God and Aliens

A very belated Happy New Year to all.
I’m back after a long hiatus, so let’s start on a high note.

Over the past few months, I’ve often been asked “Do you believe in God ?”.
The problem is, of course, that everyone seems to have a different definition of God. However, if you statistically accumulate the various views, (and ignore the obscure or tautological ones), God is generally defined as:
“An all-powerful intelligent Being that created the universe, loves and protects us, and watches over our lives”.

Hmm, still problematic.
To illustrate, suppose you are asked, “Do you believe in aliens?” (being an avid sci-fi fan, I get asked that a lot, too) and aliens are defined as :
“Intelligent beings from elsewhere in the universe who are visiting us in their spaceships.”
See the issue ? Both definitions are conflations of two concepts which are not necessarily linked.
To resolve the problem, let’s split the Alien definition into:
ET’s: “Intelligent creatures elsewhere in the universe”.
UFO’s: “Intelligent creatures who are visiting us in their spaceships”.
Realize that it is perfectly possible to believe in ET without believing in UFO’s. The Alien question is actually two questions in one.
Similarly, God splits into:
Alpha: “An all-powerful intelligence that created the universe.”
Omega: “An all-powerful, loving being who cares about and protects us.”




Observe that when people talk about God, they mostly mean Omega.
It is assumed that God created the universe as well, but the primary attribute is that God cares about us as individuals and a species. All the paraphernalia of religion – prayers, rituals, efforts to live according to specified ‘God given’ norms – are useless if the deity does not care. Additionally, Omega is typically imagined as an enhanced human, complete with very human-like emotions, though one is occasionally admonished that “God cannot be understood in human terms”.

Alpha is a different entity altogether. An intelligence that created the universe could be infinitely mysterious, utterly alien. Such a Being may be totally indifferent to us carbon based life-forms in our obscure corner of a typical galaxy. It may not even notice our existence. Religious literature, being overly anthropocentric, provides few examples, but think of the Overmind in ‘Childhood’s End’, or Olaf Stapledon’s ‘Star Maker’.

Distinctions similar to Alpha and Omega have been made in the past. Religious philosophies, especially in Hinduism, make a distinction between an ‘impersonal’ and a ‘personal’ God.
Alpha would roughly correspond to Brahman, and Omega to Ishwara.

Ok, then, what do I believe? First, let’s face the facts.
There is no concrete evidence for Alpha, Omega, ET’s or UFO’s.
Anyone claiming to “know that God exists” is either using ‘know’ as a synonym for ‘strongly believe’, or confusing belief and fact.
I’m not about to provide any such evidence either, I’ll just say what I believe and a bit of why. So, here goes.

I don’t believe in UFO’s.
The idea that intelligent extraterrestrials are flying all the way to Earth, only to remain in hiding and get occasionally spotted by unreliable witnesses, strains my credulity to breaking point. UFO-believers typically offer arguments like “maybe they are trying to stay hidden” Sounds more like an excuse than a reason – why would they, after coming so far?
Usually this degenerates into “Who can fathom their purpose?”. Still an excuse (and one which we shall see again).
I can’t prove with 100% certainty that UFO’s don’t exist, but I can’t do that for the Lochness Monster either. But it’s clear to me that the evidence is strongly against them.

I don’t believe in Omega.
There is just way too much unfair misery in the world. Start with the recent disaster in Haiti and continue with all the natural disasters that have struck in this century alone. Add all the horrors of history – the Holocaust, the Khmer Rouge, the Partition riots.... Now continue with the countless cases of individual suffering from birth defects to cancer to unfortunate accidents. This list goes on ad nauseam.
Just does not make sense in a world where Omega is out there to love and protect us.
Once again, excuses abound. “God is testing us”, “Bad karma from previous births”, “All works out for good in the end”, and finally, “Who can fathom the ways of God?”.
We saw this before and I am not convinced. It really looks like people believe in Omega despite the evidence rather than because, just like the UFO-maniacs.

