Amma, Nanna, O Abbayi

Oka amma, oka nanna mariyuu valla abbayi (Software Enginner) indulo paatralu. Amma, Nanna hyderabad lo untaaru. Abbayi mysore lo job chestuntaadu. Ee weekend vaadu hyd ki veltunnadu kaabatti oka party host cheyyamani cheppadu phone lo.

...
...

Abbayi : maama ki ippude call chesi cheppanu, ee sunday intlo (mandu) party undani.
Amma : mari intlo mandu undaa ledaa kanukkovaali kada first. Prastutaaniki intlo 'Royal Stag' okkate undi.
Abbayi : abba !!! Royal Stag aa ... adi galeez untadi ... ayya ni rendu bottles Bacardi kaani Blenders Pride kaani teppinchamanavaa. avvaithe smooth gaa untadi.
Amma : Nuvve cheppuu, dad ki ....
Abbayi : (frightened) NOOOOOO !!! nenetla adugutaa dad ni !!! chaala vintha gaa untadi .... nuvve etlainaa adigey plz plz.
(in the background ... Nanna : vaadiki gudda baaga balisindi .... Bacardi kaavalasivacchindaa?)
Amma : hmm ... sare le. nenu elago alaaga manage chesesthale ... nuvvaite intiko todaragaa vacchei ...
Abbayi : aaa ... ok ok !!! (delighted)
Amma : inkendi?

...
...
...

idi kala no, katha no anukuntunnaraa? kaadu ...! idi mana bonGu gaadi story ... entha adrustavantudoo kada!! :D

Belief

Is what we hear and what we believe true? Do we know the reason why certain things are the way they are? Or do we believe in what 'they' want us to believe!!!

There's some serious research going on to find out whether Ramayana 'actually' happened before Mahabharata. A few characters of Ramayana (Rama, Sita, Hanuman, ...) have been cited in the texts of the Mahabharata. That's the only defense for people believing that Ramayana happened before Mahabharata. Well, the texts are not hard to manipulate either. Some linguists say that it's not that hard to identify the portions of texts which have been modified. The version of Mahabharata that we have now is an object of many interpolations through the ages. Also, the archaeologists and linguists have an interesting point on this subject. The analysis of the lipi and the quality of the language used in both the texts suggested that Mahabharata might've been composing before Ramayana. Even if you even observe the court manners and general behaviour of the characters, they seem to be more barbaric in Mahabharata. The description of the behaviour and administration in the court of Dasaratha (Rama's dad) is much more organised and civilised in contrast to the court of Dhritarastra or Duryodhan or even the Pandavas.

Come to think of it, it makes perfect sense (atleast to me) to think that Ramayana has been composed after Mahabharata. The Mahabharata has definitely failed to show us what is right and what is wrong. After the chaos (Kurukshetra yuddha), there is a 'strong' need for the society to be shown clearly, the path of the righteous and the path of the evil. Hence, there is a concept of ideality (ideal son, ideal brother, ideal wife - sadly, NOT an ideal husband, ideal follower, ...) in Ramayana which, was absent earlier, in the Mahabharata.

I've realised (on my trip to coorg) that it's not at all difficult to create a myth. All it needs, is a good story, a popular character and more importantly, Time. I've been to a tibetan settlement on the way to coorg. The monks there, believe that Dalai Lama brought (when he came around the late 60s) all the greenary and rains to the settlement which, was barren and dry before. What Crappp !!! I've never heard from anyone else that the place was barren before. Probably, the people around the settlement will also begin to believe that Dalai Lama brought all the rain to the place. It'll take two more generations, that's all. I agree that Dalai Lama is a great intellectual. But, he's just a person.

One thing fascinates me. How are these created? Who creates them? How come they are induced so easily into our minds and thought processes?

Big-Bang !!!

This is what I came across while reading the book, "The Laws of Manu" (by Wendy Doniger) and I wanted to share it with you. The following (in italics) are the paragraphs in the beginning of the book. Here, Manu ('Indian Adam', for those of you who do not know) is explaining the origin of the universe to the maharshis.

Listen! Once upon a time this (universe) was made of darkness, without anything that could be discerned, without any distinguishing marks, impossible to know through reasoning or understanding; it seemed to be entirely asleep.

Then the Lord who is Self-existent, himself unmanifest, caused this (universe) to become manifest; putting his energy into the great elements and everything else, he became visible and dispelled the darkness.

....
....

(he goes on to describe how he created the entire universe; the planets, the sun, the moon, life on earth, ... and then at one point, everything is destroyed for this cycle to start over again.)

You might've already observed one point here (and so did I). Doesn't it sound too familiar? Is it not something that we've heard and read before (somewhere in our social textbooks probably)? Yes people, I'm talking about the Big-Bang theory. The universe was as if it was non-existent, a point; which exploded and 'this' whole crap came out of it.

The first question that came into my mind was: "Could the scientists have picked this theory from hindu philosophy?" I mean, this book was written around 100 or 200 C.E. Going through some web-pages, I found out something fascinating. This theory is not only in Hinduism, but also, in other religions and philosophies too; Jainism, Sikhism, some 'nepal'ism (I don't remember the name), ... with some minor changes, of course. But, I think that this theory first originated from our sacred texts, considering the time when "Manusmriti" was composed.

Pessimism

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who know me well say, I'm pessimistic (Well, some say that I'm realistic; I take this oppurtunity to say that I'm not). Of course, I'm. I know that I'm pessimistic. But, they say that as if it's a disease or as if I've gone mad. This question of mine is to all the 'so-called' optimists and who call themselves optimists.

"What's wrong in being pessimistic?"

