My recent travels gave me ample time to think about everything. A significant portion of this time was spent on thinking about my complete lack of belief in God. Almost four years ago, I had classified myself as an agnostic. Atheism was way too definite for me, since it negates the existence of God completely, while agnosticism leaves room for doubt. Then too, I had thought about it for long. I had noticed a steady decline in the strength of my prayers. I folded hands, I recited my slokas but there was no conviction in them. I just did it because it had to be done. I decided it was no good, so I stopped praying completely. Every few months or so, I was forced to take part in some pooja, and I would mechanically recite my slokas and get it done with. I was (and still am) scared of admitting my agnosticism openly to my family, since all are devout believers of God and anything close to lack of belief would be sacrilege. More on this later, though.
When I first decided I was an agnostic, I had delved into the reasons behind it. Was it simply rebellious thoughts stemming from adolescence? Wasn't every teenager a rebel? I was 17 then, so I guessed that the phase would pass and soon, my prayers would have belief and conviction in them. That didn't happen. Slowly, I started to realize this wasn't that easy to explain. I had started reading Sigmund Freud's works then and his emphasis on unconscious thoughts had influenced me greatly. There WAS a reason to it, and it wasn't out in the open. It had to be extracted. I concluded that my prayers had started becoming robotic ever since I was 13 or 14. I will not give any details here, but that was the time when a close family member started having health problems, which steadily worsened. This family member is and has always been a very devout believer of God. It didn't make sense to me. If there was God, why was there suffering? If he punished his worshipers, why worship him at all? If suffering was inevitable, then isn't it better to endure it, than seeking the support of a non existent being whose believers made tall claims, yet he usually fails to show up when needed? I became angry then and I decided. I will not pray. If Karma is true and that family member was suffering due to wrongs done in the past life, then so be it. God has no role to play here. It is like a bank balance, where the credits and debits are calculated and the amount carried forward to the next quarter. No need to go the bank manager and ask him for help, is there?
From there on, I embarked upon the path of agnosticism. Each passing day, my belief weakened. I did not deny the existence of God. Nor will I ever. I just did not and do not find any need to worship and pray him. Why pray, when it does not ease any suffering? Why adulate him, when what you have achieved is due to your own efforts (or those of others)? You do not like your boss taking credit for your work, but you are ready to give credit to God for it. Go ahead. I won't do it.
Coming to the point I made earlier, I actually am not very open about my agnosticism. My family is completely God believing. Whenever possible, I avoid prayers, poojas, etc. But when I cannot avoid it, I go ahead and do it. My thoughts are somewhere else when I close my eyes and fold my hands. Call me a coward for not being open about my feelings. I myself get that feeling sometimes. Maybe one day, I'll tell everyone what I really think about praying to God. Or maybe not. The current situation is that I am happy with my beliefs and so is my family. Let us see what the future brings. They say that there are no atheists on a sinking ship. I cannot comment on that, since life has thrown difficult situations at me and I have managed to handle them without seeking the the help of God. Maybe I can handle a sinking ship too!
{Note: I will not tolerate any comments that preach belief in God to me. I absolutely hate such things. Kindly desist)
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
When time is of essence
This will be my fourth attempt at a blog in the past two months. Every time, I started off with some topic I thought was good enough, only to fizzle out after a few paragraphs.I would begin with great ideas, but sadly, they would be finished by the 2nd or 3rd para, or I would lose track of it or I would fail to give it a coherent structure. Once, I persisted with it and finished the so-called blog. Not satisfied with the end result, I posted in on my FB profile only, to avoid the scathing criticism I deserved for such a shoddy job. I have no reason to believe it would be any different this time, but if you are reading it, then I would be very happy, because that would mean I am satisfied enough to post it here in the first place!
The only change I resolved to bring into this blog was not to try too hard. I would not try to make it very structured. This blog would simply be a bunch of my ideas, a hastily configured superstructure, which is as likely to crash down as a house of cards. It wouldn't be rambling, let me assure you. It would be centered around a topic that has fascinated me since childhood- time travel. A note of caution: part of my ideas have stemmed from some philosophical concepts related to time travel I have read in books and on internet. I would be explaining them in simple words in between, but Wikipedia-ing it would clear it out better, in case you don't know about them already.