I believe in ET’s.
Our galaxy alone has 400 billion stars. There are about a 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. It is becoming clear that most stars have planetary systems orbiting them. Molecules of life are abundant in interstellar clouds. Plus, it is entirely possibly that life may be based on completely different chemicals from terrestrial life.
None of this proves that ET’s exist. Maybe the odds of life forming are incredibly low, low enough to make it improbable despite all the stars out there. Maybe life happens, but it remains at the level of bacteria with overwhelming odds. But the existence of ET’s is at least consistent with the evidence.
Still, why believe without proof ? Because I like the idea!
I find it incredibly depressing to think that Earth is the only place in this incredibly vast universe to have complex life-forms and intelligence. If the evidence points overwhelmingly in that direction, I will have to accept it.
But all the evidence so far is consistent with the vastly more appealing picture (to me), of a universe where life and intelligence are commonplace, where we are but one voice in a cosmic symphony. So, I’ll stick with it until forced otherwise.

I believe in Alpha.
We live in an amazing universe “rich beyond measure – in elegant facts, in exquisite interrelationships, in the subtle machinery of awe”. Our investigations of the universe reveal a profound and elegant underlying order that continually challenges the imagination and ingenuity of our brightest minds. The depth and intricacy of the cosmic order frequently leaves our best scientists with a feeling of “rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection”.
To me, it seems entirely plausible that Alpha “breathes fire into the equations, creating an universe for them to describe”.
Once again, this is not the only possibility. The mathematical order of the universe may just be a ‘brute fact’, admitting of no further explanation. Alternatively, our universe might be a tiny part of a far bigger Cosmos, where natural laws self-organize and emerge like galaxies and ecosystems.
But yes, I personally find that elegant though the laws are, I am disappointed by the idea of “All that is or was or ever will be” being merely the working out of an algorithm that could perhaps be written down on a T-shirt.
Much more appealing to me is the concept of our universe as just one creation or manifestation of a numinous and ineffable Alpha, a mysterium tremendum without beginning or end.
Nebulous, imprecise, unverifiable – I know. But, hey, this is a belief, not a scientific hypothesis. And it is consistent with all the facts so far (though not implied by them).

Finally, a related question – Am I religious ? Short answer: No.
While religions pay lip-service to Alpha and occasionally come up with evocative poetry
(eg: The “Om Purnamadah Purnamidam” shloka of the Upanishads), their primary concern is Omega and how we can relate to Him/Her (never “It”). Doesn’t work for me.

Addendum: Throughout this piece I’ve quoted liberally from Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and Einstein. Any reader of popular science will recognise them at once. If you don’t, what are you waiting for? Get reading! :)

The Bhagavad Gita In Brief

I am guessing many of you have never read the Gita, but at least some have felt they should have made an attempt. I’m in the category that tried, made some progress (making notes and all), then quit. Until recently, that is.

A late evening attempt to decipher the Sanskrit text with a friend resulted in a renewed surge of interest, and I decided to just go ahead and finish the project. It’s done now and what follows is my roadmap of the 18 chapters of the Gita – with some shlokas to highlight the path - for those wishing to delve in and explore further.

Chapter 1: Setting the stage. Surveying the armies at Kurukshetra, Arjuna is overcome by grief when he realizes what the war will entail. Good for him.

Standard interpretations speak of this as ‘weakness’ on Arjuna’s part. Au contraire, I find the very human anguish, the questioning of a war which entails the mass slaughter of kinsmen and loved ones for the sake of a kingdom, coming from a man who is expected to be a relentless killing machine, to be one of the brilliant character touches that makes the Mahabharat great. Krishna responds, and the main Gita begins.

Chapter 2: The soul stuff. “As a person casts off old garments and puts on new ones, so the soul leaves one body for another” and “Weapons do not cleave the soul, fire does not burn it, water does not wet it, nor wind make it dry” (Shlokas 22 and 23).

