and that way reduce the extent of suffering we go through otherwise. It is called acting from the head, as against acting from the heart. Heart, is a symbol of biological wiring or make-up.

For example, if I don't know how sexual attraction works, I will feel very jealous when my girlfriend gets attracted to another guy, and probably be very angry at her. But if I have understood using my intellect and rationality, through my own experiences and observations, the mechanism that governs such attraction, I will know that one can't do much when such attraction happens and it's a natural process. Then I will be able to keep calm and take it well. I will then not have unrealistic expectations from a girl who is no longer attracted to me. That way, I have saved myself of a lot of suffering. Of course, this jealousy and anger had its own evolutionary significance from Nature's point-of-view (for mating), but for the conscious, rational "me" it was not a good experience.

This was just an example. But you see, by understanding life, by understanding the causes of suffering, we can eliminate suffering. Not 100%, but to a great extent for sure. But the thing is, just like in the above example wherein I let go of my girlfriend, if we let

go of "everything" in life, then what's left there to give us happiness? And without happiness what's the point of living?

Desires and expectations are exactly what drive our life. They cause suffering, but importantly, they cause happiness too. So I think it is important to have desires and expectations.

At the same time I also think it is essential to cultivate our mind to live without them too, so that we can protect ourselves of harm, when life treats us violently. This is very important to keep in mind.

The process of developing oneself to experience more of happiness and less of suffering is what I call spiritual* (philosophical) development. It essentially is truth-seeking about our existence. Only when one is well aware about the nature of the existence, one can have the power over one's mind which is required to remain calm in every situation. Needless to say, this is also the way one can get rid of desires and expectations.

If you are weak-minded, or the truth disturbs you easily then do not read further. Because we are going to have a glimpse of the reality.

It's not easy to be free of desires and expectations unless you have understood the illusory of nature of world you are living in and know the reality of your existence, which is the whole purpose of spiritual development.

What are expectations? They are nothing but the products of one's ego the self. And everyone in the world is primarily living for one's ego. When so is the case, social harmony is a mere illusion. In reality, all your friends and relations, as they are perceived by you, are fictitious. They all are living for their own ego, not for your well being. The matrix of relationships is just an illusion of social harmony. It's merely the system by which people can use each other for their own well-being. Aloneness is the reality. It's imperative to know that no one in the world not even God is here to make your life better. You digest this fact, and you are free of expectations.

As for desires, they are easier to get rid of than expectations. You just have to learn from your experience. Desires are a kind of pain. When you desire something there begins in

your mind some unrest which continues until you have got the thing. This unrest is a psychological pain. When you get the thing the pain comes to an end and what is then felt is happiness. But how long does it last? Not for long, because very soon you again desire something else and give way to another pain and so the cycle continues. You can not find contentment unless you put an end to your desires. Whether one should remain in contentment state always or not is another question. But here the point is, when running after things (driven by desires) causes you suffering which you don't want, it's good to have contentment at hand. That's the reason being contented is given so much importance in spirituality.

To conclude, I would say the only way to be able to live without desires and expectations (when life is violent) is by having developed good awareness about the existence through spiritual development.

UPDATE (September 2011): I no longer wish to identify myself as being into spirituality. Hence, wherever in this article I have used the phrase spiritual development, the reader should read philosophical development. The meaning of spiritual development as given in the article needs no change and can be taken for the meaning of philosophical development just as well. How to Attain Bliss Without Being In Himalayas? Bliss in the sense of forever lasting happiness, as professed in mainstream spirituality, is impossible. The article is titled so only to attract people to come and read it.

The closest one can get to bliss is "perfect happiness". It is when one is feeling happiness, and at the same time is contented with the way things are.

Contentment, actually, is a state where there is neither suffering nor happiness. It's when a person is at ease in the mind, no matter what. Indifferent to one's circumstances, with no desires and expectations. This state can be attained by developing awareness about the existence and understanding the higher, indifferent reality beyond our human existence. But being in "contentment mode" always, is not a healthy way to live. It is not wrong, or bad; but staying in contentment is not living.

It's true, that the primary cause of all human miseries is that human life is driven by desires and expectations. And if one has to get rid of desires and expectations, one has to develop oneself beyond one's human existence and connect with the indifferent reality

of the existence. Only then the desires-and-expectations-less state, contentment, can be reached. But then it is as good as death if one is not going to acknowledge one's human existence, with all one's human cravings.

Because human world is not always conducive to contentment, people who want to live in undisturbed contentment might choose to go live in some secluded place like the Himalayas. But as I said, pure contentment is not living at all, whether it is in the Himalayas or right here. Happiness is essential to make life, life.

Bliss, or perfect happiness, is happiness felt in presence of contentment deep on the inside. And I have worked out the way for myself as to how to live in the human world and still live in that way. In other words

How to attain bliss without being in Himalayas?

Have you ever played a video game? Let's talk about Super Mario, my all time favorite video game!

There's this main protagonist Mario whose aim in the game is to get to his princess, facing many enemies and obstacles in the world called Mushroom Kingdom. There are hazards on the way like falling in the pits, being hit by fireballs etc., and of course, a host of enemies with powers of different types and degree. As against these adversities, Mario also finds on his way some things to his advantage like a mushroom called "1-Up" which increases his life, "Fire Flower" which gives Mario a weapon in the form of small fireballs with which he can kill enemies. Then there's this power called "Starman" which makes Mario invincible to most hazards for some time. The idea is to smartly and diligently use these powers against all adversities and reach the goal.

Don't you think that our life is also somewhat like this video game? Our aims may be different but we all face adversities and have got powers internal as well as external to fight these adversities. Your happiness or pain depends on just how smartly and diligently you live your life.

Now consider your life as a game. You are the main protagonist in this game. There are innumerable stages in this game like childhood, schooling, adulthood, love, work, marriage, divorce, riches, poverty etc. Through all the stages in the game there are things like making friends and enemies; pain and pleasures; love and hatred. You earn points when you make friends. Lose points when you make enemies. Earned love, earned points. Lost love, lost points. Consider points as a measure of happiness. That's how a game works. Human life has endless possibilities of occurrences. All the things which happen in your favor add to your points and those occurrences against you reduce the points. When you succeed through the tasks you jump up in happiness with "Whoa!" and "Wow!" and when you lose you throw the joystick with "Oh fuck!" and "Shit!"

Should you get depressed if you lose in this game? Well, if it's a game then ideally, you shouldn't. It's right that when you are playing the game your aim has to be winning, but the problem with this game called "human life" is that there's no ultimate winning in it. Instead, the two ultimate possibilities are: Either you lose; or you just have to keep playing it until the time is up. However, there are successes and failures all through it which is fun to face with. Success would fill you with happiness and excitement. Failure may demotivate you; even make you feel like flinging off the joystick. But after all, it's a game, not the "real world". What you experience in the "game world" is left behind when you are done playing the game and return in your "real world".

Happenings of the "game world" can not affect your behavior in the "real world", unless you are so obsessed with the game that you have lost your mind and the realization that the two worlds are different. A sane person knows that a game was a game and a life is a life. The "game world" was simulated, illusory and fictitious; made just for some thrill and fun. Thus, as long as you are aware of the existence of the "real world", the "game world" can not rule your mind once you are away from the game.

Human life, the way you see it, is all illusory. You believe in the things which do not exist. You believe in friendships, relationships, God, love, soulmates etc etc. All of it, the way you perceive it, is simply inexistent in reality. They are like things of the "game world". This renders the seemingly real world nothing but a game. You are living under the false impression of all this being real. Furthermore, you think it's all you have. It's like being insanely obsessed with the "game world", where unreal things continually prey on your mind, giving you pleasures and pains, and absolutely controlling your life.

All you need for attaining bliss/perfect happiness in this world is the realization of truth. You have to know the ultimate reality of existence. When you start seeing the illusory things as illusions, you will automatically start dwelling in the "real world" the world of

indifference. When you start seeing existence in its actual form you will start taking it merely as a game. Then it's your decision whether you want to play it or not. Or how you want to play it. When you are playing it you might do everything what everyone else is doing. As it is, you can't just sit under a tree idling when you are living in the human world. You have to be active here. So, you might set goals. You might have desires and expectations, successes and failures, and consequently, happiness and pain.

With all of this, however, the most important thing which you will have is the knowledge of the reality. The realization that all this is a part of the play. Then nothing which happens in the game will affect your spirit. Because on the inside you know, and are living in the "real world". On the inside, you are already in perfect happiness. You are in bliss which nothing and no one in this "game world" can take from you.

Update: Note that "perfect happiness" is not absence of suffering (that is not possible), but there suffering is at its lowest minimum level. Also, I am letting go of the word "bliss" from my future writing, because bliss only means "forever lasting happiness", and the way I use it creates confusion in the readers. Forever lasting happiness is an impossible idea. Are Humans Really Intelligent? Meaning of Intelligence

Intelligence in simple words is defined as: The ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Another definition of Intelligence I found says: The ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience. As we can understand, there is no fundamental difference between the two definitions.

Looking at the two definitions anyone should be able to make out that the main function of intelligence is to make life better; to bring ease to life.

Some background

Nature has endowed each and every creature on this planet with intelligence. If you ask evolutionists the reason for this then you will learn that intelligence exists in creatures to

enable them survive in the world where the norm is survival of the fittest. One of the proven observations by the naturalists is that life on the planet is being governed by an immaculate mechanism of Nature according to which no species of organism would grow so much in population that it wipes out any other species and no species of organism would shrink so much in numbers that it gets wiped out by some other. It is evident from the process of natural selection in evolution that Nature takes due care that every species of organisms on this planet is best equipped to survive in its environment. Intelligence is just one of the tools to accomplish this purpose.

The important thing to note is that the difference between human and animal intelligence is one of degree and not of kind. So, it is still not wrong to say that the main function of intelligence is to make life better. After all, making tools and developing strategies for securing survival is certainly a process of betterment of life.

However, this meaning of intelligence is more clearly understood in relation to human life, because human life as it is today is largely driven by intelligence. Humans have invented so many tools to add comfort to their life that today they are almost totally free of the natural struggle for survival, unlike other creatures. That certainly appears to be a huge betterment of life.

Intelligence or pseudo-intelligence?

The question is: Have humans really bettered their life using their intelligence?

Looking on the surface of it human life seems to be a very developed one. They are living like the masters of the world. They have invented such tools that they no more need any kind of physical struggle as far as surviving in the natural environment is concerned. The words comfort and convenience are only justified by the way humans live. What an advancement of one species over the billions that have been on this planet!

Now, if you will remove the veil of ignorance then you should see a diametrically different picture. In truth, humans are living the most miserable, most destructive and the worst life on this planet. Tomorrow if the world is fully destroyed (which has already started

happening) the reasons lie in thoughtless human activities like pollution, global warming, and relentless exhaustion of resources (not to mention inter-human fights, and wars!). At every step of the life humans are defying Natures laws and making their own life and the whole world worse.

Dwelling on the surface you might think you are not suffering surfing the web with your computer; sleeping in peace at night in your cozy bed rather than on a pile of leaves inside a cave; not experiencing pain every hour of the day due to tooth aches (which without modern dentistry are what we would have); having a car that you can use to visit friends living hundreds of miles away, et cetera. You might, instead, wonder how your life would be better without all these things.

Here are the explanations

1. If you lived in caves then your life would be less convenient than it is now? Wrong! It's just like saying when electricity was not invented people weren't able to feel convenience that they feel today in an air-conditioned room...! Already being in comforts if you imagine life without those comforts then, of course, you would find it inconvenient. But when the comfort is not invented at all, and is inconceivable, there's no question of feeling inconvenience. People were always able to feel as comfortable as they can feel today. When fire was invented the arising feel of comfort would not have been any less than what man felt when he first drove a car. So, more technological advancement means more comfort and convenience is a flawed conviction! Intake of alcohol would give you the feel of great comfort, but just because of that is it good? That advancement which brings more harm (however in the long-run) than benefit is no advancement, and is doubtless undesirable!

2. Humans seem to be oblivious to the fact that all the comforts added to their lives today are taking high toll on natural resources as well as entire planet's living systems. Due to exhaustive human activities every living system in the biosphere is in decline and the rate of decline is accelerating. And those living systems provide the basis for all life. On the other hand, humans are not only getting used to all these comforts but are also getting genetically modified to live with those comforts. When the natural resources on which those comforts ride decline or finish (which is undoubtedly imminent) they will have no power live without them; or they would invent new ways which would further accelerate the degradation of living systems! The rate at which natural resources are being exhausted today is far greater than the rate of re-building of resources. These are by no means acts of intelligence.

3. The planet is naturally designed to accommodate only about a billion human beings. Until 1800 CE the human population has never exceeded a billion in numbers. But due to various inventions after the development of advanced science human population is increasing by leaps and bounds. Can you believe when John Kennedy was inaugurated the planet carried only half of the people compared to what it carries today! If you can not think beyond humanity and human welfare that too, a short-term one then it's okay. But if you can, then that's certainly not admissible, when you also check on the facts about how many species of creatures have gone extinct because of everincreasing human needs. And why, its most certainly also affecting human welfare in the long run! Humans have been keeping comfort and convenience (short-term ones) ahead of survival (in the long-run), in importance. What to do of comforts when survival of the entire planet itself is being endangered! In truth, in the short-sightedness of human intelligence this fact is continually ignored.

One of the functions of intelligence is also to make out a difference between the right way and the wrong way and then choose the right one. Today, the humanity certainly knows what the right way is but utterly lacks the will to adopt it out of the insane greed for convenience arising off social, economic, and political situations. What humans are doing is out of intelligence, of course; but in doing so the word intelligence loses its meaning. Because humans are neither making their life better with intelligence anymore; nor are they okay for the safe survival of the entire life system on this planet.

These facts prove my kind a bunch of stupidest creatures on this planet. Here, stupidity is not an opposite of intelligence, but intelligence used unwisely. I would call it pseudointelligence. Or simply human intelligence because so far this sort of intelligence is known to be existing only in humans!

Wheres the line between natural intelligence and human intelligence?

The point, beyond which the amount of intelligence no more betters life but rather degrades it, for humans as well as for Nature (for that matter, that humans are separate from Nature is an extremely insane thought), is the dividing point. Intelligence up to that point is natural intelligence, which is good and desirable; and intelligence beyond that point is human intelligence, which is the cause of most of the miseries of, and beyond, humanity.

After learning the difference between natural intelligence and human intelligence one should also be able to decide which actions are natural and which are unnatural. The actions driven by natural instincts and natural intelligence are natural actions, and the actions driven by human intelligence are unnatural acts.

IMPORTANT UPDATE (May 2011): I have changed my views on the things discussed in the above article. The reader should know that I am no longer holding all the views given there. Now the article is kept online just to remind me of my naivety at the time of writing it. My thoughts and knowledge-level have significantly changed (or should I say developed) since then. (To know my refined thoughts on the topic please follow this article: What Is Nature? Are Humans Really Destroying It?) What Is the Difference Between Happiness and Contentment? When I say things like "happiness is not a real thing to pursue", people quite don't digest that. I can understand. Happiness is such a positive feeling! For as long as you have lived you have been hearing people saying happiness is all that matters in life, and that the purpose of life is attaining happiness, and all that. Fine. But then I have already explained in my article Are You Happy or Content? what is the true nature of happiness, and why I say the pursuit of it is futile.

In my view, contentment is a very important state to attain in life. Only the happiness felt in presence of contentment is perfect happiness.

Confused? I know! That's why I felt the need to explain the difference between what I call contentment and what you call happiness with more clarity. The difference is so subtle. I will try to enunciate it.

Consider the difference between contentment and happiness as that between smile and laughter. Smile indicates serenity. Laughter indicates agitation. Smile is tranquility. Laughter is ripples. If you are in contentment you smile. You laugh if you are in happiness. To smile at someone all you need is to be free of pain. If there's pain you can "fake" a smile, but not really smile. So, once you are free of pain and you can go on smiling at anyone you meet. That's the sign of a contented person. Contentment does not require any "input" from the world outside of you. It completely comes from within. Happiness, on the other hand, requires input from the outside world. Like, laughter requires a joke be said.

Now, expand your perspective. Don't just stick to the words "smile" and "laughter" for contentment and happiness. Of course, buying a mobile phone also makes you "happy", though not necessarily you laugh! So, the important words actually are serenity and agitation. Upon buying a mobile phone you will feel the agitation inside, won't you? Mind has lost its tranquility. There are ripples (of excitement) when you have just come to possess some valuable thing. What you feel as happiness is just those ripples. They never last. What is everlasting is tranquility.

Now think. If I can smile (genuine smile devoid of any pain within me) anytime of the day and night when I look at someone, would you consider me "happy", even if I never feel like real laughing at anything, or dancing, or doing parties and celebrating days and stuffs? Then between your happiness and my contentment there is no difference. I think, in spiritual terminology what is called happiness is just what I call contentment. I just prefer to call it contentment because otherwise it creates confusion as to what to call "laughter". I call "laughter" thing happiness and am against chasing it alone. "Smile" thing is contentment and I think it is essential for a good life. Only when one first learns to smile in every situation, one can truly enjoy the laugh too. One who only knows to laugh, will be depressed when there's no one tell a joke!

As you can understand, this by no means is to suggest you should never laugh or get excited over something in your life. But the thing is that you should be able to make out the difference between "tranquility" and "ripples". Understand that the state of "ripples" is, by its very nature, temporary. So, do not give much importance to it alone. Be in perfect happiness, which is when you are experiencing happiness, and at the same time deep inside you are also contented.

Happiness is important to MAKE life livable. And contentment is important to KEEP life livable. Former is a function of emotion, while latter is a function of intellect. When emotions and intellect are balanced, it's true intelligence.

You might also now understand how it is said that happiness comes from within. The same thing is contentment. It so happens that when you are contented deep inside, you can find something to extract happiness from in every moment, in every situation. It doesn't mean you don't wish for anything more, but when life is tough, that can't affect you much Real World, Game World and the Ultimate Reality of Life

Real World

For those who are on a spiritual journey what I call the real world is the psychological state you dwell in when you are aware of the higher reality.

Whenever you discover some higher truth a separate world is created inside your mind. Then the world you dwelt in prior to the discovery is no more real.

Let's take an example. At one point of time people believed that the Earth was flat. That was the highest level of knowledge that prevailed about the shape of the Earth. Even though today we know that this idea was not true, at that point of time there was no reason to believe it was untrue. Thus, flat Earth was the reality then. Later, when someone discovers that the Earth is not flat but is spherical, the new world emerges; the new reality which renders the flat Earth idea no more real.

When the new reality is supported by evidences, there remains no reason for a rational mind to hold on to the old reality. To the one with the knowledge of the new real world, those living in the old world are living in the illusion. Those still believing that the Earth is flat are, thus, living in the illusion.

Game World

Quite often even being aware of the higher reality (meaning, real world) you are constrained to dwell in the illusions for the majority is still ignorant of the real world. This is especially true in case of truth-seekers. For example, you would know that the hunger for wealth and power is a disease, and that the happiness arising out of their possession is but illusory, you would still have to acquire certain amount of wealth and also some power if you want to survive in this world of intelligent creatures.

This world of illusion is what I have called the game world. It only exists for the one who is conscious of the real world. For the one who is unaware of the higher reality the world of illusions itself is the real world!

Real world = Game world Illusions

Why I call our world the game world?

Being aware of the real world when you live in the illusions purposely it is like playing a game. Hence the phrase game world. Once you are spiritually developed substantially you would see that most of all what happens in this world is illusory. At that time, bringing on the concept of game world makes life convenient. I call our world the game world because it's like a video game world for me to live in!

When you are playing a video game you enter a fantasy world. The events of the fantasy world take control of your feelings and emotions to some extent as long as you are playing the game. Ask a game addict, these fantasy world events can thrash him into depression and can take him to extreme level of happiness depending on his level of psychological involvement in the game. When the fantasy world takes control of your mind to an unusual degree it is alarming. Because after all it's just a game, you know. Not reality. It should not have the power to disturb your equanimity.

Only the one who is conscious of the real world can stay unaffected of the events of the game world. Will you ever commit suicide if you lose in a video game? Most certainly not. Because you are aware of the real world, and know that you have lost only in the fantasy world. Imagine a mental patient who has no sense of real and unreal and who also happens to be a game addict. It's no wonder if losing in a video game motivates him to give up his life. Won't you call this act insane? But his only problem was that he did not know the difference between the real world and the game world. Thus, losing in the game meant absolute failure to him which took away his motive to live.

This is precisely the problem with our world. Most of the people in the world are living in the fantasy world, believing in the things that do not exist. Though for them that's the real world, but to the mind with higher level of consciousness their reality is merely an illusion. For example, for the believers of God the world with God is the real world, whereas for the rational atheists repeat, "rational" atheists the world with God is an illusion. So, they will not visit temples or worship God on the first place. But if, say, by force they are made to go to temples and worship God (under pressures like threat of

the Church) then that act will be akin to playing a game, because the mind which is aware of the reality can't help telling the real word from the unreal (or game) world.

What is the ultimate reality?

Here's what I have realized with the level of consciousness I have been able to rise to

As you go higher and higher spiritually you might see the meanings of all the things dissolving. And when you reach there you might see that you exist just like a lone dot on the infinite spread of blank sheet. No story. No meaning. No purpose. Just exist.

This, I believe, is the ultimate reality. Purpose, meaning, and everything else are the creation of human mind, because intelligence can't work without purpose and meaningfulness. This is the curse on us being "thinking beings". Hence the need for spiritual development!

You believe in God, friendships, other relationships, marriage, soulmates etc. All those are but illusions! Not that friendship is not, or marriage doesn't give certain comfort, or relationships are not a good thing. But the way and the extent to which people rely on these things is absurd. They are just purpose-driven social activities, all of them. No more.

How to dwell in the real world?

Since you are living in the world where almost everyone around you is unconscious of the higher realities you have no choice but to live as all others do. It's like, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. But being conscious of the higher reality you will know that you are not Roman, and that Rome is just a game world! Thus, you won't be enslaved by the emotions arising off this game world!

(Or if you want to physically exist in the real world then you might think about abandoning this world and go to live in the Himalayas, or some such secluded place!)

This (fantasy) world does give people happiness, but more than happiness it gives misery. It shows that the level of consciousness people hold about the world is not sufficient for them to live a fulfilled life. Does Sin Exist in Nature? A tiger would not be sinning if he eats up a goat. It is not fair to call serpent a sinner when a man dies of snake-bite. When a beast gulps down her own new born baby out of sheer hunger, she is not a cruel mother at all. There is no word called Sin in the Nature's dictionary. In the Nature's kingdom truth prevails. There is no king in the jungle. A lion has nothing to do with the false stories rumored by men. When a lion hunts a deer, he too is acting as per his nature. In the jungle everything goes on as natural. In the Nature's world sin can not be. Sin is the product of 'culture' and is born only after the Nature is relinquished.

For sin to exist man's being is essential. Man is the youngest child of Mother Nature. As the Nature's influence lessened, culture is developed. And disorders come hand in hand with cultures. It is the cultured and learned man who has to save himself of sin. In the jungle there is no place for sin or benefaction. Benefaction is invented only after sin is born.

Donation earned importance only after tendency to possess grew. Infatuation grew, so non-attachment got significance. Greed has made the act of giving up something great. People carry out good deeds as a remedy to soothe themselves of possible wounds of their misdeeds. As a result a builder or a politician is not reluctant to carrying out corrupt deeds. Their donation saves them of feeling of guilt arising from badly earned money. Black money thus goes the way of donation and is said to be the act of benefaction.

Some philosopher has said: You have got to do something out-of-the-way to commit a sin; but to commit a good deed you just have to act naturally. Africa's jungle dwellers do not do the acts of benefaction. They act naturally. Their violence is not unnatural if they are non-vegetarians. They do not know sin. Where there is no sin, the need for benefaction is inexistent. Breastfeeding a child is not an act of benefaction, because the act is a part of mother's being. There is no need of a priest to teach this natural act.

Without knowing the Nature all the philosophy is incomplete. The gist of all the religions also lies in being natural.

This article was originally written by the Gujarati-language writer Gunvant Shah. Translated into English by Darhan Chande. What Is Love? And Why Is It Painful? Love is such a profound and impacting feeling that for centuries people have been trying to understand it and there are hundreds of theories explaining it. But it's still topping the list of psychological pains the mankind suffers. Here I want to explain my idea of love.

Simply put, love is nothing but a liking beyond limit.

When you don't just like something, but like it very much, you say you love it. Love is the heightened state of liking. Nothing else. In case of interpersonal love, there are numerous reasons why you may feel love for someone. Note that there's no difference between love and attraction. You are attracted to the person you love. Few of the reasons for being attracted to someone are beauty, body language, sex appeal, nature, intelligence etc. Because of these or any of the countless other reasons you may develop an intense liking for some person. Whatever the reason be, nothing is wrong about it. Liking something is a pleasure. Like watching a flower is a pleasure. Or facing cool breeze on a mountain-top is a pleasurable experience. Love, too, is a pleasurable experience. The very natural characteristics of love are a feeling of compassion and care. That naturally comes because, of course, you would not like offending and thereby risk losing someone who gives you that pleasurable experience. It's like when you hold a delicate flower how it naturally occurs to you to hold it with care. That's because of love.

That's love. Love is a pleasurable experience of being in admiration of something or someone. The important thing to understand here is that it's those abstract things beauty, body language, sex appeal, nature, intelligence etc which are giving you this experience, and the object in concern (the person) is just a medium. You know that you can fall in love more than once. You have probably experienced this yourself. This very well proves that it's not the object but the qualities carried by the object which inspire love. It's a fallacy of human mind, or rather a weakness, that every time one is in love with someone one believes that this person is the best one could have and that this love was meant to be and the things like that.

Love is a magic in itself. This magic has nothing to do with the object of love. When you become obsessed with the object, love is no more love but a disease.

When I say love is a magic in itself, and this magic has nothing to do with the object of love, what I mean is that all the pleasure you derive out of love is in the act of loving itself. You love a flower because of its beauty and fragrance. They are not the object (which is the flower) but the qualities carried by the object. But in expression you say you love the flower. Then I have said when you become obsessed with the object, love is no more love but a disease. You love the flower. Now you become obsessed with it. But flower is a mortal thing. Prone to change. After a couple of days it's ugly. Now you grieve over it. No. Don't. Look there in the garden outside there are thousands of flowers spreading their beauty and fragrance. Once you see it you will again fall in love with some other flower. Because it was not the flower but the beauty of it which was captivating. It's the beauty which is eternal and everlasting and not the object.

An aware person would know this fact. Understand why you love. Identify the qualities in the object because of which your love for it is. And know that the object is just a medium. Don't be obsessed with the object, because it will not remain. Just like the flower does not remain. If you cling to the object there will be pain. Hence I call this sort of love, obsessive love, a disease.

There's nothing wrong if the flower remains for life. But the awareness of the essence of love is necessary. I would say ninety-nine percent of the people are ignorant. They get committed to the person they love. Then gradually as the flower loses its fragrance, the person loses those qualities, but still they cling to each other, only because they have lost the strength to be on their own again. Love is impossible in such a case. Then the only resort to keep from going mad is creating illusions. People then form illusions that love still is. But such love of illusion is not beautiful. What Are the Stages in a Relationship? Its very interesting to understand the progression of a relationship between two persons. A relationship passes from several stages. Can you guess what these stages generally are?

The model which most people believe in is this

Strangers friends best friends lovers

Lets call it Model 1. As I said, most people believe in this model. Ask yourself. Probably you too believe something like this. At the first stage the two persons are strangers. As they meet and come close they become friends. Then the following stage, if they reach up there, is best friends. And if they go still higher then they become lovers the ultimate stage of a relationship.

I too believed in this model, until I came to understand that its flawed.

The biggest flaw lies in the concept of the last stage lovers. In my article about love, I have said that love simply is a liking beyond limit. Its a pleasurable experience of being in admiration of something or someone. When I got this clarity about what love really is I noticed a big flaw in the Model 1. I have fallen in love several times with the persons who were not my friends. Not even acquaintances, but total strangers at the time I got attracted to them. It shouldnt be surprising. Havent you had crushes on people whom you knew only by face? Some call it just a physical attraction then. But no, thats also love.

I have seen many lovers who are exceptions to Model 1. In fact, most of them are! I have seen lovers who are not best friends to each other. I have seen lovers who are not even friends. For being a lover you just have to have intense liking for someone. It does not take into account anything else. And if that someone likes you too, then you are lovers. It can be for any of your qualities. Even if it is for a physical appearance then it is love. This way love may exist in total strangers also. Like, in a one-night-stand too love can be.

This is how I found that the model is utterly flawed, and deceptive in a way. Hence, I devised another model. And as all other theories of mine this model too is a product of rationality.

Heres how it goes

Strangers acquaintances friends perfect communion (soul mates)

Lets call it Model 2. If you noticed I have eliminated love from this model. As I have always said, a relationship is constructed on a purpose. A relationship is a social tool to fulfill ones needs and purposes. Strangers become acquaintance for a purpose. Acquaintances become friends for a purpose. Understand that the purpose can be anything from materialistic to spiritual; from sex to moral support; from fun to knowledge, and so on. In short, a need or a purpose is the basis of any relationship.

Thats where the need for eliminating love. Love does not happen for a purpose. Its another thing most people get obsessed with and seek possession of the other person when in love. But such purposeful obsessive love is a disorder. Pure love does not have any purpose. Its just a state of being in admiration of someone, and is totally unconditional. Love can not be termed as a stage in a relationship because it can take place any time, at any stage.

Now I will explain the stages in Model 2 in detail.

Each persons existence has a center and a periphery. Imagine a circle with a dot in the center. That dot in the center is where your core is. Thats the real you. And the boundary of a circle is your periphery; the trifling things surrounding you.

Stage 1. Strangers

This stage does not require much explanation. At this stage you just know people by appearance. Theres no relation of any sort. Examples can be some of your neighbors, your co-commuters in a public transport, the people you see in the park, and so on.

As shown in the graphic above, not even peripheries have met. The two persons are completely separate from each other.

Stage 2. Acquaintances

Most people relate with each other on the periphery and remain related that way only. For example, when you join a new office you come to know so many people. Get acquainted with many colleagues. These people have nothing to do with your intricate thoughts and your lifes philosophy. You are related to them by the work you do. These are trifling things. There is not much personal interest involved in such relationships. With these people you will remain closed most of the time. This is called being related on the periphery. In other words, they are your acquaintances.

Stage 3. Friends

Some people try and come close to your center. They are somewhat like you. When you see that someone understands you, you would like to open up more to that person, allowing him/her come closer to your center, or the real you. This is called friendship. The closer the other person is to your center better is the friendship.

Look in the graphic. Being related at any point between the periphery and the center can be called friendship.

Stage 4. Perfect communion (soul mates)

This is the ultimate stage in a relationship where it's no more a relationship between two persons. When you share such supreme level of understanding and connection with the other person that you no more remain close to each others center, but your centers become one, thats called perfect communion. For it to happen there has to be absolute absence of fear. When you are not allowing the other person to come close to your center beyond a limit its only because of the fear. When the other person is not allowing you to reach his/her center, its because of the fear. This fear can be gotten rid of only when you have perfect awareness of the self and the universe around you. Only then you can reach the other persons center, and allow that person to reach your center. Let me tell you that perfect communion is rarest of the rare event. When I say this it means one in a million. No. Its not an overstatement. To make this event possible the two persons have to be deeply spiritual.

Another important thing I must not forget to mention is that a relationship does not necessarily progress through these stages in a given sequence. In the right sense they should be called levels of a relationship, instead of stages. A relationship may start off at any level directly and may move in any direction.

And as for love, its not a stage in a relationship. Love is a magic which can take place at any of the above-mentioned stages.

UPDATE (September 2011): This post need not be taken too seriously, especially the part on soul mates, which I myself now consider redundant to my philosophy. What Is Perfect Communion (Soul Mates)? UPDATE (September 2011): The following post need not be taken too seriously. This abstract concept I myself now consider redundant to my philosophy.

In What Are the Stages in a Relationship? I said that perfect communion is the ultimate stage in a relationship. When you share such supreme level of understanding and connection with the other person that you no more remain close to each others center, but your centers become one, thats called perfect communion.

In this article I will explain perfect communion in more detail.

Perfect communion is the rarest of the rare event. When I say this it means one in a million. For it to happen the persons involved need to be deeply spiritual.

Imagine a circle with a dot in the center. That dot in the center is where the person's core is. Where one really exists. And the boundary of a circle is one's periphery. Between the center and the periphery are the trifling things of one's existence. When you get close to someone beyond ones periphery you start getting to know one. Thus, by being close to each other's center it means knowing each other. The more the persons know each other more they are said to be close to each other's center.

In perfect communion, however, the persons are no more close to each other's center,

but they have reached each other's center and the centers have become one. It's to be understood that to allow someone to reach your center there has to be absolute absence of fear on your part, and to reach someone's center it requires perfect awareness of the self and the universe around you. In this way, only a spiritually developed person can allow other person to reach his center, and can reach other person's center.

Have you ever thought why you don't allow people to know you beyond a limit? Its because of the fear. And for the same reason other people are not allowing you to reach their center. Fear. This fear is to be gotten rid of. And to get rid of the fear first its to be understood what this fear is.

The fear exists because of ego (self). Your ego is always insecure. You always want to protect your ego and keep it within the comfort zone. You allow someone to know you only up to the extent it's convenient for and comforting to your ego, because you don't want to lose anyone who forms the comfort zone of your ego. Needing someone is always for the ego. Thus, owing to the needs of your ego the fear is created in you.

To reach your center the other person has to penetrate your ego. In other words, you have to let go of your ego. Only when you are egoless (selfless) you are truly fearless. Reaching selflessness is the goal of spiritual development. That's the reason I have said that the two persons need to be deeply spiritual for perfect communion to take place.

In perfect communion, the irony of the situation is that neither of the persons actually needs other person for his/her own wellbeing. As it is, they are already egoless. And the beauty of the situation is that the persons are related only for the purest pleasure of the communion. Purest, because its absolutely unconditional. Where theres no ego, there cant be conditions.

Why perfect communion is also called soul mates?

At other levels of relationship (viz. acquaintances, friends) it's the meeting of egos. Perfect communion is the meeting of centers which are beyond egos. Perfect communion is, actually, no more a relationship between the persons; because a relationship is constructed on a purpose, and purpose is the food of ego. When the ego

vanishes you are reduced to a mere soul. Perfect communion is the meeting of egoless souls. Hence, I have called it soul mates.

What perfect communion is not?

It's not what is colloquially referred to as soul mates in romantic relationships. It's not a meant-to-be thing. No one is, like, destined to find a soul mate for oneself. It's possible with any number of people. It's not a meeting of two lost souls; or meeting of lost parts of a soul. (That's crap!) It's not the purpose of your existence to find a soul mate. It's nothing to do with romance, nor with love. It's not necessarily lasing forever. It's not reached with outward efforts, but inward. How to Better Your Life By Feeding Other People's Ego My philosophy is not happiness oriented. The goal of my philosophy is contentment. Remember, not happiness, contentment is the highest good that can happen to you. And it happens only when you are egoless. It's the ego (self) that feels happiness and pain. The sign of egolessness is contentment, where theres neither happiness nor pain.

Keeping this in view below I have given some suggestions as to how to live a good life by feeding other peoples ego. In other words, how to live contentedly by allowing others be happy.

How to better your life by feeding other peoples ego?

1. Let them think they are wiser. Its very commonly seen that those who are higher than you in position tend to think they are wiser, too. For example, your boss, your parents, your relatives who are elder to you, etc. They often tend to be dominating.

Heres what causes this tendency: They have also been subject to domination earlier in their life. When someone is being dominated his ego is humiliated. Lets say, the ego incurs an expense. When in their life they have been under someone elses domination their ego has incurred lot of expenses which its the nature of ego to recover when in the good position.

This is the reason they would not readily accept your decisions. Even when you propose a very intelligent idea that they are compelled to accept it they will be inclined to hold that in general they are wiser than you. In such cases, its a good idea to let them live with their superiority complex. As it is, they are higher than you in position. Proving to them your wisdom over theirs might hurt their ego badly and the resulting friction might generate ugly consequences for you.

Suggestion: Propose your idea. If accepted, fine. If not, give up. If you are really wise then you surely know to protect your ass. As for their ass, let it not be your concern. They will know the truth if their asses are burnt.

2. Dont protest against defect finders. This comes from my experiences with so-called friends and colleagues the people I frequently interact with in day to day life.

Do not protest against the people when they show you the defects / drawbacks of the things (or products) you are using. Say for instance, you have bought an expansive mobile phone. When you show it to your colleague he immediately comes up with a host of drawbacks in the particular phone model. Now since you have recently bought such an expansive phone its natural that your immediate reaction would be that of protesting. You would protest by trying to speak out the plus points to mask the drawbacks showed by him.

Dont do that. You liked the phone. You bought it. If the drawbacks that he showed you are genuine then your good is in accepting them. If the plus points you see in the phone surmount the drawbacks shown by him then what he says doesnt matter anyway. Why lose your energy by proving that your decision to buy the thing was right! What purpose would it serve but make your ego feel win-win and thereby give you a phony feeling of happiness for a while? Chuck it. Listen to what he says and forget it the next moment. Spare his ego. No friction. Alls good.

3. Dont boast. Do you know that in order for you to actually feel happiness its essential that others know you are happy? Think about it. When something good happens in your life you wont feel real happy until others know about it. Boasting is an aggressive way of doing just that. Dont ever go boasting about your position, workplace, locality, the things you use, or whatever else that you feel like showing off. Remember, showing off is not so good for other peoples ego as it is for yours. Tame their ego. Forget yours!

4. Dont speak of literature to the illiterate. Dont talk to people about the things they wont understand. This usually happens with me out of excitement.

Say you have decided to buy the elegant new iPhone and you are all excited about its features. You would naturally want to show the excitement by speaking about it all the time to whoever is in your proximity. Here, if that whoever happens to be one who has little or no interest, or no sense, in electronic gadgets then whats the point! Yeah, you will get your dose of happiness by pouring on him your babble of excitement but you dont know that you probably are boring him to death. Why do that? You are getting your thing anyway. Be content. Stay quiet.

5. Give genuine praise. Always try looking in all the people you face for the qualities for which you can give them genuine praise. Praise is the greatest pleasure for ego. Without exception, everyone likes receiving praise. Give people praise.

Remember, I am talking about genuine praise. If you cant see a single quality in the person worth praising then dont. Most probably, however, you will find at least one such quality in everyone. Give it a try. It will do no harm. Even if you dont like the person overall, casually give him genuine praise once for the quality that deserves it. You never know what good it might entail!

6. Let them use you. Let them what?! Okay, easy. If someone is using you and you know it and you dont want to be used then just get off the stage. Theres no need to put the person through embarrassment by showing that you know you are being used and wont allow it anymore! Dont be a hero!

Well, and if being used is NOT harming you in any way then you may rather want to re-

think your step. Let others get what they are seeking and be happy by using you. So what if they used you! If its not harming you in any way then whats the problem? Ego? Come on!

7. Let them boast. This point is not very difficult to understand since you very well know now why people want to boast. So, if someone is boasting about his position, workplace, locality, the things he uses, or whatever else that he feels like showing off then let him enjoy it. Don't throw cold water on him.

8. Let them lie about (or fabricate) things. If someone is lying to you about something then think what it will cost you to accept that lie. If it hasnt got anything to do with you, and that the lie is merely for his feel-good and wont cost you a penny then let him feel good by lying.

Same goes for the instances of fabrication of things. Dont glorify your smartness by showing that you understand that the things are fabricated.

9. Lose a debate. Many a time it has happened with me that I am having debate with some fat-headed person who is more interested in winning the debate than in reaching up to a rational conclusion. Of course, I realize it long after the debate has started off, else I wouldn't have started the debate!

This is what happens: This person is NOT interested in a good conclusion. However strong and logical your points are, this person is absolutely blind to reason (or is acting so). What to do? Let him win! Tell him loud and clear that he won, you lost. Make him dance with happiness. As long as you know that you are right you are a winner anyway! You really think his approval matters? I mean, his approval? Getting me?

That's all I could come up with for now. Following these suggestions means avoiding countless instances of displeasing other people. Quite often there are avoidable things over which people displease one another, the cause of which is nothing but ego. If you dodge such traps of ego then your life will without doubt be a hell lot better!

If you can think of more points to add to the above article then please write them out in the comments. Why Is Sex Pleasurable? Sex is anyway an interesting topic since it's a taboo. Taboos always attract huge interest. But what makes sex all the more interesting is the fact that it's an immensely pleasurable physical activity.

I did some thinking as to why sex is pleasurable and here's what I met with. Will try to put it systematically.

What creates pleasure and pain?

Physical pleasure and pain are the feelings interrelated in that they are created by the same mechanism. Furthermore, they serve the same purpose! Sounds weird? You might ask, how on earth can pleasure and pain be serving the same purpose? Well, in order to understand why certain experiences are pleasurable we will first see why certain stimuli cause pain.

The mechanism which produces the sensations of pleasure and pain is our nervous system.

Wikipedia says: "The nervous system is an organ system containing a network of specialized cells called neurons that coordinate the actions of an animal and transmit signals between different parts of its body."

In simple words, neurons are the cells that are spread across our body. They are present in almost all parts of the body. And their job is to face the stimuli and discharge appropriate impulses to the brain in order for it to "take action". The brain takes action by sending signals to the concerned organs to act in certain way.

Why nervous system creates sensations of pleasure and pain?

Nature has a very special purpose for the way the nervous system works. And what could be more special a purpose than survival!

Just imagine what would happen if your nervous system didn't create sensations of pleasure and pain. If you plunged your finger into fire you wouldn't feel any pain. You would only see your finger changing shape! (And color!) Not surprising if it amuses you to see it! You wouldn't come to know that the fire is actually harming you and if you bathed in it then you will die! Sounds funny but do think about it.

The job of the neurons, therefore, is to let our brain know what experiences are harmful for our body and are to be avoided. When faced with those stimuli the neurons discharge such impulses to the brain which the brain interprets as pain and signals outright to the concerned body parts to retract. Not only that, the brain also registers the instances in the memory. So that when you see fire again you will already know that you are not to touch it.

Now you see? Pain is basically an indication that certain actions and experiences are to be avoided. In exactly the same way, pleasure indicates that certain experiences are to be had.

For example, when you are very hungry you feel unrest in your stomach. That's a pain. Thanks to the neurons doing their job well, it puts you out of ease. Why, otherwise you won't eat and consequently die! So, what happens is that neurons inform the brain that the body needs to eat something, and the brain sends signals for the concerned organs to look for food. When you eat, you feel good. The pleasure! The brain registers this entire experience so that the next time you see food you know that it's to be eaten! Taking the example further, suppose seeing the food you recalled the pleasure previously had, and to feel it now you eat food again but this time your body is actually not hungry. In such a case the food would harm your body, won't it? But here too the neurons play smart. They would send the impulses of stomach ache (or acid reflux, for that matter) to the brain and the brain would order you to stop eating. Again this experience would be registered. As a result of this whole exercise you exactly know when to eat and when not to.

Surprising how it works, isn't it? It was rather a simplified example. The system handles much more complex tasks. But you got the point.

Why is survival important?

As we understood, physical pleasure and pain are the sensations born of our nervous system. And the nervous system is designed basically to facilitate survival. From Nature's point-of-view survival is important so that the existence continues.

Is "survival" the only important thing for the existence to continue?

Here comes the important point. Besides "survival" of the existing life, another thing which is equally important for the existence to continue is "reproduction". Creation of the new life!

Why there is pleasure in sex?

Reproduction is precisely the reason why Nature has placed pleasure in sex. And the pleasure felt is immense, because immensely critical is the activity of reproduction from Nature's standpoint.

Pleasure is an incentive Nature has placed in sex to make sure we have it. It means that if sex was not pleasurable then perhaps people would not have it. Because they wouldn't know on the first place why they have to have it! Consequently, reproduction wouldn't happen. So, to solve the problem Nature put pleasure in sex to "encourage" animals to have it. This way Nature has served its purpose of reproduction.

To summarize

Nature has secured continuation of animal life on the planet through two activities, viz. "survival" and "reproduction", both of which are taken care of by our nervous system which does the job largely by creating sensations of pleasure and pain, apart from the other tasks it performs. Is the Desire to Have a Child Innate or Society-induced? I believe that the desire to have a child is not innate but is society-induced. I will take up the major arguments for the desire being innate, give my explanations as to how they are not right, and also tell what I think brings on this particular desire.

Need for reproduction

Many people believe that it's natural for a woman to have the desire to have a child because Nature has created men and women to multiply and it is through a woman that it becomes possible. It is through a woman that the next generation would be born. They believe the desire to be innate for the purpose of inducing reproduction. On similar grounds many people also claim that having two different sexes is a very strong indication of the main idea of reproduction.

Explanation: I think what we fail to see here is that there's already a mechanism in place to induce reproduction. That mechanism is the "sexual desire". In the previous article I talked about why there is pleasure in sex. Pleasure is an incentive Nature has placed in sex to make sure we have it. It means that if sex was not pleasurable then people would not have it. Because they wouldn't know on the first place why they have to have it. Consequently, reproduction wouldn't happen. So, to solve the problem Nature put pleasure in sex to encourage animals to have it. This way Nature has served its purpose of reproduction.

If there was innate motivation to have a child then there was no need for sex to be pleasurable. People should be having sex anyway.

Hence the question whether the desire to have a child is innate or it's just like the desire

to have a pet, or the desire to own any other object, for that matter, which are undoubtedly the desires induced by the social design.

Wonder of creation

This is the weakest argument in my opinion for the desire being innate. Some people, especially women, put forth the following argument quite often to prove the desire to be innate. They say

A woman knows that during labor there is immense pain and yet she goes through it just to have a beautiful baby in her arms at the end of it. The whole idea of a new life is wonderful in itself!

Explanation: The readiness to endure pain and hardship (of whatever nature and however big) in order to have something doesn't mean that the desire is innate. For example, for their desire to create records people endure many types of crazy hardships and pains. You must have seen them in Guinness World Records and such other shows. Their readiness to take upon pain does not mean that their desire to create records is innate. That desire is because of the social design. And the idea of creating a world record is also wonderful. Such expressions are subjective.

Mothering

From my online studies and the conversations I have had with people around me I have seen one more thing which makes people think in favor of the desire being innate. It is the phenomenon of "mothering".

Mothering refers to the parental behavior of taking care of an offspring. The point these people make is this: Animals also mother. If they didn't mother then right after birth they would just abandon their young ones, which they don't. And since they are not affected by the society their desire to mother can not be society-induced.

Explanation: I would like to draw a difference between the "desire to mother" and the "desire to have a child".

Of course, animals also mother. And mothering is not society-induced. But the desire to have a child is not the same as the desire to mother. The behavior of taking care of an offspring (i.e. mothering) is directed by certain hormones which are produced in the body "post pregnancy". Just like secretion of milk in mother's breasts does not happen with "will" but by production of certain hormones after pregnancy. This behavior is not even permanent in the animals concerned. It disappears when the production of hormones ceases.

Just as Nature designed sex to serve its purpose of reproduction, the behavior of mothering is also Nature's way of securing safety of the offspring until it becomes capable to survive independently in the natural environment.

As it turns out, animals including humans reproduce (procreate) because of the desire created by the hormones of sex. And as for mothering, it's altogether postpregnancy thing, that too only for a short while. Note that the "desire to have a child" is neither the "desire for sex" nor the "desire for mothering".

The question still stands.

Whence cometh the desire to have a child?

Here's my answer

Humans today have various society-induced needs as that of security, love, esteem, and most importantly, meaningfulness. People largely attach their overall happiness with such social needs. These needs can be realized in numerous things such as parenthood, in a religious life, in a political career, in an intimate interaction with friends, and many other socials indulgences.

Parenthood is just one of the alternatives which people resort to in order to fulfill any (or many) of the above-mentioned needs like security, love, meaningfulness etc which are only relevant in societal context.

Moreover, if the desire for children was innate then it should be universal. But studies show that it is not. In quite a many countries (and cultures) a lot of couples voluntarily prefer to remain childless for life for no particular reason.

Conclusion

People attach happiness with many socially induced habits. For example, you might believe that if you have this one relationship then you would be happy. But when you enter that relationship you discover that your belief was wrong. Then people say, if I just have so and so things, I will be happy. Or if I don't have this one thing I will be sad all my life. Any of this is not true. Same beliefs and feelings we attach to education, job, money and other aspects of life. Having a child is just one of them.

If you have a different view then I would like to know about it. Please post it descriptively in the comments below. Is it a Matter of Shame to Not Know English? Living in this country and not knowing English has become like a matter of shame for quite a lot of people! This is especially true in urban India.

Wherever you go, you speak English and you are important. If you dont know English then you are low-class, dumb, unimportant! Be it educational institutions, high-class restaurants, shopping malls, social-clubs or whatever other places. English speaking people are considered to be superior species.

I have friends who have not done their education in English language. When they have to go for a corporate job interview they are more worried about their English than about

the job related knowledge! Because corporate interviews here are supposed to be only in English! Anyone who is not good with English and has been a job-seeker would know this.

In this country people are denied higher education in some high-class institutions if they have not done their preliminary education in English. Or they are severely discriminated against even after admission!

Amongst the west-crazy urban youth of this country (who dont know that even the west is not this crazy about English!) he who doesnt know English is considered poor! If he is talked to then its no better than how one would talk to a joker. In most cases, however, he is simply shunned and left to the company of others like him only. Be it to his professor or a hot babe in the class, he is simply unattractive! I wont deny that theres this sensible class of people too who dont tend to show such diseased mentality but even then they sort of feel awkward about their reputation in general when being with someone who does not know English!

People are made fun of over their pronunciation, grammar, accent and what not of English! Well, making fun in a healthy way is not all that bad. But when its English its not always healthy. Making fun of someones English is done more than just for having a healthy laugh. Its used as a way to belittle other and prove ones intellectual superiority in front of a group of people. Because people all over hold this idiotic notion that knowing English is something over-the-top great!

Theres this reality show, Dance India Dance, in which one of the contestants, Manoj, is from a poor background of being a street dancer and, of course, does not know English. And for not knowing English the poor boy is subjected to so much of embarrassment every time he comes on the stage. No wonder his performance must be getting affected by it. I find it highly abominable how in almost every episode the judges and the host of the show crack fun off him, asking him to say something in English and then laughing their fat brains out! So utterly disgusting it is! Of course, it provides a dose of laughter to the imbecile audience of the show but one can clearly see the indignation-mixed nervousness on the boys face. Once he also requested one of the judges not to make fun of him in this way but even the request fell on darn deaf ears! Height of authoritative power that is! Well, I wont go deep into the details of the show. But this is immensely sickening. I wholeheartedly detest this gross mentality!

I am not one of those fanatic proud-to-be-Indian-and-of-all-that-is-Indian people. I dont even believe in India, let aside what is Indian. I myself love English more than any other language of the world today. When it comes to saying which is my language, I love to say it is English! But, that does not mean I would inferiorize other languages and the speakers of those!

Its a common-sense thing that you would know only that language which you have learned. The one which is used around you, in your family and friends. No one is born with a pre-installed language! If some one grows up studying in some other language for xyz reason then he doesnt know English. So what? Whats the matter with these people!

One of the fellow bloggers, Gauri, rightly observes: In India, English has somehow become irrevocably linked with the confidence and job prospects of a student. It has become a standard benchmark to judge capabilities.

Thats lamentable, but true.

I just have this message for the English speaking people: If someone is able to communicate in any one language (whichever it is) as well as you do in English then he/she is as good as you are, so long as the communication skills are concerned. Respect that. As for the other qualities of a person, English is certainly not the yardstick! If you cant understand this then its you who is seriously lacking in intelligence! What is spirituality and spiritual development? IMPORTANT UPDATE: I no more subscribe to any type/version of spirituality. Philosophy, pursued in a right way, is the only way to attain wisdom.

When I began my developmental journey I hadnt a slightest idea about the meaning of the word spirituality. In fact, the journey itself had started unawares and thus for a long time I was not even to find out about it. Then as my reading expanded and I came across many figures from the past and the present with similar thoughts and inclination as mine I also invariably heard this term. Thats how I first came to know what I was going through was called spiritual development! That was about six years back when I was eighteen.

Here I will explain what I think spirituality is and what it means by spiritual development.

Spirituality

I will first quote an excerpt form Brave New Kitty, which is the shortest, best explanation of spirituality I have come across.

Spirituality is, in essence, discovering what nourishes your spirit and practicing it. By spirit, I mean the part of yourself that feels most alive: useful, connected, expansive, healthy, vibrant, whole. What makes life worth living. Spirituality is found in the answers to such questions as Who am I? What is meaningful to me? What do I want to do with the time I have?

Spirituality, as I use the term, has nothing to do with mythical gods or imaginary beings, or even with your own soul, at least not as an entity that goes on living after your body dies. It has to do with being and becoming the most whole person you can.

Now continuing with my elaboration

Spirituality, as I see it, is the practice of cultivating consciousness.

Consciousness is meant here, in a narrow sense, as awareness of the reality. For example, when you are asleep you are in a dream world. That world is not real. What you see then is for the most part illusory. You are in a state of unconsciousness. But when you wake up you see the reality. Its real because you are seeing it through the state of consciousness.

Most people, even when they are physically awake, are not conscious/aware about the

reality of their existence. By reality of the existence I mean how everything that matters in your life functions. People are not aware of the mechanism by which everything goes around in their life. Hence the miseries and discontentedness in life.

When one is not aware of the reality how can one expect to lead a fulfilled life? Its just like you can not live your waking life by what you see in your dream. To live a good waking life you have to see the world as it is when you are awake.

How to be aware of the reality? The answer is spirituality. Spirituality seeks awakening to the reality. The process of coming out of the unconsciousness to the consciousness is called awakening, or spiritual development.

Spiritual development

Spiritual development starts with self-awareness and ends with the awareness of the universe around you. Note that when I say self-awareness its not about knowing what you like and dislike, and what your interests are. Its not about knowing what you are, but why you are that way.

Have you ever ventured to figure that out? Try it. Go on and on into that unknown terrain of reality, and embrace whatever you find therein. You might have to abandon your comfort zone and everything else that keeps you from going farther, deeper into it. Then you will get all the answers you need to live a great life. Most importantly, as you go about understanding yourself and the universe around you, you will learn that you are made of exactly the same elements as your fellow beings. That means if you can not understand others then it means you dont know your own self too. Hence the importance of journey inward to self-awareness.

A spiritually developed person would be highly contented in life. He would have developed understanding of the functioning of the world to such an extent that he is not deeply affected by the suffering arising out of hate, anger, jealousy etc. Totally getting rid of suffering is not possible. But a spiritually developed person can embrace the unavoidable suffering without losing equanimity, precisely because he would understand that its unavoidable, and also why it exists on the first place.

To attain that state, yes, its necessary to take some time out to contemplate ones own actions, others actions and other phenomena of the world, and how it all affects ones mind and the world as a whole. Thats called cultivating ones consciousness. Thats spiritual development. What Is the Ultimate Truth or the Highest Reality? In What Is Spirituality and Spiritual Development? I said that spirituality is the practice of cultivating consciousness. The goal of spiritual development is to be aware of the ultimate truth, or to awaken to the reality of the existence.

Ultimate truth or the highest reality

As you go higher and higher spiritually you might see the meanings of all the things dissolving. And when you reach there you might see that you exist just like a lone dot on the infinite spread of blank sheet. No story. No meaning. No purpose. Just exist.

This, I believe, is the ultimate reality. Purpose, meaning, and everything else is creation of the mind; because human mind cant work without purpose and meaning.

All the worldly things you are engaged with are ego-driven. Friendships, other relationships, marriage etc They are all illusions. Illusions, in the sense that they are just purpose-driven social activities. What you perceive them to be is illusion. Hence, the way and the extent to which you rely on these things is absurd.

Recently someone asked me how I am saying that the feeling like love is an illusion. It is clearly felt, and cant be illusion. Well, I am not saying that the feelings are illusions. But the things for which you develop these feelings are illusory. The meanings you hold behind those feelings are illusions. And it is for the lack of awareness that you dont understand the illusions. For example, you develop obsession for a person when you are in (romantic-) love. This obsession is indeed real. But for what it is? To keep that person with you always. Now if you very keenly and deeply observe the mechanism of how interpersonal relations work then you will understand that it is all ego-driven. When every one is driven by ones own ego wishing that some person lives for you is absurd. Trust, loyalty etc things which we expect from those we love are all, in a way, signs of spiritual

weakness.