Mankind, with his huge leaps and bounds in the field of science is now virtually a master of his environment. Time, however, has remained elusive from his grasp even till this day. Maybe we will develop a way to go back and forward in time, maybe we will not. We have no means of knowing that. But what bothers me is the possibility of this. You see, this idea originated in my mind a few years ago, but Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" allowed me to give it a clearer picture. Time travel, essentially, consists of going back in the past and going into the future. Now, think about this. Isn't the past what has happened? If it has happened, then how can we 'go' back into the past? Is the past actually a series of events still playing out, as we move ahead? If it is, who are the players? The players have moved ahead in time, so there should be nobody left to play out that event. To make it simpler, I will give an example. Suppose, a time machine has been developed. Yesterday, I was beaten up by 2 guys and I didn't hit them back, because I thought they had the backing of some big goons behind them. Today, I realize they were bluffing, and they had no more power in hand than I had. I decide to back in time and hit them. Now, if I do, what will I find there? According to movies and other time travel novels, I would find myself being beaten up, yet with a clear understanding of what I could do, I would simply correct my mistake and hit them back. BUT, if that is so, then WHO is beating me in the first place? Those two guys have moved ahead in time, so I should find myself alone, right? It DOES seem slightly ridiculous, to think that as we move ahead, we are leaving duplicate copies of us behind to do exactly as we did!
Similarly, think of future travel. This scores slightly better than the past, but still worth pondering over.If the future is what is yet to happen, then shouldn't we find nothing but emptiness there? The time traveler has surged ahead of everyone, but others are yet to catch up with him. We make the future. You are reading this blog now, you may get irritated and shut down the computer and go out with friends. If you travel ahead in time, will you find yourselves having fun with your friends? How can you, since what you did was at the spur of the moment and when your friends haven't traveled ahead with you in time?
Such doubts made me realize the importance of the words 'time and space'. Time travel isn't restricted to traveling in time ONLY. It involves the travel of space too, i.e. traveling with the 'events' of time, instead of purely time, which should only lead to emptiness! Obviously, I am not any kind of scientist, nor a philosophy scholar. When the time comes for time travelling, these things would have been thought through and through (they may already have been, for all we know) and I'll be left feeling like a champion oaf for trying to be over-smart!
Moving on to simpler things, suppose we assume the fact that the past and the future are playing out on their own, while we are in the present. In such a scenario, a lot of interesting possibilities come up. One is called the predestination paradox. This is related to travelling to the past. Here, time travelers attempt to influence the past through their actions, only to end up influencing it in the very manner it had happened. For e.g. I go back in time to help my 'past self' with his examination which he failed. I go and whisper all the answers, confusing him and eventually causing him to fail, to correct which I go back in time in the first place! A similar, but more confusing concept is the ontological paradox. It involves the transfer of objects or ideas to the past, thereby creating a loop. Wikipedia quotes the best example to explain this. A man, who wants to build a time machine, is visited by his future version, who gives him the blueprint of the machine. He builds it over the years and when he finishes it, he is the one who goes back in time to help his past self! These paradoxes though, have been massively simplified and I need to understand them much more before I can discuss them any further.
My 3rd set of ideas relate to some unexplainable phenomenon we come across daily. Maybe they are the products of time travel! The alien spaceships people that people purportedly witness. Maybe they are flying vehicles developed by our future selves, who have come back in time to see us! [THE NEXT LINE MAY DEEPLY OFFEND GOD BELIEVERS, I ADVISE THEM NOT TO READ IT, AND IF THEY DO, THEN PLEASE DON'T GET OFFENDED. THESE ARE MY IDEAS AND MY "IDEAS" ONLY. I HAVE NO MALICIOUS INTENTIONS] Maybe, our future selves grow in stature (evolution), become 'God-like', develop a way of time traveling and then decide to visit OUR distance past. Thus, our ancestors may have seen our future selves, became awed and started worshiping them which we continue to do till this day.
Thus, presented in as little a nutshell as possible, are my ideas on time travel. It is a mysterious and fascinating field, to say the least and I sincerely hope that mankind makes some kind of progress in this. Maybe, my future self deciphers all these riddles and will be coming back in time to tell me. Another blog then, for sure! Till then, respect the past, stay in the present and plan the future!
The only change I resolved to bring into this blog was not to try too hard. I would not try to make it very structured. This blog would simply be a bunch of my ideas, a hastily configured superstructure, which is as likely to crash down as a house of cards. It wouldn't be rambling, let me assure you. It would be centered around a topic that has fascinated me since childhood- time travel. A note of caution: part of my ideas have stemmed from some philosophical concepts related to time travel I have read in books and on internet. I would be explaining them in simple words in between, but Wikipedia-ing it would clear it out better, in case you don't know about them already.