Get the point? Krishna is saying that Arjuna won’t really be killing his loved ones, just destroying their bodies. The soul is the real thing and that’s safe. Of course, if one doesn’t buy the soul stuff, this argument goes for a toss, along with much of the Gita.

Chapter 3: All work and no attachment makes Jack a Karmayogi. To be accurate, this starts off in chapter 2 with the famous “Karmanyevadhikaraste, ma phaleshu kadachana” (Chap 2, Sh 47). Acting without attachment – one of the central principles of the Gita.

To be honest, I find Karmayoga unconvincing. Why would one do anything if one has no interest in the results?

Furthermore, how is one supposed to act? The answer, as per Gita, is to follow ‘swadharma’ – nebulously interpreted as ‘one’s innate nature’ or ‘duty’, it’s never quite clear. “Better is swadharma, though carried out imperfectly, than the dharma of another carried out perfectly”(Sh 35).

Highly unsatisfactory. This suggests that people are born with some kind of innate duty (who dictates what that is?) and one should ‘just stick to it’. More problematically, if you interpret swadharma as ‘duty’, what if that duty conflicts with basic human values like compassion, love, loyalty and so on? This is really Arjuna’s question and Krishna never quite answers it, IMO.

Chapter 4: Krishna to the rescue !! “Yada yada hi dharmasya...” is right here ! (Sh 7 & 8)

The rest is largely a rehash of Karmayoga. Apparently, Arjuna is not convinced first time, and I don’t blame him. Apart from all the swadharma issues there’s the growing problem of “Who should take responsibility for one’s actions?” - very relevant when battle is about to commence. Well, over the past two chapters, there have been growing hints that humans are mere intermediaries and God is the ultimate source of all actions, so the answer is.....

Chapter 5: Blame it all on God!! Or at least, if you do, the responsibility won’t stick to you. “He who works, resigning his actions to God, is not touched by sin, even as a lotus leaf is untouched by water” (Sh 10).

Chapter 6: Introducing Mr. Detachee, aka, the Yogi, “to whom a lump of mud, a stone and a piece of gold are the same”, “who is equal minded among friends and foes” (Sh 8 & 9), “who does not rejoice on obtaining what is pleasant nor sorrow on obtaining what is unpleasant”. Personally speaking, I am more for rejoicing on getting the pleasant and staying calm in the face of the unpleasant, rather than zoning out equally on both. But this picture of the Yogi, devoid of worldly attachments, is a familiar presence in our culture.

The rest of the chapter is about what the Yogi should do – Dhyanayoga, meditation in the grand old style. “Holding the body erect and still, looking fixedly at the point of his nose, serene and fearless, firm in the vow of celibacy, let him sit, his mind turned to Me alone” (Sh 13 & 14). The ultimate goal of all this –“Thus making the self ever harmonized, the yogi experiences the infinite bliss of contact with the Eternal. He who sees Me everywhere and sees all in Me: I am never lost to him nor he lost to Me” (Sh 29 & 30).

The story so far: Act without attachment, remember that all actions are rooted in God, then focus, focus, focus on God. At this point, the reader may well ask, “So who is this God person anyway?” We’ll see.

Chapter 7: Ok, so let’s talk God. Here goes.

“I am the origin of the universe and its dissolution as well. There is nothing whatsoever higher than I. All that exists is strung on me like gems on a string.” (Sh 6 & 7).

Straight to the point and no mincing words either. That’s pretty much the message in this chapter. But some interesting asides exist.

Firstly, some glimmerings of the concept of Maya which hides the true form of God from the world. “Deluded by the three gunas, the world does not recognise Me who am above them. This divine Maya of mine is hard to overcome.” (Sh 13 & 14)

Secondly, an interesting piece about tolerance of worship for other gods, but emphasizing that they are inferior. This is clearly the period when the existing Vishnu and Shiva cults were taking over from the old Vedic deities.