As the highest reality, everything in the universe is only the energy changing forms. Even our mind and the ideas in it are nothing but the different forms of the same energy. Thats the ultimate truth of the existence.

Spiritual development helps you reaching up to the awareness level where you completely lose your ego (self) and feel yourself reduced to that energy. When you make anything besides that your goal in life you are clinging onto some illusion. Nothings wrong with that as long as you do that with awareness. But not knowing the reality of the existence when people take those petty things as some meant-to-be purpose of their life they inevitably fall into misery, because that never is meant to be so.

The simplest example is death. People get obsessed with life and all the things of it. But the energy constantly keeps changing form. Your sentient body has to transform into something else some time. Unless you are aware of (and comfortable with) this truth you would feel miserable at the thought of death. Similarly, it applies on all other things you cling to.

Remember, it does not mean we stop living. I am living with more freedom than ever before, enjoying life even when I am going through the hardest times in a worldly sense. (Like illness, money shortage etc.) There is certain suffering which is unavoidable. However, the inner peace is unaffected, because on the inside I am aware of the reality. So theres nothing to lose, nothing to gain. Just be, and enjoy.

I have often also said that the ultimate truth is that theres no such thing as the ultimate truth. Heres why Because so is the nature of this truth. It is nothingness. When people think of truth they imagine it in some actions, see it as a purpose, or a way of living. It is conceived as something involving mind. But the mind is essentially a human thing, and only exists where ego exists. When the mind is absent and the nothingness is left, that nothingness is the highest reality. How to Make a Really Successful Career One of the pursuits the humans waste major part of their life on is career. Every human

being in the civilized society is conditioned right from childhood to think of career as a must-achieve goal without which the life would be an epic fail! Now it's so crazily pursued that learning, curiosity and creativity have become almost totally career-oriented today and hence, so dull.

Personally, as a truth-seeker, I don't think career is that important a thing to make. I believe in making a successful life. And success is not wealth, but fulfillment. Career and everything else is immaterial. Here, career is not to be confused with life. Career is just one fraction of life. When your life itself is successful, it goes without saying, that everything in it is but success!

I do not believe in working. Life is to live. But still, in this world you can't survive without earning money. For that reason I have written this career guide which is unique in that it keeps successful life as a primary goal and then shows how you can make a successful career in real sense.

How to make a really successful career? A Career Guide

The always-up question in the minds of confused career-chasers is this: What to make a career of? Meaning, which field to choose as a career? Most people never try to figure out the answer to this question. Some people try it, but fail at figuring it out. Some people think they have figured it out, but are actually blind to see that what they have figured out is not true! Result: Seldom is one fulfilled in life. I am saying life, because what good is career if there's no fulfillment in life!

What is the answer to this question?

Well, I think you should try to make money out of something which you would anyway do in your life even when you didn't need money. Something which is your true interest. Like, what's your favorite pastime activity?

Don't frown. I know that there's nothing new in what I just said. You have probably heard this million-dollar piece of advice a hundred times and found it to be good-for-nothing.

But let me tell you, this is the only way to make a successful career in real sense! And I am now going to say some new things as you read on, to make this piece of advice at least good-for-something for you this time.

Where's the problem?

Most people find this piece of advice good-for-nothing for the reason that they think there's no scope for career in the things (activities) they are interested in.

But the fact is, in this world, if one is creative enough then one can make a career out of anything. If you are creative enough then you can make money even by selling shit. And everyone can be that creative, too. But most people never realize this in their blind pursuit of worldly things which is encouraged by the borrowed wisdom they live on.

Let me not miss out a very important bit of knowledge here. You will find such interest and the way to make money through it only if you look at money as a tool to decently survive in this world, and not as wealth which has to be collected as much as possible. If you look at money as wealth, and not as a mere tool to decently survive in this world, then you will never make enough of it by following your interests or otherwise. In that case, whether you think of your career as successful or not is unimportant, because I am sure there won't be fulfillment in life. In my view success is not wealth. So, a really successful career is that when you are doing only what you truly love and making money just enough to decently survive in this world. If you can accumulate wealth then great, but if not, that's not the object at all.

Coming back to the point, it's about creativity. You can not say that there's no scope in what you are interested in. Let me throw light on this. What is your interest which you think there's no career in? Writing? You can find successful people living today making good enough money writing. Photography? You can find successful photographers living in the same time and in the same world as you. Music? There are enough of successful musicians around to dispel the doubt about scope in music. Painting? Good number of painters are making decent money. You see, the point is, you name a field and there are people living off it quite decently. If there's no scope then how did they manage it? Have you ever given thought to it?

At this point, people come up with the argument of opportunities. It says, some people get opportunities while most people don't. And so, it's not easy for everyone to make a career in something one is truly interested in. Well, to some extent it is true. But in most of the cases it's just an excuse made up to conceal the lack of enough creativity. Giving such an excuse to oneself helps psychologically to avoid depression-like feeling. Besides, remember, creativity always finds opportunities sooner than later.

Still not helping?

If what I said so far is not helping then here I am giving some of the possible reasons why it's not helping and a solution, so that you can work on it.

It's possible that

You have got social barriers. Meaning, some social responsibilities owing to which you are unable to give time to your interests. These responsibilities may be anything from emotional to financial. You don't want to compromise on your social status. Maybe the activity you are interested in does not command as much social admiration as you desire. Social acceptance and admiration is dear to you even at the cost of genuine fulfillment in life. You are simply obsessed with wealth and fame and opulence, and you are seeing career as a tool to get just that.

This list can be enlarged, but that's not necessary.

Basically, here's the problem and the solution: It's imperative to understand that in order to get one thing right, one has to make many other things right too, which may not be directly related to the thing in concern. That's where people fail.

Say, career is A, and there are many other things in life which are in B to Z.

To fix A you have to fix B to Z too. But people often keep saying how can I fix A, when XY and Z are posing limitations? They are not able (nay, mostly, not willing) to fix XYZ. The reason invariably is that XY and Z happen to offer them other alluring benefits which don't allow people to tinker with them, and eventually they end up with A unfixed.

To identity and fix things, go on asking Why Why Why at every level, starting with, Why are you not pursuing your interests? And that way everything that needs to be fixed (of B to Z, that is) will be clear before you. Then think what these things offer you for which you are unwilling to fix them.

As for the social barriers, think what these people offer you for which you can't act against their expectations. Maybe your loved ones want you to be a computer engineer while you want to be a singer. But you are unwilling to go against their expectations to fix this problem because you don't want to lose their love.

Maybe you have a financial responsibility towards your family because of which you are compelled to do that job which gives you enough money at the moment. In that case you may not be able to give enough time to pursue the thing of your interest. But remember, it's never too late to start living! You can always change your field when the circumstances improve. All you will lose is your comfort zone. But you have got to understand the importance of what you would gain. A truly intelligent person certainly will understand that fulfillment in life is the highest goal. Now if you tell that circumstances never improve then that's not true!

It's up to you whether or not you want to fix things, and how you want to go about it. It may take time, with no limit, to fix things. But important is to work on it.

For the other two reasons, too, the solution is along the same lines. You have got to fix everything, from your circumstances to your attitude.

What's the point?

You may ask, what's the point of this career guide? The point is this: Making a career out of your interest is absolutely in your hands. It just depends on whether or not you are willing to fix what needs to be fixed of "B to Z", that is, give up on alluring benefits your present situation offers you (be it parental love, social acceptance/admiration, financial abundance, or anything else that makes up your comfort zone), and sincerely follow your true nature with perseverance.

If you are unwilling to fix everything then forget about making a really successful career and stop grumbling about it if you are. What Are the Different Levels of Selfishness? Selfishness is not a bad thing. For every action of ours has a selfish motive behind it. One can not survive without selfishness. Selfishness is the nature of existence.

When you befriend a rich person for financial help there is an apparent selfish motive. When you approach an attractive woman in the bar there is a selfish motive. When you spend time with your close friend there is a selfish motive. Even when you love someone and sacrifice something for him/her there is a selfish motive! How, you might wonder. The sacrifice makes "you" feel good. So, even that sacrifice is directed by a selfish motive!

However, while selfishness is always there, it is to be understood that as you go up the ladder of spiritual development you experience more and more refined forms of selfishness. We can also call them stages or levels of selfishness. You can only attain these more and more sophisticated levels of selfishness, but at no point you are free of it. The very desire to perpetuate your existence involves "self", and is a selfish motive. Thus, survival itself is selfishness.

Now let's understand different levels of selfishness in the order of low to high

What are the levels of selfishness?

1. Material self. When you engage with other people to secure material gains for yourself, you are operating at this lowest level of selfishness. Examples include

befriending a rich person for financial gain, or doing favors for your boss to get a promotion, or celebrating birthday to receive gifts etc. This level of selfishness is least conducive to spiritual fulfillment in life.

I have called it "material self" because here your "self" is pampered by, or dwells on, material acquisitions. Subsequent terms are also to be understood in the similar way.

2. Physical self. When you engage with people for fulfillment of your physical needs you are at this, a little higher, level of selfishness. Examples include sexual pleasure, physical comfort and security, and other bodily appetites. This level of selfishness is higher than the previous one for it's more natural. Compared to the needs of material nature, which are worldly, physical needs are natural and are more or less universally present.

3. Mind self. Here you engage with someone or do something for wellbeing of your mind. For example, you be with a close friend who understands you very much. You share the same wavelength. Then it's a great comfort for the mind just to be with that person. Another example can be an act of helping someone. By helping those in need you feel good inside. It's adding to your mind's wellbeing. So, this is yet higher level of selfishness.

4. Spiritual or consciousness self. When you transcend even "mind self" you enter the last level which is the sublimest form of selfishness possible called "consciousness self". Then your "self" exists only as consciousness. Consciousness of being alive. You want to be alive, of course. And when you are keeping alive it has to be at expense of something. For you will at least depend on plants, or animals for the food. However, this is the most refined form of selfishness.

If you observe, the first three stages share this common thing of "needing (or using) other people". But in the last stage, i.e. "consciousness self", this characteristic is eliminated. At this height of spiritual development you won't require other people for your fulfillment, not even for your mind's wellbeing. That does not mean you will not engage with people. You may do everything with people, but at the same time nothing of it would matter as far as fulfillment in the depth of your being is concerned.

Also, in the first three levels of selfishness most of the time people carry all three types of selfishness and dwell in each one in different circumstances to maintain their fulfillment. But the last level, consciousness self, is radical transcendence. Once you have reached that level you are already in fulfillment, and hence, won't require other types of selfishness.

The last, and the most refined, level of selfishness is where a spiritually developed person should find himself. What Is Selflessness? Is it Possible to Attain? Before proceeding with this article it is important to have read What Are the Different Levels of Selfishness?

In the previous article I discussed different levels of selfishness. I also established that every action of ours has a selfish motive behind it, and explained how survival itself is selfishness.

This brings up the question as to what is selflessness. Literally spoken, selflessness makes for the opposite of selfishness. That way, selflessness is impossible to attain. It can only be attained in death. However, we know that in spirituality "selflessness" is the word which is quite often used by many people (including myself). In fact, the goal of spiritual development is said to be reaching selflessness, and not wrongly so. I would like to explain in what sense it is meant in spiritual terminology, or in what sense at least I use it, instead of denouncing it as impossible.

What is selflessness?

I discussed four levels of selfishness in the previous article, from low to high, Material Self, Physical Self, Mind Self and Consciousness Self. We understood that the fourth level which I named as Consciousness Self is the highest form of selfishness. At this level your "self" exists only as consciousness of being alive. This level of selfishness is exactly what is meant by selflessness!

If you look closely then you will see that there is a radical difference between the first

three levels of selfishness and the fourth level which I have discussed there. In the first three levels one always needs/uses other people to feel contented in life. At the fourth level of selfishness, this characteristic of needing/using other people is gone! It does not mean one would not engage with people. No, one would do everything, but at the same time nothing would matter, because one is already in contentment! Then there will only be a pure joy of unconditional relationship with everyone! Hence, selflessness.

Also to be noted is that being selfless does not necessarily mean serving or sacrificing for others. It means not needing/using others for wellbeing of yourself. If serving others is necessary for you to feel good about life then it's rather a lower level of selfishness! Be it in a good way, but you still need/use other people for your contentment. That means you are not there yet! Furthermore, selflessness is the state of emotional nonattachment (in the sense of obsession) with life. But it doesn't have to mean the wish to renounce life!

In first three levels the "self" is not contented. Contentment of the self is sought from outside. Self is the object of concern! Hence, one is being directed by self-centered desires. At the fourth level there is no desire, but only the consciousness of being alive, and the instinct of survival. In previous article I wrote, "The very desire to perpetuate your existence involves 'self', and is a selfish motive." The word "desire" is a misnomer there. More appropriately, it's the "instinct" of survival. Even a tiny creature like an ant has an instinct of survival. We can't say that it "desires" to survive, for desire requires mind. When one is totally contented there's no-mind. In no-mind there can't be desires. Tending to survive is the nature of all existence. So, the selfishness is there, but it's not by intent, but a natural, organic selfishness.

When there are no desires, where is the "self"? I think, in Buddhism what is called Anatta (or selflessness) is this state. Osho explains it using a nice analogy. He points to a cuckoo bird and says that the bird is not singing the song, the song is happening. There is no one inside manipulating the song. Likewise, when you become selfless, you will sing a song, but there will be no singer inside you. You will dance a dance but the dancer will not be there!

Of course, being humans as we are "gifted" with higher intelligence and thinking faculty, we can't live as effortlessly in sync with the nature as a bird, but that is where the importance of spiritual development. When one is spiritually developed, disturbing human emotions do arise, but that happens on a surface level. In the depth the sync develops.

So, it is apt to say that at the fourth (and the highest) level of selfishness one is not living life, but life is happening. With no-mind, one is just following one's pure nature. This creates what is called oneness with nature, which is more precisely put as "organic unity with the whole". Where an individual dissolves and the whole remains. Then whatever you do as an individual, you do it as the nature of the whole! Hence, it's selflessness.

If it's taken literally then, yes, everything in existence is selfishness, and selflessness is impossible to attain. But if we overlook the limitation of language and adjust our perspective then it can be understood that this state justifies both the words.

Seeing everything as selfishness is a Western style of thinking, whereas selflessness is an Eastern concept. My intention behind writing this article is not to establish superiority of one style over the other but to provide a reconciliation of the two. Will Spiritual Development Give Salvation (Problem-free Life)? IMPORTANT UPDATE: The following article (including the update at the bottom) is inaccurate about spirituality. The description of spirituality below is at best of my personalized version of spirituality. That doesn't invalidate the article, but just to be clear, I no more subscribe to any type/version of spirituality. Philosophy, pursued in a right way, is the only way to attain wisdom.

I am not talking about the salvation after death. The one promised in the Christian religion. That's downright bullshit. There's nothing after death. In this article salvation is meant simply as problem-free life.

If asked in that sense, i.e. life without problems or crises, whether salvation is possible then no, such state is not possible. Existence without crises is impossible. It has never been so. For as long as the existence has been, it's been filled with crises. The universe is a massive chaos, and life in it exists as a constant battle of survival. We have learned about "survival of the fittest". Without crises how is fitness to be established?!

It's an inadequate and shallow notion that only humans create problems and that if all humans followed certain standard behavior then the problems will cease to arise. When a natural calamity strikes who are we to blame? Isn't that a crisis? And taking an

absolute view, a burglar who robs your wealth and an earthquake which shatters your property are the same phenomena. They are just different faces of the crisis. After all, every atom in the universe follows the same natural laws. And human beings can not be functioning outside of it. Nature itself creates crises.

Even if all humans are enlightened the crises will not cease arising. If we don't consciously create crises then crises will create themselves beyond our consciousness. Because crises are the nature! We should get rid of the false hope that life is ever going to be without crises.

Of course, that is not to mean that we should not fight crises. In fact, the only right and moral thing to do in life is to always strive for survival and wellness. Anyone who follows one's true nature would do just that. Apparently, avoidance of crises is a part of this endeavor.

However, the important thing to see and understand is that crises will keep arising and we are to try to win over them every time. Not that every time we will succeed though. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. Think of life as a continuous game. It has to be played with worriless enjoyment of every moment of it. If you play it only to win then you will miss life completely because winning (so-called salvation or the problem free life) is not a part of the game called life!

How spiritual development helps?

Crises are the reality. They are woven in the very fabric of existence. No amount of spiritual development can rid us of crises.

What spiritual development can do is make it easy for us to bear the suffering arising out of crises and enable us face life in its true form and live it with utmost enjoyment. That is the closest to the salvation one can get, and it is only possible through spiritual development!

Freedom through spiritual development is not the freedom from crises, but from the

curse of consciousness, that is, suffering!

Update: Complete freedom from suffering is not possible. Some suffering is unavoidable. Spiritual development only makes it bearable. Is it Good to Be Proud of One's Nationality and Skin Color? Pride is a feeling of satisfaction over something by which you measure your self-worth.

Keeping in view the meaning of pride let's understand how people carry irrational pride in certain cases and why they do so.

True (rational) pride is what you feel upon accomplishing something by your own efforts which adds to your self-worth. For example, when you achieve something that makes you stand out from the crowd, or when you excel in your field, or if you beat all odds to reach your goals then those are the things that add to your self-worth, and they give you the feeling of having accomplished something by your own decisions and efforts. In such situations pride felt is valid.

Feeling proud upon your own achievements makes sense. But pride expressed upon, say, a fellow country-man's victory in a sports event is silly when you have nothing to do with that person. That is one of the examples of false (irrational) pride.

Basically, it is foolish of one to be proud of something which has happened without one's willful involvement in it. It's like taking credit for something one has no hand in!

The most prominent example of people expressing irrational pride is probably for their Nationality. Nationality is something which one gets accidentally just by birth. No one gets to choose as to which country one wants to be born in. If having been born in India I say I am proud to be Indian then, holding irrationality constant, I am sure that if I was born in America I would say the same thing in favor of America. Then what is it exactly that I have done and I should be proud of? Nothing!

Pride is associated with self-worth, and its expression is only valid in situations where

you (self) have had a role to play. That means things like nationality, skin color, physique etc, and even religion and culture in most cases which one gets by birth without exercising a conscious choice can not be taken pride in. It is because those things have noting to do with your respectability. They don't tell about your merit, superiority, excellence or any of your personal positive traits which contribute towards your selfworth, or who you are. Thus, pride essentially involves one's conscious participation in something which is taken pride in.

Do you feel a strong sense of pride upon seeing the rain? Or that sun shines every morning, or the moon shows up every night, or the wind blows and the birds chirp? Why not, if you can be proud of the piece of land you are dropped on without choice (just because you are dropped there) then why can't you be proud of the sun and moon or the rain! What difference is there between those two?

I tried to figure out the reasons for such irrationality (which I myself have also been through at certain point). There's more than one reason why people indulge in irrational pride, many of which are closely related. Some of them are

Lack of real self-respect

One often expresses pride for the qualities which at the same time, given a choice, he would love to get rid of. Example: An ugly person expressing pride for his looks.

Masking insecurities

Expression of pride is used as a psychological tactic which mind uses to derive satisfaction out of unfavorable condition one has been put in without choice. This point is very much connected with the previous one. Example: Being born in a dirty country full of corruption and still feeling proud of it.

Counterattack mechanism

Pride is often expressed as an impulsive response to a criticism, real or imagined. Example: A person would say he is proud of be a Christian in spite of everything upon being shown glaring flaws in Christianity.

Desire to be a part of something greater than oneself

It means identifying oneself with a greater entity and involves taking credit for someone else's good qualities. It's done to feel inflated self-worth. Example: When my country's football team wins I would say "we" won, and take pride in it, as if "I" was also a part of the team and had some qualities or skills because of which they met victory!

Intellectual laziness

There are people who when usually want to say that they love or admire something or someone rather say they are proud of it. The expression is not right. It shows aggressiveness or desperation to establish one's love or admiration. Upon close observation I have understood that for some of the cases it results from one or more of the above-mentioned character flaws. In other cases, it's just plain laziness to think. People just don't stop to think and analyze before saying something why they are saying it and what exactly it means.

The bottom line is this: You can only measure or express your self-worth (take pride) through something in which you have taken part by investing your own efforts. It's pretty logical. In any other case if you are doing that, then do some introspection and try to locate the inadequacy so that it can be improved on.

Finally, I will conclude with some of the commonest examples where expression of pride is used and we see whether it's valid or invalid in those cases

Proud of my country: Invalid. You have not chosen it. Proud of my culture: Invalid. You have had absolutely no role to play in what went a few hundreds years back. Proud of my religion: Invalid. Proud of Abraham Lincoln: Invalid. You have nothing to do with the individual or what he did and was. Proud of my parents: Invalid. Except when you are taking pride in a particular quality of them which "you" have helped them develop. Proud of my children: Valid only in the context of their development as a result of upbringing that "you" gave them. Proud to be a human: One has to be a moron to feel that. Who Has Created the World, If Not God? This is one of the most commonly raised questions by those favoring the existence of God.

Frankly speaking, I don't know how the world is created. No one could ever know that for sure, because the universe is created billions of years ago when not a soul was there to document the events. But because I possess sound logic and am interested in science my curiosity as to how the world is created is well satisfied by the scientists.

Talking about science, we do have good reasons to believe that the universe is come into existence through the event called the big bang. As far as the claim of the Bible about the creation is concerned, we have strong evidence of evolution to dispel it. The theory of evolution explains how so many species of creatures have come into being over millions of years' time. Thus, it is for sure that the world as it is has not come into existence all at once as proclaimed by the Bible. The scientific theories such as the big bang and evolution are good to believe because they make a lot of sense, as against explanations given by religions which are devoid of logic and are of very primitive nature.

Some people have strong distaste for science. They don't want to believe anything that science tells. No problem. To understand that to think about the God's hand in creation is irrational, acquaintance of science is not required, even. We'll come to that in a moment. Then there's this class who does buy the big bang explanation but further

argues as to how the big bang could have happened out of nothing. This is again a valid question just in that it pushes science to its limit. What was there before the big bang and if there was nothing before "the existence" then how the matter formed out of nothing, such questions have no explanation, and science will probably never be able to explain that. But even if we put science aside I can make a truth-seeking mind understand how it is silly to conclude that God has created the world.

Let's put science aside. We simply don't know how the world is created. Now just think, "How does not knowing how the world is created prove that God has created it?" Think hard. Isn't that a fallacy?

Consider this example

Say, you are walking on a street and you notice a $100 bill lying on the ground. Seeing it what would you think? You would think that someone must have dropped it there. You see a few people standing where the bill is lying. So you'd think maybe one of those people must have dropped it. You ask all of them one by one whether it's theirs. Their answer: No. So, you find that none of them has dropped it. Now you don't know who has dropped the $100 bill you have found. What would you conclude in that case? I am sure that any person with a sound mind would conclude: "Okay, I don't know who has dropped it." Agree? But what would you think if you saw such person who concludes: "Okay, I couldn't find who has dropped it, so it must be created out of thin air by the God!"

Do we think like that in all the events of our day to day life? Imagine when you receive a blank call do you think it's God who called, because you don't know who called? You can think of a thousand examples. When we don't know how something happened, we try to find it out. When we can't find it out, we say we don't know! Then if at all we are to believe something we take support of evidence that points toward it. That's the way people with healthy brains function.

Basically, what is to be understood is that just because we don't know how something is happened it doesn't prove the presence of supernatural, or the God.

Nothing is supernatural in this world. It's just our ignorance or insanity that makes it so.

We can claim to know something only when we have seen it with our eyes, sensed it with our senses, or when we have good evidence to put our trust on. And this is where science comes into picture, and wins. Not knowing how the world is created is a position of perfect lack of knowledge. But through our observation of the natural phenomena and research we have developed theories which give us good reason to believe them.

I am not even claiming that scientific theories are right. But in any case, the scientific theories have more substance than a downright empty proposition of God. That's the reason Darwin's evolution is taught in schools and not the claim of the Bible, or any other mythical story, for that matter. Understanding Spirituality in a Few Words IMPORTANT UPDATE: The following article is inaccurate about spirituality. The description of spirituality below is at best of my personalized version of spirituality. I no more subscribe to any type/version of spirituality. Philosophy, pursued in a right way, is the only way to attain wisdom. For my refined views on spirituality, read this and this.

Spirituality is, because of the fact that there is suffering. Minimizing the suffering is the aim of spirituality. The process, or the journey, is called spiritual development.

In order to come to terms with suffering arising out of something one has to perfectly understand it. Perfect understanding of the problem is the best way to be able to deal with the suffering arising from it.

Therefore

Spirituality = Truth-seeking

Life is by default suffering. Spirituality is seeking the truth of life and existence in order to understand it perfectly and thereby, come to terms with its nature.

The end point in spiritual development is enlightenment. This enlightenment does not mean knowing everything. It means knowing enough to be able to embrace the unavoidable suffering of life without losing equanimity.

Spirituality is called so, because the spiritual journey starts with a scrutiny of ones own thoughts and actions. Perfect understanding of life and existence is only possible by first perfectly understanding ones own mind. Once the mind is understood, one should realize that it was all there was to understand, as far as dealing with suffering is concerned. Every other knowledge on earth is insignificant.

Spirituality is essentially a journey inward. Spiritual development, thus, consists of spiritual that is, inner knowledge. There again, it has nothing to do with soul, a part of oneself that goes on living after one dies, or takes birth in the form of another creature, and the like. Spirit only signifies inner, that is, of the mind.

Despite its existing different interpretations, spirituality that I am talking about should not be confused with anything related to God, religion or mysticism or anything supernatural, so to speak.

Spirituality is not at odds with science, or rational thinking. It is in fact the best use of those approaches of knowledge acquisition into developing the most sublime understanding of the existence and our place in it.

In short, spirituality is pure truth-seeking about and understanding of our existence, nothing else. Should We Live for Other Peoples Happiness? (!) BE CAREFUL in interpreting the following article. I have refined my views on this topic over time.

You know, the ancient Egyptians had a beautiful belief about death. When their souls got to the entrance to heaven, the guards asked two questions. Their answers determined whether they were able to enter or not. 'Have you found joy in your life?' 'Has your life brought joy to others?' The Bucket List

Maybe that's well-intentioned but very deceptively nave. It raises the question as to whether you should live for your happiness or devote yourself to making other people happy. What should be on priority. For the enlightened one the question is utterly irrelevant (and he would know why!) But what would I say to those still in the journey of spiritual development?

First of all, there's no heaven and hell. What is, is here and now. In this life. So, you need not worry and do anything to secure your wellness after life. Death is the end of consciousness. There's absolutely no "you" after you die.

That leaves you with only this life.

Bringing joy to yourself in your life is a must to call it a good life. And when you do that by following your true nature you don't have to worry about whether you brought joy to others' lives. Because it's not in your hands how others feel about things. If someone doesn't want to be happy he will not be happy even in the best circumstances. You can't do anything about it. Only thing you can, and should, do is follow your true nature and create utmost joy in your life thus. Then whatever happens is perfect!

When you are following your true nature and making others happy on the way, you are not sacrificing anything. You are just following your nature, and others are happy. So, that would not be called living for other peoples happiness. Living for other people's happiness means going out of the way to ignore your true nature and do things for others. That is so wrong!

It goes on mostly because the traditional wisdom (handed down through religions and conditioning) tells one should always make others happy. Being sacrificial is propagated as a must-have virtue. People feel kind of guilty when they have to hurt someone to follow their own heart. Then they feel they will be punished by God for hurting people for fulfilling their own wishes. And when they don't follow their heart, they aren't happy either. The problem is that people take the words of wisdom directly without applying their own thinking. What the wisdom must mean is that one should become attuned to the surrounding such that one is happy in oneself, and then (only then) one should always try to maximize the collective happiness.

I believe most people in the world are not happy because they are living for other people's happiness! Some people do it out of emotional dependency, some do it to look virtuous and win acceptance! When you live for other people's happiness you inadvertently want other people to live for yours. This mutual dependency is a sign of spiritual weakness, which screws up the whole thing. Ideally, you should look after your own happiness and let others look after theirs. The primary source of happiness for everyone should be within oneself. Happiness coming from the outside, through other people, should always be secondary.

The idea of living solely for other people's happiness is fundamentally wrong, because that kills one's freedom. When the freedom is gone, fulfillment in life is impossible.

Before thinking to bring joy to others' lives one has to be joyous in oneself. How to Get Immune to the Suffering Arising in Human Life? The only way to totally be free of suffering is to thoroughly understand it. That is what enlightenment is. And to thoroughly understand something a long journey is required. Say, right now "A" is causing you suffering. So you have to fix it by understanding it. But it is not possible to understand and fix "A" by looking at it alone. In order to totally understand "A" you will have to understand everything that "A" is connected with. "A" to "Z", that is, you will have to understand.

That's how it is about life. Right now if you are going through a particular problem and because of that you are questioning about getting immune to the suffering, it is not going to work that way. Even to get rid of this particular problem, you will have understand all (or let's say, enough) things about life even those things that don't directly matter at this moment. Only then the whole picture will be clear before you and you will know exactly how everything works and what's the best you can make of it. That is the point of truth-seeking in context of spirituality. And when, after that, you are making the best you can, no external turbulence can cause you suffering. Because you would know that this is already the best you could have.

The point I am making is that there is no direct and perfect solution to any of life's problems. Let me give you a glimpse of the reality of life. When you go digging through layer after layers of truth, finally you reach the stage where you see that the existence has no intrinsic meaning and purpose. Everything in the world is random and purposeless, and nothing is meant to be certain way. Whatever meaning we see in the world is only our mind's construct. In truth, there is not even good or bad in the world.

The world just IS. The universe is all random, meaningless, indifferent and chaotic.

Good and bad, right and wrong, all these are our own notions, based on our own wishes and desires. So it's like, when you reach that stage (which is inevitable if you keep seeking truth) you eventually become one with the universe. Meaning, every disillusionment takes you closer and closer to the reality, and when finally you are totally disillusioned you become what reality is. Then you just see what IS. Clearly. And with all the disillusionments, you have also lost all notions of good and bad, right and wrong. You sort of digest the indifference of the universe. You become indifferent. And just exist.

At this point, you might ask what is the point of living if we are to live with indifference. Here I would want you to go through the following articles, in the given order only.

Real World, Game World and the Ultimate Reality of Life What Is Spirituality and Spiritual Development? Will Spiritual Development Give Salvation (Problem-free Life)?

Especially, the "real world game world" concepts are most important aid in understanding my point.

So yes, life is never going to be problem free. Just think, a few centuries back man had to do a lot of physical labor. Life was very tough and problematic. Then technological developments made life easy in that regard. Now there's no labor to be done as before. But the flip side is, now we have pollution, diseases etc all new problems. Back then, most of the day's activities were for survival. Now survival has become so easy and we have ample time to do parties and socialize, but with these comforts comes a host of psychological pains longing for material objects, jealousy, complexes etc which never existed back then, at least not to the degree they do today. Simply because people didn't have time to indulge in all this. Food gathering would take away whole day.

So, the point is, suffering has always been and will always be in life, in one or the other form. Peaceful life as we all wish to be in is as impossible as utopia.

What does that imply for our development? It means the development has to be internal. While making the best we can of the outside, our main focus has to be on developing on the inside. Because on the outside things, firstly, we have little control, and secondly, "utopia" is a dreamy idea anyway. Only through development on the inside we can come to terms with the existence as it is. Inside! Hence, it's called spiritual development. Perfect spiritual development means being attuned to the reality. Random, indifferent, meaningless and chaotic reality. Spirituality = truth-seeking; knowing your true place in the existence. When you know that, you are there!

Then in the "game world" (did you go though the articles I linked above? Please do!) you can live most freely, taking in every joy that comes your way. You will live ordinarily only, doing what most people are doing, but having gone though this whole journey, in the depth of your mind you will have your "real world" where you will be aware of everything, and with that awareness there will be indifference. Call it immunity. Nothing in this world can cause you to suffer then!

So first of all, stop expecting the world around you to become perfect. The world just IS. Good, bad and perfect is only subjective. Try to get rid of attachments. You can't control how other people and things behave. You can try enlightening people. Explain to them. If they change for themselves, good. If not, then that should not affect you when you are developed spiritually, that is, from within. I know all this doesn't happen in a day or two. But at least keep in mind that this is the direction of development. Hard pill to swallow, maybe. But it's worth it. God the unknowable power or an imaginary friend? My conversation with a God-believer, following my statement which goes thus: Only the very weak-minded (or stupid) people believe in God. (Note that I mean only "theistic God".)

***

People who believe in God are not stupid or weak-minded. They know there is God.

Where is God? I don't see Him.

Do you see the air?

No. But I can feel it. But I can neither see nor feel God.

That's because He is formless.

Then how do you know He is there, if He doesn't have any form?

Who do you think has created this world? Who creates and runs life?

I don't know.

If you don't know then how can you say there is no God?

But how can YOU say there is God? How do YOU know who has created life? Has God told you He has?

It goes without saying. If something is happening then someone has to be doing it. Logic it is.

But why can't things happen on their own? Like, centuries ago people used to believe it rained when God was angry or something. Turns out it's not that! You are now talking like those primitive people who are long proven wrong. I am sure you have read the science text book in school.

Yes. But even the process by which rain is happening must be done by someone. Why can't you understand that?

But why there has to be ''someone''? It all happens by natural processes. Just like rain is

not sent by "someone" but happens by some process, that process is caused by some other process. One thing leads to another and another to yet another. For all we know, the whole universe may be running itself thus. Why can't we simply call it nature or natural forces? When we don't know something why assume just anything?

Okay. What is that natural force then?

I don't know. All I can say is there's this "unknowable power", some unfathomable flux of energy at the bottom of everything. And I am comfortable with that much knowledge.

Gotcha! This "unknowable power" is what is God. See? You also believe in God!

Wait a minute! So this "unknowable power" is what you call God?

Yes!

Then, may I ask, what you do in the church every Sunday?

Express my gratitude to God.

By worshiping Jesus? How exactly does worshiping Jesus mean expressing your gratitude to the "unknowable power"? And why do you have to go to church for that?

Jesus is a manifestation of God.

You mean, the "unknowable power". Whatever you call it.

No. You have agreed that this "unknowable power" is God.

Yes it is.

Well, then if Jesus was a manifestation of this "unknowable power", so am I. And you, too! And everybody else is made of that very "unknowable power" only.

What?

How do you explain believers going to churches, mosques, and temples to worship the "unknowable power"? Are you sure they go there to express gratitude to the "unknowable power" and not have a chat with their imaginary, human-like friend?

Whatever way they express gratitude, it's their choice.

Okay. But why do you have to express gratitude to the "unknowable power"?

Because I am happy to have got this life. And I feel like thanking Him for giving it to me.

Him. You mean the "unknowable power". What happens if you don't express gratitude for having got the life?

I don't know. But I am not arrogant not to express gratitude. It doesn't cost anything. It only means you are humble.

Okay. So, I am arrogant for not expressing gratitude to the "unknowable power", which essentially means bowing before "Him". And so are dogs, birds, insects and every other creature on this earth except God-believing human beings like you. Neat!

Whatever you think!

Hmm. Believing in God means expressing gratitude to the "unknowable power" for having received the life.

Exactly!

Sure it is that?

Yes.

Then I'm wondering why people suddenly increase their frequency of expressing gratitude to the "unknowable power" when they are in trouble? Do you mean to suggest when you are praying to the "unknowable power" a day before your exam, you are expressing gratitude for getting the life? Don't you already do it in the church on Sundays?

I know where you are going. But let me tell you, praying helps.

It does? You mean if you tell the "unknowable power" to do something for you then it will do it? Wow!

You got to believe in God first.

Let's say I believe in God. Now if I ask him to kill you, he will kill you?

No.

Then how do you suppose that through prayer if you ask the "unknowable power" to

save a terminally-ill dying man, it will save him? Or just grant your wish with regards to your exam?

You can only ask good things.

Okay. So I will ask Him to kill all the terrorists. I am sure many people are already asking Him to remove all the evil from the world. Why wouldn't He? Isn't it asking good things?

Well, you know what? I just pray. God will do what he has to. There's a reason for everything. He has a plan for everyone. And everything must go according to it. You can't have him change His course. I just believe him, and whatever he does is good.

To re-frame what you said, whatever is to happen will happen. And whatever it will be, it is good.

Yes.

Then isn't it really stupid to pray and ask things of the "unknowable power" on the first place? Whatever is to happen will happen anyway! Why bother asking anything?

But what's your problem?

Nothing's my problem. YOU started this discussion! I am just saying you are stupid to pray and ask favors from your imaginary, human-like friend when you know that whatever is to happen will happen anyway, irrespective of your praying or not praying.

It is not stupid! You don't know because you don't believe. Prayer gives comfort.

What kind of comfort is it when you know that it doesn't work?

It helps, psychologically, to believe that it might work. What's the harm!

It might work!? Then what happens to His plan? You think He will change his grand plan just to grant your silly little wishes? You think you are that important? That sounds anything but humble!

No. I am not asking Him to change His plan. I know I will get it if He has planned it for me, and won't if He hasn't. I just pray for things because it makes me feel reassured by doing that, not because I think He will listen to me and change His plan.

That means you are weak-minded. You need a delusion to feel reassured!

Well...

Period. What Is the Difference Between Philosophy and Spirituality? IMPORTANT UPDATE: The following article is inaccurate both about spirituality and philosophy. The description of spirituality below is at best of my personalized version of spirituality. I no more subscribe to any type/version of spirituality. Philosophy, pursued in a right way, is the only way to attain wisdom. For my refined views on spirituality, read this and this.

It should be clear from Understanding Spirituality in a Few Words, that spirituality that I talk about has nothing to do with God, religion or mysticism. It's purely truth-seeking. It's not against science, rationality and any line of thinking which leads to the truth.

For this reason, some people say that I need not call it spirituality, but instead just call it philosophy. Yes, of course, philosophy and spirituality are both equated with truthseeking. I agree that it is philosophy. All spiritual truth-seeking can be called philosophy, but in my view not all philosophy is spirituality. So I decided to do this article to spell out the difference between philosophy and spirituality. Again, both the words, philosophy and spiritually, are taken to mean different things by different people. So, not necessarily

what I am going to say may square with your views.

Note that philosophy and spirituality are not mutually exclusive. Spirituality includes philosophy; but the latter may not include the former. In the heading below, take philosophy as "philosophy minus spirituality", and spirituality as "philosophy with spirituality".

Philosophy Vs Spirituality

Philosophy is born out of wonder and curiosity. Spirituality is born out of suffering. The key question in philosophy is "What I am?" The key question in spirituality is "Why am I suffering?" (Of course, in search of the answer, the seeker will automatically encounter, and find the answer to, the first question too.) Philosophy is concerned with the knowledge of everything. Spirituality is seeking the essential. There's possibly no end to the philosophical pursuits of humankind, as it's impossible to know everything. Spiritual pursuit is over when one knows just enough. Philosophy is more concerned about knowledge gathering; after a point it sort of forgets about you, the seeker, being human. Spirituality is humane; it's concerned with that knowledge, out of all, which you as human being require in order to lead a happy, fulfilled life. Philosophy is more intellect driven; it dissects and understands. Spirituality is intelligence driven; it knows and values integration. Philosophy is like a luxury; you decide how much you want to indulge in it. Spirituality is a necessity; without it you are bound to suffer for life. Philosophy is science in general. Spirituality is essentially the science of happiness. A passionate philosopher is always unsatisfied with the knowledge he has; philosophy is his life's quest. A spiritually developed thinker is satisfied with the knowledge of the essentials; he then may pursue philosophy further merely as entertainment to add more fun to life. Philosophy gives the world knowledgeable people. Spirituality provides true wisdom.

Understand that, as I said before, it's not like either one is into philosophy or into spirituality. All truth-seekers are philosophers, and quite often they are spiritually inclined too. But either they may not be calling it being spiritual or they simply don't realize it. If they are not calling it "being spiritual", it's alright. The label isn't important anyway. But I think without solid realization of the goal of one's truth-seeking it's easy for a philosopher to lose the focus from the life's only meaningful pursuit, happiness. Hence, seeing the thin line of difference is necessary. Philosophy without spiritual orientation is useless.

In conclusion, I want to say that

I don't judge a person's greatness by his knowledge, or status, or education, or eloquence, or personality, or fan-following... The only measure of greatness is the quality of one's ideas; how useful they really are. For me, Buddha is infinitely greater than Newtons and Einsteins. Because, suffering of humankind is not because of not knowing what the universe is made of or how gravity works. It is because people haven't figured out their own mind. So, which knowledge is important?

See the difference between philosophy and spirituality? Origin and Purpose of Religious Scriptures and Mythology Most of the people follow some or the other religion, but I doubt even a small percentage of them know the real meaning and purpose behind a religion. If they did then there wouldn't be fights on the name of religions and no one would be considering one's own religion better than the other. In fact, so many different religions wouldn't exist on the first place. There are many things that are just passed down onto us from generations and have lost meaning in the process. Religious teachings are one of them.

As this blog is for truth-seekers here we strive for the truth alone, and the only way to reach truth is by being rational. So let's assume a rational perspective and find out what religious teachings are or what they are/were supposed to be.

Why stories/scriptures?

For as long as the humankind has survived it has been our constant endeavor to look for some ideal way of living. The way of living which is most suitable for all existence can be called an ideal living.

The basic purpose of religious scriptures is to prevent humans from being harmful to the world by showing them the right way. A religion is a set of beliefs aiming at giving people an ideal life. It's supposed to guide people to do right things by stating things in a way that it's the God's wish.

How successfully the religions and their scriptures have been used over the centuries to serve this purpose is another point. All I am saying is that originally they must have been conceived for good.

How are religious stories/scriptures formed?

There have been countless religions and preachers in the history of humankind for the purpose of guiding people towards an ideal living. The need for religions arose because at some point of time people must have felt the need for some ideal way of living, as a result of development of intelligence. Hence some genius took upon the task of telling people of their duties towards the world. He observed the world and made his notes. He foresaw the problems and devised ways to prevent them. Then he wrote a book similar to the scriptures we have. That is how the first religious scripture must have been born. In time, at different places in the world the truth came to be explained in different ways. That is how there are about three hundred religions, and different theories today.

The way and the approach might differ in them, but the fundamental purpose of all the religious scriptures is one and the same. After all, people need something to tell them only one thing, that is, how to live ideally.

How would religious stories/scriptures help?

Again, whether they've helped or not is another point. I am just saying how they are supposed to help people.

Imagine the kindergarten children who are told stories with some moral attached at the end. Little stories which infuse in their mind the sense of what is right and what is wrong. They inspire the children to be good and do right things in life. For example, if you tell a child not to be abusive then perhaps he will not take your advice seriously. He might rather come upon you abusing! It's human nature. But if you tell him an interesting story of a boy who gets God's blessings for being nice to everyone then he will be inspired to be nice! He just needed to know the benefit of being nice. The scriptures/religious stories work the same way. Humans are the youngest of creatures, in a way. They are so immature. They wouldn't understand simple things told simply. They wouldn't do something which requires them to give up their own convenience and comfort. That is why some genius took upon the task of writing down "stories" which we see today as religious scriptures. They wrote books and preached the truth as it is the God's wish so that people should be motivated to follow it. The concept of God as the governing superpower appeals to the children's (and undeveloped adults') minds, and is comforting to them.

Where do humans stand today?

This whole concept of God and the religions might have been successful for a while and to some extent, but upon the whole it's miserably failed. Instead of learning the "moral of the story" which is the same in all religious scriptures, people have become so engrossed with the story itself, and its characters (which they see as Gods), that today they are fighting for proving their own religion right! No one, in truth, sees the moral of the story. Everyone takes the moral which suits one's own way. That is the reason religions are one of the biggest problems facing humanity today.

Do we need religions?

You do not have to belong to any religion as long as you know in your mind the purpose

behind them. When you already understand the "moral of the story" what's the need for the story!

I believe in no religion and no God as people around me do. I visit no temple, do no worship. People say I am atheist (update: now I say it too, proudly), a non-believer, and look down upon me.

I just want to tell them this: Truth is my God, rationality my religion and my devotion to it is worship. And I am quite happy with it.

Note: I just re-posted this article with some modifications. On the earlier version Ketan had made a very pertinent comment, which I would not want to lose. Hence, I am posting that comment also from my end on Ketans behalf. Its the first comment that appears below. Personality Weakness of Taking Irrational Pride India won the Cricket World Cup (2011) last night, and people all over the country went crazy. Well, nothing's wrong with it. It's a big event that justifies the merriment.

What I want to talk about is how people in their excitement say they are "proud of the team". I mean, being happy with the victory of my country's team is one thing, and taking pride in their victory is quite another. I would definitely not say such thing as I am proud of the Indian cricket team, or any team, for that matter, unless I am a part of it. It's irrational to take pride in something in which you have no personal contribution.

Pride is a feeling of satisfaction over something by which you measure your self-worth.

I measure my self-worth by the things that I do, not by the things which my country's cricket team does! Often times I see people "being proud" of the great personalities. They would say they are proud of so and so person for he did so and so great things. What they don't seem to get is this: How what someone else does, affect their selfworth?

In Is it Good to Be Proud of One's Nationality and Skin Color? I discussed several possible reasons for such irrational pride. One of them which applies here is

Desire to be a part of something greater than oneself. It means identifying oneself with a greater entity and involves taking credit for someone else's good qualities. It's done to feel inflated self-worth. This desire is often latent and one hardly ever realizes having it.

It's a personality weakness. And here's how it affects people who have it. These people associate their self-worth with, say, the team they are rooting for. Now if the team wins, then these people feel as if they won. But the flipside of this personality weakness is, when the team loses, these people feel they lost. Consequently, they become frustrated and go down in the dumps. Some even go on to smash the TV and things, you would know that. Both types of reactions are sides of the same coin; that is, this personality weakness of associating one's self-worth with others' actions.

Whenever I discuss this "taking irrational pride" issue I hardly see anyone agreeing with me. Invariably they would argue what's wrong in being proud of good things. There's a difference between liking some good thing, and taking pride in it. The latter thing essentially requires your personal involvement (efforts) in that which is being taken pride in, because only then it becomes a measure of your self-worth.

Personal development is all about finding our weaknesses and fixing them. Tendency of irrational pride is a serious personality weakness from that angle.

If the Indian team loses, it's not my personal loss. And in the same way, if they win, it's because of their efforts, not mine. So, what should I be proud of? I enjoyed the game, and since I was siding with India I am happy they won. That's it. Are We In Control of What Happens With Us? We don't have total control over anything. Not even on our own life.

Whatever happens around us is a result of a vast number of coincidences. Any particular event only has a probability of happening thus, not certainty. No event is an outcome of any single variable. When some event takes place there are myriad variables that have fallen in some unique pattern that has caused the outcome. No other pattern of variables would have caused the same outcome. Out of an innumerable variables even if a single

variable goes differently, the final outcome can be different. So just imagine, when your action is only one of the variables, how can you say that the outcome is in your control?

Let's say you are going for a job interview. Whether you will pass the interview or not depends actually on thousands of small and big variables. But let's pick a few notable ones.

Traffic will decide whether you reach on time for the interview. Number of candidates applying for the job. More the candidates lesser would be the chances of you getting selected. Skills and qualifications of the other candidates. Wavelength (mood, nature, knowledge-level etc) of the interviewer. Your salary expectation vis--vis the company's pay scale.

The list can be enlarged ad infinitum. If we go on digging deeper and deeper, there's no limit to the number of factors which will play a role, however small, in determining the outcome of your interview. Because all of the above mentioned variables (and even those which are not mentioned) would in turn be orchestrated by other myriad variables, and so on and so forth.

You would want to get selected for the job. But for you to get selected all of the above (and other seemingly infinite) factors will have to fall in the right place. Meaning, they will have to be in the pattern which is just right for your selection. Only then you will make it. So, whether you will make it or not is not really in your control.

Likewise, when in life you attain something and feel that you did it, remember that it's a result of a vast number of variables falling into the right place, which can only be called a coincidence in true sense. Because we can never spot all the variables, let aside controlling them or knowing in advance how each of them is going to play out. Like Boris says in Whatever Works, the chance factor in life is mind-boggling. If you think about it.

Important. This is not to mean that because nothing is really in your control you should

stop worrying and become careless about life. No. As I said above, any particular event has a probability of happening and not certainty. And the decisions you take can make a huge difference in the probability of an outcome.

Simple example: Go for the exam without having studied anything and you can be almost certain to have bad results. If you have studied well, the results are likely to be good. Simply observable fact it is. Doesn't even need to be proven! So yes, you have to always put in your best at everything.

But it's just to be kept in mind that ultimately whatever is happening can best be fathomed in true sense as coincidences. For all you know, even after you have studied well, there are always a great many factors such as traffic, illness, earthquake etc that can prevent you from writing the exam. And even after writing the exam there are factors which can affect the result in the ways unimaginable. You can never be 100% certain of anything in life.

That's the queerness of our existence. Got to deal with it. Hence, to paraphrase what's been said thousands of years ago in Gita

Keep doing your deeds, but don't get busy worrying about the results.

Now that makes sense, eh? Romantic Love A Joke of Nature Romantic love is like strong intoxication. In the peak of the experience, it gives immense pleasure and happiness but stagnates one's development in every way. Like the whole purpose of life was to feel just this. Every other thing creases to matter. Life comes to a standstill. A string of monotonous, though euphoric, moments passing one after another. Same thoughts. Same images. Nothing else is visible to the mind but the object of fixation...

And towards what end? Whatever the "victim" is deluded with, the only purpose behind romantic love is mating and reproduction. NOTHING ELSE. It's Nature's requirement and we are used to carry it out. With such cruelty! How magnificent the trap! And who says Nature isn't marvelous!

People write poems, sing songs, create all sorts of art around love. They say love is sacred, love is God, love is this, love is that... Pity! Love, romantic love, is the most outrageous joke Nature plays with humans.

Do I sound like I am against romantic love? Actually, no. I am against no indulgence as such; for there's no point in fighting Nature. It's just about being aware of the truth. Only when you know the truth of any suffering, you get the power to choose not to suffer, to an extent.

Update: Received a very pertinent comment on this article from a friend on Facebook. Thought it will be useful, hence adding here. The comment goes thus

Since human infants require an extended period of care, an emotional bond between the mating couple furthers the survival chances of the offspring. It is not a joke of nature (of which we are a part), it is a very sensible strategy. In essence: Babies wish for their parents to love each other.

My reply to the comment

By "'joke" I did not mean Nature's mechanism of ensuring the offspring's survival chances. That's indeed very sensible. What I referred to is what people unaware of this mechanism feel about romantic love. Things like, meant-to-be partners, forever-together, soul-mates etc etc and the unrealistic expectations thereof.

They don't even know that their love isn't based on reason, but is the outcome of "brain chemistry" (that's why the saying, love knows no reasons). People fall in romantic love even with those who don't possess likable qualities otherwise (and even with those they don't know!). And when the effect of romantic love wanes, they wonder what went wrong!

Hence the joke.

Though it's not a joke in itself, the way it makes people suffer for the reasons mostly unknown to them that makes it come off as a joke.

For example, what to say about a person who is crying (or worse, considering suicide) because his lover left him for someone else? Apparently, he hasn't understood the mechanism of romantic love, hence the unrealistic expectations and consequent tragic state. For such people (which is to mean, most people) it is like a joke being played with them!

To view the entire discussion thread click here. In Defense of Cynics and Nihilists A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. (Oscar Wilde)

I guess this quote sheds negative light on a cynic. If so, I differ in my view. Differ as in not that the quote is wrong in what it states about a cynic, but interestingly, I find it wrong in its (seeming) scornfulness toward a cynic.

First of all, let me admit that I am not good with philosophical labels. I am not totally sure even now as to the perfect meaning of "cynicism". I have often heard this word spoken with a negative connotation. Quite a lot of times I have heard it used for me also, when I state the truth which negatively challenges the generally held beliefs. (For example: Every relationship is based on a purpose.) When I looked it up on Wikipedia, it only increased my confusion. So, whatever the real meaning of cynicism may be, here I am assuming that it means: An inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by self-interest; skepticism. Because I have always heard the word used in this sense. Whatever I am going to say hereafter assumes this meaning of the word.

Continuing with my critique of the above quote (and many other on the same lines), it may be true that a cynic knows (or acknowledges) the value of nothing. But then, if one goes real deep into philosophy/truth-seeking one finds that in truth, nothing really has any value! The existence is intrinsically meaningless, and in order to see value in anything some delusion is necessary. There our mind does its job well in providing us

with all sorts of delusions/illusions, and consequently, with meanings and values. Whether it is possible to live free of the mind/consciousness is another issue. Maybe it is not possible; nor am I saying it is necessary, even. But the point is, any meaning in the world, and thus any value that is perceived of anything, is human construct, our mind's work. The existence is absolutely devoid of any meaning. Thus, there couldn't be any intrinsic value in anything. So if someone, cynic or otherwise, does not see any value in anything, then that is not wrong at least from a strictly philosophical standpoint.

If you do not accept the fundamental nihilism (intrinsic meaninglessness of existence) then in that case I leave you with your prevailing views, whatever they are, on account of your intellectual infertility, or a lack strong philosophical orientation. But if you agree with it, then that automatically sets the position of a cynic of not seeing value in anything right.

Being an advocate of spirituality, however, from where I am, I see both nihilists and cynics only halfway on the path of spiritual development. But still, nihilism and cynicism (the way I have taken it to mean here) both are the positions far more sophisticated than, say, any position of an ordinary, non-philosophical mind.

A non-philosophical person generally looks happier than a cynic but his happiness is largely based on false beliefs. Here one might say, but in the end what matters is happiness. Well, yes. But the sea for non-philosophical people is too perilous. When the reality strikes these people (and it does), they are very hard-hit; because they are never prepared for the blow, always having lived with delusions, false beliefs albeit, unaware of the fact.

Cynics and nihilists don't generally look happy (they are mostly gloomy and indifferent even to good things) because since they know the reality they won't find a cause to be happy. But knowing the reality is precisely the reason when something ugly happens to them they would not be so distraught as non-philosophical simpletons.

However, as I already said, I myself do neither advocate the position of nihilism nor of cynicism, because of the reason that they are not happy. But I would still defend them from those who are happy due to their ignorance/false beliefs, and in being so, consider themselves superior than cynics and nihilists, and pass such negative comments on them.

It's true that too much intellectual probing ruins happiness in the face of truth. But the right way out of it is not going back to ignorance (I doubt if that's even possible) or to not come out of ignorance at all. The right way is perfect spiritual development, which enables one to know the truth and still be happy/contented in life. And the path to perfect spiritual development does pass through cynicism and nihilism. So these two classes are in any case ahead of non-philosophical people.

A spiritually developed person is at the most sophisticated level of awareness. But understand that a cynic (and/or a nihilist) is at a more sophisticated level of awareness than an ordinary, non-philosophical person.

A spiritually developed person would not (or should not) utter such comments about a cynic. And when an ordinary, non-philosophical, person scorns or ridicules a cynic with such negative comments, it only shows his ignorance and/or lack of understanding about the world he is living in.

Note: This is not a criticism of Oscar Wilde, but of the apparently naive people who drop this quote and disparage cynics. Living in the Moment Only after learning about the meaninglessness and absurdity of life, I truly understood what it means to live in the present moment. Every moment contains so much good in itself. It's only when we link our present moment with the past and/or the future, we experience all sorts of suffering.

Meaningless, absurd and transient as life is, where nothing really matters in the end, the best way is to live in the present. If we look at this moment as it's-all-there-is, it's always blissful.

I might elaborate on it in the future articles.

Important clarification on this idea: Read here. Thoughts on Happiness and Enjoyment I respect (don't read "like/love", I said "respect") people who are happy in their life. Not

talking about happiness which is characterized by excitement (ripples), but contentment (tranquility). Yeah, so those who are happy/content in their life are the most respectable people for me. Because after all, absurd as life is, what else should be the goal of one's life! Being happy that way would mean that one is at ease in the mind no matter what. Only a truly wise person can be in that state. Hence the respect.