Mankind, with his huge leaps and bounds in the field of science is now virtually a master of his environment. Time, however, has remained elusive from his grasp even till this day. Maybe we will develop a way to go back and forward in time, maybe we will not. We have no means of knowing that. But what bothers me is the possibility of this. You see, this idea originated in my mind a few years ago, but Olaf Stapledon's "Last and First Men" allowed me to give it a clearer picture. Time travel, essentially, consists of going back in the past and going into the future. Now, think about this. Isn't the past what has happened? If it has happened, then how can we 'go' back into the past? Is the past actually a series of events still playing out, as we move ahead? If it is, who are the players? The players have moved ahead in time, so there should be nobody left to play out that event. To make it simpler, I will give an example. Suppose, a time machine has been developed. Yesterday, I was beaten up by 2 guys and I didn't hit them back, because I thought they had the backing of some big goons behind them. Today, I realize they were bluffing, and they had no more power in hand than I had. I decide to back in time and hit them. Now, if I do, what will I find there? According to movies and other time travel novels, I would find myself being beaten up, yet with a clear understanding of what I could do, I would simply correct my mistake and hit them back. BUT, if that is so, then WHO is beating me in the first place? Those two guys have moved ahead in time, so I should find myself alone, right? It DOES seem slightly ridiculous, to think that as we move ahead, we are leaving duplicate copies of us behind to do exactly as we did!
Similarly, think of future travel. This scores slightly better than the past, but still worth pondering over.If the future is what is yet to happen, then shouldn't we find nothing but emptiness there? The time traveler has surged ahead of everyone, but others are yet to catch up with him. We make the future. You are reading this blog now, you may get irritated and shut down the computer and go out with friends. If you travel ahead in time, will you find yourselves having fun with your friends? How can you, since what you did was at the spur of the moment and when your friends haven't traveled ahead with you in time?
Such doubts made me realize the importance of the words 'time and space'. Time travel isn't restricted to traveling in time ONLY. It involves the travel of space too, i.e. traveling with the 'events' of time, instead of purely time, which should only lead to emptiness! Obviously, I am not any kind of scientist, nor a philosophy scholar. When the time comes for time travelling, these things would have been thought through and through (they may already have been, for all we know) and I'll be left feeling like a champion oaf for trying to be over-smart!
Moving on to simpler things, suppose we assume the fact that the past and the future are playing out on their own, while we are in the present. In such a scenario, a lot of interesting possibilities come up. One is called the predestination paradox. This is related to travelling to the past. Here, time travelers attempt to influence the past through their actions, only to end up influencing it in the very manner it had happened. For e.g. I go back in time to help my 'past self' with his examination which he failed. I go and whisper all the answers, confusing him and eventually causing him to fail, to correct which I go back in time in the first place! A similar, but more confusing concept is the ontological paradox. It involves the transfer of objects or ideas to the past, thereby creating a loop. Wikipedia quotes the best example to explain this. A man, who wants to build a time machine, is visited by his future version, who gives him the blueprint of the machine. He builds it over the years and when he finishes it, he is the one who goes back in time to help his past self! These paradoxes though, have been massively simplified and I need to understand them much more before I can discuss them any further.
My 3rd set of ideas relate to some unexplainable phenomenon we come across daily. Maybe they are the products of time travel! The alien spaceships people that people purportedly witness. Maybe they are flying vehicles developed by our future selves, who have come back in time to see us! [THE NEXT LINE MAY DEEPLY OFFEND GOD BELIEVERS, I ADVISE THEM NOT TO READ IT, AND IF THEY DO, THEN PLEASE DON'T GET OFFENDED. THESE ARE MY IDEAS AND MY "IDEAS" ONLY. I HAVE NO MALICIOUS INTENTIONS] Maybe, our future selves grow in stature (evolution), become 'God-like', develop a way of time traveling and then decide to visit OUR distance past. Thus, our ancestors may have seen our future selves, became awed and started worshiping them which we continue to do till this day.
Thus, presented in as little a nutshell as possible, are my ideas on time travel. It is a mysterious and fascinating field, to say the least and I sincerely hope that mankind makes some kind of progress in this. Maybe, my future self deciphers all these riddles and will be coming back in time to tell me. Another blog then, for sure! Till then, respect the past, stay in the present and plan the future!
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The long and short of it
I am returning from a long hiatus. There are no great, romantic reasons, its only that I was faced with a dearth of topics to write about. I kept thinking about an intellectual topic, with views which will rattle the readers, but I failed. Thinking, I realized that I had been staring at the topic all this long! Here it goes......