First, allow me to define the terms clearly:
Optimism - The feeling or hope that all is going to turn out well.
Pessimism - A dispostion to take the least hopeful view of a situation (OR) To look on the 'dark' side and to expect the worst in all the things.

Going by what I've mentioned above, I belive that by being pessimistic, it's more likely to become the perfect person ('super-human', in Nietzsche words) because you hope the worst and look at the 'dark' side always. If you look at Nietzsche's works, they have a pessimistic view of things and his ever-concerned attempt to always become perfect. But, very few people get that.

Come to think of it, a fundamental point of every religion (at least, the ones which I have some knowledge about) in this world is pessimistic; Be it Hinduism, be it Buddhism or Jainism, be it Christianity or Islam. Hindus, Buddhists and Jains view life as a suffering and they want to escape from the circle of 'life and death'. Christians and Muslims - they are 'suffering' because of the 'Original Sin', committed NOT by them but by their ancestor (Adam). You must either believe in any of the religion or you must not. If 'you' people are so religious and you believe in your respective religions, you're pessimistic too. You don't think you are yet. That's all. There was one religion named, Hasidism which is based on the point, "Every individual is different and every one is here for a purpose ... blah blah blah ..." and what happened??!! Is it in this world now? The people thought - That's It !!! - It's bullshit. And that's the reason, it (Hasidism) is no more than a fossil now. If you are a 'kafir', and your are looking at me as if I've got a disease or as if I'm an asylum-material, it just proves another point which I might've mentioned it for about a million times - YOU are a hypocrite.

Just for the record, I don't want you to be pessimistic. It comes with a heavy price. There is no concept of hope then. And that might really screw up anyone (which might be evident in my case). Just understand that it's just a matter of perspective. It's up to you which one to choose.

My Vision of the World

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.
- B. F. Skinner
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since when I was young, I've dreamt of many things that I wished, would happen, most of them for a personal purpose and a few for a 'higher' cause. But there is a difference between a 'dream' and a 'vision'. Dreams, as the word suggests, need not be realistic. This completely depends on how wild your imagination can go and there can be no end to it. But, a vision is something different. It is something which, in the first place is, realistic. It focuses on what YOU are going to do to reach your vision. The reason I'm focusing on these terms is to make it clear to the 'intellects' who, sometimes, forget the difference. This particular topic, "My Vision of the World", has been given to 'us' (STAR Infoscions) during our training sessions, for which, we were asked to prepare a 10 minute presentation. I found something interesting during the entire session: To what extent can a person's imagination go and more importantly, how can one get confused with the basic difference between the two - a vision, and a dream. Well, it is either 'World where there are no physical boundaries', 'World with no money', 'Eternal Peace', 'Greenery Everywhere', 'No wars', and so on ... They were all like the campaign portfolio of a fucking politician. I admit, I may not have right or the intellect to criticize anyone; but, is any of it really possible ??? When I ask the same, the reply is (and will be) 'May not, but it's just a vision, a dream'. What the Fuck !!

This is what I wanted to scream at the top of my voice every time I encounter a stupid person. I expect only one thing from anyone - I want them to think, not some rocket science,just use common-sense. Why doesn't anyone think? Is it too much to ask? You might've understood by now, what I'm trying to say. My vision is - "I want to see the world where people think". This is what I wanted to convey through the pathetic presentation skills of mine. And obviously, I could not. Let me give a few examples to project my point better.

The first one. One night, I was sitting in the coffee room, GEC - Global 'Education' Centre (@Infosys) - sipping my coffee when this guy enters the room. His coffee mug slips from his hand and ... CRASH !!! The sensible thing to do is, pick up the broken porcelain pieces and trash them (the dustbin was beside him, by the way). But, NO !!! After recovering from the 'shock', he looks around to check whether anyone is observing him. He notices me in the dark corner. There was a stupid grin on his face (was he expecting a medal from me !!) and he left the room. I had to pick up (while cursing that 'social animal') the broken pieces and dispose them. Should someone tell him to do that?

The second one. Well, this is a serious problem, according to me. This is current scenario of the education system in 'Swarnandhrapradesh' (and probably, in other parts of nation). This happened when I was in my 3rd year, B.Tech. I was wandering in my colony when a certain person (say, XYZ) recognises me and invites me to his house. He had some questions regarding his son's career and wants me to clarify. In the middle of conversation, I asked him why was his son taking coaching for IITs. His answer, "If he'll aims for the IITs, he'll end up getting a good seat in AIEEE". HOLY FUCK !!! Is this similar to, "Aim for the stars, you might end up on moon" sort of thing. I was shocked. Later, I found that, this was a popular conception. What's happening to the society? If this is the thought process of a grown-up, one might wonder, how do the gonna-be grown-up think? It turns out that I've an example for that too.

The third and final one. This incident happened during my final year of engineering. A fresh batch of 240 are induced into DA-IICT. In their first week, after their inductions, a few of them come to my room to ask me, "How many hours do we have to study in order to get a pointer above 3.5?". How the fuck did that perspective enter their minds? I admit that, in my first year, percentage was one concern for me. As far as I can remember, I (most of us) never used to study for marks. Having a concern for marks is one thing, but, is there a metric which takes number of hours (you study) as an input and gives a projection of your pointer?

I ask the same question that i put forth in the beginning; Am I asking too much? Does my vision come under the same category ('No Wars', 'Eternal Peace', etc ...)? Think Again !!!


Acknowledgements
------------------------
I would like to thank pOp3, pOtti, Sagar (miyya), LC, potu, priyatham, rama, pavan and several others who have urged me to write. Rakesh, thanks for your review. This first blog of mine is dedicated to pOp3 and pOtti (You know why).