***

Had a conversation with a friend a few days back. He not only said that he likes to be with happy people, but also that he thinks happiness should be infectious. I share a difference of opinion on the latter part. I don't think that happiness has to be infectious. I wonder why it "should be" so. It will be infectious only if it is in the form other people desire it to be, for only then they can even recognize it. If happiness for me is not how other people want to see happiness then it won't be infectious. Should I be happy in the way other people see happiness? Just for example, I never party which is the most common vent for happiness; so some people always tell me that I don't enjoy life. Now that's amusingly presumptuous. I would say they just don't know what constitutes my enjoyment. Isn't it enough that I am feeling fulfilled, irrespective of what other people see it as? If someone's getting "infected", fine; if not, that should be fine with me too. Contentment and Getting Rid of Suffering Is it Possible? I think one is contented when one is at ease in the mind no matter what; when one does not suffer. Here suffering only means affective suffering. Of course, it is not possible to avoid physical pain. And even the affective suffering is not totally avoidable. But I would say that with spiritual development, that is, with good awareness about our existence, this suffering only takes place on the surface. It becomes rather impossible to suffer in the depth when one is well aware.

I will clarify more on what suffering I am talking about. You know, when one becomes hopeless about life, when one cries out of some loss incurred, asking ''why me, why me'', bangs one's head on the wall, when one goes into depression-like state... That is what I mean when I say getting affected in the depth. That becomes impossible with awareness. Only small variations of temper take place on surface (because we are biologically wired to have affective responses in the brain). But as soon as one turns on the awareness the ease is regained. So basically contentment is always in hand. When we are playing a video game we don't suffer deeply in the aforementioned ways, right? The reason is precisely that we know that it is not real. Similarly about this life also when you know that it is not quite the way it looks to you, how can you suffer that way?

If you ask me whether that is possible, I will say yes, because I am in that state for a sufficiently long time now. Deep affective suffering as that is really impossible. And thus, contentment is possible. Even in the presence of physical pain and/or other kinds of suffering (like failing in exams, financial loss, material desires etc) the person who is aware of the higher reality won't suffer in the depth that way.

Let me put it in a different way. A contented person means a satisfied person. Discontented is unsatisfied with the way things are. Now, when one knows that the universe isn't meant to be certain way, and that it is all random, indifferent and devoid of intrinsic meaning and all one would realize that there's no point in being unsatisfied with the way things are. Deep dissatisfaction comes when I think that things should be "this way" but they are "that way" so I am not satisfied. Like that. But when I remove this notion that things should be some certain way only, following my realization of the higher random-and-indifferent reality, I know that being satisfied or unsatisfied has no point. I simply have no control on the universe. The reality just IS, and we have to accept it as it IS. So, dissatisfaction doesn't arise, in the depth. Hence, contentment! End of Suffering and Genetic Doom I recently realized that we are designed to have suffering* as our default condition, looking from the evolutionary standpoint. Our biological wiring (innate tendencies and impulses) mostly serves evolutionary purposes and isn't conducive to our well-being or contentment in this world, while our reason (rationality which we have to cultivate) is what is needed for well-being and contentment in this world of conscious living. Life is a constant conflict between Nature and human consciousness/reason. Nature doesn't care whether we are happy or not. Nature just IS, and the evolution is all what it's concerned with. Evolution is Nature's way to take the existence to a next level through survival and refinement of genes, which would only happen when we go through suffering. Suffering is indispensably important for the evolution to be successful.

By acquiring knowledge, developing awareness, and cultivating our reason and consciousness, however, we can overpower our biological wiring and bypass unsettling natural impulses like jealousy, greed, romantic love, sexual desire, other desires and suchlike each happens to have some evolutionary significance and thereby reduce the extent of suffering we have to go through otherwise. And that way we can also achieve our most pristine human goal, contentment, which is never there in the Nature's agenda.

But that would mean we will be doomed genetically. Do you care?

*Suffering here only means affective suffering, not physical pain. Bliss, Happiness, Contentment, and Suffering Recent Thoughts Bliss in the sense of forever lasting happiness is impossible. End of suffering is impossible.

By developing awareness we can only minimize affective suffering and keep it to the lowest minimum. But we cant become immune to it TOTALLY. In the earlier articles where I say getting rid of suffering is possible, the reader must now understand that by suffering there I mean deep affective suffering. Small variations of temper on the surface are unavoidable. That way, 100% immunity from suffering is impossible. But when one is perfectly aware, ones grounding comes from a deeper level of awareness where one always finds oneself in contentment.

When I started my spiritual journey I did believe that end of suffering, and bliss (in the sense of forever lasting happiness), was possible. But with passage of time I realized that it is not. After it happened, I changed my idea of bliss to mean contentment by it. I am considering letting go of the word bliss totally from my writings in the future.

Contentment I meant as the state between happiness (that characterized by excitement) and suffering. If happiness is positive and suffering is negative then contentment is neutrality. This I still maintain. However, until recently I believed that contentment was the all-important thing in life. That one should always try to dwell in contentment, and not go after happiness, because then suffering will inevitably follow. But now I have changed my view a little bit

Happiness (however transient it is by nature) is what makes life worth living. Pure contentment is the state of neutrality. While there may not be deep suffering in contentment (100% sufferinglessness is impossible), in it there isnt very strong motivation to live, either. Hence, though one must cultivate ones mind to dwell in contentment (because after all that is the only state consistent with the reality of existence), after its achieved one should not avoid happiness whenever it is happening.

But this is not to undermine the importance of contentment. He who never develops himself spiritually (update: I no more subscribe to spirituality) philosophically with awareness, to also remain in contentment, will suffer deeply and miserably in adverse situations in life. While experiencing happiness one should not get carried away by it and

forget about the reality of the existence.

Happiness is important to MAKE life worth living. And contentment is important to KEEP life worth living. Former is the function of emotions, while the latter is the function of intelligence. Both emotions and intelligence are equally important for a good life.

One doesnt have to learn to be happy. Most of us are born with profuse emotions. So, happy events automatically make us happy without requiring efforts on our part. But in order to be contented the knowledge of the truth is required. Knowledge of the truth means perfect awareness about the existence. This one has to attain by intellectual endeavour. Rationality is an indispensable tool for it.

It should be noted that if one dwells excessively on reason (rationality), there's no life. And if one dwells excessively on instincts/emotions, life doesn't remain liveable. Balance between the two is the highest wisdom. What Is Right and Wrong in Absolute Sense? In this three-part series, titled as Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living, I am going to lay out my thoughts on (1) what is right and wrong in absolute sense (2) the basis for morality (3) and finally we will understand what morality is, the concept and how it operates.

Enlightened living is exclusive neither of morality nor of nihilism, and yet, its apart from the two. Note that enlightenment is not to mean the state of forever happiness (as it is generally taken to mean in spiritual literature) but the state of awareness about the existence, where the suffering is at its lowest level.

Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living

Part 1

What Is Right and Wrong in Absolute Sense?

Forget about morality for a while. Forget everything that you have believed about right and wrong. Try to get rid of your conditioning. Once you do it, only then read further. And remember that I am talking about right and wrong in absolute sense.

In order to establish something as the right thing in certain context we need to have some meaning or purpose in place. Basically, the objective has to be there. For example, if you are running a race and your objective is to win the race then you can say that running is the right thing to do in that context, and walking is wrong for it will work contrary to your objective. At the same time, on a higher level when fair-play also forms your objective of life, you would also say that cheating is the wrong thing to do and not cheating is the right thing. You could tell what is right or wrong because you had an objective before you in what you were doing, in the race as well as in life. Having some objective means seeing meaning or purpose in life and living for it.

You may have certain objective in life. Thats your meaning, your purpose behind life. And based on that you may have certain values that categorize for you what right and wrong is. What serves towards your objective is right and what works contrary to the objective is wrong. One common objective in life which everyone knowingly or unknowingly has is attaining happiness. So, in a broad sense we can say, what maximizes peoples happiness is right and vice versa.

You see, this right and wrong are relative to our objective, of attaining happiness or whatever. It doesnt mean that what serves that objective is the right thing, or what deters us from the objective is the wrong thing. We are talking about right and wrong in absolute sense. In absolute sense means irrespective of our meaning and purpose in life.

Because meaning and purpose are human constructs, for we can't work without meaning since we have got consciousness and reasoning mind. Consciousness is your knowledge of your individual existence. My consciousness is my knowledge that I am. In order to maintain sanity through consciousness the meaning and purpose is essential. So, meaning and purpose that we have are self-assigned by us to guide our conscious living. Thus, right and wrong that we have is all relative to our consciousness.

Everything we see meaning in is relative to consciousness. But consciousness itself is transient. Meaning, our sense of being is transient. "I am Darshan" is not an eternal and

absolute reality. It's just as long as my consciousness is. Without consciousness what am I? I am just one form of the energy which everything is made of. I am a part of the whole.

We can establish right and wrong in absolute sense only if the following conditions are met

Theres some supreme and benevolent being, God, capable of thinking who has consciously created the existence and intended it to function in certain way. And we, the humans, know His intentions.

Since none of the above is true, what would it mean? The universe exists as a massive chaos and random events for as long as it is. I say chaos and random because even if there is some order we are incapable to figure it out. Our mind simply doesnt have the capacity. So its as good as chaos for us. Second thing, theres certainly no sign of benevolence, nor of meaning and purpose. We have no basis to establish right and wrong but our own self-assigned objectives. The universe just IS. Everything we see meaning in is a result of random coincidences. No meaning, no purpose, because there's no divine intentions" behind it.

In short, in absolute sense, nothing matters. Nothing is right and wrong as such in life. Or we can say that in the existence, everything is right in its place, always.

In the next part I will elaborate more on the intrinsic meaninglessness of the existence and thence we will form the basis for morality, and finally in the third part I will conclude the three-part series with explanation of the concept and working of morality. Is Nihilism the Ultimate Truth? In the first part of this three-part series we talked about what is right and wrong in absolute sense. We established that there is no meaning and purpose behind the existence, and hence, nothing could be intrinsically right or wrong.

In this part, I am going to talk more about intrinsic meaninglessness of existence and

then we will move on to defining and understanding morality.

Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living

Part 2

Is Nihilism the Ultimate Truth?

In absolute sense there is no purpose behind the existence. No meaning. No right and wrong. In absolute sense everything is right in its place, always.

This position is very much like nihilism. Or, lets say nihilism is what it is. But then unlike almost all the people I have seen, I do not see nihilism with negative glasses. I think pure rationality is bound to lead one to this point in one's truth-seeking journey. It is an inevitable point, and very important and crucial, too

It is crucial, because this point is like a razor's edge. It's like when I would realize that there is no right and wrong, no meaning, no purpose, I might lose all motive to live. Then whether I walk this way or that way it won't make a difference. Even if I don't walk and sit under one tree all my life, it is right. I will be totally indifferent to everything. Basically, life will become absolutely blank, dull, without any vitality. Of course, nothing's right or wrong. But I would say that living in this position is very uncreative.

Nihilism is right, and very important, but very uncreative. Theres no point in adhering to it for life, for then life itself becomes pointless. To live with such un-creativeness is akin to insanity. I am doing anything. Nothing makes sense. Like that.

That is not the position I advocate. When I am guiding one towards the highest reality, yes, I am taking one to face the stark meaninglessness of the existence, what you may call nihilism. Thats because as it is the reality it can not be ignored. It is essential for one to acknowledge the reality above all for enlightened living. But this point is a critical juncture, not a final destination. Form what I have understood enlightened living is a

post-nihilism phenomenon.

Whereas nihilism is uncreative, a spiritually developed person would be creative. After reaching the point of meaninglessness he would not sit still like a statue all his life, or wander about aimless like a madman. He would rather realize absolute freedom. Imagine all burdens lifted. What a joy! And then to live creatively he would self-assign some purpose to life and live for it, fully taking joy of his short existence as a conscious being. After all, nothing is right or wrong, so he need not worry whether what he is doing is right or wrong. He just wants to live creatively.

And what is that self-assigned purpose? It can be anything! If we talk about humanity as a whole then the (self-assigned) purpose which is there to bring meaning to life is translated into what we call morality. And what morality is? What could be the most logical aim of any living creature capable of thinking? Survival and wellness. Or happiness, fulfillment, whatever we call it, its all the same. We stick to the phrase survival and wellness for morality. So, the purpose which is there to bring meaning to life is "survival and wellness". Strive for survival and wellness. The conduct that serves this purpose is moral, and vice versa. Needless to say, the principle behind the morality of a spiritually developed person will be the same. In fact, it will be more accurately so!

The position of nihilism is without morality, the life there is without joy. Where theres neither meaning nor any value in anything, morality also cant be. And joy cant arise where there is no purpose. But a creative person would form his own morality to joyously live by. And he will feel absolute freedom for he knows in the depth that nothing is right or wrong in absolute sense!

It is just to live creatively that we have invented the meaning and purpose, and for smooth functioning it has been generalized as morality for all thinking beings to follow. Its another thing that intellectually lazy and unenlightened people, instead of striving for the truth, receive morality directly from the self-indulgent authorities (like religions) as Gods word.

With this we are done building the bridge between meaninglessness (nihilism) and morality. In the next, and the last, part I will explain the concept of morality in depth, and we will how it works. What Is Morality and How It Works?

In part one and two we understood that there is no purpose behind the existence. No meaning. No right and wrong in absolute sense. This position is very much like nihilism. We also saw how nihilism is an uncreative way to live. A spiritually developed person would be creative. And to live creatively he would self-assign some purpose to life and live for it, fully taking joy of his short existence as a conscious being.

Now we move on to understanding more about morality.

Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living

Part 3

What Is Morality and How It Works?

The purpose which is self-assigned to bring meaning to life is translated into what is called morality. That way, morality is defined by an individual for himself. But for smooth living it has to be generalized. If talked about humanity as a whole, what could be the most logical aim of any living creature capable of thinking? Survival and wellness. Strive for survival and wellness. The conduct that serves this purpose is moral, and vice versa.

As long as the person lives with this purpose he has some morality in him. He who at least looks after survival and wellness of himself is not nihilistic in strict sense. He has some morals. But since the span of his "looking after" is limited to him alone, lets say his moral standard is low. Basically, the standard which looks after "survival and wellness" of larger group is morally higher. That way there are infinite stages of morality. INFINITE. But to simplify let's break them down into three stages.

Stage 1 Less conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 2 and 3. Minority.

Stage 2

More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1. Majority. Hence, the prevalent standard.

Stage 3 More conducive to collective survival and/or wellness than stage 1 and 2. Minority.

Basically there are infinite standards or stages of morality. Higher is the standard which covers the survival and wellness of a larger group of creatures. That way, stage 1 above is lower than the stage 2, which is lower than the stage 3. Important point to be noted here is that no standard is right or wrong in absolute sense. Just based on how much is the span of looking after survival and wellbeing at a particular stage it gets a position in the ladder.

Which stage of morality will prevail? The one which represents the beliefs and mindset of the majority of the people in a given sample will prevail. Be the sample a community, region, or a small group of people. The prevalent standard of moral conduct will always remain the one which is considered right by the majority in a given sample.

In the above table, moral standard of people at stage 1 covers the rights (survival and wellbeing) of smaller group, or is less conducive to the purpose of overall survival and wellness than the stage 2 and 3. As against that, the moral standard of the people at the stage 3 is higher than stage 2 that way. There can be infinite number of stages after the stage 3 and before the stage 1 and even in between these three stages. But the majority of the people fall in the broadly defined stage 2, hence that standard prevails.

That means, in a society where the stage 2 is the prevalent standard, everyone (who is at stage 1 actually) can be forced to conform to the stage 2 standard. If not conformed then there is a mechanism in place laws and punishment. For example, suppose in the stage 2-society urinating in public is considered detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. So, if some person who is of stage 1 level urinates in public place then he will face problems. Also, when I say "prevalent" it doesn't necessarily mean by law. Like, there may not be enforcement of law against urinating in public (in countries like India, for example). But if the prevailing mindset is such that majority of the people consider it wrong then that moral standard would make itself felt through people's behavior towards the one who urinates that way.

Now in the same stage 2-society there are also people who are actually of the level of stage 3 morality. Who think that even pollution is detrimental to common survival and/or wellness. But they won't be listened to, because "the majority" does not consider pollution an issue worth heeding. And thus, this stage 3 standard, though it is higher by covering more span in terms of survival and wellness, can not be forced to conform to because it is held by only a few people.

A terrorist (stage 1) can be forced an external moral standard because he is below the stage of morality which is prevalent (stage 2). That means, more people are aware of and agreed on the morally higher conduct and they desire that conduct to become a standard for common good. But my neighbor can not be forced to abandon his car and use public transport because he is in the prevalent stage (stage 2). So, the prevalent standard can be forced on the lower standards. But the prevalent standard can not be forced to conform to a higher standard.

The reader can apply the model using different and more suitable examples in different societies.

Where does it leave a stage 3 person in a given stage 2-society (that is, where stage 2 is the prevalent standard of morality)? A stage 3 person can live the way he likes, as long as he does not slip blow the prevalent stage. After all, nothing's right or wrong. So, if I don't pollute my surrounding (acting from stage 3), thats fine. But I should not urinate in public (acting from stage 1). If I pollute my surrounding (acting from the prevalent stage 2) then also it's fine, because at the prevalent moral standard it is not considered objectionable. In any case the guilt feeling should not arise!

You see, as it turns out, morality is not such an important concept that one should go ga ga over it. What is more important is "spiritual development", knowledge of the reality, and the understanding that morality is just something which is invented to keep on providing meaning to life and maintain the order. Whichever is the prevalent moral standard, it doesn't matter in the end. While some stages of morality are higher than the others, within the given moral framework, there's no such moral stage which is THE Moral Standard. There are no moral absolutes.

While morality is certainly important to maintain order in the world and live a sane life, it is also important to understand that enlightenment is beyond morality. An enlightened person lives on the tune of Nature. He doesn't need to know what is moral or immoral.

This concludes the three-part series Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living. Game World Dilemma How to Get Over Absurdity in Relationships I always say that once the person has awareness about the existence he has to live his life as a video game. This comparison of life with a video game is not inappropriate. Lets see how. Without intrinsic meaning and purpose, life is fundamentally absurd. Once you are aware of this, theres no real point in living. Moreover, to make things worse, Nature has magnificently designed the emotion-intellect conflict; and unfortunately has bestowed on us both. So, the life is always going to be like a giant puzzle/problem, with our emotions pushing us to do something, and our intellect telling against it. While intellect sees the truth, emotions are what fulfill us. But the problem about emotions is that they are irrational. Hence the conflict. Now try to understand how living life with awareness could be akin to playing a video game. You know whatever is happening here meaning, values, morality, politics, romantic love, sex, attachments etc, etc is not real, in that everything is pointless in the end, but you have to keep playing because thats the only way it is. Difficulties are by default there. And playing means you have to constantly make your way through the difficulties. When you lose, start over. Again lost, start over again. Theres no such thing as winning. Keep playing (living) till your time is over.

Sounds good. Nothing is real, eh? So, theres no point in crying. No point in getting hurt. No point in even getting attached with things and people. Its just a game. Just keep playing it till we are here. Alas, its not as simple as that.

Everything is pointless, but here we are talking only about emotions and their role in relationships. You'll know in a while why. Being an aware person you would know that emotional attachment and stuff is pointless. This follows from your knowledge that everyone has ones own ego, and is primarily living for oneself only. This knowledge is not wrong. Its absolutely true. That means whenever theres going to be attachment, theres going to be hurt sooner or later. Because when you are attached with someone you would want that person to care for you no matter what. You would want to ignore the fact that he (or she) is living primarily for himself, and that its just because the needs of both of you are aligned you are getting an illusory feeling that you are living for each other; and that it will last only till your needs from each other are reconciled. Okay, so you would know this when you are aware. This awareness makes emotional attachment very difficult. Now you ask, but why is attachment even necessary when it is pointless? It is pointless, but interestingly, emotional fulfillment is what gives us happiness, and thats what makes life livable.

You see the dilemma now? Relationships are the primary source of our happiness. You have everything, but you are not related to another human being, you wont feel happiness. Acknowledgement of our existence by another human being is an essential condition for us to feel happiness. That high is the importance of relationships. Intellect tells its ridiculous. When you know that everyone is living for ones own ego and not for you, how the hell does it matter for you to be happy whether someone engages with you or not. You are doing what you want, and you have what you want. Why cant that make you happy? Well, that way one can be contented. And one should definitely be developed enough to be in contentment. But if one is to be in that state always, then life is again pointless. Happiness, is what makes life worth the while, and nothing else. Intellect doesnt understand it. Emotions have their own way. But they are irrational, hence, always dangerous. They make life worthwhile, but they also drive people to suicide and that too for ridiculously irrational reasons. So, what to choose? Who to hear, intellect or emotions?

If you remained in the reality (listening to intellect) you wont be able to develop attachment. Consequently, other people also would not choose you to hook their anchor of emotions on; because for them, you would not be dependable, emotionally. Needs should be aligned, remember? So, you will lose out on real (that is, emotion based) human relationships without which happiness is a rare thing.

If you choose to go with emotions, that would be turning off your awareness. But then the question arises as to why you developed this awareness on the first place! Wasnt it because you suffered and you wanted to know why there was suffering? You were uncomfortable with life and that pushed you to understand life. Now that you are aware, you see that the truth is not quite the way you had thought it would be. Instead of making life easy, it has made things (seemingly) worse for you. Truth looks useless. You see that in order to be happy and make life worthwhile you have to shut the awareness down. How futile the whole journey then!

Then theres another set of questions: Is it even possible to get rid of the awareness? And even if it was, would you like to go back to the life of falsehoods? Isnt truth-seeking our natural propensity? When you start feeling that what your happiness is based on is not real, can you really keep from seeking its truth?

When I talk about my game world theory, some people tell me its horrendous. How can I compare life with a video game! How can I call living, playing! Well, I know how it sounds. But what amazes me is how they dont understand that this is how life becomes after one develops the awareness. Do they mean one should never develop this much

awareness? Maybe, okay. But can one really help it? Could one know in advance how its going to be like after the awareness is developed? Those who do not develop awareness dont do so not because they know how its going to be after the awareness, but because they dont want to accept that there could be any other truth than what they already know. And they sure are worse off; for thats the reason they require God and other delusions to stick to. Is that a healthy way to live? I doubt it; because most of the people are living that way, and still the world is a miserable place.

Back to the dilemma. One way to crack this dilemma that I have figured goes thus: Switch between real world and game world when ever necessary. Real world is the awareness mode. And game world is when the awareness is turned off for the most part. While real world is the reality seen by your intellect, game world is the reality for your emotions. Emotions are also as much a part of you as intellect is. Try to prolong your game world state as much as possible. When you are making friends, relationships, do not overthink. Note that it doesnt mean you stop thinking totally. That would be fatal. Find the balance. Do listen to your emotions. Make genuine contact with people you like. Do not think that its a game world and that everything is pointless; because that way you wont be genuinely interested in anything. You have to be sincerely and genuinely interested in good people. However irrational, from the intellects point of view, emotions bring you happiness, which ultimately decides the quality of your life. When you make a great friend, emotions will tell you to make promises of forever friendship. Go with it. (Okay wait.) If the other person is also developed then its okay to not go with irrational stuff like promises. But the point is, show your intentions that you want the friendship to last as much longer as anybody else would. If at all the forever was possible, you would want that. Note that it has to be genuine. Do not be indifferent. Theres no reason to get into the awareness mode here and ruin the moment. Youre happy. Enjoy it. You are attached, make the best of it. Life is most beautiful when two people are mutually attached.

And when the reality hits you in the face? (And it will.) At that moment you can turn on the awareness. If you are well aware deep inside, then you will immediately slip into contentment mode. That's why I say contentment is very important to attain. Even in that state, suffering is not 100% absent (because thats how we are wired biologically), but you never suffer deeply for sure; because with awareness you know that suffering also has no point. So it remains only on the surface. Meanwhile, think of it as one fall in the game. Now you have to start over. Repeat the life. Keep doing it. In this way, filch whatever happiness you can get in life, through whatever works. If you feel like enjoying something, do not keep away from it before it has become ugly. Give everything a chance. By doing so, you would be giving yourself a chance, to make your life worthwhile.

Another way to live through the absurdity and still be happy (possibly without even seeing life as a game) that I am beginning to understand comes from Dalai Lama. I am still thinking upon it. Maybe I will talk about it some time in the future. This is it for now.

All of the above will make sense to you only if you have understood the fundamental nihilism and absurdity of life. If not, then this article is not for you. Not as yet.

Think I am a nihilist? Well, I am a nihilist who affirms life! Is Contentment the Same as Death? I was having a discussion about happiness and contentment with a friend (who also happens to be into philosophy) and he gave this startling statement, "Contentment is the same as death." It left me in a mild shock, but before I even fully absorb it he added, "That doesn't mean contentment is bad; as such death is also not a bad state."

So, what do I think now?

Yes. Contentment is like death. Though neither contentment nor death is bad, but it is not what life is.

Death is not bad in that it is just the end of our experiences in the conscious body-mind form. When we die our consciousness switches off and our body would change forms. We dissolve and go back into the earth. Nothing is unusual, or good or bad about death.

But when we are talking about life, we are essentially talking about our experiences as a conscious being. And all our human experiences broadly comprise of happiness and suffering. Contentment is not really an experience, but the lack of it.

I have defined contentment as a state of neutrality (indifference) wherein one is feeling neither suffering nor happiness. In a way, contentment is very important to achieve, for it is the only state consistent with the reality of the existence. Even when we are in the

human form, our higher reality is the indifferent reality of the existence, where our experiences as a human being are meaningless. And since Nature has not designed our consciousness to be in a peaceful state, we can't feel perfect peace unless we embrace the reality of the existence in our worldview. That means, unless one is able to attune oneself to the reality, and thus be in the state of contentment, one is likely to have a puzzled and unfulfilled, if not miserable, life. That's why contentment is important.

But then the question is: is it necessary to remain in "contentment mode" always? That would be always being aware of the higher reality beyond our human existence, and giving that reality more importance than our immediate human experiences. It means ignoring what we need and what we crave as humans.

Since there's nothing good or bad in the absolute sense, it is a personal choice how one wants to live. But the thing is, if one is totally going to ignore one's human existence, with all one's human cravings, then what is the point of existing as a human being?

What Is a Healthy Way to Live?

I think a healthy way to live is to acknowledge one's human needs (physical as well as emotional), while also developing awareness of the higher reality and know one's place in the indifferent universe/existence. This awareness is developed through intellectual endeavor, which will in turn enable one to feel connected with the whole and remain contented when one has to. While at the same time responding positively to the human needs will give one a sense of living. Happiness and suffering both are a part of being human, but by developing awareness and thus keeping contentment handy one can enjoy life while keeping suffering very low.

Perfect happiness is when one is experiencing happiness, and contentment is also handy, so that one isn't deeply affected by the suffering. That, I think, is a good way to live. What Is Nature? Are Humans Really Destroying It? Some years back I used to believe that Nature was benevolent and impeccable. Nature could not do anything wrong. And whatever happened naturally was the ultimate right. And all the problems in our world were because of us humans disobeying Nature.

It took time to strike me that if Nature governs everything then that means we are also being governed by the same Nature that governs the whole universe. Also realized, that Nature is not impeccable, much less benevolent. Nature creates, Nature governs, and Nature also destroys. This last function of Nature is as much common in the universe as the first two. But I guess it was the effect of conditioning given to me that prevented me from looking at Nature with this refined view. Most of us know Nature as Mother Nature. This expression itself somehow embodies the belief that Nature must be benevolent. An amazing thing about conditioning is that it never occurs to question about the thing we are being conditioned with.

Shouldn't we be asking, what is the basis of the belief that Nature is benevolent or right?

I did ask it, and bam! Nature is not benevolent. Does that mean Nature is bad? Nope, not bad too. Good and bad, benevolence and malevolence are all human concepts. Since we have consciousness and the brain capable of analysis, we can't help but distinguish our experiences and discriminate between the things we see. And when we do that, we give birth to the notions like good and bad; positive and negative. In the universe without such sophisticated consciousness good and bad don't mean anything. In fact, good and bad don't exist at all. It's only inside our minds. The universe just IS. Nature doesn't think this is good, and that is bad. It just acts.

When I believed that all problems were the result of deviating from natural living I was taking the life of the animals as a reference of the natural way of living. And what was it that enabled us deviate from natural way of living? Our intelligence! Intelligence was the evil!

Won't go into much details of it, but here is how my thought process went: Since we developed intelligence we invented things, then we assigned values to things, we invented money as a measure of value of things, we created wealth, gave birth to economy, then government, then the hunger for power, and so on. In all these new, worldly pursuits, we ignored Nature, and even started destroying it.

For a long time I believed that completely natural life was the right way. Anything created of human intelligence was bad. New term: Human intelligence. This I defined as, intelligence beyond certain point when it becomes destructive, even though the ill-effects may be in the long-run.

Anyway, if you have gone though a similar journey and are developed past it, you know that all this is very, very nave. I don't even want to explain how.

The important question I had to ask myself then was: Who gave us the intelligence; even the so-called human intelligence? Nature itself. (It isn't even apt to think of Nature as a personal entity.)

Upon much painstaking observation and analysis I understood that the universe is designed in such a way that every living being is acting in its best interest, and still the problems will arise. Perfect is a human concept, again. To look after its best interest is the basic nature of any living being. Every human being, too, is acting out of its nature only. Moreover, that nature is not different from what we refer to as Mother Nature. Confused? Here comes the interesting thing that I figured

Nature is not some personal entity, right? Nature, just as the word suggests, is a characteristic, a quality of something. Every living and non-living thing, even a tiniest particle has its own characteristics. That's called its nature. And collectively the nature of everything forms Nature! So, Nature simply means, the nature of existence; as in the quality/characteristics of existence. Hence, the expressions "everything is Nature" and "everything has nature" mean the same thing.

And since everything in the universe is at its core formed of one single element, some energy, we all, from stone to human being, share the same nature at the core.

We humans are functioning out of our nature. And it is the same nature a stone is functioning out of (or is made of, since it's an inanimate thing), or a dog is functioning out of.

When taken such comprehensive and fuller view we can see that we, human beings, can not possibly be what we are not meant to be. We can't do what is not our nature. In other words, we can not act against Nature. WE ARE NATURE.

We can not even destroy Nature; because Nature is not an objective entity. Nature is a

quality. Nature IS, even when one single particle exists in the whole universe, or even without that. Even nothingness has its own nature.

What we are destroying when we say we are destroying Nature is, we are destroying air, water and earth. We are destroying life on the planet in a way which may eventually destroy us. But we are not destroying Nature. Nature has always been there, and will always be there. Destruction is a very normal event in the universe. Creation, evolution and destruction is the nature of existence.

Who destroyed dinosaurs? Who sends tsunami? Who will be responsible if tomorrow some comet from the outer space hit the Earth and obliterated it? Isn't it possible? Sure it is.

Just because we are "accursed" with consciousness and reasoning mind, we are taking the destruction of Nature on our conscience; which is good; even desirable, in the context of human world. But then it will always remain as a moral dilemma (some of the moral dilemmas I will discuss in separate articles), since there are no moral absolutes anyway, morality being a human concept, too.

To free our conscience of this guilt we must transcend our moral landscape and leap into the fuller reality of the existence.

The world as it is is the only way it could be. Whatever the tomorrow will be, will be the only way it can be. We can not act against Nature, because we are Nature. Heart or Head Who Should We Listen to? Thinking-from-heart is a phrase used by those whose brains are impotent. This is what I thought until recently when I was totally taken with rationality in my truth-seeking. Well, in a way it still stands true for those who are totally averse to thinking with their head and always talk about "enjoying life". You know the species that propagate such statements like, more living-less thinking (or even "no thinking")? Those people are too nave in their approach to have a good and fulfilling life.

Anyway, this post is about emotion-intellect conflict. Emotion-intellect meaning heart and head conflict is not a new topic here anymore, but it is such an important topic that I wanted to dedicate a post to it.

What is the emotion-intellect conflict? We all know the ills of excessive emotional indulgence. But I guess only the truth-seekers or critical thinkers have the possibility to know the worst ills of excessive intellectual indulgence. It is for them that the topic of emotion-intellect conflict is most important. Of course, for those who don't want to think much on the first place there's no question of the conflict arising although, that doesn't mean theirs is a healthy life.

We human beings are a complex system. On one hand we are wired with all the powerful animal instincts, and on the other hand we have got a brain capable of rational thinking that sets us apart from the other animals into being civilized creatures as we are. This latter thing may seem like a good thing when talked about it, but it's exactly what makes our life miserable.

The animal instincts inside us are always active. Emotions also fall under that part of us. Though emotions and biological impulses do have their own significance, from the evolutionary/survival point-of view, but they don't square with rationality. For example, say, you want to have sex desperately; but you can't just grab some girl on a street and ask her to have sex with you, much less go ahead without consent. We live in the civilized world where we aren't allowed to act merely on our biological instincts.

Talk about romantic love. Romantic love provides us the greatest emotional feast. But it's totally irrational, because romantic love is an outcome of the chemicals in our brain that are produced to enable reproduction and mating. All the extraordinary magic we feel in romantic love is because of those chemicals. So when someone gets rejected by the one one is in love with and becomes depressed and runs to suicide, what to call it? There's immense emotional trauma in that case. But it is irrational. If only that person, through intellectual endeavor, knew exactly what romantic love is, it would be much easier for him to get over the rejection, since he would be sure he can develop the feelings again for someone else. Then what makes us feel every time we are in love, that this is the only perfect person for us, and all that? Emotions. Biological wiring.

Turns out, intellectual development can save us from the suffering that we are put through by our biological wiring by way of various emotions and instincts. When it first dawned on me that our biological impulses and emotions only serve the evolutionary purposes (Nature's purposes) I totally became intellect oriented. That means I gave up on happiness. How? Happiness is a function of emotions. But as we saw, the thing about emotions is that they are irrational. And they are not placed in us particularly for

our wellbeing, but have a broad evolutionary purpose. Thus, though they provide us happiness, they also put us through a lot of stress and suffering. Anything that gives us happiness also has the power to give us suffering. Happiness and suffering come in the same package. And evolutionary purpose means we have to go through the rollercoaster of happiness-and-suffering so that we pass on the evolved genes. So I said: how cunning is Nature there! Why should I go through suffering just so that the human species evolves? What have I got to do with whether the species is more evolved a thousand years after or not? I am concerned with MY wellbeing. I don't want to suffer so that the Nature can have its way for some evolution.

And I succeeded. I call the state that I developed contentment. It comes when you have understood how the world works to an extent that there are no shocks in your life, no emotional pangs, no confusion as to why and how you are having certain experiences. This state is only possible through intellectual endeavor at seeking the truth, and rationality is an indispensable tool for it.

But that's not the end. I reached contentment. Now what? It's colorless. There's no point in living life if one is to remain in contentment always. Say no to desire, say no to expectations, say no to attachments, say no to romance, sex, material needs. Say no to emotions. What is left to live for then? Of course, there's no suffering, because there's the understanding about how everything works. But there's no happiness also. While it is not wrong to remain in contentment, I found that there's simply no point in living like that. Besides, it would be easy to live in that state if one is living away from the modern societies, in the village-like place where life is very simple. Living in a metropolitan with contentment is a very difficult life-task. And anyway, whichever the place, I soon knew that there's no point in always being contented that way.

Does that mean I didn't benefit anything from my intellectual endeavors? Quite to the contrary, contentment, I still maintain, is a very important stage to reach. Contentment is exactly what empowers one to keep calm in life in worst adversities. The idea is to realize just how much to dwell on it.

Here's a life-saving insight I had

Happiness is important to make life worth living. And contentment is important to keep life worth living. The former is a function of emotions, and the latter is a function of intellect. And the balance between emotions and intellect is the key to a great life.

The key word is balance.

When you are suffering emotionally, you need critical thinking and analysis (intellect) to make life good. On the other hand, when you have arrived at a "flatland" (seeing no value, no meaning Nihilism) you need emotional indulgence to serve the same. To be noted is the fact that the latter case is only experienced to the extreme by highly passionate rational truth-seekers.

The fact that intellect saves us from the pains caused by emotions, and emotions drag us out of flatland by bringing colors in life, proves that there has to be some point of perfect balance between the two, which when reached, a human being is said to be operating at his highest capacity. Essential and Fundamental Truths of Life and Existence I have always said that it is essential to know the truth in order to have a completely fulfilling life.

I have earlier written about the ultimate truth and the highest reality of our existence. In this article I will give a list of some of the essential truths. Without having thoroughly realized each one of them ones development can not be complete. How one realizes these truths would (and should) depend on ones own course in the truth-seeking journey. The reader is not to accept them merely because I am listing them here.

Here goes the list

No God

To realize that there is no God is the most important thing if one is to start the truthseeking journey. Because when theres God, naturally theres no need for us to seek any truth. I think in my case no God was the first of the BIG realizations I have had.

Note that I am talking about the God of the theism. The one propagated by the religions. The one people pray to and ask wishes from. Theres no such God. Its the biggest delusion humankind is suffering from. The universe is completely on its own.

No intrinsic meaning and purpose

Once one realizes that theres no Cosmic Daddy (God) who has intentionally created the existence, it should not be difficult to also realize that without such Creator, the possibility of any purpose behind the existence no more remains. However, it took quite a lot of time for me understand this.

The reason for that is, even after being sure that there is no God, I looked up to Nature as a God-like entity and believed that Nature had purpose for what it was doing. This followed from my knowledge of evolution and natural selection, and natural laws which seemed to be happening for a purpose. So I believed the existence had some purpose and meaning intrinsic to it. What that meaning/purpose was, was only known to Nature, and we can all be perfectly happy as long as (or if) we lived according to Natures wish.

Turned out, my knowledge and observation both were very limited and nave back then. All the order we see in the universe is best explained as order-in-chaos. The universe at large is random and chaotic. Theres no sign of any meaning and purpose. There couldnt be one, simply because Nature is not a thinking entity.

So, the existence is intrinsically without any meaning and purpose. All the meaning and purpose is human construct.

No right and wrong, amorality

Of course, when theres no meaning and purpose behind the existence, there cant be anything right or wrong in absolute sense. Just like meaning and purposes are created by humans, so is right and wrong. What serves our purposes we call that right, and vice

versa. For example, humanitys common purpose of life is collective welfare, then what leads to the welfare is right and what thwarts the welfare is wrong. This is translated into a solid concept called morality.

Morality is a human concept. The existence is intrinsically amoral. To understand more on this read my three-part series called Nihilism, Morality and Enlightened Living. (Part 1, part 2, part 3)

Individual ego (self), aloneness

Everyone in the world has ones own ego (self), and is primarily living for oneself alone. This one can understand just by observing oneself.

Whatever you do, you do it because it gratifies your ego. You make friends with those who make you feel special. You love someone because that fulfills your needs. Think deeply. You wont accept someones friendship just because that person wants to be friends with you, will you? You will see whether you like him/her as a friend. You wont accept any romantic proposal. You will see whether you like that person. Its always about your own needs.

Now just think, if you have your own ego to gratify, so does everyone else. In fact, right, everyone is living primarily for oneself alone. Only when the needs and purposes of two persons are aligned they can be in any relationship, and then they get an illusory feeling that they are there for each other. Its a good feeling. And nothings wrong with it. But we are acknowledging the truth here. No one in the world is truly there for anyone else. That simply cant be, in a strict sense. Aloneness is the reality.

No soul-mate

Romantic love provides the second biggest delusion after God, to almost every human being. That delusion is soul-mate. Whenever one is deeply in romantic love with

someone, one feels that this is the only perfect person for one, and they are meant for each-other; that they are soul-mates and will live forever together. I repeat, every time you are in deep romantic love (that is, in the attachment stage) you will feel this. That itself is enough of evidence that it cant be true. What is it then?

The magic experienced in romantic love is a result of certain brain chemistry, the purpose of which is to induce reproduction and mating. Since the human offspring would require care from the parents, it is important that the parents remain stuck with each other at least till the child gets through its infancy. Thats the reason for everything that one feels in romantic love.

Theres no such thing as soul-mates. Besides, since theres no involvement of reason (rational choice) in selecting a partner in romantic love, it almost never turns out the way one wishes (under its effect).

No afterlife, no heaven and hell

I think anyone with even an average level of intelligence should know this one. This life is the only period you exist as you. I mean, I am Darshan only till I am alive in this body-mind form. Once I die, theres no more Darshan. Theres not even a soul of Darshan which would go to heaven or hell, or any place else. Its simply over.

This pretty much covers the biggest delusions a typical human being suffers from. It is very important to realize these truths, amongst others not discussed above, in order to assume a healthy perspective towards life. What Is Romantic Love? And How Does It Work? In the series of articles starting with this one I am going to cover romantic love and related issues.

Let's start with understanding what romantic love is.

What Is Romantic Love? And How Does It Work?

Maybe it's unnecessary, but with the word "love" being used in so many senses, I think it is better if I clarify which love is meant by romantic love. Romantic love is a man-woman love; when one person wants another person of the opposite sex to be his/her life partner. That love is romantic love.

Some years ago my understanding of romantic love was that when a person "likes" another person beyond certain limit, for any reason, the mind starts wanting to be with that person all the time, and that's what it was. I just saw it as a heightened state of liking where the object of liking becomes an obsession.

Well, the obsession part is right though, but the knowledge and insights I gained over time since then about romantic love has changed my view of it substantially.

It's rather surprising now that in my previous understating of romantic love it never occurred to me to question that if romantic love essentially developed just out of plain liking for the person, then why would it happen with a person of the opposite sex only? We can like anybody to any extent, but we don't develop romantic love for the person of the same sex. (Homosexuals being the cases of hormonal imbalance are considered not normal, and are to be excluded.)

Romantic love is actually a work of our brain chemistry. There are certain chemicals in our brain that produce the magic we experience in romantic love. I won't go into the technicalities of the mechanism so as to keep this post simple. But the fact is that romantic love is essentially a mating drive. That means the reason why we feel what we feel in romantic love is that we are biologically wired to have that delusional experience, which in turn is intended for reproduction and mating. Nothing else. This also answers why romantic love happens with a person of the opposite sex only.

Romantic Love Is a Mating Drive

For reproduction Nature already has the mechanism in place, which is sexual desire. Mating is a broad set of functions apart from just reproduction. Mating involves taking care of an offspring also. The offspring would require care in its infancy period, and that requires the parents to be together.

While sexual desire would serve the purpose of reproduction, it wouldn't make the partners to stick with each other, which is necessary for the offspring's survival and security. We all know that sexual attraction has no limits. It happens wherever there is a sexually attractive object. That is not really conducive for the overall purpose of Nature. From the Nature's point of view, the resultant offspring must survive and grow to be healthy. Only then the reproduction is meaningful. This problem is solved by the mechanism of romantic love. Romantic love helps one to concentrate one's mating energy on a particular partner.

Thus, in the big picture romantic love is not exclusive of sexual act. But in a small picture both romantic love and sexual desire have their own roles. So, it is even possible that one is feeling romantic love for someone while the thought of sex doesn't cross one's mind. But the larger mechanism, of which romantic love is a part, is designed for mating alone.

Irrationality In Romantic Love

Interestingly, there's no requirement of reason (rationality) in romantic love. Meaning, liking someone for certain qualities possessed by him/her isn't even necessary to fall in romantic love with that person. Of course, when one has developed romantic love for someone one gets a strong feeling that one likes that person. But that liking is not a good one, that is, not reason-based; and hence, not dependable. That liking can wane any time as soon as the chemical-induced magic in the brain wanes. Do you have an exlover about whom you are now wondering why on earth you fell in love with that person when you did, apparently because you don't like that person at all? Think about it.

You must have heard people say such things as they never realized how and why they developed feelings for this person. It's because often times we see no understandable reason for falling in love with the person we fall in love with. It just happens. Then there are those people who are deeply infatuated with someone they have not even spoken to once. Just by seeing someone they have developed the feelings. That's why the saying

goes: Love knows no reasons. Do you not think that in order to really come to like a person you need to at least "know" that person?

If I talk about myself, I have had all sorts of experiences in romantic love. I have had love-at-first-sight experience. Then I have had deep feelings for someone just by seeing her and not knowing anything about her; so deep that it lasted four years; intense feelings, with no contact and no knowledge about her nature etc at all. It was very difficult to understand then what would cause such strong feelings. It's not surprising that people buy into phony explanations like "soul mates"!

Turns out, there's no rationality, no understandable reason behind romantic love. But there is an explanation about when and how the brain creates the feelings, which if understood can make life a lot easier.

When And How Brain Creates Romantic Feelings?

We saw that the magic of romantic love is created by the chemicals in our brain. In order to create the feelings the brain obviously requires an image of a person of the opposite sex for whom to create the feelings. Does brain choose this image arbitrarily? No, it doesn't seem to be so. There are two criteria in place. It seems that the brain grabs on the image of the person who you have had "intimate fantasy" about. Intimate fantasy can be anything, sexual or otherwise. If in your imagination you spend what you would call intimate time with someone, that's what I mean here by intimate fantasy. For example, if you always wished to go boating with your partner because you love boating, then those are intimate moments for you. Now when you imagine doing with someone what you consider spending intimate moments (go boating here) then that's called having intimate fantasy about that person. Moreover, in certain cases the brain also sees to it that you have kept this person in your mind for comparatively more time than the other potential candidates, especially when you are having intimate fantasies about more than one person. The first criterion is stronger, though. Basically, your brain just needs a good sign from your mind, to choose from the images of the people of the opposite sex to create feelings for. Quite often a slightest sign to the brain suffices for it to tap the most powerful effects which can turn you into a slave.

The criteria I mentioned above are based on my own experiences and observations and are debatable. If we look at the first criteria, it says that if you have even a slight intimate

fantasy about some person, your brain might grab on the image of that person and create the feelings, that is, if he/she is the only person you have thought about in that way. If there is more than one person you fantasize about then going by the second criteria your brain will see which person you keep in your mind for longer lime and choose that image. Though I have noticed such behavior of the brain through and through, and for myself at least I am nearly sure about it, I am not sure if there's scientific consensus about it. One might debate on the point that the brain arbitrarily decides who to have intimate fantasy about. It's a fair point of debate as to what happens first: We have an intimate fantasy first and then the brain creates feelings, or the brain creates feelings first and that makes us have an intimate fantasy; because we don't have such fantasy just about anyone. Are you the one to choose who to fantasize about? If you are choosing then there must be rational basis, for the process of choosing involves reason. But no, that doesn't happen because you do develop feelings for the person you know (rationally) isn't quite suitable for you. That means there's some mysterious force which is forcing our choice? If yes, then this force indeed remains mysterious. One explanation (accepted by science as a possibility) is that our genes decide about it.

So, at the very deep level it does remain a mystery as to what makes us choose the one we choose out of all people. But to contain romantic love in the bounds of our understanding, the two criteria I discussed above work fairly well. That is, 1) if you have an intimate fantasy about someone you are very likely to develop feelings for that person sooner or later, depending on whether that is the only person you are having such fantasy about. If you are having such fantasy about more than one person then 2) you are likely to have feelings for the one you keep in your mind for longer period of time. Note once again: What happens before this stage, that is, what induces our choice on the first place, that remains a (genetic) mystery.

In any case, what's the most important thing to be understood about romantic love is that it is far from rational. You might not have realized it, but its not being rational has one huge implication: Romantic love is not meant to last for as long as the person under the effect of romantic love would wish it to last. And the thoughts and feelings like meant-foreachother, forever-partners, and soul-mates etc have no real (reason based) basis. These delusions, however, are essential for successful mating, and understandably so.

This concludes the basic understanding of romantic love.

***

In the following articles I am going to talk more about romantic love and related issues like sex, relationships, marriage etc, and we will explore the questions like

How to make romantic love last long (possibly for life) How to easily fall out of love Why long distance relationships almost always fail Why opposites attract, etc.

If you would like me to talk about any issue related to romantic love then let me know about it How to Make Romantic Love Relationship Last Long (Possibly for Life)? This is a second article in the series about romantic love and related issues. To get the basic understanding of romantic love refer to the first article: What Is Romantic Love? And How Does It Work?

We understood in the previous article that romantic love is at its core irrational. That means it doesn't require the permission of reason to happen. But that doesn't mean it can't happen with reason.

We saw that romantic feelings develop when one starts having intimate fantasies about the person and/or keeps the person in one's mind for a sufficiently long time. What makes one "choose" the parson one chooses out of all, that remains a mystery, possibly a genetic one. There could be any reason for this choice, which eludes our understanding. One just feels that one likes the person and one allows the romantic love mechanism to take its course. The "liking" can be rational and non-rational.

Non-rational liking

I have seen it, and can tell with absolute certainty, that most of the times romantic love is

based on non-rational liking. That means there's no understandable reason for liking the person you like. Such liking is hormone-induced liking. Maybe, your genes have caused the attraction based on some genetic criteria (though it's still open to research). Basically, in this case you feel that you like this person, but don't have good or strong enough, or understandable reason.

This type of liking can wane without your control. It's only because of the brain chemistry. When you are crushing on someone you like that person intensely, but see it after the crush gets over; you'll know what I mean.

Rational liking

It is also possible though less often seen that you are thinking about some person for good reasons. Like, because you have common thoughts and interests, share a passion etc. Reasons such as these are good reasons for which you have given this person space in your mind. And once the person gets a space in your mind, and it fulfills the criteria required for romantic love (read the previous article to know the criteria), it's not surprising if the feelings come along.

This liking is doubtless to remain as long as the reasons remain. Hence, the relationship based on rational choice of person is naturally more likely to last long.

How to know if your liking is rational or non-rational?

If you want to know whether your liking for this person (of the opposite sex) is real/rational or hormone-induced, just ask yourself whether you would be close friends if the two of you were the same sex. If the answer is "yes" then that means you have the backing of reason in your love, so that's more secure. Because then when, and if at all, the hormone-induced liking starts to wane, you will still have good reasons to stick with the person you chose. In fact, these reasons can be the very thing you can "use" to make your romantic love last for as long as you two wish. I will come back to it in a while.

On the other hand, if the answer of the test is "no" then you know there's no good reason for being with this person already. The attraction is only hormone-induced. Not in your control. If because of the magical experience you got into a relationship with this person, that relationship will only be dependent on the brain chemistry, instead of reasons. Now think: When you don't have good enough reasons to like this person, isn't it understandable that you will not have as healthy a relationship with the person as it would have been had there been good reasons for liking the person? The problems show up when practicality enters. Most of such relationships end up in frequent fights, arguments and resentments. When the relationship gets tensed both the persons naturally look to other people to share their thoughts and feelings with. They make intimate friends outside of their relationship. Consequently, other people, apart from the partner, start occupying space in the mind, and the result can be devastating for the relationship, simply because the chemicals will do their job again. The feelings can most likely get diverted elsewhere to another person.

How to make romantic love last long?

If you want to make your romantic love relationship last long then you must see to it that you have good enough reasons to be in a relationship with the person you are developing feelings for. I am not saying that you don't heed the romantic magic and go only by reason. But when you notice that your mind is getting stuck on some person, be aware that it's the start of the magic. If you go on thinking about this person then you are in for intense romantic love experience. So, at this stage, stop and run the test I mentioned above. If you find that it's only hormone-based liking then come out of it before it gets uncontrollable. You can definitely choose not to think about that person. That way you can consciously avoid falling in love where there's no good reason for it. Because if you went ahead with it, you know it can only be short-term.

On the other hand, if you see that there are good reasons for being with this person apart from the hormone-based liking (i.e. if the result of the test is "yes"), then go for it. Because then the relationship obviously will have strong basis and therefore is not only likely to last longer than just hormone-based love, but also will be more fun.

What are the good (rational) reasons, by the way?

Good reasons can be common interests, common passions, matching thoughts etc. Physical appearance, no doubt, is a very important reason, but that alone does not constitute a good reason in my view. Most important is that the thinking matches.

Is life long relationship possible?

A few years back I would have said "no" to it. But I think after thoroughly understanding how romantic love mechanism works, it is possible if both the persons will and work for it. However, note that life long thing is not meant-to-be or anything. I do not believe in soul-mates theory; that's just as true as fairy-tales! Besides, I think "life long" is too heavy a word. We will rather call it "long-lasting" instead. Then of course it depends on the persons involved how long lasting is "long-lasting". To say the least, it requires a very high level of maturity to handle the practicalities in a relationship. Even after understanding all that I have covered here, and even with the best start and the best intentions, if the persons involved are not mature enough, then nothing can help. I am keeping the maturity issue apart because it is another huge topic. In context of this article, let's say the couple is mature enough.

For a successful long-lasting romantic love relationship, both the persons must have the understanding of romantic love mechanism. That's the first and foremost condition. And then there are some other conditions to be fulfilled, like

After entering the relationship it is necessary for both persons to make each other their world. They have to avoid intimate friendships with other people, of the opposite sex, especially. In any case, they should never give any other person of the opposite sex a space in their mind, for any reason. There's absolutely no place for extra-marital sex. Living away from each other for any reason is strictly to be avoided.

These are not all. But if you understand why these are important, then you can automatically figure out the other conditions that must be fulfilled.

In today's free and open-minded society these may look like undue restrictions. But they are not. If you understand romantic love mechanism then it should not be difficult to see why these "restrictions" are necessary.

You might say, but why can't we make friends with other people? It's because if you make friends with other people of the opposite sex, then it is quite possible that you find some of them interesting and if by any chance you allowed the romantic love mechanism to run on any of them (i.e. had a fantasy, or gave someone a space in your mind for any reason), it will likely disrupt your flow of feelings for your partner before you know it. It happens even without slightest intention. For example, if at work you are spending nine hours everyday in company of your colleague of the opposite sex, then it's only natural that he/she occupies a space in your mind. Quite often, even that is sufficient to cause a disaster in the brain. Sadly, it is very hard to control once it starts happening. It's a very, very risky business; because the chemicals in the brain will always be active, and will work by the same principles always. Whenever the criteria are met, they will create the feelings for the person meeting the criteria. They won't know that you are already into a relationship! That's why both the persons have to make sure that they don't allow any other person to fill the criteria, ever. If they maintained this, there's no reason why any romantic love relationship shouldn't be long-lasting.

This is based on one big assumption that the said relationship has a rational basis to start with. If the relationship does not have good reasons to be on the first place, or the reasons no more remain with time, then again it is prone to failure. For example, at the start of the relationship you had good reasons, like common interests and passions etc, but over the time the interests and passions and thoughts of either of you changed; then the relationship is again subject to all the perils of a non-rational relationship.

To summarize, for a successful romantic love relationship 1) both the persons should have perfect understanding of romantic love mechanism, 2) they should make sure that their relationship has a rational basis, and 3) after knowing thoroughly the romantic love mechanism, and the importance of romantic love and relationship in life, they should be willing to make some efforts by way of observing the so-called restrictions.

In the following articles I will touch on some more issues related to romantic love. If you would like me to talk about any issue then let me know about it. How to Easily Fall Out of Romantic Love? This is a third article in the series about romantic love and related issues. Before reading this I recommend that you read the first and the second article.

In the previous article I wrote about how to make romantic love relationship last long. So this article may come as a surprise. But we know that often times romantic love can be a very tormenting experience, for numerous reasons I needn't even mention. Some times one desperately needs to fall out of love to regain one's health.

Strong as those feelings are, it's not easy to fall out of romantic love; and there's a reason for that. We understood that romantic love serves a very important purpose of mating. More important the purpose, stronger has to be the mechanism in place to carry it out. That's Nature's way to keep the world going. Reproduction and mating are two of the most important functions. Hence the mechanisms in place for these purposes sexual desire and romantic love both are very strong in us. And that's what makes it difficult to fall out of romantic love.

By understanding the romantic love mechanism, however, we can make it easier than it would otherwise be.

First I would like to break the delusion that makes one not want to get of out romantic love.

No one is "meant-to-be" or "soul-mate" or "the one"

When in romantic love one often feels that this love is meant to be; or this person is his soul-mate. Such beliefs develop partly because we always hear things such as these, so people sort of get conditioned (brainwashed) into believing it; and partly because the effect of romantic love also is so strong that the mind just wants to believe that this person is "the one".