“Those whose minds are distorted by desires resort to other gods, observing various rites. Whatever form a faithful devotee wishes to worship, I make his faith firm. But temporary are the results of their worship. Those who worship the gods go to them, but My devotees come to Me.” (Sh 20 to 23)

Chapter 8: Not too much going on here, frankly. The main point seems to be “He who utters Aum at the moment of death come to me” (Sh 13) and “having come to Me, they do not get back to rebirth” (Sh 15). The rest is a rehash of chapter 7.

Chapter 9: Panentheism. Distinct from pantheism (no ‘en’), which identifies God and the universe, panentheism is the belief that God pervades the universe, but also transcends it. Here it is, loud and clear.

“By Me is all the universe pervaded in My unmanifested form. All beings abide in Me, but I do not abide in them. My spirit which is the source all beings, sustains them, but does not abide in them. All beings pass into Me at the End, and I send them forth again at the Beginning” (Sh 4 to 7).

The superiority of bhakti to God over Vedic rituals is re-emphasized very explicitly.

“The knowers of the Vedas who drink the soma, pray for the way to heaven. They reach the holy world of Indra and enjoy the pleasures of the gods. Having enjoyed paradise, they return to the world of mortals again. But to those who worship Me alone, I bring attainment of what they have not.” (Sh 20 to 22).

Chapter 10: This is just God going ‘I am the Greatest”, over and over. “Of the Adityas I am Vishnu, of the heavenly lights I am the Sun, .....of the gods I am Indra....... of weapons I am the thunderbolt” and so on and on and on. Finally ends with, “I support this entire universe, pervading it with but a fraction of Myself”. Enuff said.

Chapter 11: Vishwarupa!! The grand climax of the Gita. Arjuna gets to see the Cosmic Form of God.

Imagine that! A mind-blowing, soul-searing, all-encompassing vision of Ultimate Reality, of All That Is or Was or Ever Will Be!!! What could ever be more awesome and humbling, more ecstatic and terrifying, more devastating and transformative than that?! What an absolutely brilliant concept.

Unfortunately, followed up by poor execution. It starts off well enough with, “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to blaze forth at once in the sky, that might resemble the splendour of the Exalted one” (Sh 12), but is followed by a huge overload of anthropomorphic imagery – eyes, hands, stomach, mouths, teeth, garlands and such. Just doesn’t do it for me.

IMO, contemplating the Hubble Ultra Deep Field or zooming into the Mandelbrot set can convey a far better picture of what Vishwarupa might have been like. :-)

(Deep field: http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/wallpaper3/opo0428b.jpg Every little speck in the image is a galaxy!

Mandelbrot set: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAJE35wX1nQ )

Brief Interlude: So, now with the Cosmic Form shown and described, does the Gita end on a high note? Alas, no. Seven more chapters follow. Many of them are just remixes of the old ones, and give the impression of being added on to make the magic number, 18.

Chapter 12: Strong advertisement for bhakti. Devotion to a personal God (Ishwara) is declared at the outset to be superior to contemplation of the impersonal Brahman. And what is the ideal bhakta like ? “He who behaves alike to friend and foe, who is alike in heat and cold, pleasure and pain” (Sh 18)... sounds familiar? Yes ! Mr. Detachee from chapter 6 is back.

Chapter 13: Just Sankhya philosophy – Purush and Prakriti. Prakriti is dynamic and everchanging, ceaselessly bringing forth myriad different forms. Purush just sits around, observing and unobserved, unaffected by anything that happens. Yet, somehow, Purush is supposed to be the better of the two. Possibly because He is the Man.

Chapter 14: More on the three gunas – sattva, rajas, tamas – first seen in chapter 7. Sattva is goodness, rajas is passion, tamas is darkness/ignorance. Most of the chapter is an elaboration on what qualities are associated with each. But towards the end, Arjuna asks, “What are the qualities of one who has risen above the three gunas?” Turns out, this is someone who “regards pain and pleasure alike, treats alike a lump of mud, a stone and a piece of gold, who...” ok, ok, we got it, we got it. It’s Mr D. again.