The focus here will be simply on...my name! As most people may know, my name is quite an interesting one, the primary reason being its length and complexity. For those who don't know, my full name is KRISHNATREYA BRINDAVANAM. Some facts about it before I proceed further:
1. It is 23 letters long.
2. I have successfully defended my title as "The One with the Longest Name" successively for 10 years, before losing out to a girl with a 32 letters long name. Then, she left the school, so I regained the title keeping it even after I changed schools. The record is still there, even in college.
3. For purposes of ease, my forward-thinking dad shortened it to B.K. Atreya. Only, it turned out, he didn't think too forward. The story of my name thus begins.........
The first question most people ask is, "What is the full form of B.K.?" Of course, poor people are humans and thus blessed/cursed with a sense of curiosity, to solve anything mysterious. I have no idea what they expect, but yes, I found out that saying something vague only piques their curiosity and I am left with no other choice, other than revealing the Great Secret. So I go "its Brindavanam Krishna". This is followed by a minimum of two repetitions, which they try to parrot, but most usually fail.
The second question, you guessed it, is "What does it mean?" A relatively easier question, compared to the Herculean task I had just accomplished. I say "it is the real name of an ancient Ayurvedic doctor called Charakha". Some people know who he is, some do not, but that is not an issue. There are all kinds of people in this world. The crown goes to people who say "OK, but what does it MEAN??" Now, I am posed with something which linguists have tried to solve for ages. What is the meaning of a name or word? We say "my name is XYZ, its a name for Goddess Lakshmi". OK, but what is the meaning of "Lakshmi"? Stumped, eh? I have searched high and low, yet couldn't find an answer to this question.
These questions are sometimes followed by inane, moronic comments like "that's long", "why is it so complicated?", etc. But the practical ones ask "what does everyone call you?" or "what do u prefer to be called?" So I answer and that's the end of it!
I would now dwell a bit further and try explaining about names. It so happens, that my name isn't the longest in the world (sad, eh? after all this trouble!). There are longer names I know of. The reason for the "perceived" complexity is that my "fore name" is long! See, we have Chattopadhyays, Bandopadhyays, Gnanamgaris, Krishnamurthys, etc. But most of these are taken in stride and not gawked upon. Why? Because they are surnames, man! You don't offend a person by "wtf'ing" his surname! You just say "OK" and pray you never have to spell it on paper someday. On the other hand, you use a person's forename more than anything and thus need to get everything clear about it!
I digress a bit here to talk about the uber glorious Brindavanam clan. We are Vaishnavas, traditional occupation being priesthood(who could imagine one of their progeny being an agnostic, but thats for another blog). It so happens, that our caste has this habit of putting the name of their village as their surname. So, as the geniuses reading this may have realized, my ancestors hailed from Vrindavan, before shifting down south for reasons best known to them.
Anyways, getting back to my name, I am now very much used to all the colourful and creative pronunciations and spellings which my name spawns. Trust me, I seriously don't feel bad. Its OK man. My name is tough to pronounce, I have to live with it. It gives me a laugh, though, the kind of word twisting people keep coming up with. It'll continue throughout, and I am up for it. Its only a bit embarrassing amongst a large group of people, when someone tries to grapple with the name openly.
What irritates me a bit is not pronunciation, but spelling. Granted, you can't write my spelling correctly in the first go, when I say it. But, when I am spelling it out to you, why do you still apply pressure on your top floor and end up getting irritated? I am saying "its K R I S . . ." and meanwhile, this enterprising name writer has already written "KRISNATARAYA" or "KRISN TARAYA" or something else and then cuts the name with unnecessary force to re-write it. I usually let it go, unless its an official document or something.
As I wrap this up, I think to myself- "do I love my name?" I won't say I love it, for all the problems I face, but I prefer ignoring it and seeing the glass half full. After all, I haven't yet met a person with the same forename as mine. Can YOU say the same, reader?
The focus here will be simply on...my name! As most people may know, my name is quite an interesting one, the primary reason being its length and complexity. For those who don't know, my full name is KRISHNATREYA BRINDAVANAM. Some facts about it before I proceed further:
1. It is 23 letters long.
2. I have successfully defended my title as "The One with the Longest Name" successively for 10 years, before losing out to a girl with a 32 letters long name. Then, she left the school, so I regained the title keeping it even after I changed schools. The record is still there, even in college.
3. For purposes of ease, my forward-thinking dad shortened it to B.K. Atreya. Only, it turned out, he didn't think too forward. The story of my name thus begins.........
The first question most people ask is, "What is the full form of B.K.?" Of course, poor people are humans and thus blessed/cursed with a sense of curiosity, to solve anything mysterious. I have no idea what they expect, but yes, I found out that saying something vague only piques their curiosity and I am left with no other choice, other than revealing the Great Secret. So I go "its Brindavanam Krishna". This is followed by a minimum of two repetitions, which they try to parrot, but most usually fail.