It's a joke of Nature, I must say. Because funnily, every time one is in love one feels the same way. Apparently, it's a delusion of the mind. There's no one who is "the one". No two people are "meant to be" together. We just choose to be together, and it can be with anyone and at anytime.

This has to be understood and kept well in mind.

Now, there can be many reasons why one would want to fall out of love. Unfavorable circumstances, non-reciprocation of feelings, infidelity and heartbreak, etc. Whatever the reason, the process to fall out of the torment is the same.

You know, in case of heartbreak especially we often hear people say that "time heals". Well, of course, it heals with time. But here's the thing: It's not the time per se that heals, but the things that happen with passage of time that do. If we know these things then we can speed up the process. Healing is the word used in case of heartbreak. But it means the same thing as falling out of love. So, what is it? Let's look into it.

How to Easily Fall Out of Romantic Love?

First you have to understand what causes romantic love and how the mechanism works. Understanding of the romantic love mechanism makes it much easier to manipulate with it. Don't take the word manipulation in wrong sense. We try to manipulate things in our mind all the time. What I am telling here now is to do it more consciously. So yes, we have already understood that romantic love happens with meeting of two main criteria: 1) Having intimate fantasies about the person, and 2) keeping the person in the mind for sufficiently long period of time. All the things said below are basically the ways to prevent the above two things from happening.

Here we go

1) Stop having intimate fantasies about the person of fixation. In no case you should be

thinking of the person as your partner romantically. It's easier said than done. But it's not impossible.

2) Do not overly think about the person. Limit the time and space the person occupies in your mind. This and the one above are two direct ways to get rid of romantic love. Even when they say "time heals" it's precisely this that the time does. You just have to do it consciously to speed up the process.

If he/she is your friend then you don't necessarily have to cut off from the person. But just take it as ordinary relationship. Treat the person like you treat your other friends. Think about the person just as much as you think about your other friends.

3) Well, and if you can't do what I said in the above point then it may do good to stay away from the person till the commotion in your mind is over. If you are good at handling it, however, that won't be necessary.

4) Now here's the indirect ways. Mingle with other people of the opposite sex. If you are good at flirting, flirt. Give other people, especially of the opposite sex, a chance to come close to you. Never turn down an opportunity of spending nice/intimate time with them. You never know, when the two criteria (plus the genetic one) are met by some other person your romantic feelings will automatically get diverted.

But here's the catch: This can be risky if you don't want to be in love again at all. In that case just know where to stop. Once you get the first person (the one who you want to get rid of) out of your mind, chuck the whole business; that is, stop having romantic thoughts/fantasies about anyone. If you just have good control and know where to stop, this is the most effective way more than you might imagine.

5) Do the things that you love doing. Dive into your passions. If you have some known

talent like, writing, photography, painting etc, start doing it. Then share it with people who appreciate it. Be creative and do everything that's refreshing to the mind.

It's said that idle mind is a devil's workshop. Indeed, when your mind hasn't anything exciting to do, it will have more reasons to run to the person you want to get rid of, and that will put you through the torment. Give your mind exciting occupation.

I will add more ways as they strike me. I have tested these enough times that I am sure that they work well.

It may sound funny and even unethical (though I don't know why it should) to tinker in this way with romantic love. Maybe because people believe whatever happens naturally is meant to happen, and shouldn't be interfered. I too held that belief, but not anymore. If you gave way to all natural impulses then there will remain no difference between you and a beast. Nature is brutal. Besides, intelligence is also given by Nature. Why not use it then? Think it over.

In the following articles there's more to come about romantic love and related issues. If you would like me to talk about any issue then let me know about it. Science and Rationale of Arranged Marriages Do They Work? This is a fourth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. Before reading this I recommend that you read the first, second and the third article.

Now about arranged marriage. Arranged marriages are an attempt to bring rationality into a relationship. We understood that romantic love at its core is irrational; however, by exercising some control on our mind and selecting a partner based on "good reasons" (i.e. rational choice) we can make the relationship last long. The concept of arranged marriages is formed for this very purpose. What the "good reasons" are, that I have talked about in the second article.

Romantic love is basically mating drive. And mating being a very important function from

Nature's standpoint, Nature has made the drive very strong. Under the effect of romantic love people are often deluded into believing utterly stupid things (like, meant-foreachother, soul-mate etc.) which actually serve towards creating a very strong attachment between the two persons. But the thing is, since all this has a definite purpose which is mating it is never meant to last long, much less forever. Strong attachment the partners initially feel under the effect of romantic love can wane anytime (and almost in all the cases it does). Once that happens the partners find themselves in shit if they don't have other, good, reasons to be together or are in the face of adversities which are the result of their being together. Such relationships then end up in a disaster.

Will give a couple of examples here

1. Let's say there's this guy who developed liking for some girl. He ran the test I mentioned in the second article, and found that his liking isn't based on good reasons but is hormone-induced. Still, he did not stop thinking about the girl and eventually ended up developing intense romantic love for the girl. He proposed her, and she accepted. They got married. They find that they don't have similar tastes; nor do their thoughts and ideologies match. But at this time they both are under the effect of the magic, so everything feels great.

After a year, the magic starts to wane. Now they are no more obsessed with each other like they were before. So the differences in tastes and ideologies etc that were easily overlooked before, now surface. In the absence of the magic now they don't have that compelling force within them to be with each other all the time. They start needing their own space. Both start mingling with their other friends (again) more since they don't share each other's thoughts and passions. When this happens, it is the start of the collapse. If you have read the second article you will know why.

2. Here a guy and a girl are deeply in romantic love, for non-rational reasons, again. This time, say, their being together is also going to result in social hardships for them; because they don't have enough means to support themselves. But then they are deluded with the thoughts such as "love conquers all" etc. Of course, it's the biological force that gives them such a strong delusion and overconfidence; but because of it, they get into a marriage anyway.

A year later, the magic wanes. Now they struggle with their hardships. Their thoughts and ideologies don't match so they are already subject to the perils I mentioned in the

first example; but in addition to that, they blame each other for screwing each other's lives. They regret the decision to get married.

I can give hundred examples with little changes here and there. It's to be understood that almost all romantic relationships (marriages) are doomed to this sort of fate, unless it is rationally entered into, which is very, very rarely seen.

What Is Arranged Marriage? And How Is It Better?

I was never a proponent of arranged marriages. But after deeply understanding romantic love and the issues related to it, I am beginning to see the relevance of certain traditions. The tradition of arranged marriages is one of them.

When I say "arranged marriage", let me clarify that I don't necessarily mean the arranged marriages as they are carried out today in some of the conservative societies (like India). Like, where I live, arranged marriages also have social and financial interests, and even political interests, of the parents. I don't favor those arranged marriages. Then in some Islamic societies the two persons are not even allowed to see each other before the marriage is carried out; that, I think is a vicious form of arranged marriage. I don't favor those. These are exploitation of the concept of arranged marriage.

I mean arranged marriage in a broad and literal sense. It may be my personal definition, but I believe the fundamental idea in the tradition of arranged marriage is the same which I will talk about. Arranged, means that there is some rational thought and analysis involved in the decision to marry; that it is not blindly entered into just by force of biological/hormonal attraction, but is thoughtfully orchestrated/arranged.

In India, (looking at a case of good arranged marriage) when the parents choose a guy for their daughter they consider the guy's financial background, family history etc. Then they also allow the girl and the guy to get to know each other. And after that the decision is made. The purpose is to ensure protection of the marriage from the possible future adversities; because the romantic love magic is impermanent; so the precautions such as these ensure that the relationship faces as fewer adversities as possible; adversities

which can break down the marriage in absence of strong romantic love magic.

By favoring the idea of arranged marriage I am not implying that the institution of arranged marriages is being used in an effective way. For the most part they also fail. But that is because despite the system, people themselves aren't mature. The concept and the structure are the facilitating mechanisms, but they by themselves can't give good results. The people who use the mechanism have to be intelligent and mature enough.

Anyway. This is just one form of arranged marriages. Since I mean "arranged marriage" in a broad sense, I would say even the marriages happening from matrimonial websites are arranged marriages; because there also, the "candidates" aren't in love already. They make suitable selection rationally, by matching profiles. Though I must say I have no idea how effectively it is being used by people.

In fact, any marriage which is entered into on rational basis is an arranged marriage. The important criterion is that reason is put before romantic love/biological impulses. It is a kind of maturity which is essential if the marriage is to last long. Even when there's no involvement of parents, and the guy and the girl have found themselves on their own, but are entering into a marriage by rational thought, it is an arranged marriage in a broadest sense. The reason why in almost all traditional forms of arranged marriage it's the parents who find the match is that individuals themselves can't be trusted to have the ability to make a rational decision, understandably, because high hormonal activity (resulting in impatience, rapid development of romantic feelings, sexual desperation etc) would make them prone to take irrational decisions.

If the couple is mature enough to understand the validity of it, arranged marriages (taken in a broadest sense) are certainly to be far more successful than love marriages. Purely love marriages, in fact, are a joke.

Do Arranged Marriages Work? And What About Love?

Just as I said above, it depends on the maturity of people. The more mature and understanding the persons involved, the more likely is the marriage to last long.

I am not saying that one should get into a marriage without romantic love. But at the same time, I would say that a true partnership is not all about romantic love. It's equally, if not more, about mutual understanding, and sharing of passions, joys and sorrows etc.

Besides, if you understand the romantic love mechanism well, you can see that it only requires that you accept the person positively. Once the person starts occupying space in your mind, and you start envisaging your life with that person, the brain chemistry will automatically take charge and create the feelings for the person. It's no big deal. That's the reason there are countless arranged marriages in places like India where the husbands and wives share good romantic relationship despite the fact that when they married they weren't in love.

Arranged Marriages in Modern Societies

This is an important point to note. In today's free-minded societies arranged marriages are increasingly less likely to work.

In a typical conservative Indian society, the success of arranged marriages owes itself to certain conditioning of the mind. A girl who is conditioned with traditional wisdom and values, and raised with a firm belief in arranged marriage, will likely have a successful marriage that way. Because after the marriage she will positively accept the person because so is her conditioning and as a result will develop romantic love for him, making the marriage complete.

As against this, a free-minded girl, when married through arranged marriage will not be able to positively accept the person on the first place, because she's not strongly conditioned to. Being free-minded she may feel wronged by having been married that way. Consequently, the romantic love won't develop and the marriage won't be fulfilling. Most arranged marriages today even the well-intended ones meet this fate. The reason: People have become intelligent, but not intelligent enough.

To conclude, purely love marriage is a hopeless venture. And for an arranged marriage to be successful, either the persons have to be strongly conditioned to believe in the validity of arranged marriages (which is nearly impossible in free-minded urban

societies), or they have to be mature enough to recognize the validity of it. The inbetweens will fail, all the time. For the masses, conditioning is more viable way; as for me, needless to mention, I favor maturity over conditioning. What Is the Difference Between Love and Attraction (or Infatuation)? This is a fifth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. I recommend you read the earlier articles to have a better understanding of what's being said here. Articles: One, Two, Three, Four.

When I didn't have sufficient understanding of love, I thought there was no difference between love and attraction. Simply because we are attracted to the person we love. What's the difference! But after the recent insights and understanding I have had about romantic love mechanism, I figured the difference between love and attraction. Though it is still true that when we are in love, it means we are attracted to that person, but still the difference remains valid. For "love" is of two types: love as in rational liking, and purely romantic love.

Romantic love is a work of our brain chemistry. (Refer to the first article.) It is not even an emotion. Romantic love is basically a mating drive. That is the reason it only happens with the person of the opposite sex. It is also irrational at core. Here's why: Often times when one is developing romantic feelings for someone one feels intense liking for that person, but that liking is not necessarily for "good reasons" reasons that are good enough for one to enter into a life-partnership with that person; but still every time one is in romantic love one would feel things like this is the perfect partner for me, et al. The "good reasons" can be on the lines of matching thoughts and ideologies, similar interests and passions etc. These reasons are the same for which people become best friends.

Most of the times, romantic love happens without good reasons. That means one's liking for this person is not rational, but hormone-induced. If, after catching a liking for some person without an apparent good reason (attractive looks is not a good reason, by the way), one starts thinking about that person and gives him/her a lot of space in one's mind, soon one would develop intense romantic love, which will be totally based on hormone-induced liking. A relationship entered into on the basis of such liking won't last long; since hormone-induced attraction has a definite purpose which is mating and it can (and it does) wane any time. After that, if the partners don't have other, good, reasons for being with each other, the relationship is bound to become toilsome and ugly.

It is this, hormone-induced, romantic love which is called attraction or infatuation. Since it is only based on hormone-induced liking/attraction, it is also called physical attraction. Note that physical attraction doesn't necessarily require the person one is attracted to to be sexually attractive. Who we develop hormone-induced attraction for is decided by our genes/biology, and what criteria it uses in deciding it, that science has no clue about as yet. But one thing is sure, it is not a reason based liking, and hence, not dependable.

In most of the cases romantic love is based on hormone-induced liking only. However, that doesn't mean one can not be in romantic love for good reasons. Normally there are two phases in romantic love. In the first phase, one's biology gets one attracted to some person of the opposite sex; at this stage romantic love has not yet developed. In the second phase one starts thinking about that person, and keeps that person in one's mind long enough that one's brain chemistry creates intense feelings for him/her. That's when one becomes obsessively possessed, and is said to be in deep romantic love. Unless one passes though the second phase, romantic love won't happen. And the good news is that we can control what happens in the second phase. It's another thing that most people don't control it because of various reasons, like desperation, or sexual frustration, to cite a couple. So, when the first phase happens, one has to stop and think whether there are good reasons for liking this person, or is this only a hormone-induced liking. Of course, some bit of hormonal attraction is to remain since we are so wired to have it and it's not wrong; in fact, necessary. But still we have to have good reasons too, because we are rational beings, not beasts who act only on their natural impulses. If one finds that one does have enough good reasons to like this person, one can consider it "love". Otherwise it is merely "attraction".

Trick to Understand Whether It's "Love" or "Attraction"

Here's an easy trick to quickly understand whether it's love or attraction

When your mind is getting stuck on some person, stop and ask yourself this: Would you be close friends with this person if you two were the same sex?

Do you get the logic? If the answer to the question comes a "yes", that means this liking is not a (or not just a) hormone-induced liking but there are good reasons for liking this person. If the answer to the question comes a "no", you know what it is. You are attracted to this person only because of the sex difference. That's a proof enough that

it's only a hormone-induced liking. If you want to have a short-term relationship for the fun of it then it's okay to go with it; but if you are considering a long-term emotional investment, beware, it's a bad, bad choice. Romantic Love and True Partnership (True Love) the Difference This is a sixth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. It is recommended that you read the earlier articles to fully understand whats being said here. Heres a list of articles about romantic love and related issues.

My friend Kitty wrote an article about it, and thats how I got introduced to this fabulous term: True partnership. To show what she means by it, I will quote an excerpt from her article on her blog Brave New Kitty.

When people say they want love or romance, what they really want is a true partnership, whether they are aware of it or not. People have all sorts of skewed ideas about what love is. Many think it is an all-consuming passion thats supposed to last forever, or another person who understands you completely, or someone who takes care your every need without you having to ask, or maybe never feeling lonely again. But all of these things are more about attachment than love. Yes, ideally the person youre with cares about your needs and understands you pretty well, and there should be passion, too. But strong, healthy romantic love is so much more than that. True love is, more than anything, about creating a true, equal, caring partnership with another person.

To learn about the characteristics of a true partnership read her full article.

Now, what I am going to talk about here, is the difference between romantic love and true partnership.

True partnership is not exclusive of romantic love. But romantic love itself is not sufficient for creating a true partnership.

When we are in a romantic love relationship, it is operative at two levels: Biological level, and psychological level. Though everything that we do originates at a biological level (or, is rooted in our biological wiring), we as beings-with-consciousness are primarily aware of and concerned with what we experience at a psychological level. For e.g. the happiness that a relationship gives is a psychological experience. However, not being

aware of what happens at a biological level that causes romantic love feelings will not do if one wants the relationship to last long. Thats why we understood the biological roots of romantic love (in the first article).

We learned that romantic love is basically a mating drive, and that it has nothing to do with reason. Because it is irrational at core, its not meant to last long. But since we have psychological needs from a relationship, the longer the relationship lasts, and the more stable it is, the better it is for us. Hence, we brought rationality into romantic love. I have talked about it in the second article which is titled as: How to make romantic love relationship last long (possibly for life)?

It is important to understand that our biological impulses and drives are purely animalistic in nature. Biologically, especially with regards to sexuality, we are not much different from beasts. What makes us different from them is our mind. We are different at a psychological level. That makes it necessary for us to give due respect to our psychological needs too.

From an inter-sexual relationship what we actually look for is a true partnership. But the reason why one seldom finds true partnership is because biologically we are never meant to have anything like it. The biological forces within us ruin the thing. The need for a true partnership is our minds need, and is essentially human; while our biological wiring is just like other animals.

A true partnership is much more than just romantic love. Though it is important to understand that romantic love is a mating drive; but saying that a relationship is all about mating wont be right. Yes, romantic love (mating drive) is present all along in a true partnership thats why we seek true partnership in a person of the opposite sex only but at the same time, a true partnership is more than that. Its about mutual understanding, care, sharing of passions, joys and sorrows etc. Romantic love/mating drive is present at a biological level, but at a psychological level (or should I say human level) it is serving many other of our minds needs.

Why am I telling all this? The knowledge of the conflict between our biology and psychological needs is very important. Once the relationship has reached the stage of true partnership, this knowledge serves in deciding on whether one wants to live in an animalistic way or wants live more like a human being.

Note that acting on biological impulses (animalistic way) is not wrong, because as I already said, at a biological level we are animals. But then we should ask ourselves: Are we animals at a psychological level too? Or do we have sophisticated psychological needs over and above what the beasts have? Answering it right and acting accordingly is what maturity is. Maturity, thats essential for whats probably the highest achievement of a human life a true partnership. Why Long Distance Relationships (Almost) Never Last? This is a seventh article in the series about romantic love and related issues. It is recommended that you read the earlier articles especially first and second to have a better understanding of whats being said here. Heres a list of all articles on romantic love and related issues.

In the earlier articles we understood that despite all that we feel when we are in love, romantic love is irrational at core. Its a work of our brain chemistry, and not entered into by rational decision making. Romantic love is a mating drive. The intense liking, attachment and obsession we feel under the effect of romantic love is Natures way to ensure that the couple stays together in order for the resultant offspring to have better survival chances. Its a part of the mating process.

This is a basic understanding of romantic love in brief. For a detailed explanation, refer to the first article.

There are two interrelated things that happen in our brain which trigger romantic feelings for a particular person. 1) When you have intimate fantasies (what it means by intimate fantasies, that I have explained in the first article) about the person of the opposite sex, and 2) keep the person in your mind for a sufficiently long time, your brain gets a signal to create the feelings for that person. And since theres no rational analysis necessary to fall into intense romantic love, it can happen for anyone who fulfills these two criteria. Who you choose, out of all, to have intimate fantasies about, and on what criteria, is a mystery for the science, though. But once your biology gets you attracted to someone of the opposite sex, the two criteria I mentioned have to be met before you fall into a deep romantic love. Having intimate fantasies and keeping the person in the mind for sufficiently long time are, though usually interrelated, can happen exclusive of each other too; and even then they can trigger romantic love feelings.

I said all this because its important to know in order to understand why long distance romantic love relationships almost never work

Why long distance relationships dont work?

The key to romantic love is the two criteria I mentioned above. 1) Having intimate fantasies about the person, and 2) keeping the person in your mind for sufficiently long time. Also, when you are having intimate fantasies about more than one person, the one who you give more space in your mind, will likely qualify for your romantic love feelings.

Once in a relationship, these two criteria have to be constantly fulfilled. This is where long distance makes it almost impossible for a relationship to sustain itself.

When you are living with your partner, you see him/her everyday. You both talk everyday. So whenever you have anything to share you always have your partner to share it with. Theres no need to think of someone else, more than you think of your partner. Besides, when you are seeing your partner everyday, in person, he/she gets deeper place in your mind. Every day when you see your partner in intimacy, the chemicals in the brain intensify the feelings. This way, the feelings dont get a chance to diminish beyond a point.

You see, thats the reason why in traditional wisdom of many cultures having friendships with the people of the opposite sex, outside of marriage, is not considered morally good. Theres a science behind it.

Note that I am not implying that every relationship in which the partners live together will last. Of course, it depends on maturity and understanding and all that. But here we are talking about a long distance relationship vis--vis a normal one, so I am mentioning the pluses of a normal healthy relationship, which a long distance one, even with best intentions on part of the partners, lacks.

Long distance relationship suffers from the following minuses

In a long distance relationship there are two groups of factors responsible for ending romantic love.

Weakening factors

These are the factors that are responsible for weakening the image of your partner in your brain.

It is simple to understand. When you dont see each other, it would naturally weaken the image of your partner in your brain, with time. Even though you may talk to each other everyday (yes, lets assume everyday) and share thoughts, you cant share each others thoughts and feelings to an extent you would do if you were living together. This also has a gradual impact on weakening the bond; because the bond is all about sharing of personal space. Since you dont meet each other and spend intimate time the way you would if you lived together, you would miss out on the periodic boosts to your feelings for each other, which happens when partners spend great time with each other. Not all romantic relationships are based on sharing of thoughts and interests. Quite a few of them are dependent on sexual intimacy between the partners; though, of course, the partners under the effect of romantic love would never realize it. If so is yours, then once the long distance takes it away, theres already little substance left which can hold the relationship for long.

Many more could be listed. Ill add them as they strike me.

Diverting factors

These are the factors which play a role in diverting your feelings to someone else.

When you are living away from your partner, you will look for other people to share your thoughts with; for a simple reason that you are a human being who needs expression of his/her thoughts. And the one we share our thoughts with, naturally occupies a space in our mind. In your circle you will talk to other people of the opposite sex, of course. Sexual instinct in us is always active, whether we are aware of it or not. So it is unlikely that you will not like mingling with the people of the opposite sex, when you are away from your partner. And while we are talking about only mingling, most people dont see harm in it as long as they dont make a sexual move. But heres the catch: Most people are not aware that even mingling can prove to be fatal. If you came across someone who you find even slightly interesting, your mind will give space to that person in it. It may not involve sexual fantasy, but thats still enough. In normal circumstances, it probably wouldnt have mattered; but in a long distance situation, due to the group-one factors I mentioned above, the image of your partner is already weakening; that makes it easier for this person to outlast the time your partner occupies in your mind. Once that happened, bam! Most people dont even see any harm in having sexual fantasies. People have sexual fantasies about other people even while having sex with their partner. So, if you consider it harmless and do it, there are huge chances that this new person of your fantasy will take over your feelings entirely, before you know it.

If you perfectly understand the romantic love mechanism, you would know that all it takes for your brain to create romantic feelings for some person is that you keep the person in your mind more than anyone else, and/or have intimate fantasies about the person. When even one of these criteria is met, the chances are very high that your brain will create/divert your feeling in favor of the person fulfilling the criteria. Your brain chemicals wont know that you are already in a relationship!

Even the people with strong character and best intensions are subject to these mostly inevitable perils of a long distance situation.

It may sound silly, but its not. Try going long distance for a couple of years and you will understand it. Even with best intentions, all these things happen, and that puts an end to romantic feelings. Determination doesnt work as well as we like to believe it would. Simply because romantic feelings dont come and go with reason; it often happens

without us even noticing it.

However, theres nothing wrong with keeping optimism alive. But I would say more than optimism, genuine understanding of romantic love mechanism can help. It is instructive here to read the second article in the series, titled as: How to make romantic love relationship last long (possibly for life)? Mystery Element in Romantic Love This is an eighth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. It is recommended that you go through the earlier articles to have a better understanding of whats being said here. Heres a list of all articles on romantic love and related issues.

Mystery plays a very important role in romantic love. Mystery element in romantic love refers to the state of not knowing things about the person you are hormonally attracted to. Having a mystery element makes the person more interesting; and that has a huge influence on the development and progression of romantic feelings.

Romantic love develops in two phases. In the first phase your biology gets you attracted to a certain person, and in the second phase you start thinking and fantasizing about the person and thereby give the person space in your mind. Sometimes (e.g. in cases like love-at-first-sight) the first phase is too short; but the two phases do exist nonetheless. The second phase is where intense romantic feelings develop. If one consciously avoids going through the phase two then romantic love wont develop.

Mystery element plays a role in facilitating what happens in the phase two. And it does it in two ways

Fantasizing

One of the things that happen in the phase two is fantasizing about the person you are attracted to. When you fantasize about the person, you essentially make up his/her image in your mind. And that image is invariably made up of the qualities that you would like in your partner. In the end this idealized image of the person gets impressed on your brain and that triggers the feelings for that person.

The implication is: The more you know the actual qualities of a person, the less you will have to add on your own. If the actual qualities of the person are not quite likable, you may remove the person from your mind. But if you dont know about the person at all, then its like a blank slate and your mind will paint anything on it. Your interest in the person will not fade because you dont know enough things about the person that might cause you to lose interest. Even if you know some unfavorable things about the person, as long as at least some mystery remains you will always have the inclination to stick on to the person, because your mind will always fill that undiscovered space with its own idealistic fantasies.

So, the more mystery there is, the more scope your mind has to build the idealized image of that person, which in turn gives rise to romantic feelings.

Thinking

We naturally feel more interested when something we are attracted to is mysterious, that is, if we know little about it. Like, a closed box is always intriguing; but as soon as the box is opened and we know whats in it, we lose an important thing that kept our mind glued to the box curiosity. This is also one of the reason why romantic love magic wanes after spending certain amount of time as partners. Initially it is exciting and intriguing because theres mystery. The partners are discovering things about each other every day. They keep thinking about each other all the time. But after a while of living together when they get perfectly familiar with each other the mystery no more remains. With this, they lose an important thing which kept them glued to each others minds. They lose the curiosity. As a result they occupy less space in each others thinking and that would most likely facilitate other dynamics to run, which dilute romantic love eventually.

Mystery element in virtual relationships

This also explains why virtual relationships (over the internet and phone chats) thrive despite being long distance.

In the previous article I said that long distance relationships dont last because a long distance situation robs the relationship of certain important elements that are required for sustaining the romantic feelings. A friend of mine threw this question that if so is the case, then how come people who have never even met each other, and thus have been in a long distance setting always, develop romantic love for each other on the first place. Good question it is. The answer to it lies in the mystery element. It thrives, and thrives very fast, because virtual situation offers the mystery element in a very high degree.

In conclusion, I would say that while its true that romantic feelings are negatively affected by the ending of mystery, it is also necessary for a true partnership (true love) to begin. A true partnership is much more than romantic love. A true partnership is possible only when the partners perfectly know and understand each other. In a true partnership the partners have good, rational, reasons to be with each other, which is not the case with purely romantic love. Hence, in purely romantic love when the mystery gets over, its negative; but the same is not true for a true partnership. Why Do Opposites Attract in Romantic Love? This is a ninth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. Heres a list of all articles in the series.

Theres no rule as such that opposites attract each other in love. People get attracted to all sorts of people for various reasons. But many a time we see such people getting attracted to each other who share the traits sufficiently different from each other to call it attraction of the opposites. That raises the curious question as to why the people with different nature get attracted to each other.

The question is important because it is not an ideal situation for a healthy relationship. The prime reason why romantic love relationships fail is that after the initial romantic love magic wanes, the couple is left with no real substance. They dont have common interests and passions, they dont share each others thoughts; they have different nature. These are excellent reasons for any relationship to not be. So the fact that one does get attracted to the person with opposite (i.e. largely different) traits is, well, discomforting.

Ideally the attraction should work between the people with the same traits. Thats what is

conducive to a healthy social association. Think of friendships. We make friends on the basis of what we have in common, not on the basis of what we dont have in common. The more things friends have in common the better the friendship. Isnt it? Life partnership is also a kind of friendship. So, ideal would be when the partners have the same nature. When the opposites are attracted, they cant really even form a friendship; how then is successful life partnership possible? Their relationship is only based on hormonal attraction, and would last only till the romantic love magic lasts. But of course, under the effect of romantic love people (most of them anyway) are totally blinded and incapacitated to think all this.

Back to the question: If it is not ideal for a relationship then why opposites attract on the first place?

The answer lies in our genes. The researchers in the field speculate that the reason behind people of the largely different traits getting attracted to each other is to enable genetic diversity in the species. We know that romantic love is essentially a mating drive. (Refer to the first article.) Its a trap of Nature to serve the purpose of reproduction and mating. Now suppose if I mate with a woman who is exactly like me, the offspring will not be genetically much different from its parents, which would be defying the purpose of natural selection in evolution. But if I mate with women who have the traits I lack, then the genetic pool of the human species will prosper. This is the reason our biology creates attraction between the so-called opposites. It is healthy for the overall growth of the species; albeit, at the cost of our wellbeing as conscious, rational beings!

Note that science still doesnt have definitive explanation of it. Because there are also cases in which people with the same traits get attracted to each other. So, like I said in the beginning, theres no rule as such that opposites attract. Its a very complex human behavior, which even science has not fully figured out. However, there have been experiments confirming that attraction between the people with largely different traits does exist.

To conclude: Though we do get attracted to the people with largely different traits than our own, and it can be the same euphoric romantic love experience, this attraction is not a good reason to get into a serious long-term relationship (like marriage). Such relationship, if entered into, would be subject to the perils of the irrational romantic love relationship. A true partnership (true love) is not all about romantic love. For a true partnership to develop, the partners must not be different at least at the fundamental level.

Romantic Love in Gays (Homosexuals) This is a tenth article in the series about romantic love and related issues. Heres a list of all articles in the series.

We understood that romantic love is basically a mating drive. (Refer to the first article.) A simple fact that romantic love happens only between the persons of the opposite sex is enough indication of the same.

This raises the question as to why homosexuals, then, experience romantic love. Apparently, homosexuals are not capable of mating; and if romantic love is essentially meant for mating then homosexuals should not be experiencing it. On this point, a friend of mine argued that it is animals who do romance/love for procreation, not humans; humans dont love someone (we are talking about romantic love) just to make babies!

Is he right?

First off, yes, humans dont always enter in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex with intention to make babies; because if that was so, there was no need for sexual drive and romantic love to begin with! Its pretty clear and theres a scientific consensus on it that romantic love is a mating drive, whether people are aware of it or not. Humans dont directly indulge in romantic love for procreation. People are drawn to romantic love for the psychological pleasure of it; but that psychological pleasure is an enticement; at a biological level it is more importantly Natures design of reproduction and mating thats working. Thats the very reason it normally happens between the opposite sexes.

Romantic love between homosexuals also happens out of the same underlying mechanism, of reproduction of mating. Though they are different in some apparent ways, homosexuals still have part of the same brain chemistry and biology which is responsible for romantic love. So it should not be surprising if they have the drives normal people have. But since homosexuals are the cases of hormonal imbalance, which is actually a defect (though not worthy of reproach), they can be left out of analysis of romantic love as exceptions.

Just that homosexuals arent biologically capable of mating, and still have romantic love,

doesnt challenge our understanding of romantic love being a mating drive. Heres how

Say for some birth defect a person is born with deformed fingers and is unable to hold things with the hands. In that case when we are analyzing the purpose of having fingers we will still conclude that fingers are for holding things. Just because for some people with defect it doesnt seem to be the case, that doesnt change our conclusion about the purpose of having fingers.

There are irregularities in almost every scientific study. The point of making exceptions is that they are not prevalent enough to affect or challenge the general finding.

That romantic love is a mating drive is an irrefutable fact. Homosexuals with active sexual and romantic love drives can still enjoy the sexual pleasure which is actually an incentive for reproduction and also psychological pleasure of a true partnership. Are Men Perverts or Women Irresponsible? I came across a blog post the other day in which this female was venting her anger for the male species for their certain behavior towards women; like, ogling women, making gestures of sexual nature, sexual advances, and rape. Okay. Such behavior on the part of men isn't appropriate in civilized societies. But wait a minute. She goes on to say things on the lines of if men can roam around in shorts, why can't women wear miniskirts and bikinis, and so on. You get the idea. Sounds like a valid question? If men can expose their bodies without being scared of getting sexually harassed, then why do women get the hard time! Men are perverts! Or are they?

We have been hearing things like this for years. In modern times the talks of menwomen equality pass for some wisdom. But the assertion that women can do whatever men can especially in the domain of sexuality requires deep thinking and analysis.

Men and women are not the same. It's a grave mistake to think they are. Men and women are different both biologically and psychologically which, in turn, is the reason for their different sexual behavior. Feminists (and people at large) who call men perverts fail to understand that men's sexual behavior towards women is different from women's sexual behavior towards men, not because men carry the vice of perversion and women have the virtue of sanity and control; but it is so because men and women are fundamentally different from each other, and that their behavior has an evolutionary basis rooted in their respective gender roles from the time we were monkeys.

Males are biologically wired to be sexually bold and aggressive. Females are passive when it comes to making sexual advances. It's a male's job to seduce, and female's to get seduced. A female is wired such that she won't make bold sexual moves; she is designed to act overly careful; because a female has greater responsibility to carry after the sexual act (for it's she who gets pregnant.) Hence, she would act pricey when the male makes advances. It's the male who has to make an effort to woo the female. This is the reason why males are naturally more audacious when it comes to making sexual moves. Note that ogling boobs and butts, or making sexual gestures, is considered indecency or "perversion" only in civilized human societies, because we have sophisticated means of inter-sexual interactions now. These things are not intrinsically indecent. In fact, it's the only way animals interact sexually. Even rape is a by-product of civilization.

I agree that the jungle rules can't be followed in civilized societies that we live in; besides, as we have pretty sophisticated mechanisms in place for finding mating partners, such bold sexual moves towards random women aren't necessary; and quite a few of them are even grossly indecent. However, the modern thinking and conditioning through which women are nowadays made to believe that they are same as men, and that they can do and wear anything that men can while totally ignoring the fundamental gender differences is also not such a good thing. We have not yet been long enough into the civilization to get our biology adapted through evolution to the new civilized ways of the world. When it comes to sexuality, we are still pretty much like our animal ancestors.

I am not trying to justify the indecency of men towards women. Of course, we have to be matured enough to control our biological forces, since we are no more savages living in the jungle. Women's sexual harassment by men, no doubt, should be adequately punished.

But at the same time, importantly, we must also understand the fundamental difference between the two sexes, and chuck the if-men-can-why-can't-women logic. This logic is ridiculous.

Exposing the body is for sexual attraction. In fact, at a fundamental level there's no other reason behind trying to look good but attracting the members of the opposite sex. More often than not the desire to look good is essentially the desire to look sexually attractive. When men flaunt their looks, they are trying to attract women, whether they know it or

not. And they can do it without the danger of harassment because they are physically strong. But women can't do that. If women tried acting like men, then because of their physical weakness, they are subjected to the possibility of unwanted sexual moves from men which might feel like harassment; and they know it well beforehand. This prior knowledge of the danger must make them act rationally. They can't knowingly run into the danger; that's irrational. Men have no risk in exposing their bodies. Women do have the risk. If you play with the fire, you get burnt.

This might enrage many people (especially women) who have never looked at the issue from this angle; but it's worth giving a deep thought.

Of course, we have the laws to protect the weak, and we must protect women because they are weak. But that shouldn't mean women would transfer all their responsibility to the law and keep running into the risk. Special protection must be accompanied by special responsibilities. As a weaker section of the society they are getting special treatment in the form of protection by the laws specifically meant for women. So, prudent and responsible women should acknowledge their gender vulnerability and not be sexually bold, which includes and is not limited to wearing provocative cloths, making sexually explicit remarks in public etc, which might invite the undesirable sexual moves from men. What is considered "bold" may differ from society to society.

Though it's not a perfect solution; but it's still a rational and responsible behavior on part of women. As for the perfect solution, there is none because men are men and women are women; and they are different. Expecting the same sexual behavior of them is not realistic. Education and social conditioning solves the problem on the surface; but beneath the surface it is there to remain. It's one of ills of civilization we have got to deal with at least till the evolution has it's way in changing our biology.

It's to be noted that I am talking about compromise on part of both sexes. Men have to compromise on their sexual tendencies that are naturally bolder than women's; and women have to compromise on their desire to act sexually bolder than they can physically afford. The uncompromising men should be caught by the law; and the uncompromising women will likely be caught by men (even if not literally). Asking men alone to compromise isn't fair and won't ease the problem.

Will conclude by quoting an excerpt from the article which inspired me to write this one

Either admit that women (as a class) need protection, and that they are more vulnerable to abuse. Or admit that women are equals, and that they do not need protection or special treatment. In the first case, a special right (or protection) will have to be accompanied by certain responsibilities on part of women. In the second, women can do what they want, but they had better take care of themselves when shit hits the fan. What is the Point of Truth-seeking If theres No Perfect Solution to Suffering? If you possess sufficient understanding of our existence, you would know that it is not possible to live without suffering. Some suffering is unavoidable; and even necessary. (We are talking about affective suffering; or the suffering of the mind.) What then is the point of seeking truth and going for spiritual development, one might ask, frustrated.

The point is to avoid the avoidable. Not all suffering is unavoidable. And not all suffering is even necessary. Besides, who loves the life of confusion? That is enough point.

Suffering arises on the emotional front. But the fact that we have got a brain with capacity to reason, and that it helps us to understand the causes of, and overcome, the emotional pangs, is enough indication that we are supposed to be using it to protect ourselves of the suffering. What is truth-seeking but using our capacity to reason?

Its like you cant escape the heat of the Sun. But by understanding the nature of the fire you avoid getting burnt easily.

As long as our emotional side is alive (which should ideally be as long as we live) suffering will keep arising. And ideally, at the same time, we have to keep fighting it with the weapon called intellect, or rational mind. Truth-seeking or spiritual development means using and sharpening this weapon.

When you know why theres suffering, you have pretty much conquered the avoidable lot. Then you only have to deal with the unavoidable. And that is anything but unbearable. In fact, to an aware person, such suffering is rather amusing. This will be hard to understand. But when you know perfectly why the suffering is, and that theres no escape from it, you can but laugh at the situation. Its even okay if we, then, dont call that suffering suffering at all.

Truth-seeking often starts as a quest for perfection. I would say this quest for perfection isnt futile just because perfection as one conceives it doesn't exist. Only he who seeks perfection on the first place can truly understand that it is not, and thereby come to terms with imperfection which in a way is real perfection. Is Life a Gift or a Punishment? I was having this discussion with a friend, about whether its okay to not produce a child. And he said I am a shame to even think so; that if my parents had thought like this, I wouldnt have been born. Well, I said, I wouldnt have regretted not being born.

I have no desire to bring another human life into the world, because I believe its not worth it. Life is a constant struggle, suffering by default, where one needs immense patience and perseverance in self-development in order to be able to accept the reality which, again, isnt pleasant by our definition and concept of pleasant and then start enjoying life with a radically altered perspective. In the end, yes, one who succeeds in reaching that level of awareness (which is, I am afraid, hardly 5% of the population, or even less) does manage to enjoy life with all its ups and downs; but even then the fact that it all serves no ultimate end makes this whole exercise meaningless. Thats, in short, the reason why I dont think I should produce a child, apart from the fact that I dont have the desire for it.

If there was some God (theistic one) who is by definition good, and has good plans behind everything, then that could justify the existence as it is; and that could morally bind me to produce a child. But alas, there isnt such God.

In the end, the friend said this interesting thing: If you regard life as a gift and not as a punishment, then you will want to propagate.

This raised a very, very interesting question: Is life a gift or a punishment? And I couldnt resist an urge to do an article on it, to express my view of life with regard to the question.

Is Life a Gift or a Punishment?

Ill diverge a bit here.

Suppose we humans become super-intelligent one day. So intelligent that we can make genes by using chemicals; and we can make live cells, and subsequently bacteria; and then, say, a full grown living creature. We can create all this in a laboratory just by using chemicals available to us. Science has developed so much.

We decide to build a big aquarium; with varieties of fish in it. The idea is not to build a usual aquarium; but the one which will house the fish that we create. We wrote genetic codes, designed cells and everything. We created several thousand fish in the laboratory. We designed their world in such a way that it will be self-improving with time. Meaning, we have also put in place the whole evolution mechanism. We have made their world, the aquarium, difficult to live in; so that the fish dont have easy life; because only then the system could be self-improving through evolution. The fish will have reproductive ability, of course. So, the fittest fish will mate and produce better fish by combination of good traits of the two mating fish. This way their world will go on getting more and more sophisticated, once we have done our job of creating it.

Now lets consider the question with regards to this aquarium: Is life (of the fish) a gift or a punishment?

What we as the creators of the aquarium would say? Of course, by creating this aquarium we havent bestowed any favor on the fish. We havent created them for their sake, but for our own. Are we even concerned with the fishs wellbeing? No. We have just made this self-improving living system for our intellectual entertainment; or to prove to ourselves how incredibly ingenious we have become. So, from our perspective, it would be rather arrogant to say that we have given fish a gift of life, by creating them; life, which has no real meaning, or ultimate end, for them.

What do the fish think? Well, first of all, the life of the aquarium is by default struggle; because only then the system can be self-improving through evolution. Without struggle evolution loses its point. So, the fish might rather say that life is unfair. But then because thats the only world they know and have, theres no point crying over the unfairness. So, after a while of grumbling they might think, okay, life is struggle only. Lets accept it. Then they focus on the positives of life and go on living. They may consider their life a gift because thats a good perspective. You know, if they are choosing to accept it as it is and live, it would make things easier if they thought of life in a good way; as a gift. But, thats still a make-believe thing. Isnt it? Irrespective of what they think, we the creators know the truth; that their life is for our entertainment and

nothing else. In real sense, its neither a gift nor a punishment.

We know that their existence isnt serving any meaning in the end. For all we know, tomorrow we might get bored with this aquarium and destroy it, and then create something else. The fish get the sense of meaning and purpose because so they are designed. Whatever they feel is their illusion; it doesnt matter in the real sense. The real purposes behind the aquarium are our purposes; and not for the fish per se.

Now suppose, instead of the aquarium, theres this universe; and instead of the fish, its us humans and all the other creatures; all created by some ingenious and unimaginable creator, only for some intellectual entertainment; or any other purpose of that creator.

What do you think of the question now: Is life a gift or a punishment?

As for me, I believe its neither. Life just IS. It has both good and bad elements. And since I am born, I think good elements are what I keep living for. While in the bad times, I reflect on it and wait for it to pass; meanwhile learning the lessons so that next time I make better decisions. After all, however, the struggle is inevitable; for all of us, till we die. After knowing all this I have learned to enjoy the life. Also, because I am enjoying life, that doesnt mean I am afraid of dying. Tomorrow if I come to know that I am going to die in a months time, I wont be distressed at all. I have accepted the existence as it IS, with all its pluses and minuses, and I am quite comfortable with this awareness. But still, I dont see a reason why life is gift which I should want to spread further.

Even if we have no problems with the struggle, having totally accepted it as life, whats the point of it all? The universe has no purpose for us. We only create purposes on our own so that we can enjoy living in this otherwise meaningless-for-us universe; we do it in a make-believe way. We might manage to enjoy it; but we are unable to find the point of it; unless, of course, that too we contrive in a make-believe way. I cant do that. Besides, not to be missed is the fact that not all of us can even manage to accept life as it is. Like I mentioned in the beginning, only a meager percentage of humans can actually reach the awareness after which thay can accept life as IS. Majority of people live unfulfilled; resorting to all sorts of make-believe comforts, like God, voodoo philosophies, etc. I wont even say thats bad. No, because thats how life is. Its not to be understood only rationally.

So, to regard life as a gift is a better perspective, when we are living it. It certainly helps us to enjoy life more fully. But when it comes to deciding whether to bring another life in the world, my awareness interferes.

Finally, I would say even the question whether to produce a child or not is a futile one. It doesnt matter in the end. If one has the desire, one should go ahead with it. And its equally fine if one doesnt have the desire for it be it due to the awareness or otherwise. It is okay both ways. Will Spiritual Development Bring Fulfillment in Life? Yes. Perfect awareness about the existence sure gets fulfillment in life. But wait. The question is a bit tricky.

Everyone who is going into truth-seeking (or spiritual development) has his own idea of fulfillment, which invariably is something like this: Fulfillment is when life gives you everything you want. Everybody wants endless happiness, no suffering, good relationships, great friends, success at work etc in life. People think that this developmental journey will enable them achieve all this; or at least fill their life with unending happiness. Life will become super-easy, struggle free, where no complaints remain. Thats fulfillment.

Well, the only right thing above is that no complaint about life remains; the rest is not quite true.

Fulfillment happens in two ways, if you think about it. 1) When you get what you expect and desire, you are fulfilled; and 2) When you dont expect or desire anything more than what life gives you, you automatically become fulfilled! Fulfillment coming through truthseeking and awareness is essentially of the latter kind.

An aware person knows that he cant play life, life plays him. Struggle and suffering are intrinsic to the design of the existence. Theres no end to it. Fulfillment is when one understands this and accepts life as it is, and settles on flowing with lifes current instead of building up futile expectations of struggle-free or blissful life.

I am not saying that truth-seeking wont ease the life. Sure, understanding the causes of human suffering, and knowing how everything in the world works makes it considerably easy for the aware person to navigate in the world. But even he has to bear lifes unavoidable suffering. Conquering life is impossible.

That doesnt mean a developed person wont dream, or set any goals, or live. The difference between a spiritually developed person and an ordinary person is of the underlying awareness; and not necessarily of actions. He also will have desires and expectations in life as a driving force; but with the same actions and same results as everybody else, a spiritually developed person will still be fulfilled with life. The Way Humans Are Wired Humans are not wired for marriage. We are fundamentally selfish and unfaithful. Divorce is not an abnormal phenomenon, but marriage is. This is what I thought about marriage a year or so back, which is not altogether wrong. But over the recent past the absurdity of life has got accentuated in my understanding and it's changed my philosophy a little bit.

Humans are not wired for happiness also; the way our life is made up of unending queue of desires and expectations, and constant struggle and suffering it inevitably entails. What do we do then? Stop chasing happiness? That would be like ceasing to live; because the only thing that justifies choosing to live over death is the element of happiness, IOW, the good things of life.

Just like we know that we are not wired to have sustained happiness and still living for the sake of happiness is only right, so is the case with everything else in life.

We are wired with eternally conflicting forces with regard to everything. One force creates the craving for some experience, and another force diminishes that experience, thereby eroding the joy of it, when we are having it. The reason for such tendencies lies in Nature's evolution mechanism, the sole purpose of which is to put us through suffering to refine the genes, so to speak. But what are we to do?

The best way seems to be to choose our actions based in part on rational understanding and in part on intuitions in other words, the balance of reason and instincts and expect the unexpected from life, so as to lessen the impact of "shocks" when they come. Complete abstinence from any of the innate drives will only invite misery.

Well, the desire for marriage is not innate, of course.. Romantic relationship, for that matter. Suffering of Aware and Unaware People, and the Challenge of Modernity The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned. Antonio Gramsci

Theres avoidable suffering and theres unavoidable suffering. The avoidable suffering is mainly due to our perception of the world we live in. Though its root is in our biological wiring but it is intensified by our perception of the socio-cultural-economic-etc atmosphere. It can be gotten rid of by changing or adjusting our perception.

The unavoidable suffering is totally due to our biological wiring, irrespective of our perception. Like all suffering, it has an evolutionary basis. For successful evolution, our body is wired to have certain responses to certain stimuli. It creates experiences that we in our consciousness may not like to have. But we cant help it. It is impossible to get immune to this unavoidable suffering as long as one chooses to live in the human society as normal functioning human being.

Difference between the states of aware and unaware people

Aware people are those who know the fundamental truths of existence, viz. intrinsic meaninglessness, no God, no right-wrong (amorality) etc. Needless to say, awareness wont make one immune to the unavoidable suffering. But it sure makes one free from the avoidable lot. I think the greatest miseries people suffer from, which make their life hell, can be eliminated by the awareness. However, awareness doesnt come without its downsides.

Unaware people

Experience both avoidable and unavoidable suffering The impact of both suffering is greater They cry in misery But they have the God (or goodness) and thereby eternal hope

Aware people

Experience only the unavoidable suffering The impact of suffering is minimal They can only laugh in misery (repeat, in misery) But as a big downside, they have no hope, no comfort

Although being aware or remaining unaware is not in ones hand but is determined by ones nature and myriad uncontrollable factors, I was thinking which position is better.

The biggest advantage the unaware people have is that they can always remain hopeful. Since they have the mysteries of life intact, they certainly seem to be living much more intensely than the aware people who have figured life out and have little to do now. The irony is, however, what makes their (unaware peoples) life more lively is their constant striving to live through and understand the mysteries; something that the aware people have achieved and lost their liveliness thereby!

They (the unaware people) dont know the absurdity of existence. For them, suffering is a result of some wrong committed by them and can be gotten rid of by asking Gods forgiveness. Or its something that God has planned for their good. In any case, when they are severely suffering they can go to God and take the satisfaction of having done something concrete about it. (In worst cases, they get depressed and suicidal, though.)

An aware person, on the other hand, can just sit and watch the events when the suffering is taking place; for he knows exactly why it is happening. He cant go to God or build up unrealistic hopes. Of course, he would do what he can, but he cant expect miracles. In the end, he just has to wait till it passes, without the satisfaction of having done something concrete about it. This satisfaction, which unaware people derive by praying to God, is comforting beyond measure! This loss of eternal comfort is the biggest loss the awareness entails.

However, that is not to undermine the importance of awareness. Besides, I doubt if one can consciously limit the contents of ones consciousness. For instance, when someone is suffering he needs to know the truth of it, and he will seek. If he doesnt seek he will suffer. So there, seeking awareness (truth) is only right. Where one ends up in ones seeking depends on the momentum of ones inquiry and many other factors which one cant possibly control.

Finally, looking at the costs and benefits of both the states, I am happy with my awareness. By accepting rational-irrationalism*, I am as well off (psychologically, of course) as a human can be. The challenge is well taken, I think.

--

*Rational-irrationalism is a philosophy of emotion-intellect balance, in contrast to rationalism which is totally reason and intellect oriented. As the name suggests, it is rationally accepting some irrationalities of life. I will properly introduce rationalirrationalism on this blog some time in future. Is your spirituality a key or a lock? IMPORTANT UPDATE: The following article (including the update at the bottom) is inaccurate about spirituality. The description of spirituality below is at best of my personalized version of spirituality. That doesn't entirely invalidate the article, but just to be clear, I no more subscribe to any type/version of spirituality. Philosophy, pursued in a right way, is the only way to attain wisdom.

Spirituality (truth-seeking) should come as a key to a more fulfilling life, and not lock one

out of life.

The point of truth-seeking is to be able to enjoy life more; to be happier than before. To live more fully than most people we see around.

I have earlier described spirituality as a science of happiness. But most people in spirituality (including myself until recently) are so engrossed with ending the suffering that they miss the point of spiritual development. Putting an end to all suffering wont serve to the goal of better life; because the end of all suffering will be the end of happiness too.

This is a crucial realization

End of suffering may be possible by rationally understanding the fundamental truths of existence and subsequently going the way of complete dissociation. But that, I think, would be tragic. Its like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It may free the seeker of suffering, but it would rob him of happiness and all the good things of life too.

Development should enable more living, and not thwart living; otherwise its anything but development. To not experience happiness is to not live at least not as a normal human being. And to be experiencing happiness means there will be suffering too.

All suffering is not to be eliminated. The trick is to understand suffering, and embrace it. Then its not burdensome at all. When I say getting rid suffering is possible, I would be referring to this.

Learning non-attachment is important. But staying that way for life isnt necessary. Like wearing a rain jacket is important, but equally important is not wearing it when its not raining. Because the point is not protection from life, but protection from the undesirable elements of life. The point is better, healthier life. Altruism, Selfishness, or Both? Living for others wont help. Living for the self wont help, either. The trick is to live for the self, through living for others; and that too, not always. Confusing?

Religions mostly talk of selflessness and sacrificial living. I wont say that the religious wisdom is all wrong. But the problem with wisdom is that it seldom bears good fruits when its borrowed. Religious people living sacrificial life look pitiable to me. They are always whining about how they are nice to everyone and still they are being treated unjustly by the world. Things like that. They are lonely, and God is their only true relation. That is a tragic state of being.

We are by nature selfish. Making sacrifices for the sake of it is not conducive to our psychological wellbeing. That is why most of such sacrificial religious people are perennially unhappy. They have taken sacrificial way as a moral ought. Occasionally they even cheat and live a little bit for themselves, and then go to God and ask forgiveness; as if living for oneself were some crime.

For a truth-seeker, its a good idea to start by living for oneself. As one understands more about oneself and the life thus, one would automatically see the problems arising out of selfish living (social alienation, loss of respect, loneliness etc), and the importance of healthy human relationships and working towards collective welfare. Through this journey as one develops, one would naturally feel inclined to live for others. Because then one would understand that working towards other peoples wellbeing is, in a way, securing ones own future wellbeing. In the long-run, cheerful co-existence in the social world is only possible when the members show altruistic tendencies.

But this realization has to come from within. Coming in the form of borrowed wisdom wont help.

Again, it would be a mistake to believe that altruism is THE right way. We are naturally designed with double standards, since we are directed by two conflicting mechanisms, biological instincts and intellect. That makes it necessary for us to operate with double standards, too; by being selfish when the instincts call for it, and living altruistically when the intelligence says so.

Everyone who is living by intuitions is living with double standards. Its when one becomes aware of it, and tries to become perfect, thats where one blunders. The balance of selfishness and altruism is vital. And intuitions, though not immaculate, are the best mechanism for finding the optimal balance.

The Journey and the Middle Way To live without trying to understand life is to be on one extreme; and to understand life so much that it no more remains fascinating is to fall onto the other extreme.

A perfectly healthy life is somewhere in the middle. But interestingly (and that is the problem), in order to understand this, one must traverse both the extremes.

Thats the reason why people who are already and always in the middle still dont seem healthy, contented in their life.

The trick, it seems, is to do the whole journey, understand it all, and then settle on the middle way. What Does the Middle Way Mean? And Why Is It Important? This is with reference to the previous post: The Journey and the Middle Way. On that post I received the following comment (via Google+)

Your observation is based on a false premise that it is even possible to understand life so much that it no more remains fascinating. Since such thing is not remotely possible and the world remains an inexhaustible mystery, the rest of what you say doesn't apply. We have to keep searching for more and more understanding without needing to worry about any middle path.

He continues in another comment

One has to encourage search, without needing to worry that we will come to a point where we know everything about life because such a thought is silly. Middle Way is middling way, so-so, lukewarm. To even begin to understand anything about life one needs tremendous intelligence, not any middle thing or mediocre thing. Boredom or insensitivity or delusion that one knows everything there is to know, these are totally different things.

I never replied to this person for I dont know him. (I am avoiding philosophical discussions with strangers because more often than not its a sheer waste of time.) But I sure have the explanation to give, which is very important too! Hence this post.

What does the middle way mean? And why is it important?

As it appears, this commenter still hasnt gone far enough to have reached the stage to know about the fundamental truths of life; that is, underlying nihilism and absurdity.

When you develop some understanding, you operate out of that understanding. And thats generally good. But when your understanding exceeds certain limit, that is, when you understand the fundamental nihilism, absurdity etc about life, and you operate out of it, you essentially stop living, healthily. So, after reaching that level of understanding one has to come back, set ones worldview to a lower level of understanding, which has meaning and is conducive to goals, ambitions etc, and then live. Thats the middle way.

The commenter is right in saying that the life is an inexhaustible mystery. But I mean what I said in a different way. Take the example of a clock. It is so complex a machine that it may be impossible for an ordinary person to know its each and every tiny part and understand them (horizontal understanding). But still we perfectly know and understand the overall function of a clock and its fundamental nature and purpose (vertical understanding). And its precisely because of this, that a clock doesnt fascinate us every time we look at it.

The very same thing is possible with life. Life happens through extremely intricate dynamics, which is an unsolvable thing. But at a different level, in a sense, it is possible to understand life at least so much as to lose its fascination. And its simply not healthy to operate out of that level of understanding. Too much vertical understanding of the life definitely takes the fun out of it. Any seeker would know it. Thats the reason why intellectuals (seekers/philosophers) generally appear to be enjoying things less; they know too much about certain things to enjoy them.