Chapter 15: Remember the cosmic tree? It’s this very interesting image of the reality as an inverted tree, with its roots originating in Brahman, its leaves and branches constituting the world. Quite a unique picture, really. (Ok, there’s Yggdrasil of Norse myth, but it’s the right side up). I had no idea the image was in the Gita, so that was interesting.

But what are we told to do? “Cut off this firm rooted tree with the sword of non-attachment”. Uh-oh, it’s the D-word again. The rest of the chapter is about how the Lord dwells in all things and suchlike, but we’ve seen this all before in chapters 7 to 9.

Chapter 16: All about the daivic (divine) and asuric (demonic) natures intrinsic to human beings. The message: Daivic nature, very good, very good, Asuric nature, very bad, very bad.

Chapter 17: Rather artificial classification of diets, forms of worship, types of penance etc as sattvic, rajasic and tamasic. Don’t know why this wasn’t just attached to chapter 14. Sudden digression into the meaning and significance of “Aum Tat Sat” at the end.

Chapter 18: The finale, and a fairly eclectic mix of previous material. The three-way classification of the last chapter goes on for a bit. We have the three kinds of knowledge, three kinds of work, three kinds of understanding and so forth.

Karmayoga and swadharma re-appear, but this time, the dharma is laid out by caste in shlokas 42 – 44. (I really don’t buy that stuff.) A bit of Dhyanayoga pops in. Then, a particularly strong form of ‘God is responsible for all action’ – “The Lord abides in all hearts, driving them as machines” (Sh 61). The implication is that if Arjuna refuses to fight, the will of God will compel him.

And finally, “Fix thy mind on Me, be devoted to Me, prostrate thyself before Me. Abandoning all duties, come to Me alone for shelter. I shall deliver thee from all evils” (Sh 65 & 66).

In conclusion: Thus, ultimately, it is ‘Surrender to Me and do My will’.

How disappointing! So much better would have been, “Use your new knowledge, think carefully and make up your own mind.” Don’t you think so?

Project Mahabharata

I am planning to read the Mahabharat. All of it. You can, too. A complete and unabridged translation of the Sanskrit original is available at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm

In addition, I have a copy of Kaliprasanna Singha’s translation in Bengali. I remember seeing it first in my grandfather’s house when I was about 9. It seemed inconceivable that anybody could finish reading even a chapter of that humongous tome, let alone the entirety. My grandfather, it seemed, had done this, proving once again that he was the smartest man in the world, ever.

Now, over two decades later I have a copy of my own. I estimate that if it was written out in the same style as, say, the US hardbound edition of the Harry Potter series, it would be about 5000 pages. Now that’s big, but nowhere near infinite. The HP series itself is a total of about 2500 pages, and children routinely read it all. So, it’s eminently possible to read the entire Mahabharat from start to finish! How cool is that?

So, I’m reading the Mahabharat and I must admit it’s a lot tougher going than Rowling’s work or Tolkien’s, because, boy, this book needed an editor!!!

To begin with there’s an incredible amount of fluff, and descriptions tend to be overly detailed and highly formulaic. If I have to read yet another description of warriors fighting ‘like passionate bull elephants during mating season’, I swear I’m going to throw the book at somebody’s head (and severely sprain a muscle in the process). Every time a deity or rishi or even a minor dignitary enters the scene, be prepared for a mile-long stava (‘oratory of praise’) elevating him all the way to Param-Brahma. And if anybody starts lamenting, especially Draupadi, you might as well head for the hills, or at least skip the next several pages.

Secondly, the narrative is highly nonlinear. There’s no “Once upon a time there were five brothers.....”. The Mahabharata is more like the Arabian nights. People start telling a story, and the characters in the story start telling each other another story, and on it goes. Then, all of a sudden, somebody gets beheaded or something and you're like, "Wait, wait, wait, what?? Which level of the loop was I on???"