The second question, you guessed it, is "What does it mean?" A relatively easier question, compared to the Herculean task I had just accomplished. I say "it is the real name of an ancient Ayurvedic doctor called Charakha". Some people know who he is, some do not, but that is not an issue. There are all kinds of people in this world. The crown goes to people who say "OK, but what does it MEAN??" Now, I am posed with something which linguists have tried to solve for ages. What is the meaning of a name or word? We say "my name is XYZ, its a name for Goddess Lakshmi". OK, but what is the meaning of "Lakshmi"? Stumped, eh? I have searched high and low, yet couldn't find an answer to this question.
These questions are sometimes followed by inane, moronic comments like "that's long", "why is it so complicated?", etc. But the practical ones ask "what does everyone call you?" or "what do u prefer to be called?" So I answer and that's the end of it!
I would now dwell a bit further and try explaining about names. It so happens, that my name isn't the longest in the world (sad, eh? after all this trouble!). There are longer names I know of. The reason for the "perceived" complexity is that my "fore name" is long! See, we have Chattopadhyays, Bandopadhyays, Gnanamgaris, Krishnamurthys, etc. But most of these are taken in stride and not gawked upon. Why? Because they are surnames, man! You don't offend a person by "wtf'ing" his surname! You just say "OK" and pray you never have to spell it on paper someday. On the other hand, you use a person's forename more than anything and thus need to get everything clear about it!
I digress a bit here to talk about the uber glorious Brindavanam clan. We are Vaishnavas, traditional occupation being priesthood(who could imagine one of their progeny being an agnostic, but thats for another blog). It so happens, that our caste has this habit of putting the name of their village as their surname. So, as the geniuses reading this may have realized, my ancestors hailed from Vrindavan, before shifting down south for reasons best known to them.
Anyways, getting back to my name, I am now very much used to all the colourful and creative pronunciations and spellings which my name spawns. Trust me, I seriously don't feel bad. Its OK man. My name is tough to pronounce, I have to live with it. It gives me a laugh, though, the kind of word twisting people keep coming up with. It'll continue throughout, and I am up for it. Its only a bit embarrassing amongst a large group of people, when someone tries to grapple with the name openly.
What irritates me a bit is not pronunciation, but spelling. Granted, you can't write my spelling correctly in the first go, when I say it. But, when I am spelling it out to you, why do you still apply pressure on your top floor and end up getting irritated? I am saying "its K R I S . . ." and meanwhile, this enterprising name writer has already written "KRISNATARAYA" or "KRISN TARAYA" or something else and then cuts the name with unnecessary force to re-write it. I usually let it go, unless its an official document or something.
As I wrap this up, I think to myself- "do I love my name?" I won't say I love it, for all the problems I face, but I prefer ignoring it and seeing the glass half full. After all, I haven't yet met a person with the same forename as mine. Can YOU say the same, reader?
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Being "different" is overrated
I start thinking out loud from today. I start telling in detail, what exactly I am thinking, instead of giving a glimpse of them in Facebook statuses.
And I start NOT trying to think differently!
I thought about it for a long long time. Why is being different SO "cool"? Why have we, as a society, started treating such "different" people as existing in a different realm altogether? Related to this, but not completely part of this, is the romanticizing of rebelliousness. And if you think being a rebel is so great, then why stop at "rebel thinkers"? Why don't you proceed towards idolization of anti socials? Who burn tires, who spray graffiti on walls and who, I think, should be declared as Public Nuisance of the First Order! Maybe, since they think differently, since their ideas of society are so twisted, we should treat them with the same respect with which we treat people who are intellectually different!
Anyways, I ramble. Coming back to the point of those intellectually different, whose thinking is too complex for normal, conventional people to understand. Is being normal so uncool? Calling a spade a spade is not good. No. You have to philosophize on the existence of the spade and spin yarns around it so that people say "Wow! Here is someone unconventional!"
Don't get me wrong. I am not here to bash such people. Indeed, as I know so many of them, they wouldn't even care! What I here say is that straight-thinkers are NOT inferior! You go by the straight, short path and not by a circuitous, long route; then good for you and others! A minority choose the second route, then good for them and other like minded people! The former don't have to put the latter on a different plane!
As I come to the end of my first blog, I would ask the reader to be a little lenient, a little forthcoming and treat this as a blog and not as a rant (which it seems to be).
Thank you
Comments welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)