And since we are at it, let me clarify one more thing: People have this mistaken notion

that seekers renounce the world to seek truth. That isnt quite true. Its rather when they reach that level of understanding that they have to renounce the world because they cant keep up with the absurdity of mundane human life anymore. For them, instead of becoming a saint, the middle way is suggested. Too much understanding of life thwarts living.

I am not even saying that life is not to be understood. Heres a tricky part: One doesnt have to limit understanding per se, but after reaching there, one has to take a U-turn if one wants to live a healthy life. Again, coming back doesnt mean unlearning what one has learned; it just means not applying that understanding in the moment-by-moment living.

But this realization only happens when one reaches that extreme of understanding. Until then one keeps believing that more and more understanding is right; which is what this commenter is saying. And thats perfectly fine too; for only then hell reach there. What Is Altruism? Does It Exist? On my article Altruism, Selfishness, or Both? the commenter named Kitty said:

Altruism is usually defined as putting the interest of others ahead of your own. Therefore, I believe that, by this definition, altruism is not moral. Nor is it really possible, because people either help others because doing so truly helps them feel good about their own self, (example: someone who works in a soup kitchen to feed the homeless), or they help others in an effort to gain more power, authority, and control over their vital interests (example: a wealthy philanthropist giving large donations to his pet causes).

This article is in response to the above comment.

I think altruism is a tendency of deriving emotional pleasure for oneself by enabling the others wellbeing.

When someone derives emotional pleasure by helping others, he is being altruist. It is true that such acts of altruism are also, in a way, self-directed (to get emotional pleasure for oneself); but still I think its wrong to put it in the same broad category of

egoism/selfishness.

Egoism is when a person is only concerned with his pleasures without any regard for the effects of his actions on others wellbeing. As against this, altruism is when one finds pleasure acting for others wellbeing. And we cant deny the existence of both the tendencies; nor that they are vastly distinct from each-other. When someone helps an elderly person cross the road, it is an act of altruism; because he is accepting some discomfort (he will be late for where he is going) for the others wellbeing. To regard this act as the same as the act of selfishness because he did it to feel good for himself is not fair. It is selfishness, but of a very subtle kind; and certainly distinct enough to not be put under the same broad label of selfishness.

I read this on Harmanjits blog

The pleasures of altruism have to be separated from the selfish pleasures, because if any pleasant feeling in the mind is considered the symptom of look, what a self-directed man, then the very discussion is meaningless.

Lets say a man dies for his community, or a mother suffers from stress while bringing up her child, that suffering co-exists with the emotional payoff of doing something worthwhile, and that co-existence of suffering, stress or discomfort while pursuing something meaningful is, I think, the hallmark of altruism.

The selfish pleasures do not have suffering, stress and discomfort in that sense and they also do not have the emotional satisfaction therefore.

Also, I liked very much this article on NYTimes: Is Pure Altruism Possible? (Alternative link)

Altruism is not to be followed as a rule, of course. That would be immoral to the self. I

think that is what is implied in the above linked NYTimes article where it says: The kind of altruism we ought to encourage is satisfying to those who practice it. The balance of altruism and selfishness is vital. While egoism is easy, it is important to understand that healthy coexistence in a societal form is only possible when people show concern for communal (i.e. other peoples) wellbeing too, and not just individual wellbeing. For collective welbeing is essentially ones own welbeing for the long run.

Modernity seems to miss this point. I see that people of the earlier generations are generally more altruistic than todays generation. The reason, I think, lies in too much emphasis on modern, individualistic approach, and the fallacious categorization of all human motives under the single label of selfishness. Because when that happens, everybody gets a free pass to pursue their own pleasures without regard for others wellbeing. The result is that collective emotional wellbeing in a community or a society decreases. Why Do Good People Suffer More? Because They Are Bad Game-players! First of all, let me clarify who good people are. They are those who adhere to the wisdom which says, dont do to others what you dont like to be done with yourself, and things like that. At a more sophisticated level, good people are those who want to become paragons of righteousness; and at a highest, delusional level, those who are striving to become perfect (morally). These people always have, and always will, suffer more than the average.

Wait a minute. Its not only the good people such as those described above, but also those who are too bad who suffer more than the average. But since the bad getting bad isnt counterintuitive, it doesnt startle us to see it. What is disheartening to see is the good people suffering more than the ordinary people. Why is that?

Its simply because the Universe doesnt favor good or bad, but the fittest. The Universe is designed to favor the fittest. Remember the survival of the fittest? The only (or the ultimate) systematic and meaningful process going on in the Universe is evolution, and whatever experiences we are ever put through in life have the only ultimate goal: Evolution. But sadly, this goal is not our goal. We are least concerned with the evolution of the species. We are concerned with our own life, our own wellbeing. But that is never there in the Universes agenda.

The constant struggle that all of us are put through in life owes itself to this very conflict of agenda. Unlike other less-conscious animals, we human beings have the brain so

developed that we have come up with our own interests, distinct from those of the Universes.

The Universe is a self-improving system. A self-improving system only works through the interaction of conflicting forces. Those conflicting forces, within us, are our intellect and biological instincts. While intellect (rationality) is what makes us distinct from other less conscious animals, our biological instincts are for the most part the same as that of the other animals. We can aptly call them animal instincts.

The animal instincts are largely responsible for all the bad behavior. Sexual desire, the desire for power and domination, for greatness and superiority etc all fall under the animal nature, which is not wrong, just bad.

The intellect-driven rational mind sees that these animal instincts, when not controlled, make life miserable for us. If everybody started giving way to their animal instincts, our world wont remain different from the jungle-life. So, we should live a controlled, not animalistic, life with peace, which is advantageous on the whole for all of us. But the downside of the controlled life is that there has to be control. When we control some innate force, there will inevitably be suffering. The more good we become, that is, the more we listen to our rational mind, the more control we have to exercise; and the more control over the innate forces will bring more suffering. Something feels empty, somethings lacking, when any of our innate forces is thwarted.

On the other side, if people wont put a restraint over their animal instincts, that will also lead to suffering. Because then we would all be fighting like wild animals and it would be the physical-power-ruled world. Less conscious animals probably dont suffer (psychologically) in that life because their brain is simply not developed enough to find anything wrong in that kind of life. But since we have got this rational mind, when we would be living like wild animals, we would be aware of it; we would be aware that theres a better way to be. We would be aware that we can end this wildness and be peaceful by listening to our rational mind and striking a mutual agreement among people. This nagging awareness would make our animalistic life miserable and push us toward the controlled living.

There you see the conflict? Uncontrolled life has suffering because when everybody lives that way, no one gains. All suffer. Controlled life has suffering because control itself brings suffering.

Here the life assumes a game-theoretic nature.

What will be the win-win case? What if in the world where everybody observes highest level of control, you get a chance to live a life of very less control? (Well, because if you live totally uncontrolled, animalistic life then you will be spotted and killed by the moral society. E.g. criminals, sociopaths etc.) Say, you teach everyone morality, publicly favor morality, but secretly break the rules. So while everybody observes the morality (and is out of your way thereby) you comfortably feed your animal nature!

Smells of the very familiar double-standards? We all have seen people playing doublestandards, and probably also have whined a lot about it. Its nothing but the gametheoretic psychological approach described above. Whats even more surprising, it happens intuitively. If you introspect hard enough, I am sure you will see yourself also more or less playing the game of double-standards (if you are not very good, that is; in which case you are suffering like hell for sure). On the face of it, it looks like a repulsive thing. But the happiest of people are those who play it best and most effortlessly.

From individual level, right through the national level, those with this kind of doublestandards are the fittest, most intelligent agents for the Universe, and the Universe will favor them the most with wellbeing.

Talk about individual level. In the society with most controlled (virtuous) life everybody will believe that sex (talking about sex, for sex is the most fundamental cause of human miseries) is to be done only after the marriage, and only with the person one is married to. They will be sex-deprived all their golden age of life, and probably even after the marriage if their partner turns out unsatisfying. Suffering that is! On the other hand, in the society with least controlled life (in context of sex alone we are talking here) where everybody is free about sex it will be hard to find a lasting sex partner, just like animals. Think of how excruciating it will be when our sophisticated psychological needs (lifecompanionship, for example, which animals dont have) will not be met because people arent ready to control their animal instincts. Result: Suffering! Out of these two, of course the controlled life is more human, and has to be achieved first. Now enter the double-standard player in the controlled, moral, virtuous world. He will always talk about the importance of control, faithfulness, more-human-less-animal-ness etc, so as not to be outcast; but at the same time he will cheat wherever he gets an easy chance, and tend to keep it a secret. Of course, sometimes he will be caught and punished too, but on the whole he would live happier than the controlled people. Because wait for it

he is the fittest, most intelligent, person for the Universe; remaining in best psychological health by enjoying the best of both worlds, and propagating his genes the most by sleeping with numerous women, which is what is best for the evolution the ultimate agenda of the Universe!

Thats the reason why good people suffer more than the average. The Universe doesnt favor "good" people!

These double-standard ones are the average people who believe in God, are religious; and at the same time are not keeping from all the enjoyment that their religion denies (sex, drinking, bullying-the-weak, arrogance etc). They talk of virtues, but have not the strength (rather, willingness) enough to live up to the highest of them. They talk of ideals, but when caught doing the wrong, plead by saying they are just humans, imperfect, what to do. They wont advocate animalistic life, but cant resist it too. They sin, for they are only humans, and then they confess it to God and thats it. Go on living repeat. Getting the picture? See the average human being around of you?

These people are not wrong; just bad (in the eyes of a controlled, virtue-adherent good human being). Bad, by our definitions of good and bad; which are fundamentally flawed because they arent in accord with the Universes design, but with our own purposes (like struggle-free life) which, sadly, cant ever be served; because strugglefree life means the doom for the evolution! Our world cant function regardless of the Universes agenda. Our goals, hence, are eternally to be in conflict with the Universes way of functioning.

--

Note that this is a very, very complex issue to talk about. In this article I have simplified it to a great extent. The actual amount of thought-data in my mind is much greater than I have tried to put down here.

Will conclude with some random thoughts I have had recently that are relevant to the subject

Everyone whos living by intuition is living with double standards (just like Nature

itself). When one becomes aware of it, and tries to become perfect, thats where one blunders. Life happens through imperfection. Perfection is death. One should be intelligent enough to form ones principles and wise enough to know they can be broken at times. When the ugly guy stares at a woman, he is pervert; when the hot guy does, he is interested. Best marriages are found in the society where Best marriages are found in the society where

People arent obsessed with moral perfectness (although they advocate it in public) Unfaithfulness/adultery is considered a sin Divorce is a move unthinkable, and Both husband and wife have occasional (or frequent) extramarital sex (and/or fantasies) and never let each other know about it; and instead go to God and beg forgiveness, and go on living

maybe, because thats what the Universe wants. Happiness as the Goal of Life Right or Wrong? The idea of happiness as the goal of life needs some analysis.

The goal of life should not be happiness. The goal of life should be to make the best of it. One is said to have made the best of life when one is totally satisfied with the way ones life is.

Living for happiness in every moment is a recipe for disaster. By self-indulgent living you may be able to get happiness for yourself in every moment, but that happiness will invariably be fleeting and insecure. Secure and lasting happiness comes out of doing something worthwhile.

Worthwhile things are those which also include the interests of the community of which you are a part. It means genuinely being useful to others, instead of using others. You can use others for your happiness and be harmless at the same time; but still thats not a worthwhile living if you are not contributing anything toward the overall wellbeing of the community.

Now this is a subtle point. There are many ways in which one can be useful to others (i.e. by enabling collective wellbeing) without even realizing it. Remaining faithful to ones spouse is one example of worthwhile living; which happens at some cost to the self, as one has to turn down the prospects of greater happiness which present themselves moment to moment. The payoff of faithfulness is realized in the long run. It wont be in the form of the happiness one has passed up by not being unfaithful. The happiness of this payoff is of a different nature. Its in the form of calm and lasting sense of satisfaction from life.

Not being promiscuous before you find a commitment-worthy partner is also a type of worthwhile living; even though you may not solidly realize it. Because it shows strong will which is, in turn, an indication of reliability. This, apart from giving higher wellbeing to your partner when youve found one, increases the general wellbeing of the community; for the presence of such strong-willed individuals will enable trust in the people. In the society where many people are of loose character, people find it hard to trust others, and tend to be more anxious, and thus, less satisfied.

The first example is indicative of the behavior by which the others (ones spouse) wellbeing is directly looked after; while in the second example the general wellbeing of the community is indirectly being contributed to just by being good. But these are just examples. I use sexual behavior for such examples because sex has better connection with happiness and suffering than anything else. And what I said there is, of course, not necessarily to be strictly followed as a rule in every situation. The point to be understood is, trying to fill every moment with happiness (that characterized by excitement) for oneself is quite often screwing ones long-term prospect of happy (in the sense of contentment) life.

The good feeling of satisfaction that arises out of worthwhile living is not without a reason. The subconscious logic is that when one lives with due regard to others wellbeing, one is respected and cherished as a person by the community. Being respected is the key to the high-quality happiness. Now one may scoff at it saying it is but selfishness in disguise; but then since you have the self, this subtle kind of selfishness is healthy and rather essential, and not bad at all. That you take on some

discomfort for the greater good (of collective wellbeing), even though at a deeper level it is going to benefit you, is altruism at its best.

Having a satisfactory life over a long period of time (not in moment to moment evaluation) is also generally called a happy life. In that sense if one means that the goal of life is to make a happy life then its fine. But if the goal-happiness means every moment one has to pounce on what brings one the greatest pleasure, without any regard for anything or anyone else but oneself, thats a myopic and nave approach to happiness. He who lives like that is in a huge need of good luck.

Direct pursuit of happiness is a narcissistic one. More than being happy, it is important to have a virtuous life. And the happiness it will generate as a by-product will be the happiness like no other. Friendship Day Joke Sharing a joke that just happened.

Yesterday it was some friendship day. I received a friendship text from a friend, tagged with Happy Friendship Day. You get it. Its a friendship day wish carrying some wordsof-wisdom.

Since I dont believe much in the wishing business, I dont generally reply to such texts, and rarely, if ever, send one when I absolutely have to. I saw this one and ignored it.

This morning I happened to meet this person. And shes upset (not really, just feigning), because I didnt reply to her text. Says I dont consider her a friend. Well, whether I do or do not, thats not the issue here, okay. I asked her what the message was. I mean, what exactly was written in the text. And guess what, she doesn't know! (Isnt it a WTFmoment?)

No wonder, I say to myself, people blindly forward any texts they receive. Who keeps account of which texts one forwards to whom! Ah, but they expect responses as if they have sent you something they wrote in their blood! I am pretty sure that even if I had replied after a few hours sending the same text I received from her, it would have done!

Anyway, I went through my inbox and fetched the text and showed it to her.

It read

Friendship is not about spoken words, but meanings. A true friend always understands you even when you dont have the words to speak. Happy Friendship Day!

I couldnt help laughing. I too actually read the text now! Beliefs I don't believe in God But I want to. I need beliefs, I do. Just going by the facts I don't even exist. But I want to.

--

This poem is about the importance of beliefs in life. Goes out especially for all the hyperrational truth-seekers. On Absurdity It's useless to strive for the answer And boring to live otherwise. If only there was God and the heaven above Maybe it would all have been worthwhile.

--

A poem about absurdity of life and the need for God. On a positive note, one can make it all worthwhile by assigning one's own meaning to life and living passionately for it. A Prisoner of Life Sharing the lyrics of an awesome song I came across in the movie called Short Cuts. The movie isn't recommended though.

Here goes the song

If you're looking for a rainbow You know there's gonna be some rain

One minute You're filled with happiness Next minute there's nothing but pain

When you're a prisoner And I'm a prisoner I'm a prisoner of life

One day your man is here The next day he's walked out and gone But no matter what happens You simply somehow gotta carry on

When you're a prisoner

And I'm a prisoner I'm a prisoner of life

Life's good It's bad It's somewhere in between

But it's the unexpected And the uncertainty That keeps us going

You know what i mean

Yesterday you owned the world The next day the world owns you

One day everything's a lie The next day you swear it's all true

That's what happens

When you're a prisoner And I'm a prisoner I'm a prisoner of life

Being Productive and Feeling Good in Life

One of the keys to feeling good in life is being productive.

What does it mean by being productive? And being productive in what?

Productivity can be in anything through which you can earn value in peoples eyes. If you are doing something by which you are getting peoples respect and admiration, for whatever reason, then you are being productive at it. The reason is that respect and admiration only come when people perceive value in you. You may or may not be actively serving people.

You may be very skillful at playing video games, but that will likely not get you social recognition, IOW, respect and admiration. But if you have a high educational qualification, chances are much greater that you will be respected by the society. Why? The society sees the latter to be of more value. Again, it depends on how you are using your qualities. If you are in possession of a very reputable degree but arent doing anything with it then probably you wont get as much recognition as you will if by using it you get yourself a high profile job. In short, society as a whole has ideas of what is good and desirable, and certain expectations from an individual. And based on how the individual fares on those expectations, his or her social status is formed.

Any activity that can raise your social status has scope for productivity; that is, you can bring productivity into it. The concept of productivity doesnt apply to any activity that has no bearing on your social status. Being productive means getting positive results of your actions in terms of social recognition. If you are doing something that you think is great but isnt going to positively change the way how people perceive you, and thus isnt raising your social status, you are not being productive.

Its not as simple as it looks so far though. Heres the complex part. Sometimes, say, you are doing something great, which is going to get you recognition on a big scale; but the thing is, people will only see it when you are done with your task. Furthermore, since people have no clue of what you are up to while you are engaged in your pursuit, people actually think you are doing nothing and see you as a failure. That actually negatively affects your social status. Is it, then, negative productivity? Well, for the moment, yes. But is it?

So, you see, being productive is not a smooth function. I would say, in cases as those

described above, its like talking a run-up before a big leap. You actually are going backward for the run-up. It can have negative psychological payoff in form of loss of social status, for sure. But in the long-run the effect will be positive, if you succeeded in the leap. So, in such a case if you are not feeling good in life then you have to save your social status by informing people about your position and what you are doing; or if thats not possible, compensate for it by demonstrating your other qualities in the meantime to project on others your worthiness. Get productive in something.

Another complexity is: whose recognition you care about. The society is formed of all sorts of different people. If you are highly intellectual, but living among dumb people, you will not get recognition even though you may be highly valued in the intellectual class. Say, right now you dont have reach to the intellectual class of the society. In that case, are you being productive by pursuing your intellect-intensive tasks which no one understands? Seems like not, again. Such complexities are always to remain. You have to find a suitable way out. Most of the times, only for a short while you have to bear the negative payoff, which is called the struggle period, before you eventually hit the target. But some times, it may even need a complete reassessment of your plans and priorities. I think it would depend on for how long you can endure the negative payoff. Only you can decide it for yourself.

The point is this: At any moment, the lesser the recognition from others, the worse you will feel in life. Thats a fact of life.

Respect and admiration of the people will weigh in proportion to how those people are valued. There again, valued not necessarily by you respecting them back, but by their powerfulness in affecting your mental states. Losing respect of one person valued, say 50 points, is equivalent a loss to losing respect of ten people valued 5 points.

We all need other peoples acknowledgement of how we are, in order to feel good in life. And it comes through their recognition. The human mind craves it as much as the body craves sex, or even more. Imagine you are alone and no one knows that you exist. I bet you will not feel good in life even if you have every luxury of the world!

Back to productivity. Productivity means (in context of this topic) such results of your actions that elevate you in the eyes of the society.

Whether we like it or not, we are wired with such tendencies. Evolutionarily speaking, getting recognition in ones community betters ones survival chances. The feeling good there is a psychological incentive for us to act in a way that increases our survival chances. When you are totally out of touch with people, you dont feel good even if you have everything; thats also because being left apart from other members of ones species affects negatively ones survival chances. These are the mechanisms through which our biology ensures we fulfill the evolutionary goals of the Universe.

Mainstream spirituality teaches how to live without any kind of attachment with the world; with material world as well as people. I think you can totally be non-attached if you try hard enough (I have been there), except that then the life is so dull that its hardly appropriate to call it living.

Do not disregard the society.

Live, and be productive. And life will feel great.

-Contentment Amongst Chaos This post is written by Steve Knowbody.

At times, life can be frightening, lonely and confusing But inner contentment will always arise and settle you as you realize/remember that suffering is 'nothing personal' and just simply is the way of all things in nature. Our bodies consist of elements of nature, which are subject to natural law aka chaos. Nature does not 'decide' what is good or bad, right or wrong, or positive or negative. It just pushes itself forward in an 'endless' expansion by means of natural growth processes (which can be quite painful for any sentient being to be a part of). It is only in our minds that anything has any 'special meaning' to it which can be a bit odd to think of at first, especially when talking about the concepts of things like names, pride, rights, etc. It is not systematic until we 'capture' it through our senses and process it in our minds. It is just particles colliding in a constant flux. It is not 'personal' at all.

So just know that any form of organization in the world is make believe (made up in the mind of people, and not real unless we choose to acknowledge it or don't know better

to not) and serves no purpose unless we want it to. This is the view of an enlightened being. (It is so amazing how the enjoyment of life increases as disillusionment takes place in your mind!)

I first learned of the indifference of nature from reading "The Open Boat" 2 years ago, in which men are tormented by their closeness to death from incessant ocean waves crashing into their tiny rowboat for a long period of time after being shipwrecked and forced off of their larger vessel (Talk about Struggle! it's a true story too). Nowadays I keep nature's indifference in mind, of course at times of tribulation, but also at any other moment to fully experience the joy and contentment that I feel my life is for (by my choice). Again, I would like to make this especially clear Indifference does not imply any lack of enjoyment in life. In fact, it makes everything in life more enjoyable because negativity does not affect you anymore, nor can it taint the beauty of positive experience any longer.

I would never choose to suffer, so I learned to be indifferent to nature as it is to me (because I am nature. If I thought any other way, I would be insane!). So if instead of focusing on avoiding suffering, I focus on my own development and enjoyment of life then I will have ample positivity to share with the world. Otherwise, I will exhaust myself and have nothing positive to share and become bitter and resentful of my squabbles. This latter is not the path I would choose for myself, so I shall not walk it one more step. Instead I will maintain my enlightenment, and my life will be full of contentment amongst chaos.

If I have one piece of advice to all you pain bodies out there, it is this:

Don't be afraid of new ideas, they can save your life. Believe to Live First, accept That you can't live without love. Now, When they say they love you Believe it Without looking too closely into it.

For otherwise You'll discover that everyone in the world, Including yourself, Is so ruthlessly selfish, And loves no one else but oneself. And you'll not want to live.

--

"Love" is meant as in goodwill and empathy of people. And the last line embodies a thought that choosing to live without love is not living, and doesn't literally mean wanting to die. Although that's also a possibility, depending on how much closely one looks at life. Because the closer one looks, the more bereft of meaning one will become in life. If one can help it, one must, before it's too late.

Goes out for hyper-rational truth-seekers. Rationality Versus Intuitions The only absolute knowledge attainable by man is that life is meaningless. Leo Tolstoy

Best solutions to lifes most intricate problems lie in following your intuitions.

This thought came to me as I realized that philosophy does not have the answer. The ultimate solution philosophy offers is suicide. Not out of depression, but out of the knowledge of the absurdity and meaninglessness of life.

Rational/philosophical development sure makes us less stupid and thus enables us dodge the suffering that we might otherwise run into out of excessive stupidity. But not all of the lifes suffering has the solution in philosophy. Too much rational inquiry ultimately leads to the philosophical dead-end.

Having a sound approach in truth-seeking is going beyond rationality, to include the fickle nature of our mind also in our Truth. Our mind doesnt operate with perfect rationality. It is subject to the forces of natural instincts within us, which serve the purposes of Nature; even those purposes of Nature which are beyond our goals as humans. So, many of the things that we feel may be irrational for us (being counterproductive with regards to our goals), but they are rational from Natures point-of-view (serving Natures evolutionary goals). For us, feeling those things means suffering. But its an unavoidable suffering.

Trying to find the solution to this suffering will be to no avail. To keep looking for the solution is to keep fighting with Nature. Not working.

Instead, Nature has to be understood, and accepted. Understanding Nature and giving in to it can also be seen as extended rationality. I call it rational-irrationalism. Meaning, rationally accepting irrationality in life because we rationally understood that rationality isnt the answer!

Intuitions are like Natures voice. Reasoned thoughts are our own rational minds voice. We have to listen to both. Since our rational minds endeavor is towards human goals, we want to give priority to our rational mind, because we are humans. But there are situations in life where our rational mind isnt capable to take a decision, the one that would get us the most wellbeing. At that moment, instead of feeling distraught and lost, it will do good to listen to intuitions. That would mean flowing with Natures current. Nature loves it. And Nature rewards it well. There isnt a thing called perfect solution, but in those situations, its as close to perfect as it can get.

Rationality tells that life is meaningless. Intuitions never will, because Nature wants us to live.

Only dont forget our human goals, because human goals are not exclusive of Natures goals since we are also a part of Nature if that makes sense. If it doesnt, thats not a big problem.

--

Intuition: A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning. Spiritual Enlightenment Is Precarious Dear Osho and other spiritual gurus,

Its very easy to feel you are enlightened and make people believe it, when you have numerous fans and followers and you are doing well financially. But honestly, its always precarious.

You may be free of attachment in your head, but your soul still craves human attachment. If the day comes when you lose all worldly recognition and no one knows you exist, that will be the day you will experience all the unavoidable suffering just like any ordinary human being. Or even worse, since you will then be bereft of your spiritual edifice.

I hope you are already aware of this. Because I would rather like to believe you are intelligent and smart, and just playing the world, than to think you are deluded.

Sincerely,

Your ex-follower

--

*Spiritual enlightenment: Attainment of everlasting bliss. A final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering.

I have written it in present tense for it sounded more effective to me. I know Osho is dead, but there are many others alive. Life Versus People

Life is not good. Life is not bad. Life is somewhere in between. You know what I mean.

Life is by default suffering. And different people manage through life in their own different ways.

Some people keep whining all the time.

Some people delude themselves that they have got the wisdom and start preaching others.

Some keep fighting life till they die finding answers.

Some accept the defeat and submit to life.

Some people believe in God and think everything happens for a reason.

And some people do more or less all of the above at different times throughout their lives.

How to Write a Philosophical Essay Without Even Realizing It Do you have lots of thoughts in your head that you want to express by writing but youre unable to write? Here I will share how I learned writing philosophical essays.

First, dont think about writing an essay. You dont want to write an essay. Now, pick a thought from inside your head and write it down in one or two lines. It should be very easy to do. Anyone can write just a couple of lines on whats going on inside ones head. Make sure that here you put down the core idea thats swirling in your head.

Say you are considering writing about friendship, based on the recent thoughts you have had on friendship. You must want to write about it because you think you have had a

significant insight on the matter. So, ask yourself what that insight is. The idea is to get straight to the core of the matter. This core idea or insight you have to state in one or two lines.

For example, suppose from your recent experiences and philosophizing you figured out that a friend in need is a friend indeed. This is the insight that you have got, which you want to write about because you consider this insight significant enough. This is the core idea, or thought, or insight in the essay that you will be writing. Write down this core idea in as short as possible. In this example, of course, it will be: A friend in need is a friend indeed.

Dont yet think about writing an essay.

Make up an imaginary friend (or you can also imagine your real friend) and show him this short thought you just wrote down. Now imagine that he doesnt understand what it means, and asks you to explain it. This is an imaginary conversation going on inside your head with your imaginary friend. Since you have had this insight, you sure know what experiences you have gone through to arrive at this insight. When you express some thought to your friend and he asks you to explain it, how do you go about explaining it?

Start explaining it to your imaginary friend.

When you are done explaining it to the friend in your head, write down everything that you just said. Alternatively, imagine a friend who lives far off and you are communicating through email. In this case, instead of talking to him you will have to write an email to him, explaining your thought. Write an email to him and explain your thought.

AND BEFORE YOU REALIZE IT, YOU HAVE WRITTEN YOUR ESSAY!

I have written most of the articles on this blog either talking to myself, or imagining talking to a friend. Some articles I have literally copy-pasted from the real emails I wrote to my real friends. Of course, you can give finishing touches before making a final draft,

but that is not at all difficult once the main task is accomplished.

Earlier I used to find it very difficult to write articles around my thoughts. Because when you are conscious that you are writing something important, you tend be overcautious, and that doesnt allow you to write satisfactorily at all. At least with me that was the case, I figured.

Then I started this thing: When ever I would get some thought or insight I would note it down mostly as a one-liner. When I want to write an article I pick one thought, and do what I just described above. Quite a lot of times I end up writing an article that pleasantly surprises me. And whats amazing, I dont even realize I am writing an essay till I have written it! Modernity and the Fate of Marriage Its to be enjoyed till it lasts and let go of when it stops working This is what we hear today when ask people about their take on relationship. And by relationship I dont mean a fling. I am talking about the one where people seriously consider a life-companionship. Stops working is a new idea. Gone are the days when marriage meant a life-long companionship. This modern mindset indicates dwindling faith in marriage, and that calls for contemplation on the future of marriage.

If I ask my parents (or the generations prior to them) whether marriage should be enjoyed till it lasts and whether divorce is okay, they would lament at the modern thinking. For in their traditional conditioning such a thought was totally absent. And miraculously, almost all marriages worked! Well, by worked if we are to mean perfect, then no. Perfection is nowhere! But somehow, they lived a stable life which was beneficial for the children, family, thereby themselves, and the society as a whole.

So what happened? After some reflection, this is what I arrived at

Modern people are not to be blamed for having the enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset. Actually, I also cant but hold the same view! But still the matter is worth looking into. Its todays social milieu social structure coupled with conditioning being received from mass media that has made life-long relationships almost impossible.

Our earlier generations were raised with different conditioning. Divorce or separation

was unthinkable for them. Not because the society would disapprove it. But because people were so conditioned that however problem-filled their marriage is, they just wouldnt think of divorce, because its ingrained in their minds as something unethical. And just in the same way, marriage was real seriously considered a sacred and musthave element of life.

Besides, and importantly, earlier marriages were not about sex and passion (romantic love), but more about providing social companionship and security, which was a farsighted arrangement. Romantic love was not even considered a good thing, because it is impermanent, and hence shouldnt be the basis of marriage. (Understand more about romantic love.)

But as humanity developed, science and philosophical developments started challenging many of the religious views (this is around 17th/18th century) and in the era which is called enlightenment era, the power of religion over peoples lives began to dwindle. With lessening power of religion, the traditional wisdom (which is mainly propagated by religion even today) started to become weaker by the day, and people received freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is a good thing, but as an offshoot of this development, humanity lost something called moral uniformity, and far-sighted wisdom.

Earlier there was single moral code, which was pronounced by religion, and religion made sure that it is adhered to by the society. Sex before marriage is sin. Romantic love is sin. Adultery is sin. And those sins were severely punished too. So, people had no choices at all. It was both good and bad. Bad, because people had to repress their biological passions; good, because in the long term, this system made sure that humans got their human needs (comprising of social contracts and security) fulfilled safely without screwing their life of long-term by giving in to their animal instincts in the shortterm. Dont take the term animal instincts in wrong way. They are not bad in that they are innate to us, but are not productive with regards to the long-term human goals. We are communal animals, not savages. We cant thrive by indulging our animal instincts alone without being socially bound.

I tend to think that that system was on the whole good. Because, wise as they (wise men who must have formed the traditional wisdom) seem to be, they did not condemn romantic love and sex totally. After the marriage people could have it with their partner. So they provided a model for living marriage and family which has provisions for everything humans crave; from sex and security to meaning in life (in the form of ones own family). Just imagine if people cant sustain marriage and split every time their passion is gone (and it goes) what would happen to the children, and what would give

people the meaning and motivation to live when they are past their youth and lonely! As communal animals we need genuine companionship. Genuine, meaning which has basis better than or in addition to sex. (No, romantic love is far from genuine basis.) So just try having a thought-trip and you may understand how thoughtfully crafted the whole traditional system was.

What about romantic love then, one might ask. Most people I meet believe that (romantic-) love conquers all. I too would love to believe that. But its no mystery anymore (not because I am saying this) that romantic love conquers all is a myth. Theres plethora of research and material (scientific as well as philosophical) if you dont want to believe my experiences screaming of it being a myth. Romantic love has a definite purpose in nature and it wanes in almost all cases. The real love in a relationship is like what best friends share. Respect and empathy. Thats what true love is, and that is the essence of marriage. Not the euphoric passion. And to be in marriage, even after the passion of sex/romantic love is gone, is in a way, being giving hence, its said that true love is about giving. And its a pity if one cant see the mutual gain that comes as a result of this giving a life-partnership.

What happened is that the traditional system started losing its ground and people became free of religious morality and the fear of God. With further advancements religion also lost the power to punish people for their sins. So, even though God remained, Gods teaching is gone. Now people are free to act on their animal instincts (romantic love falls under that part, because its basically a mating drive, and hence aptly to be called sexual desire of a very subtle kind) freely and take their decisions without depending on morality given by religion. And freedom of thought has ensured that every one has ones own philosophy as to what is right and wrong in these intricate matters involving a trade-off between fulfillment of ones sophisticated human needs and ones needs as an animal.

Since we are also animals the animal nature is not bad, as I already said above. But for that matter the traditional system did have provision for the fulfillment of animal nature by allowing the sins after marriage. At the same time, by condemning adultery, they also made sure that human needs are fulfilled. Thus, in a way, it gave everything but perfection, which is a chimera anyway.

As against this, since masses have taken charge of their social interactions in their own hands, we see what has happened. Sex is almost restriction-less in the modern societies. (As a youth, I am happy because of this.) But in the long-term people have more hectic life. Children have hard time adjusting to their changing parents. People

need shrinks, anti-depressants, and alternatives to provide meaning in life consumption, for example. People today are more obsessed with material and superficial things gadgets, style, career, wealth than with the things with essence like family, friendship. Families are hard to create and maintain, because marriages are as a norm based on romantic love; so when the romantic magic wanes (because it has to) the basis of marriage is gone and people conclude its not working. And real friends are hard to make because since everyone has now got a free pass to indulge their animal nature, romantic and sexual pursuits leave little time and scope for creating other meaningful relationships with human beings. (Talking about general condition, mostly observed in young people aged under thirty-five.) Earlier, people used to feel the guilt even at having thoughts of sex. Feeling of guilt is not healthy, right, but important is to note that it was being compensated by the great feeling of being morally right, because so was their conditioning.

So who is to blame?

No one. Its just a part of our evolution, I think. Because the developments that eroded the power of religion were not all bad. Science developed, and many axiomatic teachings of religions came under scientific scrutiny; thats not necessarily a bad thing. Besides, I havent mentioned that religion was in many ways corrupt and oppressive too. The new findings and increased human knowledge just rendered religious teachings outmoded. So, on the whole, it was natural that the power shifted away from religion.

But unfortunately the new social structure which these good and natural developments were to bring about was to strip humanity of the ingenious arrangement of having a meaningful and secure life in the long-term.

Not that humans today cant have it. But only the very intelligent people can manage it; mainly because we dont have moral uniformity now. People are free to have their philosophies and their own ways in life. And theres no guilt mechanism in place for following ones own whims. Again, this freedom is not a bad thing per se, but its just come with a cost.

What has happened seems like a very natural course of evolution of the humanity. Sooner or later this change had to happen. Environments change, and creatures have to adapt. Its a painful process, but so its always been. Thats evolution.

Marriage seems to have become outmoded in todays milieu. With passing of time, it seems, humans will become less emotional and more practical in this area. The evolved man will be comfortable without the security of marriage and family. Or so we hope. Advice on One-night-stand (and Fuck-buddies, Fling etc.) Use and throw approach extended to people is called one-night-stand (and fuckbuddies, fling etc.)

In one-night-stand people are like disposable battery. Being fuck-buddies isnt better. With fuck-buddies its like a multiple-recharge battery. Usable for a longer time, but disposable nonetheless.

Its not wrong to have one-night-stand or being fuck-buddies, but when you are going for it, be aware of what it is. When sex is at the center, you are in for more than you know. For romantic love is closely connected to sex. Those believing (romantic) love and sex are totally separate things are delusional.

It is very likely that you will develop romantic love for the partner after a few orgasms. Even one-night-stand has that possibility depending on how great it is.

Here the complication is.

(BTW, I will use the term romantic fixation, rather than love. For romantic love is anything but love. At best, its an illusion of love. In true sense, its but mating drive.)

So, when romantic fixation happens, it would make you an emotional slave of the person of fixation. And with it comes whole lot of expectations going beyond those of your animal nature. These expectations thus wont be about sex alone, which was your original bargain; but will extend to wider social contract.

Even romantic fixation alone is not an ideal basis for meaningful long-term social contract. 1NS, fuck-buddies, fling is worse.

Being deserted or getting dumped in that state (having expectations following romantic fixation) will feel terrible. If you fully understand this and are ready for the same, go ahead.

When going for either of those, know that you are disposable. And disposables are not valuable beyond their use. And since it is indulgence of animal nature it goes without saying that you will be ruthlessly used (including deceit and emotional manipulation) by the person to his/her advantage. So when that happens it shouldnt come to you as a surprise. Or you are too nave.

Expect loyalty and have yourself alone to blame. How Religion Is Better than Humanism No, I am an atheist.

I used to believe, just like most other active atheists, that religion is redundant. But now I dont think so. I think religion is necessary. I am not advocating any particular religion. Religion as in the system of morality based on God is necessary. The world needs God.

Humanism is a doctrine that emphasizes a persons capacity for self-realization through reason. It says that we can understand what is right and wrong using our own intelligence and base our living on true understanding of the world we are living in, with the aim of maximizing human welfare. Its obviously rejection of religion in that religion is non-rational and thus outmoded by the current levels of human knowledge, following scientific developments. (Eg: Theres no God.)

The argument I hear from Humanists and other active atheists which I also seconded until recently is that morality implemented by religion does not reflect true moral development of people. Religious people are acting morally not because it is right, but because they fear Gods punishment or because they want to go to the heaven, not hell. Fear and greed are the tools used to keep people under control. It is imposed morality. True morality is that where a person has a choice to act either ways, and s/he chooses to do the right thing because s/he wants to do the right thing.

Those are rational, fair points. I totally agree that true morality is that which comes

through real understanding, and not that which is forced upon.

But the point is, all humans are not intelligent enough to understand true morality. Existence of various laws is a proof of it. If all humans understood what is right and what is wrong by philosophical development and self-realization, there should be no crimes in the world.

I am interested to know whether Humanism allows for the laws. Because the system of laws-and-punishments is the same as religion. Here also people are behaving well because theres a fear of punishment. If the traffic police disappear for a day it will be interesting to see the chaos on roads not to mention what would happen with regards to more serious crimes in absence of laws and punishments. So you see people are anyway being regulated through fear-and-punishment mechanism. What do these Humanist-atheists have to say about that?

I believe if it is okay to regulate the behavior of the masses through laws-andpunishments mechanism, it is okay rather better to let them be controlled by fear and greed of hell and heaven, directly coming from God. Why is it better? Because religion provides the guilt mechanism. When a religious person does something wrong out of temptation to do so, s/he at least feels that the wrong has been done. At least those religious people who truly believe in God have it clearly spelled out to them what is moral and immoral. Over time quite a few of them, I see, develop a comfort level with their God, and then do wrong, and then out of fear apologize to their God and go on living. But having some guilt is better than having no guilt.

Where there is no God, there is no guilt. In the realm of Godlessness, morality becomes a subjective thing. A religious person, upon causing harm to someone will apologize, or rationalize it, to his God feeling some guilt. But a non-believer, upon breaking a traffic rule, wont feel any guilt. S/he will feel regret only if caught and punished. Not otherwise.

Or for arguments sake, lets say religious people also dont feel any guilt or regret and are the same as non-believers. Then too, the main fact remains: That both classes, after all, need to be regulated by force. Existence of laws means morality is imposed. And I dont think laws are ever to become redundant. Where is the true morality based on rational understanding of the world then? And how is abolition of religion to bring about true rational and moral development in masses?

They are two separate things. When a person is truly philosophically and morally developed, s/he will automatically stop needing religion and God. I do not believe in religion/God. But I think bashing religion and God is such a stupid waste of time and energy! This philosophical development happens when a person has the inclination for it. If one is forcefully deprived of religion and God, one may rather become dysfunctional and spiritually crippled. Militant atheists are criminals, in a way.

Back to Humanism. The proponents of Humanism seem to assume the masses to be highly intelligent. Not only philosophically advanced, but also developed in psychology, sociology and spiritual matters, to be able to understand on their own as what is right and wrong with regard to maximizing human welfare. Of course, that sort of development is totally desirable. My own endeavor is the same. But the truth is, masses are not that intelligent. Only a fraction of population (1% maybe) is actually that advanced. So it seems to me that the doctrine of Humanism is a utopian ideal.

Religion provides a single moral center of gravity (which is essential for social order) which I doubt any other Godless system can achieve. Humanism is superior at an individual level. But at a mass level, I think, religion is the most appropriate system.

I have not talked about the evils of some religions (oppression and terrorism etc) which I am not unaware of. So please do not raise those points in the comments. To banish God on account of those evils is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

-Traditionally-arranged Marriage Vs Marriage Based on (Romantic) Love This post can be regarded as a postscript to Modernity and the Fate of Marriage.

Maybe all traditionally conditioned people married primarily for having a partner for life. So was their conditioning. They were conditioned to see in it the meaning of life in having a partner, and raising a family. Not that they didnt crave passion, but it was not spoken about overtly. It was always taken to be secondary. After the marriage their longrestrained passion would be unleashed; and when it would subside, that wouldnt jeopardize the marriage. For marriage for them held a much greater meaning.

I believe, in the long-term, whether it is marriage based on romantic love or an arranged one, it makes little difference in the area of passion. Because passionate romantic love wont last anyway. After the passion is gone, whats the difference between traditionallyarranged marriage and a modern love marriage? The difference is that love marriages are prone to result in divorce because modern people are free minded we will find another partner to fall in love if this didnt work.

Traditionally-arranged marriages, on the other hand, are much more likely to sustain, even without passion, and their children would get a better prospect of childhood, and even the couple would have a partner and security through their old age.

Besides, its not even true that romantic love is absent in arranged marriages. Almost all traditionally conditioned people fall in love with their partner right after the marriage has been decided on, and subsequently they also have the passion. But since in traditionalmindset passion is never given primery importance, they dont have that high (and unrealistic) expectations in that area. So, after 2-3-4 years of marriage their passion subsides, but their sense of duty rooted in their mind by their traditional conditioning keeps them in the marriage. Later, children and their family becomes their meaning in life. The society on the whole remains stable, and people more sane.

Of course, exceptions are everywhere, in every system. But this is what happens in general. Or so I think at the moment.

But fact be acknowledged, tradition is pass. Or soon to be.

Traditionally-arranged Marriage Vs Marriage Based on (Romantic) Love This post can be regarded as a postscript to Modernity and the Fate of Marriage.

Maybe all traditionally conditioned people married primarily for having a partner for life. So was their conditioning. They were conditioned to see in it the meaning of life in having a partner, and raising a family. Not that they didnt crave passion, but it was not spoken about overtly. It was always taken to be secondary. After the marriage their longrestrained passion would be unleashed; and when it would subside, that wouldnt jeopardize the marriage. For marriage for them held a much greater meaning.

I believe, in the long-term, whether it is marriage based on romantic love or an arranged one, it makes little difference in the area of passion. Because passionate romantic love wont last anyway. After the passion is gone, whats the difference between traditionallyarranged marriage and a modern love marriage? The difference is that love marriages are prone to result in divorce because modern people are free minded we will find another partner to fall in love if this didnt work.

Traditionally-arranged marriages, on the other hand, are much more likely to sustain, even without passion, and their children would get a better prospect of childhood, and even the couple would have a partner and security through their old age.

Besides, its not even true that romantic love is absent in arranged marriages. Almost all traditionally conditioned people fall in love with their partner right after the marriage has been decided on, and subsequently they also have the passion. But since in traditionalmindset passion is never given primery importance, they dont have that high (and unrealistic) expectations in that area. So, after 2-3-4 years of marriage their passion subsides, but their sense of duty rooted in their mind by their traditional conditioning keeps them in the marriage. Later, children and their family becomes their meaning in life. The society on the whole remains stable, and people more sane.

Of course, exceptions are everywhere, in every system. But this is what happens in general. Or so I think at the moment.

But fact be acknowledged, tradition is pass. Or soon to be. Being Non-philosophical Vs Being Philosophically Advanced and Lonely Everyone experiences loneliness. In fact, alienation is becoming a defining feature of modernity.

But this post is about a different kind of loneliness. Non-philosophical people at least make friends easily. They may feel lonely from time to time, and in essence; but its not hard for them to find company. Here I am not talking about the loneliness of essence alone, but physical loneliness. In context of this post, a person feeling lonely in company of a dozen friends is not lonely. A person who cant get company at all is lonely. This type of loneliness is mostly reserved, it seems, for the philosophically developed people.

Why is that so?

Have a look at the table below

99% of the people are non-philosophical. Remaining 1% is philosophically advanced people. So naturally, its going to be hard for them to find company. (The percentage figures are my guess, but realistic enough to make a valid point.)

The question arises: Is, then, being philosophically advanced better? If by belonging in the 99% of the population, company is secured, why invite loneliness by holding onto philosophically advanced position?

Being philosophically advanced means understanding life better than the nonphilosophical people. When life is understood better, its logical that the quality of such life is likely to be higher. However, it is also true, that most philosophically advanced people are lonely and even depressed, and they dont seem to be enjoying life. That is because real enjoyment of life comes only through engaging with other people. And engaging with people requires connection. A philosophically advanced person finds it hard to make that connection with non-philosophical people who surround him/her.

An essential condition for making a connection seems to be that the parties should not share vast differences at the fundamental level. No two people have exactly the same thoughts. But almost all non-philosophical people share the same orientation. At the fundamental level, they dont have differences. Their differences of views are at a shallow level, which doesnt matter as much. These people dont even have that much depth. So with all their shallow-level differences, they still dont see any the members of the same camp as weird; while if they come across a philosophically developed person their reaction would be like, Hes so weird! That means they share difference at a very deep level, following which it becomes impossible for them non-philosophical people to understand this philosophically advanced person. So, while non-philosophical people can make connections easily with other non-philosophical people, its not so between a non-philosophical person and a philosophically advanced person.

Now lets see if being philosophically advanced is better. As I said above, being philosophically advanced means understanding life better. When one understands life better, one would be able to navigate through life with more ease. So, it is definitely preferable to have more understanding of life than less. Besides, understanding life is our nature. When something goes wrong and we are suffering, dont we wish we understood why we are feeling what we are feeling? Philosophically advanced people know answers to a lot of such questions which perplex non-philosophical people.

I would say being philosophically advanced is anytime better. Not only that, one should also always seek to be on a higher rung of philosophical development. I am not saying this because I am myself in that 1%. In fact, a lot of the times I have thought about living the life of the non-philosophical people, because of loneliness and lack of avenues for enjoyment following my philosophical development. But whenever I have tried that, I have realized that theirs is a worse position despite their relatively happier appearances.

I realized that my lack of enjoyment is not owing to philosophical advancement per se, but because of not having company of others to produce enjoyment with. I have a couple of philosophically advanced friends (fortunately), and when we meet, we enjoy. And that enjoyment is much finer than non-philosophical people can even conceive. Thus I finally decisively concluded that being philosophically advanced is the way to go.

Now there are various stages in that too. As shown in the table above, all those stages of being philosophically advanced collectively comprise only about 1% of population. That means at each of the stages the number of people at that particular stage is a fraction of 1%. Meaning, not all of that 1% philosophically advanced people can make connection with one another!

However, people together at the stage 2 can have a higher quality life than people at stage 1. Likewise, people together at the stage 3 can make a higher quality life than people at the lower stages, and so on. A person at stage 5, however, can not connect with a person at lower or higher stages than him. So, once one leaves the stage 1, that is, becomes philosophical, it is going to be increasingly difficult for one to find company. But when the right company is found, the quality of life increases in direct proportion to ones philosophical understanding of life. (Clarification)

Hence, by going the way of philosophical advancement I think one allows the possibility of making an exceptionally great life. Its the noblest of human pursuits.

To speak for myself, I would rather take the direction of philosophical advancement where I might find some comfort than go the way of mindless living where I know there is none.

-Perils of Philosophical Advancement, and What Is True Development This post is a follow-up of the previous one, and serves to clarify one particular statement from that article.

In the third-last paragraph of the previous article, I wrote:

when the right company is found, the quality of life increases in direct proportion to ones philosophical understanding of life.

This statement, I realized, is an oversimplification of the complex process. The statement is true in that once the philosopher reconciles well his desires/expectations/goals/aspirations in life with his new philosophical knowledge, he is likely to have a better life; such reconciliation, however, is a crucial condition, and isnt inherent in philosophical advancement.

Quite often a philosopher becomes rather prone to dysfunction because of the overwhelming discoveries and his inability to reconcile with the new-found truths of life and existence. In such cases, even though one may be philosophically advanced, ones lifes quality wont be better because of it, but may rather be much worse.

So, the clarification is: Philosophically advanced would mean having reconciled well with the philosophical knowledge, aka, truth. For example, after finding out that life is intrinsically meaningless and death is the end of everything (no life after death or no rebirth), if one sinks into depression, one cant be called developed despite ones more advanced knowledge. The absurdist who is in a state of angst is not better off after discovering about the mind-boggling absurdity of the existence; but the one who is well reconciled with this knowledge is truly developed.

In this sense, it is true philosophical development that provides better prospect of life. (Though some cost in the form of isolation and loneliness may have to be incurred, but thats okay as long as its not because of ones philosophical development per se, but because of other people not being developed because the possible benefits far outweigh these costs.)

when the right company (surrounding) is found, the quality of life increases in direct proportion to ones philosophical understanding of life (better put as true philosophical development, after the clarification).

Theres this thin line of difference between being merely philosophically advanced (as in possessing more philosophical knowledge) and being truly developed (as in having made life better instead of worse by philosophical endeavors). To be the latter, the goal of personal development and better life must never go out of focus while in the truthseeking journey. For that knowledge which doesnt help make life better is worthless. Technological Progress, and Happiness Internet (data transfer) speed of gigabit per second is imminent. However, we have no idea what such crazy speed is good for.

From this news item

Kevin Lo, Head of Googles fiber access program speaking at the Broadband World Forum in Paris was pretty candid when he said:

If you put a gigabit in peoples homes they will be inspired to find new ways to use it. We have no idea why you need a gigabit today, but when we all had dial up you could not possibly imagine watching video over them. Its not about doing email faster, its about doing those new things that you dont do today.

Time to ponder.

We will invent things that we don't need for being happy. Then we will invent uses for those things. By doing so we will make our lives and the happiness dynamics more complex. Then we will wonder about why with all the comforts people are increasingly dissatisfied with life, why happiness is becoming so difficult!

We are progressing.

I wonder: Haven't we created everything we need for living a happy life? If yes, then why create anything more? But once we get used to everything, the excitement subsides and ennui takes place. So, we are bound to want to create new things to make life (more) interesting. And as the elements comprising our happiness grow in number, more vulnerable happiness becomes. More complex the underlying dynamics, lesser the control.

Maybe we have forgotten that happiness comes from having meaningful relationships with other human beings. But where are all the people! Why are we all so isolated in this increasingly crowded world? Maybe everyone is obsessed with things. Everyone is trying to work their way through this complex mess that modern life is. We don't have time for people for doing anything lasting and meaningful with people, that is.

Are human brains developed beyond optimum? Is it possible to create things that don't further complicate our lives? Maybe not. What do you think? Feel-good Philosophies Recipes for Dysfunction Recipe for dysfunction

I found this image on one social networking website. No wonder, its got millions of likes and thumbs ups. It contains such valuable advice!

Lets dissect it into pieces and see how meaningful it is:

This is your life Yes! This is MY LIFE!

Do what you love, and do it often I LOVE playing video games. Yes, so I should do what I love. And do it as often as I like. After all this is MY LIFE.

If you dont like something, change it I dont like my friends because they dont understand me. Maybe I should change them. In fact, I dont like anything that is not how I want it. Yes, I should definitely change things then. After all, this is MY LIFE; and it should be the way I want it. (I dont like my parents, too.)

If you dont like your job, quit it Done! Yeah! I feel so POWERFUL!

If you dont have enough time, stop watching TV But I have plenty of time now. Just quit my job. TV is alright for a while. And video game!

If you are looking for a love of your life, stop; they will be waiting for you when you start doing things you love Oh, really! Hah, wow! And priests say God loves you when you do things that HE wants you to do, and not the things YOU love. My parents also always told me the same thing. That people will love you when you behave how everyone likes you to be. What a bunch of losers they must be! This is MY LIFE! Yeah! I do what I love. Come, my people, love me!

Stop overanalyzing, life is simple You said it! Life is SO simple. Just do what you love, and people will start loving you. Why bother about anything! Just do whatever YOU love!

All emotions are beautiful. When you eat, appreciate every last bite Not sure what it means, but looks good. Yes, emotions are beautiful, sure.

Open your mind, arms and heart to new things and people. We are united in our differences But I dont like different people! They give me advices, and dont let me do what I love and be myself. Yes, but I am always open for new things and people. But they should understand better.

Ask the next person you see what their passion is. And share your inspiring dream with them Ok. But they are a bunch of idiots. No one wants to listen to meaningful things. Everyone wants to live their own dreams and passions. Thats fine. What do I care!

Travel often But I quit my job. Yes, I had got another one. But you see, that was also bad, so quit that too. Running short of money now. Should I eat, or travel? Are you sure on this one?

Getting lost will help you find yourself I still have to find myself? Yeah, they always say tough times only make you realize great truths. I feel so excited! I want to get lost. I am on such a grand path of self-discovery. Ah, I already feel like a protagonist of some great film with a great message for the humankind!

Some opportunities only come once. Seize them You are not making sense, Im afraid. What opportunities? What about the things I love doing? How am I to know when the opportunity comes? What if I dont like it?

Life is about the people you meet, and the things you create with them. So go out and start creating But I dont like people! Didnt you say I should do what I love?

Life is short OH MY GOD! YES!

Live your dream and share your passion Yes, my dreams, my passions! They are great! I am so great! I want to share my greatness, but no one wants it. Why is it so? Whats wrong with the world? No one is fucking interested in anyone else! What the heck! I am so confused! Life sucks!

***

Such claptrap is becoming increasingly popular in modern times, since traditional wisdom has become pass. God save people from these feel-good, but disastrous, philosophies! What Is the Purpose of Human Life? Note that if the question was "What should be the purpose of human life?" then the answer would be quite different from what I am going to say in this post. But if asked what IS the purpose of life, then sadly...

There's no purpose behind life. We are habituated to think (and conditioned to believe) that everything has a purpose, a reason behind its occurrence. But that's not true. Nothing in the universe has any purpose behind it. There's no inherent meaning in the universe. Whatever meaning there is, it's the creation of human mind; strictly speaking, a delusion. It's another thing that humans can not live without meaning, and for that it's rather necessary to assign some purpose to life.

Say you throw a pebble into a pond. It produces ripples in the water. The poor ignorant fishes are now asking each other what is the purpose behind these ripples. They are wondering if these ripples have inherent meaning for them. But you know that these ripples mean nothing. They are a result of your whimsical random act of throwing a

pebble into the pond. In doing so, you had no other motive but to merely throw a pebble. You didn't even intend to create those ripples. So the ripples, and anything else that might result out of your act of throwing a pebble, is an absolutely random consequence. It may scare some fish, or kill some, or tear some leaves off the water-plants, whatever may happen. And the fishes who observe it will find a reason, will assign a meaning to this occurrence. Because that's how their minds are habituated to function.

Our existence is just like those ripples. Our lives, are ripples. Random. Without any meaning, reason, or intention behind it. What's worse, we don't even know who or what has created these ripples, and how it all has started. All we can know that is, if we choose to come out of our delusions and be truly honest to ourselves is that we don't and we can't have a clue about these existential matters. That's just the way it is. Coping With Meaninglessness and Lack of Free Will Came across a very interesting discussion on Reddit. Reposting selected excerpts from it below. (Follow the full discussion.)

Question:

I'm having a horrible existential crisis. If you believe life has no inherent meaning, and that determinism is true, how do you muster the drive to do something with your life?