Then there’s the whole blasted habit of giving away the ending. Happens all the time in the war chapters. For example, right at the outset of Karnaparva, Sanjay goes, "And so after two days of valiant fighting, the mighty Karna was slain by Arjuna..." . Dhritarashtra promptly faints away in shock, and I'm going, "Damn you, that was supposed to come at the END." Then they revive the old King, and Sanjay goes, "So, as I was saying, after Drona died, Duryodhana made Karna the new senapati...." and so on.
Honestly, those ancients had NO concept of slowly building up the tension to a big climax!!

It makes more sense if you remember that the epic was designed for listening in real time. So, during an endless stava or lamentation sequence, you could let your mind wander or run a small errand. Whereas maybe an ending-giveaway was a way of saying, “Hey, don’t go to the bathroom now. Big action scene coming up!” But for a modern reader, it can be rather frustrating.

So, then why bother, you may ask? Why not just read one of the dozens of abridged versions available in the market?

Well, I already have. In fact, if you can read Bengali, I will highly, highly recommend Upendrakishore Raychaudhuri’s (he was Satyajit Ray’s grandfather) version for children. I knew it as ‘CCheleder Mahabharat’ (Mahabharat for Boys), but apparently its been PC-ly renamed ‘CChotoder Mahabharat” (Mahabharat for Youngsters). The book is a gem – very entertainingly written and very faithful to the original as I am finding.

Part of my motivation is a reality check – one constantly hears that something or the other is ‘written in the Mahabharat’, I want to see if that’s really so.

But what really drives me is the sheer feel of reading the massive old epic. It’s not like reading a novel at all. Apart from the main plotline, the Mahabharat contains tons of other stories. Virtually every ancient Indian story you’ve heard of is present somewhere or the other – ‘Shakuntala-Dushyanta’, ‘Nala-Damayanti’, ‘Kacha-Devayani’, a condensed version of the Ramayan and much, much more. And often in the most unexpected of places – for example, the story of Shiva, Parvati and the birth of Kartika suddenly shows up before the final battle between Bhima and Duryodhana. Add to all this a huge dollop of philosophical discourse, political advice, social directives and whimsical folk tales thrown in almost at random and you have the big, bewildering mishmash that is the Mahabharat. Reading the great epic is a lot like walking the ways of an ancient city – you wander around pondering the well-known sights, and all of a sudden you are in a dingy little alleyway which leads to an exquisite garden, tucked away where you least expect it. It’s an experience you shouldn’t miss.

P.S: If you want to try the Mahabharat project yourself and want some company, some of us have set up a discussion blog at http://groups.google.com/group/mahabharata-discussion
All are welcome.

Song of Creation - Rigveda

There was neither Nothingness nor Being,
Nor the skies above, nor the heavens beyond.
What covered it ? Where was it ? In whose keeping ?
Was there water then ? Water in depths unfathomed ?

Death was not then, nor immortality,
Nor any sign of night or day.
The One breathed alone, self sustained,
The One there was, and no other.

Darkness there was wrapped in darkness
All was ocean, swathed in gloom.
The One came to be, alone in the void
Born at last from fire within.

Desire arose in the beginning then
Primal seed of the nascent mind.
Sages searching their hearts with wisdom
Know that which Is, is kin to what Is Not.

Across the void shone the light piercing
What was above and what below ?
Mighty forces surged, fertile, creative
Power raged above, earth heaved below.

Who truly knows ? Who can speak forth ?
Whence it was born, whence came creation ?
The gods themselves were born after
Then who can say whence it came to be ?

How came to be this vast creation
Whether it was made, or formed itself
He who sees all from highest heaven
Verily he knows, or perhaps he does not….

***

What better way to start off a blog ?

The above is my (semi)-translation of the Nasadiya Suktam, one of my all-time favourite poems from the Rigveda. I found several translations on the Internet (not a single one by an Indian!), all somewhat unsatisfactory and mutually contradictory in places.

So I got hold of the original and where the translations conflicted, I was able to use my admittedly limited knowledge of Sanskrit to give what I hope is a more accurate rendering. Then I tried to make it all a bit more poetic – always a risky proposition.

What you saw was the final result.