(Gives more information)

I'm at a point where I feel like I can't do or think anything, because I can't trust that anything is true or meaningful. I can't trust my own thoughts, and that's extremely frustrating and paralyzing.

The kind of thinking I outlined above led me to depression, apathy, and to drop out of college overseas and move back home. At that time, I convinced myself that there were a few things that I had to take care of (school, job, money, dealing with parents), and that I didn't have time for deep thinking, so I would keep my thinking quick and intuitive

for the time being. I was happier, more focused, and had more direction in my life.

But, I was not against deep thinking completely. I feel like it should be useful for figuring out things wrong with one's life, things one wants to change, and for living more rationally. I decided to go back to it after I got my life under control, and it just threw me off. Shattered all the assumptions and structure that I had built.

The idea "that nothing can be known with certainty" really seems to be the issue for me. How does one trust their thoughts and intuition? The problem I'm having is, that when I choose a goal, or any sort of structure, guideline, or assumption for my life, I can't act on it, because I don't know that it's what's best. I have this desperate need to "figure it all out", before moving on with my life. How does one feel good and positive about their life, when they know that their own knowledge and experience is so limited? How do they trust that their living a good life?

As for not being able to trust my thoughts. If I don't believe in any objective reference that can guide my thoughts, and if I believe that I don't control my thoughts, then my thoughts become stripped of any value or meaning for me.

Telling myself that I should just accept this or that, or not think, seems similar to the blind faith involved in religion, which we hear so much criticism about. Although, my understanding is that everyone has to take faith at some level, make at least some assumption(s) to guide the way they live their life. But I can't seem to feel good about or trust any assumptions I make.

The only conclusion I can seem to make, is that I should stop thinking and just live my life. But that seems so counter-intuitive, especially since it is thinking itself that has led me to make this conclusion that I feel will greatly improve my life.

Some of the very apt responses:

Zeno of Citium said you should imagine yourself as a dog tied to a wagon. Even if you have free will, your options are very much constrained by accidents of birth and fortune

a kid who grows up illiterate won't become an astrophysicist or great poet, for example. Zeno's answer is that it's best to accept your fate and run with the cart rather than be dragged. You will still have plenty of opportunities to test how much slack there is in that rope.

In either case (determinism or free will) the real matter at hand is taking notice of what you can control and what you can't control and to not worry about the latter. Once you've resigned yourself to that, you'll be amazed at how things come into focus.

--

Doing fun stuff is fun.

There we go, determinism isn't a thought about how we live our lives, but rather why we live them. If you are a determinist and by some supernatural proof you have seen your life is supposed to be pointless, well then you're out of luck. But determinism doesn't mean your life doesn't have purpose, it just means every action you make is a reaction to something that has already happened. The problem with assuming your life doesn't have purpose is that there must have been some illogical statements to the logical conclusion you came to, such as using logic for no reason except to use logic. Nietzsche even said that the third realization of Nihilism is that you must find a reason to life outside of this world, the logical one. So the statement above (doing fun stuff is fun) is honestly the best way to live your life. But also realizing that in order to have the most amount of fun, you must sometimes do non-fun things. You must do your work so you can get paid. You must compliment the lady so you can have sex. You must pump iron if you want big muscles. That's just the problem of life.

--

If you're looking for some logical or rational reason, you're out of luck I'm afraid.

The good news is that humans have evolved to have the ability to cognitively dissociate from facts like these, and have systems like dopamine in the brain that make you feel good when you do certain things. The key is engaging those systems in a sustainable way.

I'm really struggling right now to do just that, actually. Things like helping other people and having fulfilling relationships seem really important in achieving the cognitive dissonance required for a happy life. Alcohol and other substances to artificially increase happiness (via dopamine production, etc.) do not work, as the brain has a tolerance mechanism that makes those solutions short-term only.

--

Playboy: If life is so purposeless, do you feel its worth living?

Kubrick: Yes, for those who manage somehow to cope with our mortality. The very meaninglessness of life forces a man to create his own meaning. Children, of course, begin life with an untarnished sense of wonder, a capacity to experience total joy at something as simple as the greenness of a leaf; but as they grow older, the awareness of death and decay begins to impinge on their consciousness and subtly erode their joie de vivre (a keen enjoyment of living), their idealism and their assumption of immortality.

As a child matures, he sees death and pain everywhere about him, and begins to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of man. But if hes reasonably strong and lucky he can emerge from this twilight of the soul into a rebirth of life's lan (enthusiastic and assured vigour and liveliness).

Both because of and in spite of his awareness of the meaninglessness of life, he can forge a fresh sense of purpose and affirmation. He may not recapture the same pure sense of wonder he was born with, but he can shape something far more enduring and sustaining.

The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death however mutable man may be able to make them our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfilment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.

--

Thinking is like any other skill that needs to be mastered. You should learn when to use it, and when to shut it up, especially when it starts interfering or precluding first-hand experiences. As any human being, you also sense reality with another dimensions of yourself: your feelings, your intuition, your beliefs, your empathy, your life experience, your aims, your passion, and so on.

For any meaningful advancement regarding any existential concern, thinking is not a cause, it is an effect. An alternate method to gain knowledge is to place a question like a farmer places a seed, and covers it with soil. Let your concern sink deeply into yourself and leave it there for a time, untouched; do not dig it up time and again with the hectic doubt of your always wandering intellect. Give it time and continue learning, and experiencing your life fully; sooner than later, in the silence of the self, a ripe answer will gradually emerge. From that moment on, you are ready again to continue thinking, without getting stuck. You may now do this as many times as you need.

--

There is no meaning to life. There is no point in doing anything. This is true.

There is also no point in not doing anything. Just go do some stuff. You did stuff before you realized it was pointless. Why did you do them? Because you wanted to. They made you feel happy. You can still do those things.

Or if you want to be more cerebral about the whole thing, consider what would be best for you to do given the situation. Don't go all the way out to the context of the whole universe. Just your actual life. What do you want out of it. Then do that.

Meanwhile, determinism has nothing to do with any of this. "I can't trust my own thoughts." What? Why? Are you literally crazy? I accept determinism and meaninglessness. I trust my thoughts. I think they're pretty good thoughts.

Think about this: You've discovered determinism and it's consequences. What did you think was happening before and what is now different? Most people's concept of free-will is actually incoherent. It requires: choice based on you own composition that is effected by but not determined by outside forces. This is contradictory. It's contradictory because you are not in control of your own composition. You were born and you had no control over that, your starting point. Without (some) control over your starting composition everything must be determined by entirely outside forces. That's the only option.

A quick aside: there is also the option of "random chance." A lot of people like to bring in quantum mechanics and say you can't predict things so they're not determined. First, this is false, at human scales you can make near 100% accurate predictions. Second it's not any better. Making choices based on "random chance" isn't free will either.

So, in closing, you haven't lost anything. You've realized your concept of free will is contradictory. You never imagined that you had control over your own creation. That's the only thing that's different in your conceptions now. You still have free will in the sense that you base your decisions off of your own composition. It's just possible to know beforehand what your choice would be if you had perfect knowledge. Which should have been obvious already. If your choices aren't just random, someone who knew you perfectly should be able to predict what you'd do. Life is exactly the same.

--

I would agree with you. This is what i did, for now: I found a way to keep myself grounded. What happened to me is I started questioning what reality is and what stopped me from doing 'insane' things or just to commit suicide. My reasoning was, initially, that I could not because of my family and friends. (I would use that to initially keep grounded and not do something irrational). Then I decided why I would not commit those actions was because I simply did not want to. We're playing this absurd game in society but why not go with it as much as you decide you would like to, simply so you can derive whatever pleasure that you enjoy from it. I cannot disagree with you when you say nothing is meaningful, but that does not mean you do not have the option of enjoying the experience of existence. What would truly be scary is if you, in fact, lived for eternity. But you don't. You will die one day so go do things simply because you have the option to do them.

It can be safe to assume that you still derive pleasure from things, correct? Pursue them

and avoid what discomforts you. Realize that there are things that you do not enjoy and try your best to make sure that your actions do not cause others to feel intense discomfort.

I would recommend reading Nausea by Jean-Paul Sartre. I am just about to get started on it, but I have heard good things about it.

Moreover some of these things helps calm me and find comfort

1) This painting is called, 'where do we come from? what are we? where are we going?'

It is so beautiful and it illustrates perfectly what we humans wonder about. Find solace that you are not alone. There are fellow conglomerate molecules that are in this with you. Take comfort in that.

2) Go through all the tabs on the left of this page. There have been people far superior in intelligence than us in this same position. Find solace in that we are not alone in our understanding of the meaninglessness of it all.

3) Listen to this song: Empire Of The Sun - Walking On A Dream

As you listen, accept that it is meaningless but that does not mean it is not worth experiencing because, hey, it is going to end anyways. Just go with it. I love the lines about walking on a dream and how were just searching for the thrill of it. Difference Between Knowing and Understanding

There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it. Charles F. Kettering

Knowledge may come by asking 'what' and 'how'. Understanding usually comes by asking 'why'. That's why I believe before going on to 'what' and 'how', one should always ask 'why'. If one gets its answer right then there's little room for failure. There is a difference between knowing something and understanding it.

The Difference

Understanding is not exclusive of knowing, of course, but knowing doesn't necessarily mean understanding.

While you know something by observation, reading and hearing about it, understanding essentially happens with deep inquiry and contemplation (along with observation, reading, hearing etc) about it ending up with "eureka" of realization. This last, realization stage is the essential part of the process of understanding.

Knowledge is superficial if not gained through understanding, or not followed by the aforementioned process of understanding. The real essence is understanding, and it has to come from within oneself. Knowledge is always external. It becomes one's own only when it is understood. Knowledge without understanding doesn't help as much, especially in difficult situations. For instance, by reading self-help literature, philosophy etc, one can get knowledge, but it seldom makes substantial difference, because seldom does one go through the process of understanding which the original author has. Even if what one observes, reads or hears makes sense on the surface, unless and until one goes through and completes the process of understanding one hasn't really grasped it wholly.

Most people think they possess the understanding of something, when actually they only know it. And that knowledge they have picked from other people. They have observed/read/heard those things so many times that it has created an illusion of having understood those things; and hence, they are never ever questioned or contemplated. Problems, however, are faced in difficult situations. Because knowledge is after all just knowledge. Without understanding in life, man is lost. What Is Worthwhile Living?

A simple definition of worthwhile living is: Living how you would like others to live.

That lifestyle which would make the world a better place is worthwhile living. We measure the betterment of the world in terms of human wellbeing. Therefore, that living which purports to increase the collective human wellbeing is worthwhile living. Since it is not always easy to run the exact measurements of what would or would not contribute to the collective wellbeing it's good to simply think of it as: how we would like others to live.

Do you get angry when someone asks bribe? Then not taking bribe is worthwhile living. You don't like it when someone breaks a traffic rule and overtakes your vehicle in an unfair way? Then observing traffic rules and being fair is worthwhile living. How will you feel if your wife cheated on you? You know that. Then not cheating on one's spouse is worthwhile living. Simple as that.

Worthwhile living is not the easiest way to live. One has to be altruistic to live a worthwhile life. Being altruistic involves forgoing one's own interests for the collective good of people.

But that, in the long run, benefits one in the form of high-quality happiness. (There's no guarantee though; and that shouldn't even be the focus of worthwhile living.) Isn't it a selfish bargain then? one might ask. Well, yes. Everyone is selfish. But noble is he whose selfish interests are aligned with good interests of something greater than himself like family, community, nation,... So, while selfishness, taken in a strict sense, is always present; it is not at odds with worthwhile living.

Giving collective wellbeing preference over one's own immediate wellbeing and calling it worthwhile living may sound counterintuitive to some people. Besides, on philosophical grounds also one might ask for the basis of such a conclusion, when the universe clearly doesn't have moral absolutes or externally imposed "moral oughts". It's a fair doubt, but can be explained away reasonably. We are interdependent agents in the world. It's true that humans have their own ego-identity, unlike other animals, so their primary focus tends to be on one's own self, but we do need other people to be happy and thrive. If we lived only self-indulgently we can not be happy for long because such living would naturally be followed by alienation. That's the reason sacrificial living is given so much importance in religious and traditional wisdom. Living sacrificial life without understanding this isn't advisable for happiness though, but if one understands life well, it's easy to see why being useful and valuable to the society (which is meant by enabling

collective wellbeing) is called worthwhile living.

One's aim should be to live a worthwhile and virtuous life. And the reward may be a high-quality happiness, which comes as a by-product of making the best of life by doing worthwhile things like being good and useful (to others). Is Internet (esp Social Networks) Isolating People? I am positive that the Internet (especially the socializing part of it) is isolating people. It's paradoxical, because today social networking websites like Facebook etc not only get unknown people closer by giving them a scope to know each other, but also help people reunite with their long lost friends and acquaintances. But I believe in essence it isolates people, in that the time one would have been spending with one's family and/or close friends in physical proximity would be much more fulfilling than the time one spends with unknown people and far away friends/relations over the Internet.

There are several reasons for that:

1) Convenience and longevity of online relations is less. Thus the scope for creating a meaningful and lasting experience is very limited, for that requires time and convenience.

2) Everyone interacts with countless people online, so the share of attention and emotional connection everyone gets from everyone else is naturally going to be relatively less. That's another reason for not getting a sense of fulfillment even when one is regularly interacting with so many people every day over social networking websites. Seeing someone engaged with you one moment and with others the next (and over totally different subjects) is not conducive to the same emotional fulfillment from the engagement that comes when spending time with someone in person.

3) Playing a game of cricket for real, or going for a movie with a few close friends can be a memorable experience. Doing things online with online friends can not. Life comprises of so many little details which collectively make grand memories when the years have passed. The virtual world is too limited to capture, or even allow those little, subtle things to take place. Having a virtual friendship is analogous to exploring the streets of Paris on Google Earth's Street View. A person who spends several hrs a day socializing on the Internet needs to really get a life.

4) A lot of people online are plain pretenses. You never know when they will desert you, because you don't know them at all. Engaging with them is mostly a waste of time and energy unless one has a worthwhile motive like learning something, or discussion or debate kind of engagement. If one is looking for the joy of human relationships, one should preferably look around in the real world, not on the Internet.

5) I also think that, just like in things, having too many choices in friends/people makes the relations with them fickle. It degrades the quality of every experience, because there's always someone better, someone more interesting around the corner and within reach. And that's true for everyone. When the choices are abundant no one gets the real thing (which is "meaningful and lasing" relation) because everyone is greedy and looking for more. Yes, you can have hundreds of superficial friends and delude yourself of enjoying those friendships.

Hence, quantitatively it brings people together; but speaking in terms of quality and essence, it's isolating people.

The often repeated argument is that if there was no Internet, we could never have found our childhood friends back, and never have had opportunities to meet interesting people that we do. So, this progress is good and has made life better. Well, it's a fallacy of thought. Once we are accustomed to something, imagining life without it is naturally going to seem less comfortable. We can't imagine life without cellphones today. But we can't deny it that when cellphones weren't around we were just as happy as we are today. Same is with everything. In fact, being connected with childhood friends all life erodes the pleasure of missing them. Occasional letters received from a relation gave us more happiness than the emails and DMs we receive so frequently now. Seeing people and interacting with them too frequently results in loss of value of those people. Upon close look one must see that it makes life flat and bland.

There are many subtle pleasures of life the "new world" is robbing people of without we even realizing it, because we are too blinded by the glare of fast paced developments and too excited to stop and evaluate how it all is affecting the quality of our lives. Radical Honesty, and When Lying Is Good Question: How would the world look like if people would only tell their true thoughts to one another?

Answer: The world would fall apart.

Our world is not designed to function with radical honesty. Lies are essential to keep the world from falling apart.

That doesn't mean I favor dishonest people, or don't consider honesty a virtue. But the fact is that humans do operate with double-standards; and that's the way is it should be left to operate. The reason for this is that humans have two conflicting forces driving them: 1) Reason/intellect, and 2) emotions/impulses. Radical honesty means acting totally out of the first; which is only possible in theory.

If your girlfriend asks you whether you find her friend sexy, or whether you ever fantasize about someone else, and you don't lie if you really do and expect your girlfriend to be "rational" enough to accept this, you are being nave. Your girlfriend will rather choose a liar. Because humans are not mature enough to deal with certain emotional pangs; and there's evolutionary reasons why irrationality is so powerful within us. Romantic love, for example, is totally irrational from human perspective, but it's so powerful, because it's a mating drive, which has evolutionary significance.

Dishonesty will never become a virtue; dishonest people will always find reproach. But at the same time there will also always be dilemmas and dishonesty will be chosen over honesty, and that's alright if one understands the way of the world.

People will never tell that they prefer to hear a lie. It is implicit in the cases where truth is not conducive to a wholesome emotional experience. Romantic love is a classic example of it. And there can be many instances/experiences in life in which if one minutely scrutinizes oneself, it's hard to not notice how much of a liar one is. It happens intuitively, because our biology knows the optimal survival strategies better than our intellect.

If radical honesty is not in wide currency, that's because natural selection (evolution) would eliminate a radically honest person. If it was viable to be radically honest then we would see at least one such person in the world; especially, after centuries of teaching "honestly is the best policy" and things like that. Maybe because radically honest people,

if at all there have been any, have not succeeded in passing on their genes! Radical honesty doesn't pay for long.

Corollary is: lying to an extent is not a bad at all.

Ineffective argument for Radical Honesty

Some people argue that children are always honest. They don't deceive others because they are not afraid of the consequences. They say what they feel. And that's a good quality. We all like children for that. And that's actually something adults should learn from children.

This argument is not just ineffective, but fallacious. Children do a lot of things that when an adult does, he/she becomes insufferable. That same candor which is so charming in young children is considered rude and tactless in adults. Reason: The dynamics underlying the adult life is different from that of the infancy, and consequently an adult must behave differently than an infant for the same level of wellbeing and security. Blackhole Effect: Why You Can't Choose Occupation You Love In discussion with a friend over something (unrelated to the matter of this post) I mentioned this:

The corporate employees in this society aren't doing the work because they love it or have a personal intention of doing something meaningful for the society through their work. For most people today, the motivation behind their job is not the passion and love for it, but necessity. Most corporate employees hate their workplaces.

To which his reply was:

It is exactly this species that make the world an evil place that we think it is. And they have fooled themselves into believing that there is no way out of it. They can't find the work they love and are not willing to work hard to create an ecosystem for themselves to do what they love.

That made me think about the issue, and subsequently I came up with an explanation of why it is not easy to do what one loves. For now I have named this phenomenon Blackhole effect. Explaining it below in a simple way.

Blackhole effect (Economics): The theory of why one can't choose occupation one loves

Suppose that the world is simple. Giant corporations are not around; and hence, all the industries existing are of a very moderate size. People freely choose from the ways of making a living.

Then someone makes a product which has a huge selling potential. This person who made the product is passionate about making such products. As this product has a huge selling potential he thinks of opening a factory and employ many people in the production of the product. And because the profits are going to be huge, he offers way better returns to the people who would be employed with him. So, people who are not particularly interested in that kind of work feel attracted to join the production factory. It's simple, if you go on raising the wage, the supply of workers increases. So, these first bunch of people chucked their respective loved occupations and joined into production of the newly invented product with huge selling potential. They did so out of the natural desire to have a better life. (Or because of allure of social status, because the factory is promising them the highest income possible in that society which will make them rich and thus socially powerful.)

The time passes. Now people working in this factory are earning more than the rest. The aggregate demand in the economy increases, because people have more money to spend. Supply being relatively inelastic, it drives up the prices, needless to mention, for all. (When demand increases and supply can't, prices go up.) While these people with higher income can afford goods with higher prices, the high prices affect negatively the lives of the people who have not joined the production factory. To maintain their level of consumption, they need more income. So some of them decide to chuck their loved occupation and join the production factory.

At this stage, what I called Blackhole effect is starting to emerge. The (production) factory here, is like a blackhole which will suck people into it compellingly. Moreover, as

more people join it, it will become more powerful (by raising the income of more people, and thereby having bigger impact on prices) to suck even more people into it. For a particular "blackhole" (industry) there may be a limit at certain point as to how many people it can employ, but when there are number of blackholes in the economy, the effect does have consequences to the extent that is hard to ignore.

Today almost everyone decides which field to choose based on where the income is more. Then obvious advice like "do what you love" passes for wisdom. People even fool themselves to believe that this is what they love, when actually they love it only because they see it will give them the highest return. And by joining the industry they don't actually love, they further exacerbate the situation for all. But what can they do? If in a town of, say, 100 people, 50 are employed in one industry (or a set of industries, or blackholes) which is paying the highest, then they will definitely have an impact on general price level, and to match the income others will naturally be drawn to the same industry (get sucked into those blackholes). That's one of the reasons why work today is something most people do out of necessity and not out of love for that work.

Some people, of course, can succeed in pulling off the career of their choice; but when one tries that the system subjects one to hardships (when that career is apart from the blackholes) which may not be bearable for all. And it's no one's fault, actually. It's the nature of economy.

Where there's economy, individuals can't have much choice of what occupation to have. Well, and economy can't not be. The problem is the existence of industries which grow large enough to assume the nature of a blackhole. And when GDP is the goal, it's natural that those blackholes would be seen as a blessing. But are they? GDP and the real wellbeing are quite often the goals of conflicting nature.

(I will refine the theory by adding psychological underpinnings of Blackhole effect in some future post.) 4 Stages of Ideal Life Assuming that life starts at five, here are 4 stages of life, grouped by age, which I think describe an ideal kind of life.

5-15, Innocence

This age is childhood. Characterized by playfulness, innocence, curiosity, basic education, and a lot of initial conditioning. One is not concerned about the big issues of life. Childhood is a dreamland.

15-25, Foolishness

One has reached puberty by this age. Once thats happened, childhood begins to cease, as one gets a whole new set of emotions to feel, and ones motivations of life take a big shift. Its exciting, but at the same time fraught with dangers. Ignorance of childhood and vigor of approaching adulthood (marked by arousal of powerful sexual forces) has a tendency to give rise to a lot of stupid behavior. One goes through rapid changes of character in this age.

The changes are bitter-sweet. This is the age in which one also becomes face-to-face with the reality of life. Sex, romance, relationships, breakups, heartbreaks, jealousy, greed, self-destructive thoughts and actions Blaming society, God, and life itself for its unfairness and cruelty Career, money, future plans, and dreams. The focus is on fun, pleasure, enjoyment, narcissistic wishes.

Theres so much happening, but one doesnt usually have enough understanding of life. There are frequent periods of euphoria and extreme sadness. This is the most hectic time of life, and ideally I would say its better if one goes through all sorts of experiences of life in this age. I have called it age of foolishness in the sense that ones character is not solidly shaped yet. Ones thoughts and actions are not always reconciled. Its not possible to feel at ease and contented in life with such state of mind and affairs. But its a necessary turmoil, and ideally, it should help one become sorted on what life really is and what is really important to do in life.

25-35, Cultivation of Wisdom

Although I think most people (yes, most people) never make it beyond the age of foolishness, an ideal life is when one understands life quite well. Having seen and felt enough of life in the age of foolishness to shape ones worldview and define ones character, this is now high time for perfecting the both worldview and character.

Learning and understanding about life, human nature, politics, how societies and everything in it works etc should now be the primary focus of life. (No, it doesnt require one to be jobless, but just observant and reflective.) Understanding the human condition is a key to most worthwhile, rewarding and fulfilling life. The only truly happy man is a wise man; otherwise a drunkard is also happier than the average.

35-beyond, Contribution to Goodness

Worthwhile living is when one adds value to the world. After understanding life, and having cultivated wisdom, its time to create something out of it. One may write a book, become a public speaker, or teacher, or politician; or at the least a good example of an ideal and virtuous life holder for the people that surround one. The idea is to influence minds and to change lives for better. To do something great with all the knowledge and understanding one has attained in life. Its not an obligation, but a wise man would know that its a key to most fulfilling life.

These are the four stages of an ideal life. They are not strictly age-bound. A lot depends on what kind of surrounding one grows up in, and what conditioning one is given. For example, to the people in a free and developed country like US a lot of things happen very early in their life like losing virginity compared to the people in a relatively conservative country like India. But an ideal life is one which contains roughly all four of the stages described above. A Case for Free Will (With Help of Descartes) Often do I hear the argument of determinism being used to justify one's inadequacies. In discussion the use of determinism that way as a trump card is exasperating. It makes the discussion pointless.

I don't refute determinism, but I don't think it should have any bearing whatsoever on

how we choose to live our lives; on our decision-making.

In this post I am making a case for free will. I am going to explain why it is right to believe and acknowledge that we have free will. Note that I am fully aware of determinism and its implications. I am making this case for a reason and with certain good logic.

A Case for Free Will (With help of Descartes)

If you say that we don't have free you essentially mean that we (the self-aware beings) don't exist (or we are but illusions). So, I will shoot you and you should not have any problem with that, because for you neither you nor I even exist.

Think about it. Descartes famously said: I think, therefore I am. If you are thinking, that must mean you (the thinker) exists. Now, are you thinking with your free will? Because if you are not thinking with your free will, then the thinking is just happening (you are not thinking), in which case you can't say you exist. So, either you exist, and have free will; or you don't, in which case the question of free will doesn't even arise.

Note that existence of "you", "I" and "we" here refers to the existence of self-aware beings and not merely of the physical bodies.

When you say "I" am doing this, "I" am doing that, that means you see yourself as a distinct self-identity, related to others and thus part of the environment, but not a passive one. Heteronomous animals can be called passive agents in that even though they act, they are not aware of acting as a distinct self-identity. "I" has an ability to see itself as distinct from the rest of the physical world and act thus. That means "I" is autonomous.

One might say that "I" itself is an illusion! I would say that's an ineffective case in that to say something is illusion, one must provide what is real. If we, as we exist, are illusions, then in what form would we have been real? No answer. This is the only way we exist, hence we must exist. This is the only way we could have an "I", so we must have an "I". And since "I" has the aforementioned ability, it must be autonomous, that is, with free

will.

Strictly going by determinism, there can be no active agents in the universe. Everything is passive. Anything that is moving is because of the causal chain, as an effect of prior agent(s)'s movements. Is that a reason enough to say that nothing is active? Do the adjectives passive and active even apply at that level? If one says that we are passive agents, could one tell in what way would we have been active agents?

At the level of elementary particles (or even prior level to that) everything is passive, and we are also essentially made of those particles. But and importantly "I", a distinct self-identity which we are, doesn't exist at that level. "I" exists at the level of consciousness. So, whatever is said with respect to "I" (whether we have free will), must follow from the level where "I" comes into existence, not from some prior point. If one agrees that "I" exists, through whatever processes and dynamics, it is autonomous by virtue of being able to see itself as distinct from the physical world and act thus. And that itself is a reason to believe we are "active".

Determinism shouldn't affect free will in that free will is a post-consciousness phenomenon, and post-consciousness realm is where we (the self-aware humans) exist and operate. At the universe level nothing is free (what does that even mean?), but that standpoint is not relevant to us. So, it really depends from which level we view it. For pragmatic purposes, I think not just free will, but everything should be viewed from the standpoint which is relevant to us humans. And if we do that, it turns out we do have free will.

Some irrelevant standpoints on other issues would be radical skepticism like whether we are in a simulation, whether the reality has more than 3 dimensions, whether there are more sounds and colors than we can ever perceive, etc. We may never know. The answer may be a yes to all those, but so what? What doesn't it change for us? Nothing. Same is the problem with holding no-free will position following determinism.

A friend argues: Imagine that computer AI becomes advanced enough to produce consciousness. Will it mean that computers are suddenly "active" agents when we can trace every single element of their decision making?

I would say, if we can trace every single element of their decision making, then they are

not active for us, but they may be autonomous for and in themselves! In this sense, we could say that we may be passive in the eyes of some ghost existing outside of the physical world who can trace all our decisions, but we ourselves can never exist in that "mystical form" to be able to judge ourselves thus. How do we even know that such mystical form exists? And without evidence, what reason do we have to build anything on it?

This also explains about the dream argument. The dream argument says that in our dreams we act freely, but still we know it's not real. So, how do we know that right now we are real and not in a dream? And if we are not even real, free will too must be an illusion. To this, my point would be: The dream is not real for us precisely because (and when) we exist outside of dream we are able to judge it as unreal. If dream was the only place we could exist, then we have no grounds to call it unreal, because we wouldn't even know what's real! And that's exactly the case with us.

Yes, we are a result of natural processes, and our brain is constrained by the laws of physics and everything, and thus its decision making process is determined by myriad factors. But how could it be otherwise? How could your decisions be not affected by any factors, when you yourself are a result of those factors? Do you, again, say you don't exist because you are a result of the interplay of other elements? In what other form, then, you think you could have existed for real?

To summarize:

We couldn't exist outside of the physical world. (That's even contradiction in terms.) We don't even have good reason to believe that something could exist in that mystical form to be able to judge us as passive agents! (That would be same as believing in God.) If being governed by physical laws means passivity then everything is passive, in which case to call it "passive" itself doesn't make sense because we don't know what "active" would be like. We do apply the dual notions such as active-passive, because we exist and operate only at a post-consciousness level, and with "I". Since "I" is autonomous, thus active, we have free will.

Postscript:

Actually, determinism is circular. We can say that we if had enough data and computing power, we could predict our own future actions. But then we can also say that whether to do so or not still depends on our free will. Determinism, however, includes that decisionmaking process too!

It depends from which level we are looking at things. In a way both positions are right. (That's why life is absurd.) I stand for free will only because since we could pick any of the two positions and both are right, why not pick the one which makes life meaningful and which is relevant to our living as conscious beings, rather then that which is irrelevant if one wants to live.

Awareness of determinism is one thing. However, to base one's decision making (or lack of it) on the notion that we don't have free will is, in my view, insane.

3 Different Types of Love, Lowest to Highest The word "love" is used to refer to more than one kind of feeling, and often those feelings are so vastly different from one another that denoting them by the same word and not making a mess isn't possible. In this post I am going to classify love in three types, from lowest to highest.

The first and the lowest form of love is Romantic Love. Second is Conditional Likinglove. And the third and the highest form of love is Unconditional Love. However, these terms are not self-explanatory. Especially, a lot of misunderstanding and irrationality are associated with the first and the third type. Let's clear the cloud.

1. Romantic Love

Romantic love is the lowest form of love. In fact, it should be saved of being called "love", even. Romantic love is at best an illusion of love. In truth, romantic love is Nature's mechanism of enabling mating and reproduction in humans. It's a mating drive. That's the reason it comes packaged with sexual desire. Romantic love needs sex for its expression. Without sex, romantic love can't last long. Interestingly, even with sex, romantic passion has to wane after a while. The duration may differ from case to case, but the euphoric feeling and the passion has a sure expiry date. Impermanence is in the nature of romance, it being there for a definite purpose of Nature.

Apart from that, romantic love is out-and-out irrational. There's no involvement of reason in romantic love. One who is "in love" with someone hasn't even chosen to be in love with that person for the qualities one admires. It's just that when one's brain gets images of people of the opposite sex, through one's social contact with them, it picks a person and the brain-chemicals create the feelings. Quite often, the person of fixation doesn't possess the qualities one likes, and/or even possesses qualities one strongly dislikes; still one feels love for that person. That shows how irrational it can be. Since there's no involvement of human reason in romantic love, it is fraught with dangers. No wonder it's invariably accompanied with intense pain and suffering.

Romantic love can only be between opposite sexes (exception: gays), and it can't be unconditional.

The mechanism of romantic love is great with regards to Nature's goal of propagation of species, but for humans who are unaware of the real mechanism, romantic love is a joke being played with them! More about romantic love.

2. Conditional Liking

If romantic love is a bad type of love, this one would be a good type. When one likes someone "very much" one says one loves that person. Simple as that. It's a liking beyond limit, hence love. It's a good type in that there's reasonable basis for love. One really likes some qualities in the object, that's why one loves the object. So, as long as the object possesses those qualities the liking would remain. There is an involvement of reason in it.

Unlike romantic love, this love is not limited to a male-female setting. One may like anyone irrespective of gender. It's like a friendship. And not only persons, one may even like certain animals and things very much and say one loves them. It's literally meant as love.

This liking-love is also conditional because the liking is conditional to the object being in possession of the likable qualities. One carries around a flower when it smells good; when the fragrance is gone, one doesn't care about the flower anymore; in any case not as much. Still, this love is better and much more practical than romantic love in which one don't even have control over who to feel for.

This love can not provide euphoric experience like romance does, but in essence it's far superior. The euphoria of romantic love, in my view, is a dis-ease (not disease) of the mind, as it's technically the same thing one feels by taking drugs! (Really, the same chemicals in the brain produce euphoria in romantic love that work when one takes certain drugs.) So, this liking-love is an ideal basis for marriage and long-term manwoman relationships; in contrast to relationships based purely on romance which are prone to collapse, or at least become bland.

3. Unconditional Love

If liking something for likable qualities is conditional love then what could be unconditional love? You guessed it right. When you like without any consideration. But how is that possible?

Unconditional love can not be directed to any particular person or object. The moment it is, it ceases to be unconditional. If you say you like person X unconditionally, that is a contradiction in terms! If it is unconditional then how come you like person X and not, say, person Y? That must mean there is something with the person you like, and so the liking is conditional to that something.

Unconditional love can only be directed towards the whole world at the same time. As such, it just means absence of hatred and infinite compassion towards the world. The

world is mean to you, but you don't complain, then that must mean you love the world and the life too much to complain about petty things. Being wise and virtuous are the prerequisites of having the ability to love the world unconditionally.

Note again, that unconditional love can't have anything to do with what one feels towards a particular person or object. Many people use it in context of romantic love, which is just so pathetic an idea that I don't have words to describe the lameness of it.

Unconditional love is the highest form of love. However, it's more like an ideal to be held. One must not fret too much if one isn't able to hold up to it always. It's humanly not possible to always be without hetred. But that we can't be perfect shouldn't be an excuse to not try to overcome our flaws. That way, it's a good ideal to aim for in life.

Additional note:

The three forms of love described above are not necessarily exclusive of one another. One can possess all three of them at the same time. For example, when man and woman are in a relationship based on reason based liking, that doesn't mean they won't feel romantic love. Romantic love will naturally happen; as such it can't be bypassed. Also, they may be at the same time compassionate and hatred-free towards the rest of the world. That way, all three types of love can be present at the same time. But knowing what is what helps in understanding the relative importance of feelings and keeps our functioning smooth.

To summarize:

Hormones-induced romantic love is the lowest form of love; irrational, and just meant for mating. Then there's this love as in "liking something very much"; it's a reason based love; good to go with. And the highest form of love is the unconditional love (also called selfless love), which just means total absence of hatred and infinite compassion; it doesn't ask anything, anything at all. Eudaimonia as the Purpose of Human Life

I recently got introduced to Aristotle's idea of the purpose of human life, and it resembles very much my own view. It gave much clarity and refinement to my thoughts. According to Aristotle, Eudaimonia is the ultimate human goal. Eudaimonia is a Greek word meaning Happiness or human well-being. For this post I will stick to "happiness".

A few months back I wrote an article titled Happiness as the Goal of Life Right or Wrong? in which I said that happiness should not be the purpose of life. It might seem that I am changing my mind on it now, but that's not the case. The reason is that the goal-happiness which I then said should not be the purpose of life is not the same happiness meant by Eudaimonia. So, let's understand what Eudaimonic happiness is (with my own thought inputs).

What is Eudaimonic happiness?

Eudaimonia means happiness. However, this happiness is not fun or pleasure, but the feeling of having lived a good life. At the end of one's life when one looks back on life and feels totally satisfied with the way one's life has been, that means one has had a happy life, or one is happy in Eudaimonic sense. It is more akin to contentment. In Eudaimonic sense, happiness is a long term project, and can't be attained by short term fun and pleasure alone. Most people mean happiness as fun and pleasure. When they are having fun they say they are happy. The happiness which should not be the goal of life is "fun and pleasure".

In the aforementioned article I also wrote: "Having a satisfactory life over a long period of time (not in moment to moment evaluation) is also generally called a happy life. In that sense if one means that the goal of life is to make a "happy life" then it's fine. But if the goal-happiness means every moment one has to pounce on what brings one the greatest pleasure, without any regard for anything or anyone else but oneself, that's a myopic and nave approach to happiness."

A satisfactory life over a long period of time, is exactly what Eudaimonic happiness is.

Pleasure can be a bodily pleasure like sex, tasty food etc. Fun can be when you are partying with your friends, dancing with DJ and activities like that. According to the idea

of Eudaimonia, when you are pursuing fun and pleasure, you are not necessarily pursuing happiness. That means when you are having fun or pleasure, you are not necessarily happy.

To understand this more clearly, Eudaimonia is the ultimate goal of life, and thus should be pursued as a final end. Whereas, all other activities, including fun and pleasure, should be pursued as means to the end which is Eudaimonia. Meaning, fun and pleasure are not to be pursued as ends in themselves, for their own sake; they are to be pursued because and to the extent they contribute towards the goal of "good life". Fun and pleasure do not always contribute towards Eudaimonic happiness, and that's where it becomes imperative to take a closer look.

Fun and pleasure, and Eudaimonic happiness

You must have heard some simpletons say it with certain air of superiority: "My philosophy of life is simple. Have fun! If you're having fun doing something, it's right." Really?

A simple example suffices to debunk this feel-good, myopic idea. Smoking is fun. So, going by the principle of this philosophy one should smoke. Now think, in long term would one be better off if one smokes a lot, and thereby has a lot of fun, or if one doesn't smoke? Not difficult to answer. One is better off by not smoking. That means a rationalintelligent person would not have short term fun of smoking, and will thus have a better life. And better life is a happy life in Eudaimonic sense. We saw how the have-fun philosophy is faulty in principle.

The idea is this: Having fun and pleasure is not wrong, but it is only right to the extent it contributes to the goal of Eudaimonic happiness. Those fun and pleasurable activities that don't contribute towards making a good life are not to be pursued. The example I gave reaffirms the statement that fun and pleasure are not to be pursued as ends in themselves, but as (and to the extent they are) means to the end which is Eudaimonia.

How to achieve Eudaimonic happiness?

Now we know what Eudaimonic happiness is and why it should be the ultimate purpose of human life. The next big question is how to go about it. What are the things and activities that actually contribute towards the Eudaimonic happiness?

Revisit the smoking example I gave above. We saw that a rational-intelligent person would make a good life by not having short term fun of smoking. What did he do, in principle, to achieve Eudaimonia? By using his reason and analytic capacity he evaluated the quality of fun from smoking vis--vis the desirability of overall good life. Instead of being directed by his base nature (desire for fun) alone, he made use of his intellect.

Fun and pleasure appeal to our base nature. An animal would not feel dissatisfied in life by indulging only in bodily pleasures, because that's its nature. Human beings have that animal nature too; but in addition to that, humans also have much higher and sophisticated capacities like thinking and reasoning. Therefore, just by indulging their base nature (having fun and pleasure) human beings can't be fully happy and satisfied. Because that way they would not have a full human experience.

That clears the cloud. Those activities which are done making full use of human capacities provide the most gratifying human experience. It does not say that acting out of base nature is wrong per se, but such acts should be rationally analysed to see whether they are in accord with the long term purpose of good life.

Let's test this idea with examples. We take two extreme activities, respectively, involving acting on base nature, and acting against base nature, i.e. using rationality.

First activity is sex. Imagine you having sex with many attractive people and it's extremely pleasurable. Since sex has no use of reasoning capacity at all, you are totally acting out of your base nature. The second activity is sharing your meal with a hungry poor person. By sharing your meal (let's assume it is delicious too) you would be having less of bodily pleasure. You may even not fully gratify your own hunger. But the reasoning mind would tell that feeding the hungry poor is worthwhile because perhaps he needs food more. Now, when the years have passed and you are looking back on your life which of those two activities will make you feel good about the life you have lived? The answer, I hope, is not difficult. One doesn't think of orgasms one has had in life and feels good about life. Instead, one remembers the good and virtuous deeds one

has done and feels that one's life has been good and worthwhile. Those are the things that make one take pride in oneself.

Enter virtue. Virtue is a central idea of the concept of Eudaimonic happiness. Since virtue is essentially human construct, it can only be cultivated using our human capacities reason and intellect. In the original Aristotelian concept the term "virtue" is broadly covered (for which you may follow this piece) but for this post I am limiting its expounding.

If being virtuous means having less fun, then the purpose of life must not be having fun. That is so, precisely because Eudamonia is a function of virtue, not of fun. Virtue does not preclude fun, but it's not centered around it. Virtuous life is a way to Eudaimonia.

Finally, I would say if there is anything like true happiness or perfect happiness, it is Eudaimonia. Sex Love or Expression of Love Sex is neither love nor an expression of love. It's a quasi-voluntary indulgence of animal nature. Give it a status higher than that and prepare to be miserable.

That love which depends on sexual act for its expression (e.g. romantic love) is but a sexual desire in disguise of love. Romantic love is a joke.

The strict definition of "love" in this regard is: Respect, empathy, compassion. Nothing else. Because in the end only those are the things that give us deepest satisfaction from inter-human relationships. Sex is an important element of man-woman relationship, but all along it is serving to our animal side, while the human side only craves love (strictly) as defined above.

That sex is an expression of love is a widely prevalent notion. Here's my explanation against it: Love is respect-empathy-compassion. Three cases: One feels love for one's 1) mother, 2) sister, and 3) girlfriend. Meaning, one feels respect-empathy-compassion towards one's mother, sister and girlfriend. In the first two cases this love is perfectly expressed without using the channel of sex. One hugs and kisses one's mother and sister, but it isn't accompanied by sexual arousal. Hence, hugging and kissing are not by themselves sexual acts. (We do that to babies too.) So, if we say that sex is an

expression of love, aren't we saying that while one can express respect-empathycompassion towards one's mother and sister through various other means without sex, but with girlfriend the same thing love, i.e. respect-empathy-compassion needs an additional channel of sex for its expression? That doesn't make sense as to why. That means in the girlfriend case there's something else, in addition to just love i.e. respectempathy-compassion that is being transferred between the persons, which essentially requires the channel of sex. That something else, I would say, is "mating package", which contains romance plus sexual desire.

In the girlfriend case, in contrast to the other two cases, now we have two things. Love, which is respect-empathy-compassion, and "mating package". Now this is important: Interestingly, mating package creates in one's mind an illusion of love. Meaning, when the mating package is active, one feels respect-empathy-compassion for the person one is fixated on, but it is not genuine.

Proof: When one is in "romantic love" one feels respect-empathy-compassion for the person one is fixated on, but wouldn't feel the same respect-empathy-compassion for someone else carrying the same qualities. One becomes biased. And that bias is due to romance, or the active mating package. That's the reason one feels strongly even towards a person who doesn't carry similar ideology, or continually hurts one, and is always in conflict of one kind or another. Still love! That's actually an active mating package. Hadn't it been for mating package, one wouldn't be stuck on that person, much less feel any respect-empathy-compassion.

In an ideal case it might be that one genuinely has respect-empathy-compassion for one's partner, accompanying the active mating package. But if we look at the mating package in isolation, separately, it is clearly not a sign of genuine respect-empathycompassion.

Reminding at this point that mating package is romance + sexual desire.

Now, mating package originates out of our animal side. Because one does not have control over it. In ordinary cases when one stops liking someone one can say to oneself: "Okay, that's enough. I can't respect, empathize, feel compassion for this person anymore for so and so reason". One is done. But in case where mating package is active, that is not possible. In the former, the love is originating out of the "autonomous" part of the person, while in the latter, the illusion-love is originating out of the

heteronomous part of the person. Heteronomous part is the same in us as in other animals which are more-or-less fully heteronomous. Hence, anything happening due to mating package pertains to animal nature. The genuine love, which is respect-empathycompassion comes out of the autonomous, human part of us.

I am not talking about disowning the animal part of us. It's as much a part of us as the human part, and has to be entertained for a wholesome experience. But since the animal part is heteronomous (hence quasi-voluntary) and is governed by the universe, and human part is autonomous, there are often conflicts of goals between the two. So, in the event of conflict, if one knows what belongs to which part, then only one can make a right decision of choosing one's human goals, instead of tilting towards the universe's goals and bruise the human within. Universe is barbarous. Autonomy is the hallmark of being human. That part of one's behavior on which one doesn't have autonomous control pertains to one's animal nature.

It should be clear that I am not against having a mature relationship with romantic love and sex. And no, I don't have romanticism attached to abstention! Here's what I am for: Enter into a relationship with perfect understanding of romantic love mechanism and the place and function of sex. Romantic love can't be bypassed, so it will develop. Enjoy it, but don't get carried away by it (as in don't develop unrealistic expectations following it). Also, of course, indulge in sex to the fullest, but be aware of what it is, so as to not give it undeserved status, which might cause tragedies. Example: If one thinks of sex as sacred union and things like that, then one can't bear it when one learns that one's partner sometimes fantasizes about others. Another example: if one considers sexual gratification as a sign of it being a "true love" then sexual dissatisfaction would induce one to break the relationship. I could give many tragic examples with different reasoning people hold with respect to sex and romance. The idea is to understand what is what, so that one knows what is really important. It is not sex and romance, but love i.e. respectempathy-compassion that matters in the end. Freedom Always Trumps Social Control Right or Wrong? A blogger friend (who I respect) wrote an article Change Is a Choice in which she says:

Freedom always trumps social control. (By social control she means legal enforcement against people doing what they like as long as they are not harming others.) Laws prohibiting terrorism are moral and just, while laws prohibiting drug use are not so. (The reason she gives is that, unlike a terrorist, a drug-doer doesn't harm anyone else but himself.)

Morality can't be externally imposed. That which is outside the domain of choice is outside the domain of morality. (This I don't disagree with, by the way.) Even if it means having to live with problems, or wait long for betterment, freedom to live as one likes is a must. The "do-gooders" even well-intentioned ones have no right to decide for others what is right.

The reader can learn her point of view by following the original article and the comments thereof linked above.

My objection: "Freedom always trumps social control" sounds very wise and nice, but I have a problem with the word "always". My stance: Controls are necessary to the extent people are ignorant. The following post is my case against the statement "freedom always trumps control" with regards to the objection I stated.

I think that it is a very delicate and complex issue and must not be dealt with as black and white. I don't largely disagree with her, but I don't fully agree too, because the use of the word "always" indicates that she treats it as black and white. By doing so, she suggests a solution to social problems, which is less or no control by the government, while I am at a loss for perfect solution. I do not think that this issue can be resolved so simply without doing more harm than benefit. I would be satisfied with having no perfect solution but would be wary of suggesting a black and white solution.

My arguments

When a child is fascinated by fire and is running into it, doesn't a parent have a right to stop or control it? The child would then cry and scream, perhaps, for being thwarted. But so, should it be allowed to run into the fire saying that it has a right to learn for himself that fire is hot, and that that would be a lesson better learned? The child might get severely burned, right? Similarly, we put control on terrorists; impose our moral standard on them. Isn't that desirable?

The instinct to control collective social behavior isn't wrong in itself. I also tend to think

the instinct to control has an evolutionary significance. Like, if parents didn't feel an instinct to control their children's behavior, the infants might not survive. At larger, social, level too a similar arrangement is at work.

If one agrees that a parent can control a child, then why can't a government control its people? Let's view the family as an organism and an individual as one of the cells that make the organism. The society is exactly the same kind of organism as the family but of a much bigger size. The instinct to control is the instinct to increase the survival and well being of the organism. The organism itself is of prime importance and not its individual cells. Because individual cells can only exist if the organism itself is there! So, each and every cell's primary interest should be to maintain the existence of the organism which houses them, and not their own interest alone because that would in principle lead to tragedy of the commons, killing the organism and with it all its cells. If all cells want to exist then they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the organism as above their own.

Now, all cells do want to exist. Removing the metaphor, all people do want to exist and thrive. (Who doesn't?) So they are automatically obliged to see the interest of the society as above their own individual interest. Because human societies are such that all humans are interdependent. No one can survive alone on one's own. A human being in a civilized society is, by birth, a part of the society. Any person thinking of himself as a distinct, independent individual who can think only for himself, is committing a fallacy that in principle would lead to "tragedy of the commons", as I mentioned above. Hence, if one believes that one wants to have a good life then one is automatically obliged to not act in a way that only serves one's own selfish interests, without benefiting at all to the society. Because just by existing, one is a cost to the society.

Assuming that we have immaculate and infallible mechanism to measure moral judgement, I would go so far as to say that any human being who is able-bodied and able-minded, but isn't contributing to social well being, and thus is only a cost to the society can be imposed external morality by those whose judgement is better. The problem (which I am fully aware of) is in the measurement of who is right and wrong. We don't have immaculate and infallible capacity or mechanism of judgement. And for that there is no solution. That is what makes the issue grey. And there I don't see black and white answer. There is no solid line which divides grey from black and white. So all through the grey continuum, we can't tell for sure where control is right and where it is wrong because it's subject to subjective judgement of people.

What my friend suggests here is: Treat the grey as white ("always freedom"), precisely

because it is grey. On the other hand, the position of "always control" would be like saying: Treat the grey as black. What I am saying is: Treat the grey as "grey"!

Not all people know what is in best interest of the society. And quite a few these days blatantly declare that they don't even care. This blatant class doesn't deserve to live, frankly. Not that I am going to shoot them, don't worry! It's just that their life is a waste, and a contradiction in itself. They want to exist, but they don't care whether the society that keeps them alive exists. Myopic! These people need strong controls. Then there's the class which means well, but hasn't the right judgement as to what is the best interest of the society. These need good education first. But if education doesn't work because of whatever reasons ("weakness of will" being a major one) then legal controls are of help. Some of them might feel it's unjust, but in the end it's for their betterment only. The rights that they feel they are deprived of are the rights that they never actually had! They are those myopic rights that will do harm to them without them being aware of it. These days TV and certain class of films are giving people the ideas of rights (through propagating individualistic philosophy) that never should exist. Not if the organism, the society, has to exist.

My position

I think this is not only my position but is what actually happens, and will happen anyway.

I will use my best judgement in weighing each case separately to decide whether I want to vote in for control, or for freedom. It seems to be the most logical way to me. Because I can't act against my better judgement. Acting against one's better judgement is by definition immoral, isn't it?

If, say for example, the government comes up with a ban on porn, I will weigh it with my best judgement, and if I think the ban is right, I will vote in for the ban. If, in another example, the government plans to ban the whole of internet, I would probably vote in for freedom. Which side I will be, that I can not decide by some fixed rule, as my friend suggests in her article. I will use my best judgement in every situation.

I think if one puts an individual above society, then one would put freedom above control

as a rule. If one puts society above individual then one will opt for using one's best judgement. And that judgement is not as a rule meant for individual, but for the greater entity which includes all individuals. It could be in favor of control, and it could be against control. Depends on the case. The focus is on social good, and not individual (personal) good alone. There will be exceptional cases where my moral standing will be put to test, and on occasions I may fail the test, since I am not perfect. But in general, this is the view I endorse.

An individual's best judgement is not always the right judgement, I know, but nor is the rule "freedom always trumps social control" always going to lead to best outcome. Besides, I just explained how the maxim is fallacious. The issue remains unsolvable. I will never claim that there is a perfect solution to this problem. I have just tried to justify my stance and my method.

Finally, another wise friend of mine gives his input which I agree with, and which quite nicely sums up my arguments:

Many people do not think of long term consequences, and not everybody is wise enough to do so. Moreover, people expect the society to pay for the consequences of their shortterm thinking. It is society which has to keep a drug addict in an emergency room. It is society who has to take care of the kids of a fool who became a vegetable because he wasn't wearing a helmet when he crashed.

As long as society is providing and is responsible for an individual and for the consequences of his acts, the individual cannot claim total freedom to do whatever he wants, even if it is to harm only himself.

Update: My saying that we should put the society above individual may seem like I am suggesting one should die if it benefits the society. No, that I don't mean. Let me make it clear that the very concept of morality is to enjoy higher well being. So "self-sacrifice" defeats the purpose of moral behavior. What I am saying, in essence, is that an individual must align his/her self interest with the interests of the society, so that well being has to necessarily increase. If one thinks for oneself alone, and if all of us did that, alienation and chaos would naturally result, which would reduce the well being of all. That's what Tragedy of the Commons explains. How Non-Critical Thinkers Create Problems

It's a sad truth that most people in the world are non-critical thinkers. By non-critical thinkers here I mean non-philosopher type; those who aren't interested in understanding about life, the human nature, etc.

Something happened at my home this morning that I thought I could use as an example of how non-critical thinkers are good at creating problems in their (and other people's) lives without having the ability to realize that they are doing so. By the way, the noncritical thinker in this case is my mom!

So yes, in our residential society there's this garbage man who cleans the building premises, staircases, etc, and collects garbage from every house every morning. He collects garbage simultaneously while cleaning the stairs and the floor around the doors. To optimize his time, what he does is ring a doorbell and goes back to the cleaning job; because obviously no one opens the door right at the moment the doorbell rings. And if he waited at each door, say, on average 30 seconds, then for collecting waste from four doors he would, on average, be wasting two minutes (30 seconds X 4 homes). Two minutes, by the way, is also the average time he takes to clean the entire area of one particular floor. (Time figures are taken for the example such that it makes the explanation simple.) Yes, so what he does is this. He would ring a doorbell and get back to continue his work. And when the door opens he would take the waste bin and empty in into the big waste bucket he slides along with him.

Now looking closer into his working. Since it's his every day job, after many days of experience he would get used to the whole timing thing. For example, he knows that on average it takes 30 seconds for our door to open; also, it is best for him if our door opens when he has cleaned a certain area of the floor, after which he has to change the direction and angle from which he sweeps his broom. (It's like his task is divided into parts, and it's better if the task is interrupted after the completion of parts than at any random moment.) So, he would ring a bell at the time such that till the door opens he has completed that part of the task which I mentioned. For that's optimizing his time and efforts and gives him highest efficiency. (Of course, since there are four doors the actual efficiency management job is more complex, but it is achieved by this very process which I stated in a simplified form.)

Continuing the scenario, since he has to (or he is determined to) maintain his efficiency thus achieved, if my mom takes less than average time to open the door, she won't find him at the door when she opens it, and therefore will have to wait a few seconds till he completes the part (that I stated above) of the task and comes to collect waste. If, on the other hand, on some day my mom takes a few seconds more than the average time to

open the door then he would have had to wait a few seconds, causing him a loss of efficiency. If this "deviation" from the average time to open the door is little (and of course, little deviations naturally happen everyday but that's fine), there isn't a problem. But if the deviations are large, i.e., the amount of time taken to open the door increases far more than the average time it takes, and if that is repeated day after day then it is understandable that the garbage man isn't going to like it; and he would have to work out his "most efficient strategy" of time management all anew!

That's what happened today. Actually, since last two days I have changed my morning routine somewhat and so the time of my having lunch has shifted. Consequently, the time of mom's cooking has shifted, to coincide with when the garbage man usually comes. A day before yesterday when the doorbell rang, my mom was cooking and so it took her far more than average time to open the door. About 1 minute, which is double of the average time. I was eating my lunch (Yes, I already start eating while the food is cooking, and it arrives into my plate in installments!) and getting restless while mom was stuck with the chapati she had to finish before rushing for the door. When the door opened, the man, as expected, was waiting at the door. Again yesterday the same thing happened. This time around the man grumbled something at mom out of displeasure. Seeing it, this thought flashed through my mind: "From tomorrow this poor man should ring the doorbell a minute in advance so that he doesn't have to wait long like this." Ringing the doorbell by taking the average time as 1 minute (instead of 30 seconds) he could make the completion of his that part of the task and the opening of our door coincide again.

This morning, surprisingly, I think, that's what he did. But sadly, when the doorbell rang, mom was free and she took hardly 5 seconds to open the door carrying a waste bag. And then and this is the proof that he had recalculated the time she had to wait for about 55 seconds till he came to the door. (If he hadn't recalculated the time, mom would have had to wait only 25 seconds.) At this, mom got real angry at him for keeping her waiting at the door for almost a minute while she had other things to do! This time around he was prepared with a verbal attack of his own. And you imagined right what happened. A squabble followed. Not going into the immaterial details, but at the end of the fight none of the parties, obviously, were pleased. (I hope there's no after-effects of this event to be faced in the future.)

What I gathered from this? I think it was unreasonable of my mom to get angry at him. Here's why: Since for past two days she (or I should say "we") had been spoiling the poor man's time management, today he came with a correction in his time management strategy, which was only right and rational on his part; but because of our varying deviations from the average time to open the door, things didn't go as they should have

and mom got "punished". If we look at it justly, she got punished for what she did in the past two days. She deviated from the usual pattern, for two days in a row, which forced the man to reformulate his plans, and she deviates again today and gets punished. Twice the man got punished (about 30 seconds each time), and once mom did (55 seconds). On the whole it had got automatically even.

If mom was a critical thinker she would have seen this whole thing through and applied the necessary corrections in the following days instead of getting unnecessarily angry at the man. If I was in my mom's place, I would, in the following days, simply open the door taking less then average time and the man would automatically adapt his plans to match both our time. After that all I had to do is avoid large deviations from the average time, and in any case not repeat it, which is only fair. I think this understanding is necessary.

One has to know the human nature, and understand and respect everybody's desire and tendency to act for one's wellbeing, which in this case was the efficiency the man got through his time management. As long as possible, we should try to cooperate with each other in achieving that state which is most advantageous for everyone.

But ah, who thinks so much! Aren't you also wondering why I am making such big deal out of an incidence which no one looks into this closely? (Well, I just thought there was some lesson in it.) What mom thinks is that it's alright to make him wait at the door, after all it's his job; but how could he ring the doorbell and then not be there when the door is opened! Yes, she's got a point. But look what happened when she acted on that point.

In the world there arise myriad types of problems where critical thinking can be used to the common advantage. This example was far from excellent or comprehensive, I know. (Rather a clumsy one.) The incidence, however, shows an important point: There are so many cases happening in life where problems and miseries are caused because people don't understand life well. Humans don't understand other humans. Neither do I understand everything perfectly, but perfection is never the point. The more we understand life and the human nature, the smoother our transactions get.

Philosophers and critical-thinkers see life much more closely than ordinary people do. They see things not seen by others. And so their actions are often likely to be more efficient and yielding in terms of human well being. I am not saying that all philosophers and critical thinkers use their best judgement in every situation; but they certainly have the ability to act in a much more amicable way than the ordinary people who don't

understand life. This is true especially of the thinkers who have well developed ethical and moral sense, which by the way is a function of critical thinking. Hence, we need more people to be interested in philosophy and critical thinking and, in general, understanding life. Determinism, Free Will and Moral Responsibility Determinism has no bearing on moral responsibility.

Determinism is linked to moral responsibility by some people in a sense that if determinism is true then we don't have free will, and if we don't have free will then how can we hold someone responsible for what he does?

To begin with, I will declare my position on both determinism and free will. I do believe determinism is true. As for free will, I think determinism doesn't necessarily preclude free will. However, the answer to the question of free will isn't so simple in that it depends on the level from where we are looking at life. (Read my case for free will for detailed account of my view.) If we look at life from the point outside of (or prior to) our consciousness then we are but passive atoms and molecules in motion subject to the laws of physics, and hence we can't be said to have free will. But I believe that since we exist (as an autonomous ego-entity, with the ability to see itself as distinct from the universe) only in post-consciousness realm, this question is only relevant after the point where we came to exist, because it's about "us" having or not having the will. We exist only through our consciousness, and therein we do have free will. (That's why I can even think about it now!) Saying that free will is an illusion would be to say that we (the "autonomous" beings) too are illusions; and if everything is illusion then we must accept that that's the only way things are, and that automatically renders everything real. Therefore, I lean towards the position that we do have free will.

[Comments on my stance on free will must go to this post and not on the current one, as the main topic here is different.]

Are you thinking that this is the argument I am going to use for unlinking determinism from moral responsibility? Well, No! Rather, I am going to concede for this post that we don't have free will. And still I have a case for moral responsibility! Not that I am afraid that the people linking determinism and moral responsibility are going to be taken seriously, but still just for the sake of discussion, here I present my case for moral responsibility in absence of free will.

A Case for Moral Responsibility in Absence of Free Will

We don't have free will. That means whatever action one takes is caused by myriad other factors, not by one's own will, thus making the agent free of responsibility of that action. According to these people, if someone commits a crime, we can't hold him morally responsible. It follows that there's no question of punishment. Appalling that would be! Right?

Well, hold on, says I. Okay, we don't have free will. Now say, Mr. X has raped a woman, and you are saying that he is not responsible for it on account of lack of free will. But when you tell me to not punish him, aren't you assuming that I have free will to take the decision whether to punish him or not? If there's no free will, no one has free will. So, you can't blame me for punishing Mr. X, the rapist, any more than you can blame him for his crime! You can't even ask me to consider it because I don't have free will to consider it with, man! I will punish him, and that punishment might well be "caused" by his criminal action quite in accord with determinism! See the point?

To consider whether we should hold someone morally responsible for his bad actions, referring to the lack of free will, is itself an act that requires free will, whether real or illusory. Since I have already agreed for this post that we don't have free will it must be illusory. So, let's say using an illusory free will, you decide that the rapist should not be punished because he doesn't have free will; but still the decision to not hold him accountable or punish him is itself arrived at using free will (however illusory)! And if you think we could use our illusory free will to consider whether or not to hold him accountable then why except him from the use of the same illusory free will? Do you see the implication such thinking will have on the society? Disastrous! So, why not instead by using the illusory free will take the decision of punishing him and thereby save the society of the doom!

Actually, there's no need of free will to punish an action which is detrimental to one's survival. Our instincts are enough to make us take the counter actions. For those people, to act otherwise, i.e. to defend someone because there's no free will, is to use one's (illusory, yeah?) free will in taking the decision, and thereby acting against their own position; or otherwise, insane for choosing to run into disaster when the better decision could be taken just as well!

Hence, to those intellectual perverts (yes, that's what I call them who "seriously" live with such absurd views and there are quite a few around me, if you're wondering!): As long as humans haven't totally lost sanity whether we believe we have free will or not, people will still be held morally responsible and accordingly be punished as well. My Answer to "Do You Believe In Love?" Randomly reading my views on love in different posts on this blog one understandably gets confused as to what I actually stand for with regards to love. I am often faced with the question, "Do you believe in love?" to which most of the times I have to respond with just a smile. Next time I will instead give the link of this post!

To answer this question 500 Days of Summer style (My rating of the film: 6/10, Not recommended): "It's love. It's not Santa Claus!" You can't believe or not believe in love. It is certainly not a fantasy. Superman is a fantasy, but love actually makes you fly. It isn't just one's imagination. Imagination isn't that powerful.

Does that mean love exists for real? Well, let's not get carried away. The answer is not so simple, because this is actually a disguised query. In a disguised query one isn't really asking what the question appears to be about. Say, person A defines love as a combination of respect-empathy-compassion (which for me is "true love"), and for person B love is the classic symptoms of "romantic love", i.e. obsession-attachmenteuphoria. Now when they ask "Do you believe in love?" they are not really asking the same thing. It's a disguised query in that person A actually wants to know whether you believe that sharing of respect-empathy-compassion between two persons is possible for life, while person B's query is about the obsession-attachment-euphoria kind of romantic love.

For the moment let's focus on person B's query. It can be further looked into to see whether he is asking if romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) exists at all, or he is asking if it lasts for life. If the query is the former then as I said above, love certainly exists. (Who denies that those feelings exist?!) If the query is the latter, i.e. whether romantic love lasts for life, then the answer is negative. And if one believes that it lasts for life then that's a fantasy! That's the reason why I often speak against mass media (TV, Hollywood, fiction books) feeding people with "fantasy ideals" of love and thereby raising their expectations from life to unrealistic level which makes them end up in misery.

Mostly I see two types of people when it comes to love. Those who don't believe in love

and therefore advocate only casual relationships. (Enjoy till it lasts, they would say.) And those who totally believe in fantasy ideals of love. In my opinion both are misguided. Now you must wonder why I am calling enjoy-till-lasts a misguided approach, for I just said that romantic love doesn't last for life. Well, that's true, but romantic love (or romance) is not all there is to love. In fact, true love isn't romantic. THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT. True love consists of respect-empathy-compassion. Similar to what best friends share, only much more in degree. That's the love our "human nature" craves. Romantic love (obsession-attachment-euphoria) pertains to our "animal nature", and it's there for the purpose of enabling "mating". (More on romantic love.) We don't have full control on our animal nature. That's the reason we are pretty much powerless when romantic love is on.

Autonomy is the hallmark of being human. That part of one's behavior on which one doesn't have autonomous control pertains to one's animal nature. Since we are fundamentally animals we can't disown our animal nature which serves biological goals (or natural goals). Therefore, we can't not develop romantic love, by choice, and be in a relationship. But importantly, when romantic love wanes (and it does), that's not the end of a relationship. If one believes that romantic love is the thing then one is utterly misguided. For, such life would never be fulfilling. It would, if we were just animals; but as more-than-animals we have more sophisticated needs from a relationship. Trust, sincerity, devotion, solidity, consistency, cooperation... These are essentially human qualities on which our social world is founded. Striped of these qualities we would be living in a jungle! Enjoy-till-it-lasts is a denial of these human qualities! That's what is wrong with this mindset. A human being can never have fulfilling life with this mindset.

Enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset is animalistic and out-and-out narcissistic. Who would decide if it's still enjoyable? There are two parties in a relationship. What if one person stops enjoying it while the other still wants to enjoy it? (And that's the case most of the times!) See? That's why it's narcissistic. To say enjoy-till-it-lasts is to say: I am in only till I enjoy it.

Talking about love and not acknowledging the impermanence of romantic love isn't going to lead to a meaningful conclusion. Because then believing in love would be to believe that romantic love lasts "forever" (meant-to-be, soul mates etc) which is not true and will only bring misery if earnestly expected; and to not believe in love is to carry enjoy-tillit-lasts mindset (or to completely keep away from a relationship) which isn't conducive to fulfillment in human life.

Do I believe in love?

If given only two choices, I would live with a suited person for life without romantic love, sharing only true love (respect-empathy-compassion); but would be wary of making a decision to be with someone carrying the enjoy-till-it-lasts mindset. Fortunately, in a serious lifelong relationship one can maintain some romance (not extreme passion and euphoria) throughout life of a relationship by conscious measures. One must only give up the fantasy ideals of romantic love and learn the importance of true love, and live like a mature human being rather than taking to infantile rambling for romance and passion.

All that said, I am aware that sometimes the natural forces take the better of us. Agree that seduction is really a fun game whether it's boldly played with sexual intent or by subtle way of romantic love; but that's not the best way for humans to be in love. In any case, a clear understanding is important so that there's no disconnect between what you were looking for and what you ended up with.

For me love is more than romance. As much as I am vulnerable to romantic love, I know what romantic feelings are for; and as much as I am open to enjoying the magic of romantic love, I value true love (which emerges when romance subsides) more than romantic love. I can't conceive a serious committed relationship with a woman who doesn't have this understanding. Comment Policy All comments are moderated.

Comment only if you have further thoughts to share on the topic of the post that might add more value to the article.

Criticisms are welcome, but mere criticisms are unlikely to be published. A criticism must be accompanied by a detailed alternative point of view and/or explanation of your own.

Don't comment only to express appreciation and/or agreement.

Don't use Anonymous mode of commenting unless it is absolutely necessary. The option

is only kept available for special cases where the comment author might not want to make his/her identity public on the Internet. However, anonymous comments are less likely to be accepted.

Comments containing abuse, swear words, harsh and insulting language will be rejected.

If you remove your comment after it has been replied to by the blog author, or anyone else, you will be permanently banned from commenting on this website.

If you have anything to say that doesn't meet the criteria of the comment policy, do not use the comment option. Use instead the contact form. How Evolution Actually Works This post is an explanation (though non-technical) of how evolution actually works, in contrast to how most people think about it.

Note that I am not aware of how prevalent is the misunderstanding this post attempts to correct. It is possible that fewer people are under the misunderstanding than I think. I decided to write about it because most people around me aren't aware of the actual evolution mechanism. Moreover, I remember how it was taught to me in school, and the way it was taught was misleading. If that's how evolution is still taught then I believe this post will be useful in clarifying the mechanism.

How Evolution Actually Works

Common notion of evolution is that organisms adapt to suit their environment. Wrong!

Organisms don't adapt to suit their environment. Random mutations are always happening in organisms, but only those mutations are successful which produce alterations which are allowed to continue by their current environmental conditions. When the process of certain alteration is complete it appears as if the change of feature in a particular organism happened to suit the environment. But the fact is, mutations for

that same change may have happened many times in the past, but only this time the environmental conditions were favorable for the organism with altered feature to survive, and thus for the altered feature to become normal.

Confused? Take the example of giraffe's neck. It is mostly taught in schools (at least in my school it was taught so) that giraffe's neck became long because they moved from savannah (grassland) to the areas with tall trees in times of food scarcity. A long neck was required for them to reach the leaves high up the trees. Hence, over many generations through evolution their neck became long! This is an oversimplification of the process of natural selection. It gives an impression that environmental changes precede alterations in organism's features. In reality it is not quite so.

Let's see what's happened in case of giraffe's neck. Long neck resulted in giraffes through many mutations over time. The contribution of each single mutation is understandably only slight. And such mutations take place from time to time "randomly" regardless of environmental conditions, not only for neck but for all sorts of alterations in an organism. With respect to the above hypothesis, here's what must have happened considering how evolution actually works: When giraffes were living in savannah they did not require long neck. Rather, long necks might have posed danger to their survival by making them noticeable to predators from a distance. So, whenever the random mutation for long neck happened, the giraffe with newly acquired slightly longer neck would be hunted down by the predator (owing to its long neck) and the mutation thus would go unsuccessful since the animal wouldn't pass on its genes for long neck! Now, say, the giraffes have shifted from grasslands to the forests with tall trees. Random mutation for long neck happens again. (Mutations always keep happening randomly!) This time the giraffe with slightly long neck survives, and reproduces! Because in their new environment, long neck doesn't attract predators' notice. And with further random mutations for long neck, over many generations, the neck goes on increasing as long as the environmental conditions don't restrict it by putting the giraffe at a disadvantage for survival and/or reproduction. Moreover, in the areas with tall trees those giraffes with short necks become disadvantaged because they can't get food easily. The disadvantaged giraffes wouldn't be able to pass on their genes (of short neck) because they would starve and die before reproducing. It is thus said that giraffes with long necks are selected by natural selection. Of course, this process happens over long time period. (Note that this is the simplest of the hypotheses about giraffe's neck. Even if it may not be quite true in giraffe's case, it's nonetheless valid as to the point being explained.)

Let's have a look at another example. You must have seen albino people. Albinism also has emerged by random mutation, without the environment demanding it. But albinos are not common in population precisely because they are at a disadvantage in survival

and reproduction. Albinos being vulnerable to harmful ultraviolet rays, and thereby skin cancer, and faring poor at finding a mate to reproduce with, restricts the genes of albinism to spread. If in the future, say, Earth's environment so changes that we no more face ultraviolet rays then randomly born albinos will have better chances of survival, and it is possible that in the long term albinism will spread enough to become a normal feature of human species! Likewise, we have every reason to think that many other alterations in human species are happening from time to time by way of random mutations, without the environment requiring it. But only those changes which don't put the bearer of the change at a disadvantage in his/her environment pass further on and become a normal feature after many generations of evolution.

The important, and often misunderstood, point about the process is this: Changes in environmental conditions don't precede alterations of features in organisms. Random mutations are always happening, and environment only allows or disallows the genes of altered features to go further. When the alteration is allowed by the environment the newly evolved feature is spread further through reproduction in the organism. When the alteration puts the organism to disadvantage in its current environment, the organism wouldn't survive and the altered feature would therefore never become normal.

In short, environment doesn't bring about the change in features. It only approves or disapproves the changes that happen on their on randomly! Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible? At the outset, let me clarify what the following article (and the next one) is about, and what it isn't about:

It's about the specific instances of rape wherein provocative clothes worn by women play a part, and not about all types of rape Examines a link between provocative clothes and rape Examines the psychology behind wearing provocative clothes, and how it is inappropriate and irresponsible on part of women to wear such clothes It does not intend to blame the victim in the sense of excusing the rapist, but is my case against feminists' disregard for the biological facts and natural differences/inequality of men and women

(This introductory part is added in response to several misdirected comments. So before making a comment, please take particular note of the above points.)

--

Popular view today is that women can wear anything they like just like men do, however exposing the clothes; and if men can't control themselves then it's entirely men's fault. It's become fashionable to fight for this freedom for women. Now this is going to be unpopular, but I strongly disagree.

People who say women can wear anything that men can are ignorant of biological make up of man and woman, or at least don't want to acknowledge it, which is a grave mistake. Agree, that even burqa-clad women are ogled and raped. So I am not saying men are clean and innocent when it comes to indecency and rape. It's just that when one says women can wear anything they like just like men do, that's not wise. And especially the women crusading for this right are not only ignorant of the biological differences in man and woman, but are also hypocrites. This latter point is seldom, if ever, brought up.

Let me ask the women obsessed with provocative clothes the question: What is the need to wear clothes that expose body parts that cause male sexual attraction. E.g. a blouse showing excessive cleavage and the like. (Everybody knows the kind of clothes I am referring to, so not describing them in more detail.) Is it because such clothes are more comfortable? That can't be, and I have got at least two reasons for saying this:

The knowledge that a particular clothing is unusual and is going to attract excessive male attention itself won't allow the comfort in wearing it. Secondly, if such short clothes were really comfortable then why only women are more obsessed with wearing them? (Do men wear shirts exposing their waistline, or deep-necks, or sleeve-less as much as women do?)

Although the definition of "unusually bold clothing" differs from culture to culture; but say if a particular culture is relatively more liberal and within it it is common to wear certain clothes that are considered unusual and indecent in other cultures, then those clothes

won't be "provocative" in the first place. Because if the culture is really liberal then men as well as women are liberal, and therefore the men won't be "provoked" by those clothes. So that's alright.The hypocrite women I am referring to are those who are fully aware of the boundary of their culture and knowingly wear unusually bold clothes (within their particular culture).

The aim of modern clothing is hardly the comfort of the wearer. The aim is to look attractive. And when it comes to cleavage-showing blouse, or mini skirt or any such provocative clothing, it's about attracting attention by appealing to male sexuality.

Most of the women from this camp, I am sure, would also express problems with men staring at their cleavage and other body parts that are actually made to stand out by wearing designed-for-the-purpose clothes. Simple question then should be, why wear those clothes if you are going to have a problem with people staring? Note that I am not trying to justify the indecency of men, but am just putting the other side through scrutiny. No one can deny that body-exposing clothes for women are for attracting male attention. If they wear such clothes one can fairly assume that they want to be looked at. Upon having a closer look one finds what those women actually have a problem with is the stares of the people who they don't like. When an ugly man stares at a woman, he is pervert; and when a hot man stares at a woman, he is interested! That's what it is.

So, first of all, these women-folks need to give up their hypocrisy if they want to address the problem in a meaningful way.

Women, you show cleavage not for that blouse is comfortable for you, but for you want to attract attention of hot and attractive members of male species. (If you don't know it, do some introspection!) But by doing so you attract not-so-desirable gazes too, which makes you feel insecure and threatened. Now you don't want to take accountability for your part, therefore like a narcissist, instead of admitting your own intentions, you give entire male species the label of perverts.

Unregulated sexual behavior is wrong, but then equally wrong is provoking it in public places, now that in a civilized world we have better mechanisms available for finding a partner of the opposite sex. If we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, it should be clear that a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. But pervert is often the latter! What is needed to be understood is that men are caught "active" because so is their sexual

biology. Since male is designed to seduce, and female is designed to be seduced, we won't find an active female. While men have to make bold advances, females just have to pull maneuvers. Indirect. (Talking about the basic biological wiring, discounting relatively recent behavioral changes following the invention of contraceptives and related development in the field, and cultural differences.) That's the reason why always males are culprits. Women are passive, but in such cases equally culprits. This is nearly impossible to get people to understand because it requires more than ordinary common sense!

Now let's look at some more technicality. Being attracted to female body parts comes from our animal nature, and we call it wrong (even though it is not quite so in natural world) because we are civilized creatures. But the truth is, attracting the members of opposite sex by various maneuvers is also something that we have learned when we were apes, and therefore is the most animalistic trick to find a partner for mating. Today's women wearing provocative clothes may not be looking out for a partner for mating, but their desire to look attractive is their biology doing the job already. It is therefore improper and unwise to allow one gender to pull explicit animalistic maneuvers and blame the other gender of getting affected by it. We haven't outlawed Nature yet.

Coming back to rape. One thing is clear that women wear provocative clothes to attract male attention (mostly consciously, or otherwise at a biological level anyway) and the appeal is to sexuality. The trick is the same that many creatures in natural world employ to attract mating partners. Now take this bitter pill: Rape is likely evolved by natural selection as a secondary mating strategy. Wait, no, I will never advocate rape on this ground. However, this theory is not unfounded, and one would understand it if one understands Nature, biology and evolution mechanism. What I intend to draw attention to is the relation between wearing provocative clothes and rape as the relation between the maneuver and the result it is fundamentally intended for mating. Since we live in a complex civilized world sometimes the result, mating, is involuntary, but in case where provocative clothes are worn the result is nonetheless invited by the maneuver; because biologically speaking, there's no other reason to expose body parts arousing sexuality.

Rape can never be justified on natural grounds. Since we are civilized we must regulate our behavior; and the breach of it must be adequately punished. But controlling male behavior is addressing only half of the problem. In fact, controlling only male behavior and giving free rein to women to wear whatever they like is not only utterly unwise, but is cruelty to men, and would likely exacerbate the problem. One must understand the powerful laws of Nature. If we need to address the problem of rape meaningfully, we must curtail excessively animalistic behavior in both genders.

Wearing of provocative clothes by women, and bold sexual advances by men are two sides of a coin. Don't make a mistake of curtailing only one. Rapists are perverts, no doubt; but it is also irresponsible on part of women to wear provocative clothes, and therefore they also deserve part of the blame.

Updates:

1) Blogger Chuck Ross writes: A woman in short skirts or low-hanging tops party gear is about like a guy walking through a rough area of town with hundred dollar bills sprouting from his fists like turnip leaves with the look of a sucker on his face... If a police chief were to address a spate of robberies of people wearing Rolexes and clutching hundred dollar bills, his first piece of advice would be to hide the thing that robbers are targeting. "Dont look like a mark," he might say. It's hard to see why the rationale behind protecting those assets would be any different than a woman who wants to protect hers.

2) Scott Adams says clothes contribute to how one is viewed and treated. And I agree. It may not fit our idealist concepts, but it's how the reality is. Provocative Clothes and Rape: A Response This is in response to the comments and discussions (on this blog, other networks, and offline) that followed previous article: Provocative Clothes and Rape: Are Men Alone Responsible?

In the said article my point is: when a woman wears provocative clothes knowing (and often with intention) that it is going to attract excessive male attention by appealing to sexuality it is irresponsible on her part because she is knowingly running into the risk of being harassed; and if she gets raped, she is partly responsible for the tragedy. By not wearing "provocative" (try to see the literal meaning of the word) women can at least avoid the avoidable trouble. After all, not exposing body parts excessively in a provocative way is not such a discomfort.

What I find interesting is that most people who responded to the article committed strawman fallacy. Stawman fallacy is when your originally expressed point X is misinterpreted in distorted form Y, and then that distorted interpretation Y (called strawman) is attacked, while leaving your original point untouched. If you go through the

comments to the article you will see that the most repeated form of strawman is something like this:

Rape doesn't happen only with women wearing provocative clothes. It's mostly decent and weak women who fall prey to rapists. Since decent women are raped too, that means men are perverts. Women are innocent, because those decent women don't do anything to provoke rapists. Apply stricter controls and don't let rapists get away with their crime.

Well, I am all for punishing rapists. (And it was clearly said in the article itself.) But did you notice how the original point is lost? No one, not a single person who argued on the article (online and offline) seemed to understand that the article is only talking about 1) the relationship between provocative clothes and rape, and not about rape in general; and 2) the ridiculous movement for women's right to freely wear whatever men can. Since it can't be denied that there is a relationship between provocative clothes and rape, it must be admitted that it is irresponsible on part of women to wear body-exposing clothes where it is risky. As for why can't women wear what men can, the explanation is pretty clearly given.

I don't deny that decent and weak women are raped, and that the rapists must be made to pay for it. But I am not talking about those instances at all. My argument is about the instances of women wearing provocative clothes, thereby being irresponsible, and the fundamentally flawed reason they give for it, that is: if men can wear anything, why can't women. This reasoning is flawed because men and women are different biologically. (For detailed explanation, read this, and this.) Now if we must blame someone for sexism, blame Nature. But ignore the reality and we will pay the cost in varied forms.

Another argument I invariably get is that men can exercise control over their animal instincts, and they must. But since I am not talking about excusing men at all, what's the point of this objection, that I fail to understand. Of course, I agree that men must control their behavior, but the reality is open out there, and it doesn't care what you and I think men must do. What I am addressing is the reality that is, and what we can do about it. Punish rapists, I agree; but what I am interested to know (and what a sensible reader would comment about) is what can women do to avoid the possible tragedy? Do they have no responsibility towards themselves and the society at large?

If one says that there is zero correlation between provocative clothes and arousal of

sexual urges in men, one needs to reconsider it. Provocative clothes produce two effects. 1) Not only do they make the wearer of those more vulnerable to sexual advances from men (at a biology level that's exactly the intention) but 2) once a man is aroused by looking at a women wearing such clothes, he may become more prone to target someone "easy"' to release his sexual energies on. Now of course, one would say it's totally the man's fault. Well, yes. So punish the man all you want. But I am still referring to the full reality. We rational beings can easily say it's the man's fault, but the reality doesn't care what we think and say. Punishing the man (which is only right) isn't going to solve the problem. Because the root of the problem is not purely society. The root of it is in the biology. While catching the criminal is a remedy at a social level, what about what happens at a biology level? How are laws going to change the natural biological processes?

It's also instructive to look into women psychology behind wearing provocative clothes, which is seldom done by anyone. The reason women love wearing provocative clothes is that they want to exercise power by being desirable. The power and attention thus gained is addictive. It's sexual politics. Now if one understands the forces involved in this power play one can see the risk of it. They appeal to man's animal nature; then it's no surprise if the animal does comes out some time. Therefore, in my opinion, it is irresponsible behavior on women's part. Consider this example: in order to appear powerful, you carry around diamonds on you, and a wad of money in your hand; and one day you get mugged. Now anyone of sane mind would tell you that it was foolish and irresponsible of you to show off your wealth that way. That doesn't mean the mugger is to be excused; but that you should be responsible too. One may shrug it off saying we are not animals and shouldn't behave like one, but as I said the reality doesn't care what one thinks. And there are costs involved in not respecting the biological reality.

The following part is an extension of the topic, going beyond the issue of rape:

I believe the urge to wear provocative clothes is fundamentally inappropriate for civilized societies, even if rapes were somehow controlled by the law.

How are laws going to change the natural biological processes? Therefore in a good society we must expect "decent" behavior from everyone. Many of the indecencies are not illegal, but they are still indecent because they are not conducive to good health of a society. Excessively bold sexual behavior, certain bad habits like drug addiction, using swear words etc may not all be illegal in society but these elements do affect people

negatively. That's why we call that behavior indecent. Wearing provocative (thus, indecent) clothes for attracting male attention does have its effects. As I mentioned in the previous article, it is a maneuver coming from the animal nature to attract mating partners. In civilized societies now we have better mechanisms in place for that purpose, which suit our human nature. Behaving excessively like animal in any respect is considered indecent. That's why we expect men also to not approach women like an animal, but instead use decent, socially appropriate routes. When a man is desperate for sex his (animal) nature is to exercise bold sexual behavior, and when a woman is desperate her nature is to pull bold attraction maneuvers. So if we take into account differences in biology of man and woman, a woman wearing provocative clothes is essentially doing the same thing that a cleavage-gazing pervert does. Here some people will jump up saying that I can not generalize that every woman wearing provocative clothes is desperate. Well, then not every man who stares at boobs is pervert, too! Get the point? It's naturally fun, healthy in a way, but indecent nonetheless when done excessively.

As I said above, indecency is any behavior which is not conducive to good health of a society. And indecency of wearing unusually bold, provocative clothes affects normal functioning of society by affecting mental states of men. As much as we like to believe from rational point of view that it is those men's fault for not controlling themselves, we must not ignore the full reality which includes natural processes that cause it all. Expecting everyone to operate rationally is good; punishing those who allow passion to overpower their reason and commit crimes is also right; but assuming that humans are perfectly rational is a grave mistake. That can never be, even!

Therefore, punish rapists; admonish all kinds of indecencies; but at the same time let's not forget that we all must always act responsibly and with decency if we wish to be in a good society. And "we" includes men and women both. Society and Morality: Why You Don't Have a Right to Be a Jerk Individualism is a popular ideology today. Everybody wants to live one's own way, free of all control. "Be what you are", "Don't let others tell you how to live your life" These words pass for wisdom these days. Well, I won't say that one should give up one's individualism, but the kind of people I see fighting for their "rights" and the intentions they carry, that frightens me sometimes. A few days back I was having a discussion with a couple of friends about morality and desirability of social control, and at some point one of them said: we have no ethical/moral obligation towards society. He even went on to say that everyone has a right to be a jerk (as long as one isn't directly harming anyone else). Oh boy!

He who says he has a right to be a jerk as long as he isn't harming anyone doesn't know the fundamentals of human world. He clearly doesn't understand what it is to be a member of the civilized society, and how our world works. No one has a "right" to be a jerk; in fact, everyone has a "duty" to live in the interest of the society. To understand how, let's look into what society is

What Is Society?

Society is a group of interdependent individuals who have aligned each-other's selfinterests to maximize their welfare. It's a thoroughly interconnected system. Therefore, any change in one part of the society affects related individuals through chain reaction. When one is sick, one goes to the clinic/hospital where someone is employed to serve one. Hadn't it been a "society", the person who is doctor could be doing something else, instead of binding himself to one profession for all his life. What we have is like division of work and responsibilities whereby we enjoy higher efficiency and higher welfare. Every person, by virtue of being human, is a party to the implicit contract that is society. If there were no doctors, no engineers, no farmers, no dairymen, then humans would not be living this comfortable a life. Dependence would be much less, but so would be welfare. Totally remove dependence and we are in a jungle! Apparently, those who believe they are "independent" don't see this.

This system is society. In society, everybody's life is so intricately interwoven (and higher welfare is the purpose) that it is everybody's responsibility to act in the common interest, that is, in the interest of the society. That doesn't preclude anyone from having fun (besides, higher wellbeing itself is fun). And granted, no one has good enough judgement to understand with total precision what is best for the society in every situation. But if there is anything that maintains order in the society, and can sustain the comfortable life that we currently have, it is cooperative and responsible behavior, and not the pursuit of selfish individual goals on the name of individualism. Society is a delicate organism. And it's a mistake to think we are not a part of the organism. We may not realize it because we have got so used to it but we are continually interacting with other agents of the society for our living. If the system disappeared, maybe we can't survive at all individually; or at least that survival would not be pleasant.

Now looking at society another way: Society is like a corporation whose interest is to maximize the welfare of its members. (That way we can view it as a "cooperative society" too.) Each member is rewarded according to his contribution (like employees

have different salaries), but no member has a right to remain idle, much less a right to be a jerk. He who is not contributing anything to the goal of the society (which is collective welfare) is a freeloader and can be pressurized to be productive. And he who engages in activities which the effective majority in a given society views as detrimental to the social good would be punished by the society. Here, of course, I won't say that the majority in a society is always right, but nor is an individual who rebels always right. Due to the complexity of societal structure, there will always remain this tension between individual and society in many areas. However, the point of this article is that it's a good idea to understand what society is, and why social good matters more than individual good.

Society is a system of interdependence for optimum welfare; and belonging to one isn't a choice. Therefore, individual freedom is a delusion which has to be enjoyed within certain boundaries. Claiming total freedom in society is immature to say the least. A human being in civilized world is born directly into a society. To think that society is an illusion, or that one is (or can be) totally free and independent individual who doesn't have to care about social welfare (welfare of others) is a monumental error.

And here comes morality. Simply said, morality is an informal rule of conduct for healthy coexistence in a society. Therefore

Social responsibility = moral behavior

We do have moral obligation towards the society in the form of cooperative and responsible conduct. To refuse to accept this is to refuse to be a mature, adult human being.

This brings to mind: back in my spirituality days I received many a praise for saying this: "An enlightened person lives on the tune of Nature. He doesn't need to know what is moral or immoral." Now I say enlightened my ass! One must be a narcissist of the highest rank to have such a thought! The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky Harmanjit shared with me a remarkable book called The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky (also spelled Zhukhovitski). The book doesn't seem to have been very popular, but it contains a world of wisdom within its less than fifty pages. Sharing some gems from it in this post:

The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky (Cover)

Quotes from The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky

In an ordinary family, I was thinking, any big quarrel may bring the partners to the verge of divorcefor they live under each other's noses and there is nowhere to escape to in order to give it time and calm down. But in a large family, even a serious discord is only with one out of five or seven and it is not at all necessary to split up... Husbandless mothers may still exist in a family like this, but there will be no fatherless children.

***

The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier todaythey are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!

To some extent the growth in the divorce rate is a kind of a tax on good living.

***

The family is destroyed by the very concept of some ideal structure, which is almost automatically obliged to provide us with a happy life. The logic is as follows: the family is good, and I am good, but things are bad at home. Whose fault is it? Obviously, whoever is nearest to us. But the person who is nearest to us thinks exactly the same. So the destructive work starts from both sides.

***

Once an eminent Estonian scientist, Gustav Naan, wrote in Literaturnaya gazeta that the family is a self-destructive system. What a clever idea! The gradual deconstruction of the family is not an exceptional phenomenon but a normal one. It falls apart not through the fault or malicious intent of one of the partners but simply because everything on earth sooner or later falls to pieces. Do you want to preserve your house? Then repair it regularly, rebuild it, build onto it and adapt it to changes and new situations...

***

Why are you getting married? Nine girls gave nearly identical answers: In order to be happy. And only the tenth said: In order to make my husband happy. I'm afraid that she was the only one out of the ten who found happiness.

***

Divorce is quite common nowadays. It is something else that is strangethe fact that marriages based on love turned out to be the weakest ones. Yes, it is true. Those who were looking for some practical purpose in marriage are still living togethermaybe not ideally, but still they are together. However, marriages founded on the most impassioned love broke shatteringly into pieces.

***

In marriages of love, both of course are counting on their love remaining as passionate as it was before the marriage. Whet safety margin is there in passionate love? Unfortunately, not everything depends on our intentions...

Love's passion is the greatest of joy and the greatest miracle. It has thousands of virtues. It lacks only one thingstability.

***

Millions of people suffer because love-passion becomes weaker with time. But nature gave us quite an adequate compensation: love-friendship, which grows stronger all the time. Where human relations are being built, the house builds itself automatically.

***

The experience of happy family should be studied on its black days.

***

Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizingevil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.

Download The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky. If the link stops working, notify me through a comment or contact me with your email. A Little Commentary on The Family and Society Some thoughts that followed my reading of The Family and Society by Leonid Zhukhovitsky, a book the previous post was about

In the book, the author talks extensively about love but hasn't gone much into the technicalities of romantic love and merely says:

None of us knows what kind of force, regardless of all reason, suddenly ties us to one particular person, and nobody can say why sometimes, equally unexpectedly, the magnet that attracted one body to another loses its pull.

Well, now we do have good enough clue about it. We know that romantic love is mating drive, and what hormones cause it, et cetera. That doesn't undermine the book's message though; but I think now that we can explain romantic love scientifically, and thereby more meaningfully, it's a good idea to do so whenever we write on this topic, because otherwise there's a lot of scope for misinterpretation, the word "love" being used for varied feelings. I have written a series of posts explaining romantic love and related issues here.

Another excerpt from the book:

The better we live the easier it is to divorce from the material point of view... Previously, it was possible to get divorced but there was no place to go. It is easier todaythey are building a lot of new flats. We have become more cultural and better educated, and we are therefore more demanding of the person we live with. A lack of common interests is a widespread and sufficient reason for divorce; we do not want to lead a boring life!

I totally agree with that. And the solution the author prescribes in the last paragraph of the book is:

Both love and misfortune enter our lives unannounced, and it is not within our power to stop them. But it is totally up to us whether or not we meet them without losing our dignity, conscience and humaneness. Experience shows that family catastrophes cannot be resolved by pressurizingevil feelings won't help; it is only like smashing your fist against the wall that has appeared between people. On the other hand, kindness will carefully and tenderly dismantle it brick by brick.

That's also right. But it shows that the book is not philosophically rigorous. This is not a criticism of the book, and doesn't invalidate the book's core message. The book belongs to a relatively simpler time (1990). In today's times I think there's only one real solution: Existential wisdom. Meaning, understanding life and existence through philosophical development.

In earlier times social conditions were different, and the evil influences (like mass media) too weren't around, and traditional wisdom was prevalent. Religion, however flawed, was

much better source of moral education than mass media which is the primary vector of cultural education today. Earlier, even in imperfect marriages people didn't think of divorce because so was their conditioning. It was wrong! And large families and culturally allocated roles and duties provided people meaning despite lack of passion in marriage. Now the world has changed. We neither have that binding social structure (large family, and the traditional/cultural roles and duties), nor have right moral guidance since cultural education is coming from mass media. Both together (among other factors) make sure that people don't behave in a way they did in earlier times in dealing with family issues.

In such a scenario, the only solution I see is for people to do their own homework. Understand what society is from bottom up. Understand the importance of family in relation to human nature. Earlier this exercise was optional. Now it is mandatory. How Spirituality Makes Narcissist of Man The biggest flaw in spirituality is its exclusive focus on the inner. In spirituality everything that needs to be fixed is inside the person.

Suffering is intrinsic to our existence. There's no escape from the human condition for anyone; and a spiritual person is no exception. He also suffers. As long as the spiritual person suffers (which is always, like any other person) his focus would be fixated on the inner, that is, himself. When there is always something to fix on the inside, naturally, one won't be interested in the problems external to one. A spiritual person looks at the problems of the world, and internalizes them. Meaning, he views everything that causes man to suffer as man's inner weakness. If you are suffering in love, he would tell you: you need to develop from the inside. Feeling anger and jealousy? Develop from the inside. The more a spiritual person suffers, the stronger his obsession with the self gets.

What is this focus on the inner? Spirituality views the world as a part of the whole. A spiritualist believes that his true nature is not his ego-self which is just an illusion created in consciousness. His true nature is the nature of the universe, the whole. Any man trapped in his consciousness, i.e. having ego-identity (which by the way includes every normal, functional human being) is imperfect and needs to develop. The state of perfectness is when one loses one's ego-self and experiences oneness or unity with Nature or the universe, or the whole, whatever that means. Both "true nature" and "the whole" are terms so fuzzy that one must be stupid to take them seriously.

Spirituality's focus is so much on the whole that it never really connects with the

problems of the world. Only (non-)remedy it offers is for people to stop being people and merge into the whole. Spirituality therefore is hokum.

So called enlightened people are not free of suffering. If anything, they have built thick walls around themselves cutting them off from every element of the human world. Through reclusive practices they have mastered the art of deluding the self. At best, they have achieved unwavering focus on the self, and their obsession with the self has overridden every other drive they might have. They appear to have concern with the problems of the world, but not really. For every suffering they encounter, they view it as a sign of their imperfectness and obsess more with the self, through isolation and meditation and what not. And they offer the same to others. That's not really a concern for the world but their self-affirmation. They have effectively noting to offer the world but their own madness and narcissism.

It is impossible to care and not suffer. If there is a truly enlightened person who is free of suffering (which I don't think is possible in a normal, functional human being) then he must be a narcissist of the highest rank. He cares squat about life, the world, and other people's suffering. He is happy in his delusions. The king in the empty kingdom. He is no more alive than a piece of vegetable. Pinch him and he will crawl ever deeper into his self.

Existential awareness does make one strong from inside by enabling one have a right perspective, and that's important too. But that is philosophy. Spirituality is different in that it involves obsessing with the development of the self to the point of viewing the world as illusion and seeking the end of suffering. That is bullshit. Since there's no such thing as oneness with the whole or perpetual bliss as long as we are alive and conscious, he who believes he is there is deluding himself. And his apathy towards everything but the inner/self reeks of narcissism. Spirituality, Eliminating Suffering, and Narcissism This post is a unified response to the comments on the previous one, and can also be read as a stand-alone article covering what spirituality is, its comparison with philosophy with respect to the suffering; and explaining how spirituality is a narcissistic lifestyle.

What Is Spirituality?

Spirituality is truth-seeking with the goal of getting rid of the suffering of human life.

There are many versions of spirituality, some involving a belief in God, others atheistic. It is hard to understand how truth-seeking and a belief in theistic God can be in one system of living because the truth is, there is no God. However, and hence, the defining feature of spirituality, I would say, is the pursuit of enlightenment the state of permanent and everlasting happiness, IOW, elimination of suffering. Stripped of this goal, the system is anything but spirituality.

Some modern spiritualists concede the impossibility of enlightenment or everlasting happiness. But even so, their main focus is always on the inner/self, and how to protect the self from every form of suffering, which nontheless follows from the main ideal of hardcore spirituality.

Earlier I have been into a personalized version of atheistic spirituality, but no more. Spirituality more precisely the goal of eliminating suffering (or pursuit of unending happiness) is by nature a narcissistic system of living.

Spirituality, Philosophy and Focus on the Inner and the Outer

Note that exclusive focus on the outer is not suggested here. One has to develop from the inside too. Balanced growth is what is needed. But the problem with spirituality is its exclusive focus on the inner.

Common notion is that philosophy is all about logic, rationality and the outer world, while spirituality is about the inner. That needs to be corrected. Philosophy is a vast field. There are myriad philosophers and their philosophies. Everything inner and outer of human condition has been dealt with by one or the other philosopher. Take Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, for example. His concept of Golden Mean is similar to the Middle Way of Buddha. What philosophy does not deal with and that's spirituality's main focus is enlightenment and oneness with the whole, et al of spirituality.

What message a spiritual master gives that is not there in philosophy in general? It's

non-attachment, enlightenment, world-is-illusion, elimination of suffering and freedom from the human condition. If one points to any other wisdom, it's just philosophy. When one mentions spirituality, it's essentially all those things mentioned above. Just as when one says one is religious, I would assume one believes in God; when one says one is into spirituality I would assume one pursues all those things. And every one of those ideas is a poor way to live, to say the least about it.

Reflection on Suffering: Is It to Be Eliminated?

Suffering is not to be eliminated. The very idea of everlasting happiness is narcissistic, not to mention it's not possible. The real key is existential wisdom. Existential wisdom (which comes through philosophical development) is to understand the human condition and then live as worthwhile a life as one can, and let happiness (or no-suffering) be the by-product of good life, instead of the goal. To be focused on eliminating one's suffering is to be self-focused. And since the goal is never to be attained, the self-focus always remains in a spiritualist. Freedom from the human condition is the only ultimate goal of spirituality. It's easy to see then that a spiritualist (spiritual master) doesn't really deal with anything within the human condition other than enforce the delusional goal of ultimate self-fulfillment.

The focus of life should not be to eliminate/reduce suffering. The focus should be to live a worthwhile and virtuous life. There are similarities between spirituality and philosophy, as both involve truth-seeking. But spirituality's main goal, elimination of suffering, is narcissistic. Philosophy strives at making life good, not eliminate one's suffering. The difference is subtle, but the implications are vast, if perceived.

What to Do About Suffering? Not Avoid It?

Well, avoiding suffering is only right and logical. But making it life's focus is narcissistic. Again as I said, the difference is subtle, but its implications are great. Certain suffering is necessary. A life without suffering would be worse than hell. Because without suffering, happiness can't be. So, what is one to do? Not avoid suffering when it is taking place? That would be absurd. Fight suffering when it's taking place, but be aware of the fact that it's a part of life and it will come back in one form or another, and that's alright.

Happiness and suffering are not really different things. One should not shut oneself out of suffering, which is exactly what spirituality purports. That's what continuous focus on elimination of suffering means. Shutting oneself out of suffering is shutting oneself out of life. For suffering is a part of life.

Consider this example: Should I not run from the dog when it's coming towards me to bite me and give me suffering? I must run. But should I permanently shut myself inside my house because the dog is out there? A spiritualist would say yes. He would say, the world is an illusion anyway, everything you need is inside. Don't believe it? Why do you think hardcore spiritualists don't participate in the society?

One has to develop from the inside, yes. And that would be in the form of strong spirit after knowing the truth of existence, involving ego/self, what consciousness is, and how ego and consciousness give rise to suffering etc. It does make one strong to face adversities. And it is necessary. But that's nothing that is not explored in philosophy. Moreover, there is the outer reality too. And outer development is being able to see meaning and worth in the material life (as opposed to spiritual, which is the exclusive reality in spirituality), because materialism has always been a fact of life. Instead of running away inwards, one has to live a normal life balancing one's inner life (spiritual) with the outer (material). And suffering is a part of normal life.

A Note on Philosophy/Spirituality Dichotomy

It is for the sake of convenience that I use the dichotomy of spirituality and philosophy. If we go deeper, it has to break down, because spirituality is one system of living (the aim of which is elimination of suffering), while philosophy is a collection of opinions about what truth is. A system (or worldview) under the label "philosophy" that could be compared to spirituality (which is, as I said, a system) could then be a particular worldview proposed/advocated by one or more philosopher(s). Examples: Nihilism, Absurdism, etc. It's for keeping it simple I say philosophical development when I mean personal development through truth-seeking and critical thinking. Of course, absurdism and nihilism (and many others) are worse ways to live than spirituality. But that's not what I am suggesting by "philosophy". And when I said philosophy strives at making life good, it's this broad label "philosophy" I referred to. Why else would we seek-truth if it didn't provide any utility (good life)? The propensity to understand life is the propensity to make it better. For the likes of nihilists, then, I would say, bad luck that they struck the dead end.

Proof of Free Will in Few Words Free will is our ability to choose through reflection.

Determinism implies that we don't have free will, because everything in the universe exists through a chain of causality. While I don't refute determinism, I hold that we do have free will.

My proof of free will:

Assuming that a bird is not self-aware (which is probably right), when it is flying, we can say that the flying is happening. The bird as an autonomous agent is not flying. Only the physical body of bird, a heteronomous living object, is being driven by the laws of the universe. Without self-awareness and thought processes, the bird won't know what's happening. The bird as an autonomous agent is not, i.e. does not exist. (If it is selfaware/conscious, then it would be said to have free will to the degree of its consciousness. Most animals and birds have too little or no self-awareness.)

In the same way, if the thinking in our brains was just happening, then we, as autonomous agents, wouldn't exist; only our physical bodies were being driven by the laws of the universe. But the fact that we "choose" what to think means we exist as selfaware and autonomous agents, unlike birds (and other creatures for that matter). Autonomy is free will.

I think, therefore I am. (Descartes) "I" is self-aware and autonomous, therefore I have free will. Can Men and Women Be Friends? There is no reason for a man to be interested in a woman (and for a women to be interested in a man) other than sex. Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, copulation is the only reason why there are two sexes around, and it is fundamentally the only thing for which the members of the two sexes are drawn to each other.

Propagation of genes is why we are. Whatever else we think life is about is but our delusions, and a part of the grand scheme of Nature the cold bitch. Not that these delusions are bad (for what choice do we have?), but to the best of human

understanding that's what life is.

Man and woman can't be friends in true sense of the word. Meaning, they can't have a pure friendship. The forces governing same-sex friendships and those governing crosssex friendships are significantly different. Think about it. To give some hint of the difference in the dynamics: one doesn't use the same criteria for evaluating people of both genders while choosing friends. The degree of influence one's male and female company exert on one (other things being the same) is not the same. And that evidences plentiful role sexuality plays in friendships involving opposite sexes. One is influenced and affected by a person of the opposite sex far more easily and deeply than by a person of the same sex.

Sexuality makes one biased towards the person of the opposite sex in every situation which has a possibility of it leading up to sex (which is almost always), no matter how remote the odds. And no, one doesn't always have to have a conscious intention of sex while exercising the bias. It just happens that way, apparently because such behavior is hardwired in our biology. This purported end of the bias, sex, would not be the goal of pure friendship. This I say because friendship is a human concept serving human goals, as opposed to Nature's goals which is sex. For a relationship to qualify as friendship the minimum condition is that it must be founded on some social purpose; the purpose that originates from one's human nature as opposed to the animal nature. (Follow links for definitions.) Since the sexuality-encouraged gender bias is always present in a manwoman friendship, such friendship is always more or less impure, and as a consequence there are complications roughly proportional to impurity in friendship.

The complications in man-woman friendships arise because the biological intention (or animal purpose, sex) freeloads in the boat purported for social purposes (or human purposes). This is manifested in friendships in which the parties would not admit their sexual interest (be it active or latent) but their biology, through behavior, would from time to time betray them creating what is called awkward moments of sexual tension.

In modern age the reverse is also quite common, where the social goals freeload in the boat purported for biological interest. This is when the two persons have decided to come together as fuck-buddies and then try to pretend to themselves and to each other that they are friends (friends with benefits?) and care about each other more than just for sex. The pretense probably is the result of guilt triggered by deep-seated values by which being fuck-buddies is wrong.

People of the opposite sex who become friends, then lovers, and then break up, find it hard to remain friends. They wonder: if we were friends before, why can't we be friends again? Well, one reason can be that either both or one of them is not yet free of the romantic feelings for the other. If, however, that's not the case then here's why: they never were friends in true sense. (And this reason is always there in cross-sex friendships to more or less extent, by the way.) Whether the two were conscious of it or not, it was always about sex. Romantic love, for that matter, is nothing but sexual desire of subtle nature. When they totally eliminated the possibility of sex by breaking up, their biology wouldn't support them to be together as friends, for there's no reason for it left.

Exceptions to the above analysis

I could think of three exceptions:

1. Asexuals 2. Gays 3. Unattractive people

In case of asexuals it's easy to see why. Though I have never met an asexual person, so I can't be totally sure, but here's what I think: since asexuals won't have any appetite for sex they won't exercise the bias towards the opposite gender. Neither have I known a gay person. But I think a gay person would exercise the bias towards the own gender, and would be able to have pure friendship with the opposite gender. These two may be the cases of perfect exceptions.

The third case may be of imperfect exceptions. Say, if one's friend of the opposite gender is so unattractive that there's no possibility of one even imagining sex with him/her ever, then one may be able to keep the friendship totally free of sexualityencouraged gender bias. However, since the taste in looks is a subjective matter, we can't tell with certainty which cases would fall under exceptions.

Barring the exceptions, the analysis stands true for all cases of man-women friendships.

Now I am at a peril of being accused as obnoxious cynic. Anyway, all that said, there's no reason to not believe that men and women can be friends. If we tweak the definition of friendship a little bit to include the sexual component as a valid purpose then they can be friends very well. The gist, then, is that men and women can't be friends in the same fashion as men-men or women-women can. But that's no reason to not enjoy the friendship, or whatever one may call it. I for one still call it friendship! Is Sexual Freedom a Good Thing? In modern times there are many advocates of sexual freedom or free sex (myself formerly being one of them), with a justification that sex is a natural activity, suppression of which is causing many types of suffering.

Apparently, what these people fail to understand is that what is natural is not necessarily good or desirable. Nature is barbarous. One needs only to look at the lives of other animals to see that.

Sexual restrictiveness is one of the foundations of human development into civilization. A society which lifts all restrictions on sexual pursuits would turn into a chaos, with menwomen relationships becoming more painful than ever.

Sex has evolved to be a taboo, not because of crazy ignorance of the society, as the advocates of free sex who decry tradition would have one believe. It's considered bad for the reason that it is counterproductive with respect to most human pursuits.

For the creatures with self-awareness and the goals of their own apart from the Nature's evolutionary goals (propagation of genes through reproduction), it's only natural that sex should come under high regulation. From Nature's standpoint, sex is the sole purpose of our existence; but since Nature's goals are not our goals, sex is detrimental to our interests.

No doubt, sex is immensely pleasurable; but pleasure is a trap. It's an incentive for us to reproduce.

Not that reproduction is bad. In fact, where Nature's goals overlap with human goals is

when one wants to have a child of one's own. But in every other situation sexual pleasure is a distraction from the worthwhile human pursuits.

Overindulgence of sex is not only counterproductive but destructive with respect to our social goals. Look at the life of a sex-addict. Look around to see what obsession with sex does to marriages. Our society is too evolved to give free way to the so-called natural behavior.

Then why is it so difficult to tackle this problem?

Sexual freedom is always an attractive thing from an individual's standpoint. Since everybody enjoys sex, and possesses strong sexual urges, the easier one gets it, the better.

It's one of those nasty problems which turn almost irrevocably harmful to the society only after they have become a mass phenomena; until then the individuals with the potentially harmful tendencies greatly benefit from exercising them. So, it's hard to be checked at an individual level since the benefits are far away in effect and indirect (in that it will benefit the society as a whole, not an individual directly), whereas in direct sight are mostly the disincentives of controlling one's urges in the face of choices.

Religion had worked out an ingenious solution to this conundrum by making unregulated (premarital and extramarital) sexual indulgence immoral (thanks to the Big Guy in the Sky).

Now thanks to the increasing influence of mass media, the values established by religion are washed away, bringing about animalistic culture of narcissism and alienation, and disintegration of families and society.

Majority of the modern generation are literally lost creatures without the sense of right and wrong, without correct guidance, and with no higher purpose in life than pleasure seeking. No wonder they so love the idea of free sex!

Unrestrained sexual expression and predominance of sex in relationships is not the mark of a forward society but a backward one. Kill tradition and bring sexual freedom, and let marriage become an utopia and ugliness crime...

Happy riding back to Nature! Individual Freedom and Societal Collapse What Is Societal Collapse?

Societal collapse is a phenomenon brought about by such undesirable changes in the society that rapidly undo what is built over a long period of time. The undesirable changes include changes which are undesirable in themselves (direct harm perceived), and also those changes whose offshoots would be undesirable if the result could be known prior to the change taking place (indirect harm). Societal collapse can be of the economy, political system, culture etc, and/or combination of those.

There can be many reasons for societal collapse depending on the area or the type of collapse. If we wish to prevent the collapse, regulations are necessary. And regulations means we can't exercise complete individual freedom. In fact, that's the foundation of civilization. It's another thing nowadays we have widespread ignorance about the fundamentals and a lot of people are fighting for their individual freedom.

The Meme Theory Defense (of Individual Freedom)

One of the interesting defenses of individual freedom is given in the form of meme theory of sociocultural evolution. According to the theory the new behavior and ideas in a society go through the same kind of process that genes go through in biological evolution. A behavior or idea that is beneficial in the society is naturally selected for survival and harmful behavior/ideas are automatically eliminated. Here behavior/ideas conceived of as genes, are called memes. That means there's no need for taking away people's freedom, or applying any regulations. If we let society run freely then sooner or later everyone would realize that there is nothing like complete freedom in the society, and since our survival and welfare in the society depends on cooperation, it will never collapse. The new behavior/ideas would only bring positive changes over time, because only the good ideas would be naturally selected in the long run. Thus, the society would

only change forms as it has always done.

In short: say the meme theory defenders: the changes which bring social disorder will be out of place soon, because the very sense of chaos would make people aware of the need for order. Only those changes which are good for the society will find their way in society.

Contention:

Consider this: If we suddenly remove all the laws and free all prisoners, would they "sooner or later realize" that no one has absolute freedom, before the society turns into a chaos and breaks down? If that was to happen, would we have prisons?

It shows, in principle, that collapse is possible, and to avoid it there are already many mechanisms of social control in place. The cause of worry then is that the law doesn't cover all bad behavior. And when the grip of ethical sense loosens across masses, it may cause the collapse even without a breach of the law. We know that economies and political systems collapse that way. Modern society is faced with many new age problems which have this nasty characteristic of massively harming society without breaking the existing laws. That calls for novel ways of regulation, not more individual freedom.

..the society would only change forms as it has always done.

No, collapse is a real phenomenon. There are many types of collapse. In WWII Japan collapsed, Germany collapsed in yet another fashion, then there is Soviet Union collapse, for example. So, there's a difference between mere "change of form" and collapse. It can be economic, political, cultural, combination of all.

The changes which bring social disorder will be out of place soon, because the very sense of chaos would make people aware of the need for order.

For that to happen everyone needs to be perfectly aware of the complex structure of the system. Only then one would know what to fix to avoid the disorder. But the fact is, our world operates with many layers of complexity and no one has perfect understanding of what relates to what and to what degree. Lay people (that is, most people) don't have slightest idea even about the simplest of those complexities. So, when some actions are going to cause disorder people won't know it until it has happened, and thus, the disaster can't be avoided.

Consider again why and how economies collapse. Among myriad reasons, the major one is that wrong actions have been taken. But those wrong actions could not be prevented because of imperfect knowledge of the complex system among the ordinary people who participate in the economic activities.

When the knowledge about the system/society is imperfect, because the complexity is huge, the masses must accept the authority of a few knowledgeable people/experts. This sacrifice of individual freedom is a price to be paid for comfortable and worriless living. Few people take the trouble to understand and manage the system while the masses "enjoy" their lives. Masses can't have the cake and eat it too.

1) Either everyone needs to be a critical thinker and understand the world near-perfectly, or 2) Some must accept the authority of those who do understand the world.

Giving freedom in the hands of everyone (which is the popular idea of modern times) would turn the society into anarchy; or at least result in fragmentation which would not be desirable if people could foresee its effects on the level of welfare we currently enjoy.

In an ideal society a politician's opinion should weigh more than a lay person's, a scientist's opinion should weigh more than a politician's, and a philosopher's opinion should weigh more than everyone else's. When this chain of command can't be effectively implemented, the society has reached an alarming level of complexity. And when the reverse of it becomes unvoidable, that society is near its failure. The Latest "Where Have All the Good Men Gone" Article Following are the comments made by one of the Reddit members on Where Have All the Good Men Gone. (Update: The woman seems to have deleted the article from her blog!

Luckily I found the web cache on Google and copied it in time. Here it is.) Reposting from Reddit.

Comment One

You had better get used to it.

You need to examine your own illusions about yourselves and the lies you have been told, and the lies you tell yourselves. You say you want sweet sensitive men, but you fantasize about dangerous alpha rogues. You want equality but expect chivalry. You want sexual liberation but are surprised when men act in a sexually liberated manner.

As I said before.. men aren't disposable. You aren't entitled to benefit from our blood or our labour. Women and children first died when you started burning your bras. Now it's children first and you get to wait in line with men and go down with the ship. You open your own doors, pay for your own meals, carry your own boxes and change your own tires.. just like men.

Don't expect men to give you the gift of chivalry when you are competing with them for jobs and political power. You have your equality. Enjoy!

Want ideas for novels? How about an educated young professional woman who has a long and loyal romance with a boring, average, pudgy walmart greeter who works 14 hours a day to provide. He was falsely accused of rape, and now this is the only job he can find. He comes home so tired he has no time for grand gestures, but he is still a great guy and the rich woman sees this.

They marry and she settles down and becomes a housewife. She loves her lower status man so much she gives up everything, accepts a life of relative poverty to become his wife. They have 5 children and live happily ever after.

Or how about a woman who leaves her dashing adventurer husband for a dull but stolid

sewer inspector who is balding and overweight.

You think they will sell?

Comment Two

If you want to understand the cause of this lack of "good men", you really just need to investigate the incentives. As in, what incentives are there for men to meet this "good man" standard, and are they sufficient to justify the risks and costs associated?

Really think about it, because out of all the "man up" articles that have come out in the last year or so (and there have been a few), none have done any serious examination of what, exactly, is in it for men to get with the program. None of the authors have actually really explored men's motivations here.

To be considered a good man, women expect men to get good high earning, high status jobs (generally BETTER jobs than the women they expect to land have), and then they expect them to commit to one women through marriage.

Here are the problems with those requirements.

1) With education and the workforce becoming more and more female focused (and dare I say it, male hostile) and with women becoming more successful in the workplace in their twenties (see any of the recent "women on top" cheerleading articles for reference) it requires a lot more effort for a man to exceed a women in this area to make himself marriage material. Because women generally won't see a man who makes less than them as being acceptable for marriage. (Be honest ladies, unless you're really evolved the thought of a guy who makes less than you doesn't jibe, does it?).

2) The roles of husband and father are hardly high status roles that men can be proud of any more. Think about it how are husbands and fathers portrayed in society these days? On TV we have role models like Homer Simpson and Ray Barone, and the men

on commercials who can't work out how to use basic household products. Idiots who would be helpless without their wives. Hen pecked men bossed around by women who know better. In churches and during fathers day speeches by President Obama, they are told how they aren't doing enough, how they must do better. After divorce, they are dead beats, who don't want to see their kids any more, and won't pay for them. They are abusers who so often beat wives and molest children. Feminists love to tell us how fathers are not needed at all, all they need is a mother. I think my dad is great and I'm for ever thankful for his influence in my life in so many ways, but if he hadn't been in my life I'd have no positive associations with the term at all.

3) Marriage is a huge financial and emotional risk for men. Over 50% of marriages will end in divorce, and women file for divorce more than men the popular stats say 70% of the time. Women get custody of children in about 90% of cases, and with the kids come the marital home, alimony (where applicable) and child support. Men get all the debt, and visitations with their children every other weekend. For middle class or poorer men (and that's most of us), child support can leave them with barely enough money to live, and depending on jurisdiction it can be set beyond their ability to pay. Some jurisdictions also will imprison men who fail to meet their child support payments. Many men faced with the destruction of their lives through divorce often turn to or seriously consider suicide (odds are 2:1 that a man committing suicide is either divorced or in the process of divorce). How can men avoid these negative outcomes from divorce? Choose a good wife is about the best advice I've heard, although considering the number of divorced men I have heard state "I never thought she was capable of that" after getting screwed over, thats little comfort.

4) Women tend to ignore men with the qualities that will result in them being good "marriage material" when both are in their twenties. The reality is, becoming a "good man" requires that a man spend his twenties working hard to accumulate wealth, yet such a studious nature in men is generally regarded by most younger women as "no fun" and "not exciting". There is a rather funny (and by funny I mean really, really sad) example of this in the Hymowitz WSJ article, where comedian Julie Klausner, after spending her twenties "dating" rockers, pornographers and felons (paraphrasing her own words) suddenly finds in her thirties that there are no men around suitable for marriage. It's an unfortunate truth in this case that you get what you reward, and when the younger studious types see this type of behavior from young women, this rewarding of douchebags with sex and female attention, they quickly become fed up and take one of two paths. They either quickly realise that "studious" crap gets them nowhere and they stop with all that difficult career nonsense and start learning game from the PUAs so they can get laid, or they just forget about western women entirely (maybe they look overseas for a wife, or maybe they just swear off women entirely).

In essence, this is why western women can no longer find any good men. There is simply insufficient incentive for men to play that "good man" role for you. As a man I feel about as happy about this state of affairs as you do. I see this as having potentially disastrous effects on the future of our society. But at the same time I entirely understand why men are refusing to "man up", and I don't blame them at all for their choice, because it's entirely rational and in their best interest. (Well maybe apart from the extreme slackers men should at minimum be supporting themselves and not relying on their parents.)

--

Excellent comments! Difference Between Pain, Suffering and Misery The words 'pain' and 'suffering' don't seem to have a definite meaning and are often used interchangeably. In this post I have spelled out their meaning as I think of them.

Pain refers to physical discomfort beyond the point where it becomes difficult for the one having it to function normally. What is thought of as normal functioning is a subjective matter; but the point is: pain is physical.

In contrast to that, suffering is psychological, i.e. of the mind. Suffering is a broad term containing avoidable and unavoidable experiences that we don't want to have. So, the one who is in pain is also suffering (unless one is enjoying the pain) because it is an experience one wouldn't want to have.

Suffering can be in many forms apart from pain.

Why suffering?

While pain is experienced by many animals, it requires consciousness for suffering to be felt. As I said, suffering is any experience that one does not want to have. That definition of suffering presupposes cognition and thought processes; things that are made possible

by consciousness and self-awareness.

An animal without consciousness does not know that it does not want to have certain experience; because an animal without consciousness hasn't the ability to see itself as distinct entity apart from Nature (i.e. no self-awareness), much less has a sense of what experiences it wants and wants not to have.

Though it is evident that animals feel pain (from their wailing and other behavior), but since they lack self-awareness and advanced thought processes they behave heteronomously (as against autonomous), in a preprogrammed way without realizing if they want or want not to have the experience. We can not say definitively to what extent other animals feel suffering, but the extent of suffering humans feel is the greatest. The reason being that we have the most sophisticated consciousness known among all animals.

Additional note

Suffering is not to be eliminated, because it's an important ingredient for one's development. Without suffering, there's no development; and more importantly, there can't be happiness in absence of suffering. Though it's our nature to avoid suffering, but one needs to ensure that one doesn't shut oneself out of all experiences of life in order to just keep from all suffering.

Pain is to be avoided. Suffering is to be dealt with.

Misery is the state of suffering which has to be overcome. Suffering is healthy, but feeling miserable is not. The best way to avoid misery is philosophical development, i.e. understanding life and the causes of suffering. Is Sex a Basic Need Like Food and Water? I often hear people recently the advocates of sexual libertinism or free sex, especially say that sex is a basic human need like food and water. I agree that it is a basic need, and a pretty strong one at that; but I don't think it is as basic a need as that for food and water. The need for sex, and the need for food and water, therefore, don't gel well in the

same sentence.

Here are some of the differences:

Without food and water a person dies. Without sex, one doesn't. For survival one doesn't need sex, much less free sex. So, when we have good reasons for regulating our drive for sex, to keep the society from falling apart, we must do so. Sexual restrictiveness and regulation is one of the fundamentals of our civilization.

Another difference: acquiring food is much less (relatively speaking) complicated than getting sex. The pursuit of sex can take high toll on one's mental and material resources, considering it is not as urgent a need as food/water. Winning a mating partner often requires systematic 'gaming'. There are complications even when one achieves the goal with ease.

Sex develops romantic love, which in my view is not a very healthy state to be in. Our long-standing tradition which rightly saw romantic love as frivolous thing validates this view.

Sex, at the very least, entails a contract between individuals which inevitably extends to things not covered in the original bargain (i.e. sexual intercourse), and can weigh the individuals down. More often than not the costs (mental costs -- possessiveness, jealousy, obsession, restlessness.. material costs -- gifts, money,.. social costs -- lack of focus on education and its social consequences, loss of more meaningful friendships, work and marriage,..) this contract exerts offset the pleasure one gets from sexual intercourse. That's probably the reason one often feels kind of guilty when pursuing sex just for the sake of it. It happens because of the conflict within; the conflict between one's own human nature and animal nature.

If one buys sex in the market then some of the costs mentioned above can be avoided, but that's not the way most people want to have sex. Nor do I recommend that.

What I am saying is, sex is a lot more complex and a lot less basic need than the need for food; and the complexity of its pursuit makes it counterproductive with respect to our social goals. Sex serves absolutely no other human purpose than giving one a child, if

one wants a child, that is. Aside from this one thing, in all cases it merely complicates civilized human life.

It does give pleasure, but in my opinion pleasure is not a worthwhile human goal. Pleasure should be a secondary pursuit, primary one being something worthwhile, which would be contributing towards making and maintaining various social contracts that make pleasure-consumption even possible. For, without social contracts, i.e. in the state of Nature, pleasure as we have today would be a rare luxury. The drive for pleasure must not undermine the very arrangement which makes pleasure possible.

Therefore, sex enjoyed within marriage or in a similar long term commitment based on reasons better than romantic love and physical attraction is the best way to go about it. For thereby one has the pleasure within a worthwhile social contract of marriage which serves higher human goals. As against that, coming together of individuals in a fling is myopic from society's standpoint.

People constantly pursuing sex and justifying their pursuit saying it is a basic need like food and water must know that while spending their time and energy upon the pursuit of sex they would for the long run be losing out on the opportunities to build a good, secure and peaceful life.

Free sex has disastrous social implications because sex only gives pleasure but doesn't satisfy any of the important needs of human nature (except reproduction) and thereby of human societies. Albeit, without the social control mechanism that we had in the form of religious morality it doesn't seem possible to keep individuals from exercising sexual freedom. The result to be expected is: 'jungle rule', in sexual sphere at least. Why Choose Philosophy Over Mindless Living Here by 'philosophy' I mean philosophical development through truth-seeking and critical thinking.

The mantra of mindless living is: don't think, just enjoy! There's no shortage of people who would tell you things like.. the gift of life comes only once, so live it to the fullest.. do not think too much.. do not remain serious.. have fun.. etcetera. Now, fun is okay, but "don't think" and "don't be serious"? As if it's some sort of disease to be serious.

I on the other hand strongly believe that the philosophy of mindless living is not only harmful for an individual living that way but is pernicious from the point of view of society too. Not only that, I think the best way to spend human life is to live with philosophical inclination. To say like them, philosophy is actually and truly the way through which one can live life to the fullest. Mindless living is like living inside a little box. How much can the scope of ignorance be?

In this post I give reasons to choose philosophy over mindless living.

I think a life spent in pursuit of the most "worthwhile goal", or the "highest good" is the best lived life. What is the highest good? To state from Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, if at the end of one's life one looks back and genuinely feels that one has had a good life then that is a happy life. Aristotle called this happiness Eudaimonia (which is Greek for wellbeing). In this sense, the purpose of human life, or the "highest good", should be to achieve eudaimonia.

Now, eudaimonia or eudaimonic happiness is different from fun and pleasure-happiness which is what mindless life is about. For example, hooking up in a one-night-stand can be a pleasurable experience, but constant pursuit of such pleasure is certainly not in one's best long term interest. In the concept of eudaimonia, fun and pleasures are not strictly to be avoided, but they shouldn't be pursued as ends. They are good only to the extent they contribute to eudaimonia. Simply meaning, such fun/pleasure which can harm you in the long run is bad. So, a good happy life is a long term project. And to accomplish this one needs to develop intellect/intelligence and use it to understand about life. For only then one can take good decisions for the long run. And that's where the importance of philosophical development.

Philosophical pursuit has its pitfalls, too. One may run into angst and become suicidal if one isn't able to reconcile with the truth. Should that happen, however, I wouldn't blame the philosophical way itself, but say that one is a bad philosopher.

As for mindless living, it is sure fun to live that way. And if one is lucky enough one may get through life without any trouble at all. But most people are not that lucky; not to mention mindless living in any case is not good for overall wellbeing of the world. The pitfalls of mindless living are when hard times strike. In hard times there is suffering. And to suffer and not have a clue about why the suffering is happening is a terrible state to be in. Most people frequently experience that state. I know quite a few who are

perennially like that. They whine all the time, like narcissistic little children, about how the world is totally unfair to them, not knowing the actual causes of their misery, much less able to do anything about it. A good philosopher does suffer, but s/he would never face that sort of misery. Misery is the state of suffering which has to be overcome. And the best way to avoid misery is philosophical development, i.e. understanding life and the causes of suffering. I won't say that a philosopher can bear all suffering, but I would emphasize the fact that a good philosopher is in the best position to deal with suffering, because he knows the design of life and the causes of suffering. A non-philosopher person has two-fold suffering. The suffering itself, and the suffering of not understanding why, how and what of the problem.

Apart from the personal costs and benefits: people who are not critical thinkers often cause problems for themselves and for others without even realizing that they are doing so. I wrote a post about it a while back which should give you a general idea of what I am saying. When I see such people and feel irritated and wish they knew better to live, what does that mean for me? That I have to be better, and better, and better, always. Because if I give up on being better, I can't expect others to improve themselves too, whatever be their level. And that can't work. The world as we have it today simply won't sustain itself if everybody started living in a narcissistic way only for fun without regard to how they affect others. The fact is, everyone is by default a cost on the society and affects negatively others' wellbeing. It's only by playing some positive role in the social setting one offsets the default negative costs one exerts just by existing. That's the reason we don't prey on each other in the civilized world like the animals do in jungle. Therefore it's necessary that we understand the world we are living in, and more importantly, recognize our fundamental duties as human beings. Do those who live mindlessly have all this knowledge? And it's so fundamental. See the harm?

As for me, I feel a moral ought to understand life and its problems as much as I can, not only to pursue my goal of eudaimonia, but also in order to live as harmlessly as possible and educate others about the same. It gives me a solid meaning. And meaning is the most important ingredient that goes into creating in the end a sense of having lived a good, worthwhile life. More than fun and pleasure, I think, man needs solid meaning.

Now we saw two solid reasons why philosophy is preferable to mindless living, based on 1) personal costs and benefits of mindless living and philosophical life, and 2) social costs and benefits of the same. And synthesis of the two would reveal that philosophy nurtures an individual in a way that doens't undermine his/her environment (the society), which is the only way to sustainable development.

Our life is so designed that one can't meet one's own best interests if not through pursuing best interests of the world one lives in. Mindless living is too narrow in scope for that. Not even selfish me would approve of it. Monkey With a Machine Gun Everybody has great intentions. Well, almost everybody.

A monkey with a machine gun in hand doesn't have to have bad intentions. It's just a wrong situation. There will be destruction regardless of the monkey's intentions.

Modern generation are the monkeys and many elements of modern environment are the machine guns. And everybody has good intentions, but so what? For nobody (well, almost nobody) understands their environment, the world they are living in, whatever their intentions, they are prone to fucking up.

When someone tells me to trust him/her, for s/he has pure heart and good intentions, and that s/he is not like everyone else, I want to tell them: I don't doubt your intentions, dear, but you're a monkey with a machine gun. You have no idea what you will do until you have done it.

[I might extend this post in the future. If you like, keep checking until this message is removed.] What Is Rationality? Is Man Rational? "Man is a rational animal so at least I have been told. Throughout a long life, I have looked diligently for evidence in favor of this statement, but so far I have not had the good fortune to come across it, though I have searched in many countries spread over three continents." (Bertrand Russell)

Rationality is defined as a) the state or quality of being rational or logical, and b) the possession or utilization of reason or logic; where rational is defined as a) having or exercising the ability to reason, and b) of sound mind; sane.

These are general definitions. The terms can be understood in a deeper way. Man is said to be a rational animal. Does that mean all men are logical and are good at utilizing reason? If not, then why is man still called a rational animal? There are irrational men and there are rational men. So, what it is to be truly Rational?

What Is Rationality?

As the definition above says, rationality is a state or quality of being rational (i.e. exercising the ability to reason) or logical. However, this definition doesn't actually tell us if rationality is a positive or a negative trait. All it says is that rationality is a way, a method. A tool. Now, without any underlying values and belief system the tool called rationality is useless and means nothing. Our values and belief system help us decide our goals; and to act in ways that take us closer to our goals then becomes a rational thing to do. So, only in context of our goals we can say that to do and think certain way is rational or irrational. Rationality is a tool to help us achieve the ends. The ends are the goals that we set in life. Rationality tells us how exactly are we supposed to live if we want to meet those goals.

To take a simple example, if your goal is to become a computer engineer then we can say that it is irrational to spend your time reading books about, say, quantum physics; and rational thing to do is to learn about computers.

But does that tell us whether learning about quantum physics or computers is in itself rational or irrational irrespective of one's goals?

If what is rational depends on one's goals then isn't rationality subjective, since everyone has their own different set of goals? This question perplexed me for a long time when I was grappling with understanding rationality. I would often think of a terrorist and try to understand how to prove his acts irrational. No doubt that terrorists are gruesome human beings, for killing people the way they do, and for the reasons they have for it, is wrong. But think about it in this way: the terrorist believes that doing what he does is God's will, and the only way for him to get to the heaven. He is brainwashed into believing that his acts serve the greatest purpose of humanity. His 'knowledge and understanding' is limited, and so flawed are his 'values and belief system', and consequently his 'goals'. But is he aware of it all? Clearly not. So, he is actually choosing the most rational path for himself. That means when we say that terrorists are irrational

people, mustn't we mean that they are irrational from our perspective but they may be rational otherwise?

This was an extreme example. But an important and somewhat startling learning out of it is: for given knowledge and understanding also called 'starting assumptions' if one takes the most logical path to reach one's goals then one is rational. There are two caveats in this statement. 1) one's knowledge and understanding about life may be flawed, or not the best, and 2) one's reasoning/logic in pursuance of the goals based on those starting assumptions may be flawed.

In the terrorist example, therefore, even if the terrorist's reasoning may be fine, his knowledge and understanding is flawed. There's no God, no heaven etc, and the guy is misled big time. So, to us having better knowledge and understanding he is irrational. Likewise, there may also be cases where the starting assumptions are right but the reasoning process followed is flawed. (Refer to the list of fallacies.)

So, when it is said that one has rational arguments for one's position, that in itself does not mean that the position one's arguing for is good, and the person is rational; because even if one has rational arguments supporting one's position, as we saw, rationality is merely a tool. Till we don't know the person's goals (which are determined by the starting assumptions) and his reasoning process, we can't tell if he is rational.

Ancient Greeks had concepts of rationality called theoria (theoretical reason) and praxis (practical reason). The latter is also called instrumental rationality. Instrumental rationality is a tool to serve specific ends. If you have followed this article well, you would know that it's all I have talked about. And looking into the caveats we also understood that anybody can be instrumentally rational and at the same time be irrational from others' point of view.

What is theoretical reason? Theoria is that rationality which justifies a position irrespective of any individual's starting assumptions. The position reached through this type of rationality is 'the rational' position. It's what is truly Rational. But I believe since we have epistemic limits we can't have absolute knowledge. Meaning, there's always a possibility that our knowledge and understanding can be improved. Therefore, in true sense, we can never be truly Rational. Corollary is: rationality is always subjective. Theoria, however and therefore, justifies a position reached through the best of human knowledge and understanding.

Is Man Rational?

Humans are called rational animals in that they always have some justification for whatever they are doing. I think the appeal here is to instrumental rationality. However, I believe, most humans don't even meet the conditions of instrumental rationality. For example, when pushed by emotions and instincts humans often act in a way that they know in their head is not the best way (defying their own knowledge and understanding) and also the reasoning followed by most people is not always correct. So, I would say humans quite often are irrational on this count.

As for being rational in theoria sense, vast majority of humans are irrational, because the goals most of the humans pursue are not the best ones, i.e. not derived using the best of human knowledge and understanding of life. No Such Thing as True Self There is no such thing as true self. Yes, genetically everyone is unique, but genetic blueprint is not equivalent to self. Genetic blueprint is like a mold. It does shape the outcome as in how the individual would be, but the substance of the outcome depends on the ingredients of the inputs. These ingredients are thoughts and ideologies, and other elements from the social environment the individual is exposed to. These will determine what thoughts and ideologies the individual himself would have.

Self is a conscious entity with ideas. And whatever ideas one has, one acquires them from the world one lives in. Ideas, and hence the self, is not a genetic given.

If we say that whatever ideas one has, they are acquired from the world outside; meaning, however the individual is, he is shaped by the elements from the external world; then how can one claim a set of ideas as truly one's own? How can one say that a particular behavioral pattern-bearing entity is one's true self?

People develop ideologies, tastes, preferences, wants, desires and so on, and begin to think they are their personal tastes, preferences. Moreover, they think that because there is such a thing as true self, and that everyone has a true self, everyone is entitled to live life the way they want; because following one's true self is the only right thing.

They name this entitlement as 'individual sovereignty'.

Let's have a closer look into this, to see whether one's ideologies, tastes, preferences, wants, desires and so on (i.e. self) are really one's own. Taking an example of fashion. Currently slim-fit denims are in fashion, and so I prefer those, as does everyone else I know. Now, ten years back bell-bottom ones were in fashion. I do remember that I had then a couple of old slim-fit pair of jeans (which would have been considered ultramodern today) of my dad's which at that time I never thought of wearing. Because in those times only girls wore slim-fit jeans. I, like everybody I knew then, preferred bellbottom ones. And I thought that those looked attractive too, which seems rather funny today; because today slim-fit ones are deemed attractive and everybody wants slim-fit. (The fact that my dad had slim-fit ones means in his time they must have been in fashion, too.)

What is to be seen in the example is, how is it that people (a group as large as a community, city or even a nation) have one uniform preference at one point in time and another uniform preference at another point in time? Is my desire today of buying a pair of slim-fit jeans my own desire? As in, is the desire coming from my true self? Is it just a coincidence that my true self and the true selves of the entire world I know have the same preference in jeans? The fact is, what I think is my own desire is actually formed by what I see other people doing.

Whatever we think we are our thoughts, ideologies, tastes, preferences, wants, desires, ... it's all shaped by our experiences with the world we live in; by seeing and observing other people, their behavior and habits, and many other things surrounding our existence. People from a particular religious or cultural background have similar traits and behavioral patterns. Most people behave in statistically predictable ways. It points to the fact that individual self is made up of shared and collective ideas and experiences. Self is not a genetic given, and hence no individual has a thing called true self.

The fact that one's self or individuality is formed by the elements of external world means people can be systematically conditioned to have certain self. That's what corporations and vested interests through media and advertisements do today. They make people desire things they don't really need, but people think it's their own desires.

No true self means that no one has preferences that are truly their own. No one has

individuality in true sense, and therefore in my opinion, no one is actually entitled to 'individual sovereignty', which is a crazy modern ideal.

What does it spell for individual rights and individual freedom? Topic for the future. What Is Your True Nature? One often hears that one should always follow one's true nature. In the discussions about morality also many people hold that in the difficult situations where an important decision has to be made, following one's true nature is the right and the only moral thing to do. The question however is: what is the true nature? Do we really have anything like it?

Earlier on this blog I have written about heart and head conflict. Humans are driven by emotions/instincts as well as by intellect/rationality. The drive of instincts pertains to the animal nature and the drive of rationality pertains to the human nature. We have both the natures within us. And more often than not both natures want us to do different often opposing things. For example, a smoker has a biological instinct to smoke, but his rational mind would say that it is bad for his health. What for him is then the right thing to do? Which one of the two is his true nature? If the proponents of follow-your-heart philosophy are to be believed then he must smoke. But it's clear that if we all lived like that the society would soon perish. Too much cost for following the true nature. Nah, that can't be.

Another camp believes that rationality is a higher faculty (which I too believe it is) and the decisions arrived at rationally are always the right ones. For if you keep doing things driven by your instincts while at the same time rationally you also know that they are harmful to you or to the society, or even that you could live better by doing better things, that knowledge will gnaw at you and won't allow you to be happy. So, the decisions approved by rational thought clearly seem to be superior than those driven merely by instincts. If so, following the true nature would mean acting rationally.

So, is the matter of true nature resolved? Wait, no. Far from it. A little more reflection on rationality would reveal that rationality itself is not constant. Rationality is just a tool, a method of arriving at a conclusion by structured thought. The outcome depends on the goals and starting assumptions (knowledge level) of the person employing rationality. The goals themselves are corruptible by instincts, and also the knowledge level isn't constant. Therefore, all rational people won't necessarily have the same conclusion over something. And even one person may not hold the same rational position all the time. As

the knowledge level changes, so does the outcome of rational thought.

I also said that the goals are corruptible by instincts/emotions. In fact, they have to be so! A rational human being without emotions would be like a robot. One has to have emotions and one has to respect instincts to an extent. The goals are essentially set by, or are rooted in, emotions. And rationality is a means to the ends which are those goals. Rationality on its own can't provide us any goals because, rationally speaking, universe has no meaning for us whatsoever. Unless one is emotionally rooted there's no motivation to live.

The question of true self, thus, doesn't have a clear answer. Instincts and rationality will always conflict. Follow-your-true-nature people want to get rid of the conflict by choosing a side. They err. The conflict is actually the healthy state.

The truth is, there's no such thing as the true nature. We are fundamentally made of conflicting motivations. The universe grows on conflicts. Without conflicts there would be no evolution, no life. If one chooses to go with instincts alone, one will be doomed. If one follows rationality alone, one would meet the same fate. Remain in conflict, and base every decision on your best sense at that moment. Don't bother about the true nature.

Follow your true nature is a narcissist's way of saying do whatever the hell you like! For it justifies the action by saying one just followed one's true nature. Nah, no such thing. Paradox of Individualism I am against individualism, so much so that in many heated discussions about politics and morality I don't even recognize an individual. There's no individual, I say; individual doesn't matter at all. There's only collective; the society. When I say such things, obviously, on the surface it looks as if I am against the welfare of individual, which, naturally, to many feels counterintuitive. What good is the society if the individuals who comprise it are not recognized, respected, given freedom, right? Wait a minute. Ponder over this question: What emerged first, human dignity or society?

Think: Are we really 'free'? Do we really have a 'right' to live the way we like without being harmed by others? Do we intrinsically deserve respect and dignity? Or it has become possible only after we formed a civilized society? What life would have been prior to the society, in the state of Nature?

Individualism is an enemy of the very thing it purports to celebrate. It does not make an individual free, it kills freedom.

Animals in a jungle are perfect individualists. How? They own themselves. They act according to their own whims. They don't have to follow any rules or abide by any law against their will. There is no one in their world who dictates how everyone ought to live. They are free of duties and responsibilities. So, a jungle is a real utopia of the supporters of individual freedom. Or is it?

In a jungle, life has no value, and only power rules. Why? Precisely because animals don't come together to form a society with cooperation, accepting social roles and responsibilities; they don't form laws and take it upon themselves as moral ought to live in accordance with them; they don't live in the interest of the whole jungle, but are committed to their own animal interests. Here the fact that animals lack the capacity to form a civilized society is beyond the point. The point is: each for himself is the way animals live in a jungle. And it is far from pleasent existence.

Individualism can't lead to anything else but anarchy, the jungle rule, as the natural consequence. If all I think about is my own welfare, what incentive would my neighbor have to ever help me with anything, knowing that I am never going to act in his interest? If everyone in the world is individualist, then isn't it quite logical that no one has any motivation to act to benefit others, because everyone knows that their favors are never going to be rewarded?

So, a perfectly individualistic society is where everyone is looking after their own interests; and because no one is interested in enabling others' welfare, no one extends their care beyond themselves; not caring about the state of the society, as to how their actions affect the society, their environment and so on. And because of this, living conditions undergo degradation and it becomes harder and harder for the individuals to satisfy their interests; since individuals satisfy their interests by harnessing/exploiting their social environment (which is degrading because of individualism) soon that leads to dog-eat-dog situation. Then the life of pursuit of one's interests becomes a battle. And in battle, it is clear that only the powerful would succeed. Exactly what happens in the jungle. Look around... See?

This is a paradox of individual freedom. If we strive for individual freedom alone, we will

never have it; we will lose whatever we have of it, even. It's only by thinking in terms of betterment of ALL that we all can hope to benefit, and get to the world where human beings have respect, dignity and freedom (in limited sense, of course). We do have freedom, but it's not our natural right or anything. We enjoy freedom precisely because we have formed a society, which is based on a mutual agreement to cooperate in the sense of living with acceptance of civic duties responsibilities.

Call it a positive paradox of giving up your interests. Now if we think deeply of it, we don't really have to give up our interests, but understand that the only interests we can practically have in the long run are collective interests. If you live in the interest of all, and everyone else is living in the same way, then that would automatically create a world where everyone's interests are taken care of by everyone. The world of sharing and caring. Everyone then feels respected, and treated with dignity. The very popular notion that human beings deserve respect and dignity is a product of this arrangement only that now we have taken it for granted that we deserve it just because we are humans. That's such a misguided notion. Our ancestors have worked to earn it, and we have to work if we wish to maintain it.

Stop being individualists, and think in terms of family, community, society, the world. Do what is good for the collective. That's the only way to preserve our dignified individual selves. If we kept fighting for individual rights and freedom to live as one pleases without regard to anyone else, as the media- and market-driven world is doing today, in the future human life will have less and less value. Sick of Metropolitan Life After watching many films and a few documentaries, observing lives, and developing own insights about happiness etc, I am fairly convinced that people who live lives of physical hardship are on the whole happier. They 'enjoy' better meaning in life, they have much to look forward to, have bigger hearts and healthier bodies, and most importantly, they have the ability to appreciate small pleasures of life. Many of them may be yearning for the pleasures of comfortable life, they know not in what way they are blessed.

I am not sure how I can go about it considering practical aspects of my life (like family responsibilities etc) but I am developing strong urge to work as a farmer, or construction worker, or laborer of some sort. The 'metro life' is making me sick by the day.

--

A friend on Facebook comments

...but just because you don't have a physically hardship oriented life doesn't mean you cannot be happy. The trick is to not fall into the pitfalls of modern concepts of happiness (90% of it has to do with our role in society and the status symbols by which society values us).

Hmm. But I think happiness comes so much easier to the people who don't 'enjoy' technological comforts of modern city life. (By happiness I mean the overall quality of life, and not just how much fun one had.) Man-Woman Equality and Justice Flaw in the Feminist Idea of Justice

Feminists would say, just because a rabbit does not attack a tiger, a tiger has no right to eat a rabbit; and that a rabbit has the same rights as tiger. No, feminists, that tigers don't attack rabbits in 'civilized jungle' (society) is a privilege enjoyed by rabbits for which tigers pay the cost every moment. The least a rabbit has to do is not challenge a tiger's position as a dominant animal. If we bend Nature's laws too much, either a tiger would snap or the civilization would go the way of suicide.

A just society is male dominated. Blame Nature for sexism, not man.

I am not suggesting that just because women are physically weak they be taken advantage of their weakness. Sure, man and women can, and must, cooperate for higher mutual benefits. But cooperation doesn't mean perfect equality. Men not making slaves of women is cooperation, and I am totally for that sort of cooperation. But women challenging and dreaming to take over men's roles is something that requires careful analysis.

In the society when men and women become equal in every way, there's no incentive

left for men to cooperate, even. Because when we talk of equality we have to also account for intrinsic inequality between men and women. No insult to women intended, but just like a human and a cow can't be given the same social status on the name of equality, so is the case with men and woman. Now even if both men and women are humans (unlike man-cow example) technically they still are different in major ways. Note that there are no natural rights, and however different we may be from other animals, we are still part of Nature. In the natural world when the (physically) weak and the strong get the same benefits, even though it looks like equality, it is not, if we account for the intrinsic differences in the two groups. When the weak enjoy the same benefits as the strong, justice is tilted against the strong. Simple math.

When that happens, that's when men and women will become enemies (because men will incur huge psychological costs, thanks to the intrinsic differences in men's and women's biology); then either men would use their natural physical power to fight injustice (which is unlikely at this stage of civilization) or they would simply hate women and avoid associating with them. That's what i mean by 'suicide' of the civilization (not literal, individual suicide).

Try to apply this thought here: A right is something which I have at the expense of other people. Even my right of not being murdered and not being made a slave is something which I have at the expense of those stronger than myself who could kill me or force me into servitude. There are no such things as natural rights; there are only adjustments of conflicting claims. What I have at your expense ought not to be more than what you have at my expense: that, whatever the practice may be, is the theory of Justice. (Aldous Huxey)

However sophisticated our concepts of justice may have become in today's society, at the deepest level, the ultimate arbiter of rights and responsibilities, i.e. justice, is natural physical strength and that's the only way it can be.

Women Are Better Off Already

Women are naturally physically weak, but in today's urban life they are no more taken advantage of their physical weakness. So, at this point, they already are in a better position than men, who could exploit weaker creatures but don't, thereby incurring some cost. (Even my right of not being murdered and not being made a slave is something which I have at the expense of those stronger than myself who could kill me or force me

into servitude. ~ Huxley) Now, this puts women into powerful position, because this is the stage where they take out and start using their most powerful weapon, sexual politics, and ultimately rule over men.

Since sex is such strong and fundamental need in humans, man's natural inclination would be to support feminism to come off as a hero in women's eyes. (In fact, I think the only thing keeping men from sincere pursuit of truth, philosophy, is the fear of losing women's interest.)

Right Way to Justice

The problem with most people's concepts of justice is that they have taken it for granted that man is not an animal. Think about this: man still has oral sex. Man IS an animal, and it's erroneous to believe that we are free of natural laws that bind other animals.

As per popular feminist ideals what is being expected of man is Utopian. When I say 'just society is male dominated', that's because man naturally is strong, so it's natural that the weaker gender be subordinated. When the weak and the strong enjoy the same benefits, that's not justice. It's 'free ride' for the weak at the cost of the strong. And those who demand such equality, disregarding the natural reality, apparently believe that because we are humans we must uphold those ideals. Then there are feminists who fight for women's 'right' to dress provocatively and expect men to not touch women. Now, make no mistake, I am not in favor of assaulting or oppressing women. (Read the last line again before you start jumping with rage.) But there is a limit to which the natural reality can be stretched by reason. Both genders have to carefully evaluate their natural strengths and weaknesses first and then decide what rights and responsibilities each ought to bear. Any ethical theory suggesting men and women have exactly the same rights suffers from the fallacy of assuming humans to be unbound by Nature's laws.

Again, I am not even saying that women should not be given the rights. But those rights are given to women at cost to men. Hence, to offset that cost women have got extra responsibilities. To give an example: women shouldn't wear short clothes even if men can. Why? Because men can naturally/physically afford to. By not going after men, women don't have to incur any cost (because they simply don't have the physical strength for it on the first place), but by not going after women men have to incur psychological costs when they restrain themselves from doing what they can. So, if in the civilization women are given the 'right' to not be 'harassed' by men, they have to bear

the responsibility of making sure that men incur as low cost as possible because of them. Only then we are close to justice. But no, here men are expected to be 'humans' and not 'animals'. Now that's Utopian. Humans ARE animals.

Giving the same rights and same responsibilities to both man and women is killing of justice.

Women In a Just Society

Let's break down the feminist movement in two stages. At the first stage they are fighting for liberation of women from oppression. Well, till here there I am with feminists. Where I am against feminism is at the second stage wherein they demand perfect equality in the society (meaning, in sum, double benefits to women; free-riding at the cost of men.)

Now, as much as feminists and their sympathizers might hate it (sincerely, no offense to women intended), instead of men and women, let's think of humans and cows. Feminism is like fighting for cows' rights. Is it wrong if the humans are oppressing cows? Yes. Should we fight for the cows' dignity and right to not be oppressed? Sure, we should. But should cows be given the same rights as humans? Now that's problematic. Cows are naturally weak animals than humans so they would be subordinated. Nothing's wrong with that. In fact, the otherwise would be injustice to humans. Now, humans-cows example may appear faulty, but understand that I am using it only to magnify my point.

Women are naturally physically weak. Yes, they shouldn't be oppressed. I am with feminism till that point. But here my concern is beyond that point. Just society would be patriarchal, male dominated. That doesn't mean women should be oppressed, but women would have a different set of roles and responsibilities than men. However, when I say male dominated, even though I don't mean oppression of women, I certainly mean that in sum, men will have more rights and fewer responsibilities than women. And that's justice. Why? Because men are favored by Nature. Nothing we can do about that. Profit and Morality Profit is a gain for oneself at someone else's expense.

On moral grounds, I tend to be against profit-making. I consider profit to be a kind of backdoor interest. It's like sex. Everybody would want to make profit wherever they can,

and they might, but it should not be accepted as a virtue. The natural motivation to make profit and the stigma associated with it would create a system of checks and balances.

If I have something which you value more than I, and you are willing to pay for it more than it has cost me, we both stand to gain by the transaction. There doesn't seem anything wrong in it whereby I make profit. However, it's accidental that I happened to have something that put me in a position to earn profit. If I make profit-making a motive and deliberately create situations (as opposed to it happening accidentally) of profiting, that would be questionable on moral grounds, under certain conditions.

In today's society which is largely influenced and controlled by big corporations, more often than not profit directly creates inequality. Inequality in a crudest form of society calls forth physical force to correct itself. (The state of Nature is the baseline for equality.) In a sophisticated society like ours it exerts psychological costs if/because physical force is restrained. Hence, ideally, we should strive for egalitarian society, either by not making profit or distributing it.

Granted, people are not naturally equal. But the reward for the merits one has (owing to genetic lottery or favorable living conditions) should be the goodwill earned by using those merits, and not profit; for goodwill is earned by putting one's merits to common use making everybody gain. Profit being for oneself (and that too at someone else's expense) only threatens social harmony.

For a sustainable society, common gain is the only type of gain possible with long run perspective.

Though it would be wrong to say that profit is unethical in essence, but being a backdoor interest, it has a tendency of becoming harmful to the society if not checked and balanced by some social mechanism. That mechanism is stigma associated with profit motive. If profit-making is accepted as a virtue (as it is today), it sure would lead the society to its doom.

People should not have a mind of 'businessman' but of 'service provider'. Call Centers and Slavery Call center job outsourced to a developing country is the most sophesticated form of

slavery.

Your employer decides what you should speak with the caller, how long should the call last, how much your hold time can be, how much time you get for 'after call documentation', at what time you will go to work (which can be any nine hrs out of the twenty-four), what time you will take your lunch/dinner breaks, on what day(s) you will take your weekly off(s),..

At work, your every call may be recorded and assessed, your every movement is capturd by surveillance system,..

Like a machine, you are bound to deliver hourly, daily and monthly targets which are ever-increasing (thanks to the ruthless incentives mechanism that exploits your greedy nature), you are thrown out of work if you fall in the bottom of the bell curve,..

And all this for the work you are doing for peanuts (that's why it is outsourced to you!)

These are not characteristics of any particular call center but industry standards. It's said that one can't buy dignity with money but apparently, one can sell it today.

Looking at a proud and happy call center employee I think, could man be more inane? Equality and Justice Part 1 [In this series of posts I am going to attempt to clarify my own thoughts on equality and justice, hopefully producing coherent account of the same for the readers in the process. Following is the first post in the series.]

It's a truism that equality is justice (or justice is equality). What is equality?

Is it equality when everyone is earning the same amount, or it is equality when everyone is earning according their potential?

Say, worker A is physically strong and can do X amount of work in a day, while worker B is physically weak and can do Y amount of work in a day. X is greater than Y. Is it then fair that worker A's daily earning is more than worker B's earning? Most people would say yes.

But then A and B will have different, unequal standard of living.

Assume further that the difference in their physical and mental strength is vast, and their earning being proportional to their natural potential (i.e. physical and mental endowment), A is rich and B is, comparatively, poor. It is a state which we view as inequality.

However, most people would agree that it is fair that A should earn more than B.

Most people would agree that if we redistribute A's earning to B to make the income of both equal (to bring about equality) that would be injustice, to A, because A's higher earning is deserved by him since he has higher potential.

The logic used in drawing the conclusion above is this: It is fair when someone who is naturally endowed with more (physical and mental) potential enjoys higher benefits/wellbeing than those he is superior to.

I would call it the state of natural inequality. It is also a state of justice.

The state of Nature is the baseline for equality and justice. The state of Nature is by default a just state, where every creature gets according to its potential.

Battle is the reality of Nature. Whoever is physically and mentally more powerful would prevail over others. Going by the same logic we used above that seems perfectly fair.

But we don't live in the state of Nature. And physical strength and mental strength don't always go hand in hand. And that's where defining justice in human society becomes more complex.

To be continued... Equality and Justice Part 2 [In this series of posts I am attempting to clarify my own thoughts on equality and justice, hopefully producing coherent account of the same for the readers in the process. Following is the second post in the series. Read Part 1.]

Say for example, person A is more endowed mentally (i.e. he is more intelligent) than person B. B is physically more endowed than A. In the world, jobs involving intelligence are rewarded highly than jobs involving physical strength. So, A makes more money than B.

But B being physically strong can beat A, and snatch his money if he wishes so. In the state of Nature that's exactly what would happen. If B is strong enough to physically defeat A then why would he let A enjoy more benefits/wellbeing, himself remaining poor?

Most people would straightaway answer: Because we don't live in the state of Nature, but in a civilized society.

To me, that answer by itself is not sufficient, because it takes for granted the 'civilized society'.

In part 1, I said that it is fair when someone who is naturally endowed with more (physical and mental) potential enjoys higher benefits/wellbeing than those he is superior to. This logic seemed perfectly fair with the example I quoted there.

Here the difference is, instead of one person being both physically and mentally more endowed than the other, one is mentally more endowed and the other is physically more endowed. The same logic, however, can be applied in that the one whose aggregate

endowment (physical + mental) is higher than the other should prevail.

That is just, at least in the state of Nature.

Most people would say that in the civilized society we can't allow B to take A's money by force. Why? - I would ask.

Note that I am trying to explain justice (and understand it myself too) from scratch. In this analysis everything has to be accounted for; nothing is to be taken for granted.

Civilized society is not God-given. At some point in time we lived in the state of Nature, and through thousands of years the society has evolved to its present state. If in the state of Nature B would have prevailed over A (say, on account of his higher aggregate endowment) by physically defeating A, then why in the civilized society (hereafter called 'society') should he not attack A?

Some would say that the society is a mutual agreement, or an implied contract, for peaceful life of higher wellbeing. And living by the code is to everybodys benefit.

Really? But B apparently doesn't benefit. By not taking As money by force while he can, B would remain poor, while A would be rich. B would feel unfulfilled and sad. The only way for B to up his wellbeing is by taking A's money forcefully. So why shouldn't he do so?

If we don't take for granted the conditions of the society, a careful analysis should reveal that in order to keep B from attacking A, the society has to create incentives for B to not attack A while he can.

This incentivised state would be the state of justice in the society.

To be continued...

Why I Am Atheist, Not Believer or Agnostic [Following post is not another rant, or an attempt to disparage believers, but an argument from rational perspective in response to their accusation about me being arrogant for being atheist.]

Even though now I am totally sympathetic to believers, it fills me with an urge to insult them when they call me arrogant upon knowing that I am atheist.

Their timeless complain is that atheists are ungrateful for the life that has been given to them supposedly by God. Hence the arrogance. And the basis for this is the logic that if something exists it must have a creator. So the universe must be created by God. This is not to mention various stories around God provided through different religions.

Now, there can be (and there are) N number of explanations for natural phenomena that don't involve God. Over the history at countless instances we have found explanations for things which were earlier attributed to God. It actually takes high intellectual deficiency, or ignorance, to still not want to admit that God explanation is a substitute for the real explanation, and is used in absence of good knowledge about the thing in question. If historical trend is anything to learn from, there is always scientific explanation, it's just a matter of us finding it.

Some smart ones, mostly when they are in intellectual circles, claim to be agnostics (albeit they are believers most other times). They disdain atheists for not believing in God by arguing that God's nonexistence is unprovable, so atheists are arrogant. What they don't get is, not believing in God's existence is not the same as rejecting all possibilities. For that matter, even being agnostic technically means not believing. You can't believe in God's existence and be doubtful about it at the same time. If you are in doubt about God's existence (i.e. agnostic), that means you don't believe He exists. And when you don't believe God exists, you satisfy the definition of atheist. I might as well say that there is no such position as agnostic. One is either a believer or a non-believer, AKA atheist.

A literal meaning of "a-theist" is, one who does not believe in theistic God (i.e. the God of the Bible). "A-" is a negative prefix coming from Greek, like English "un-" (as in ungrateful).

When I was unsympathetic to believers I had had a following thought which I'd then penned down: "Those who are agnostic about God are either fools wanting to look intelligent, or intelligent cowards." I still think it's true about many claiming to be agnostics. In case of God there isn't really a position of agnosticism or at least not such that they can claim superiority over non-believes.

If you really think you are doubtful about God's existence and still say prayers to God then you just don't get it. Your doubt is not coming from a rational place. You are probably tired and bored of God's inexorable silence and at the same time are having a deep-seated need to believe He exists. It looks to me rather a weak and helpless position, since this so-called agnosticism is not a result of rational thought but something else entirely. These people can't claim to be more intelligent than atheists, nor does it indicate humbleness on their part. They are just confused bunch.

I don't reject all possibility of the creator's existence, but I have more reasons to lean towards certainty of God's nonexistence than the other way. So in the ordinary course of life just as I be certain that werewolves don't exist, and fairy tales are not true, and there is no teapot between the Earth and the Mars orbiting the Sun (even though we can't really prove any of that), I would say I am certain, too, that God does not exist.

I do know people, both atheists as well as believers, who are cocksure about their beliefs to the point of being arrogant. But being an atheist by itself doesn't make one arrogant. Equality and Justice Part 3 [In this series of posts I am attempting to clarify my own thoughts on equality and justice, hopefully producing coherent account of the same for the readers in the process. Following is the third post in the series. Read Part 1, Part 2.]

In part 2, I concluded that the society has to create incentives for the strong to not attack the weak while (in the state of Nature) they can, and that incentivised state would be the state of justice in the society.

That means in the hypothetical simple society comprising of two men, one physically

weak and the other physically strong, justice would be where the physically strong enjoys overall more benefits than the physically weak.

The silent benefit to the weak being, he would not be attacked by the strong.

The additional benefits to the strong over and above those to the weak would be an incentive for the strong to not attack the weak. What reason, otherwise, would the strong man have to not attack the weak man?

To summarize the point: The one who is favored by Nature, and thus would prevail over others in the state of Nature, will continue to enjoy higher benefits (in the form of incentives not to attack the other while he can) in the just society.

Note that this conclusion is arrived at from a hypothetical simple two-person society. By adding complex variables the end result might (and will) change, but the equation will essentially hold.

For example, according to the above rule, the criminal who is physically more powerful should be enjoying more benefits if the society is just than the common man who is physically weak.

But instead in the society we actually have criminals in the jail and that's perfectly just. Common people certainly enjoy more benefits than the criminal.

You would say, of course, screw the rule which says the criminal should be enjoying more benefits!

Now look closer. Is the rule really breaking? No, because ours is not a simple twoperson society. Even though the criminal maybe physically strong, he is in minority. Would he have prevailed had our world been the state of Nature? No, because his strength is way less than the collective strength of those he would have to fight.

The rule says that he who is favored by Nature such that he would prevail over the other in the state of Nature would enjoy higher benefits in the just society. The criminal being in the minority isn't really favored by Nature in a broad view.

Thus, the original, simple-world conclusion holds perfectly if we properly account for complexities of our times.

So let's make it into a maxim: He who is favored by Nature would enjoy higher benefits in the just society.

After accounting for numerous layers of complexities between the above hypothetical two-person society and the actual present-day society, one should be able to see that it is following this rule of justice that the governments have policies of redistribution of income. If a large section of the society is making less money (is poor) and enjoys less wellbeing then what would keep them from creating chaos in the society by attacking the rich? Hence, we tax the rich and give benefits as social security, public distribution of food, health benefits, other numerous subsidies and suchlike (mostly) to the poor out of those taxes.

Discounting all complexities, in the simple two-person society this would mean that if one person is rich and the other is poor, and if the poor is physically strong enough to make the rich person's life difficult by attacking him for his wealth, then the rich person will have to share his wealth with the physically strong poor person in order to live peacefully.

So, in the hypothetical simple two-person society, the physically strong poor person enjoys higher overall benefit than the physically weak rich, because he would get equal share of wealth as the other without having the brains to create wealth, simply for he is favored by Nature.

The state of justice in the actual society would be based on the same basic equation.

Argument of morality

Some people would say that even if one is favored by Nature and would prevail over the other had this been the state of Nature, since we are not merely animals living in the state of Nature but civilized humans, we should strive for perfect equality.

Meaning, the one favored by Nature should not require incentives to keep from attacking the weak. That is because it is simply not moral to do so.

Does this argument hold water? To understand that we will have to understand what morality is. Where morality originates from and what it purports.

To be continued... Equality and Justice Part 4 by Darshan Chande

[In this series of posts I am attempting to clarify my own thoughts on equality and justice, hopefully producing coherent account of the same for the readers in the process. Following is the third post in the series. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.]

In this post we'll quickly run through the basics of morality. Like, where morality comes from and what it purports.

Morality is not God-given, simply because there is no God. (Even if there was a God, morality defined by Him wouldn't be any more valid than that defined by us, as successfully presented by Plato in Euthyphro dilemma.) There is no right and wrong in the absolute sense. Morality, therefore, is a human construct. We as individuals and the society define what is right and wrong.

In the state of Nature there is no morality. Animals in the wild don't follow a set of rules dictating right and wrong at least not consciously. Why, then, do we humans have them? Why did we create morality?

The answer should not be too difficult to guess if one notices the contrast between the life in the society and the life in the wild.

One answer to why we created morality (actually, it's developed over the centuries of social evolution) can be: because we are mentally capable of creating it. However, the more cogent explanation is, because we want to have better lives than the life in the state of Nature.

Life in the state of Nature is chaotic. The wild is literally a dog-eat-dog world. Without ethics and morality to guide our natural urges and inclinations we wouldn't have upped ourselves from the level of other animals. It's another thing that other animals are not capable of rationality, and hence couldn't create morality.

The purpose of morality, therefore, is fostering human wellbeing. And the way to achieve it is by containing the animal nature within human beings.

So, morality is not a given. No action on its own is moral or immoral. Whether some action is moral or immoral that depends on whether it serves or disserves the purpose of human wellbeing set by the society.

In part 3, I introduced an argument of morality, that the physically strong poor person B should not require incentives in the society to not attack the physically weak rich person A while he can, because it is simply not moral to do so.

Now in light of this basic understanding of morality let's see if this argument holds water.

To be continued... Equality and Justice Part 5 by Darshan Chande

[In this series of posts I am attempting to clarify my own thoughts on equality and justice, hopefully producing coherent account of the same for the readers in the process. Following is the third post in the series. Read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.]

Our behavior shaped by natural urges and inclinations is malleable when we perceive the long term benefit of doing so. But there seems to be a limit to how much we can do that, because it's an uphill battle, a tug-of-war with our animal nature.

Moral development, therefore, does not come naturally but requires efforts.

Given an infinite timeline, everything can be bettered in the long run without resorting to violence and chaos. But waiting indefinitely long requires struggle with our animal nature. There is a snapping point to it.

Morality, therefore, is not black-and-white, as we are constrained by our innate animal nature when acting on the moral path given by rationality.

If we apply this to our question of whether it is not moral for the physically strong B to require incentives in the society to not attack the physically weak A, the answer is yes and no.

We definitely want a society where people can perceive long term good, and are willing to sacrifice the short term and individual good to achieve the former.

Therefore, the society would strive for such moral development that B doesn't require incentives to not attack A, seeing it as not moral and understanding that in the long run he too can develop himself to enjoy what A is enjoying today.

And the society has to make sure that B gets enough opportunities to develop himself.

Hence, we would say that B should not attack A while he can; nor should he require incentives to keep from attacking A because that would not be moral.

But this assumes that B is capable of infinitely fighting his animal nature with his rationality. In reality, that is not true of anyone. As I said above, there is a limit to how much we can pull against nature.

Rationality can control natural urges and inclinations, but there are psychological costs of doing so. When B decides that he won't attack A for his wealth while he can, he pays psychological costs for resisting his nature. (Note that this is a simple two-person world scenario where there is no law and police to keep check.) So, there is a sure snapping point. It's like an elastic, with a limit to how much it can be stretched.

This point has to be taken into consideration while deciding on justice in the society.

So what actually would happen is this: the society will pressurize B to not attack A while he can, saying that it is not moral; at the same time if this is not sufficient to contain B's nature to resort to violence, incentives will be created for him to not attack A.

The amount of incentives required depends on the specifics of a particular case. Higher the level of moral development, lesser the incentives required. And it should be noted that moral development is constrained by the innate nature.

If the level of moral development is not sufficient to contain B's nature (now take A and B for representatives of the weak and the strong in all cases) then the just society has to create incentives for B, or else justice will be established the Nature's way (B using violence).

In the state of Nature justice is established through violence. In the society it's done through 1) moral development of individuals, and 2) incentives to the strong (that is, those who would have prevailed in the state of Nature through violence) to not use violence.

Moral development is essentially human phenomenon. Incentives to the strong are necessary because though we are humans capable of rationality, we aren't (can't and won't be) so rational as to be completely unaffected by natural forces within and outside of us.

In part 3, I gave a maxim: He who is favored by Nature would enjoy higher benefits in the just society.

The equation capturing the maxim would be:

(a) Strength in the state of Nature = (b) Incentives in the society ..... (1)

Where (a) is strength over others.

After introduction of the argument of morality in part 4, and adding the component of moral development, the final equation of justice would look like:

(a) Strength in the state of Nature (b) Moral development = (c) Incentives in the society ..... (2)

Higher the moral development, lesser would be the incentives required for the strong to not attack the weak.

The above equation (2) describes the basic framework of equality and justice in the society.

Potrebbero piacerti anche