David Chalmers and Hard Problem of Consciousness

When you look at this page, there is a whir of processing: photons strike your retina, electrical signals are passed up your optic nerve and between different areas of your brain, and eventually you might respond with a smile, a perplexed frown or a remark. But there is also a subjective aspect. When you look at the page, you are conscious of it, directly experiencing the images and words as part of your private, mental life. You have vivid impressions of colored flowers and vibrant sky. At the same time, you may be feeling some emotions and forming some thoughts. Together such experiences make up consciousness: the subjective, inner life of the mind.

The Hard Problem

Researchers use the word “consciousness” in many different ways. To clarify the issues, we first have to separate the problems that are often clustered together under the name. For this purpose, I find it useful to distinguish between the “easy problems” and the “hard problem” of consciousness. The easy problems are by no means trivial – they are actually as challenging as most in psychology and biology – but it is with the hard problem that the central mystery lies.

The easy problems of consciousness include the following: How can a human subject discriminate sensory stimuli and react to them appropriately? How does the brain integrate information from many different sources and use this information to control behavior? How is it that subjects can verbalize their internal states? Although all these questions are associated with consciousness, they all concern the objective mechanisms of the cognitive system. Consequently, we have every reason to expect that continued work in cognitive psychology and neuroscience will answer them.

The hard problem, in contrast, is the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. This puzzle involves the inner aspect of thought and perception: the way things feel for the subject. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations, such as that of vivid blue. Or think of the ineffable sound of a distant oboe, the agony of an intense pain, the sparkle of happiness or the meditative quality of a moment lost in thought. All are part of what I am calling consciousness. It is these phenomena that pose the real mystery of the mind.

Knowledge Argument

To illustrate the distinction, consider a thought experiment called “The Knowledge Argument” devised by the Australian philosopher Frank Jackson.

According to the knowledge argument, there are facts about consciousness that are not deducible from physical facts. Someone could know all the physical facts, be a perfect reasoner, and still be unable to know all the facts about consciousness on that basis.

Frank Jackson’s canonical version of the argument provides a vivid illustration. On this version, Mary is a neuroscientist who knows everything there is to know about the physical processes relevant to color vision. But Mary has been brought up in a black-and-white room (on an alter-native version, she is colorblind) and has never experienced red. Despite all her knowledge, it seems that there is something very important about color vision that Mary does not know: she does not know what it is like to see red. Even complete physical knowledge and unrestricted powers of deduction do not enable her to know this. Later, if she comes to experience red for the first time, she will learn a new fact of which she was previously ignorant: she will learn what it is like to see red.

Let me try to explain the argument again in different words.

Suppose that Mary, a neuroscientist in the 23rd century, is the world’s leading expert on the brain processes responsible for color vision. But Mary has lived her whole life in a black-and-white room and has never seen any other colors. She knows everything there is to know about physical processes in the brain – its biology, structure and function. This understanding enables her to grasp everything there is to know about the easy problems: how the brain discriminates stimuli, integrates information and produces verbal reports. From her knowledge of color vision, she knows the way color names correspond with wavelengths on the light spectrum. But there is still something crucial about color vision that Mary does not know: what it is like to experience a color such as red. It follows that there are facts about conscious experience that cannot be deduced from physical facts about the functioning of the brain.

There are following very important implications of “Knowledge Argument”:

1. Human Subjective Experiences as Phenomena are Not some illusionary phenomena. They are as real as anything else.
2. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” cannot be captured in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail.
3. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” can NOT be reduced in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail. This also implies that all the reductionist explanations of Consciousness are False!

One should definitely watch following TED Talk by David Chalmers in order to understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

And in order to research further on the topic, following resource by David J Chalmers is a MUST Read. It shows various issues in Mind Problem and concludes how “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is still unsolved and points towards the possibility that probably “Consciousness” may be an ontologically distinct entity.

Consciousness and Its Place in Nature — David J Chalmers

Introduction

To build a human like machine has always been the aim of Artificial Intelligence, to which it has partially succeeded and claims that more perfection will be achieved in future. It is not questioned whether behaviorally or in performance, we can build a machine which can be human like. Problem comes when things like Intentionality/Feelings/Emotions/Understanding/Meaning come into picture. With the help of behavior one cannot identify whether a machine is feeling emotions, feelings or would understand the meaning of words/statements/symbols it is computing, independent of the fact behaviorally it is showing to do so.

Even if we want to talk about machines having feelings, emotions, understanding, and pain etc. there exist no formal definition of these things, phenomena. Ultimately it becomes difficult to talk about these things in relation to machines and computational models.

In this essay I will try to talk about “intentional” and “feeling related” aspects for machines. I will not pretend to be neutral. I will try to defend the view that at least a computational model based on computation over any kind of representation can never have or realize intentional phenomenon, qualia, feelings, pain etc. Thus not just in practice, in principle too it is impossible to build such machines.

In this paper, I will go further to explain various theories proposed in order to explain how intentional phenomena, subjective experiences, qualia and feeling related aspects are explained in case of human beings. Here I will refer to the “Hard” and “Easy” problems of Consciousness. I will talk about how various efforts of Strong and Weak AI are working to solve the “easy problem” of consciousness and “hard problems” are still untouched.

Computation and Pain

John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument

With the help of Chinese Room Argument it can be shown that computation over any kind of representation is insufficient to realize Intentionality/Feelings/Emotions/Pain etc. Computation over representation is considered to be a promising theory of mind and is sometimes also referred to as “Computational Theory of Mind”. In 1980, John Searle published “Minds, Brains and Programs” in the journal The Behavioral and Brain Sciences. In this article, Searle sets out the Chinese Room Argument.

The heart of the argument is an imagined human simulation of a computer, similar to Turing’s Paper Machine. The human in the Chinese Room follows instructions in English for manipulating Chinese symbols, where a computer “follows” a program written in a programming language. The human produces the appearance of understanding Chinese by following the symbol manipulating instructions, but does not thereby come to understand Chinese. Since a computer just does what the human does—manipulate symbols on the basis of their syntax alone—no computer, merely by following a program, comes to genuinely understand Chinese. If the argument with the phenomena of “Understanding” is tough to understand for some then they can take reference of “Pain”. There is no way, the above set-up, with a human being and rule book, to realize “Pain”. If it is not possible to realize subjective experience like “Pain” for the above set-up then it is not possible for any computational model which manipulates representation, to realize any subjective experience. Thus, strong AI is false.

Chinese Room Argument can be pictorially understood in following chart.

We might summarize the narrow argument as a reductio ad absurdum against Strong AI as follows. Let L be a natural language, and let us say that a “program for L” is a program for conversing fluently in L. A computing system is any system, human or otherwise, that can run a program.

• If Strong AI is true, then there is a program for Chinese such that if any computing system runs that program, that system thereby comes to understand Chinese.
• I could run a program for Chinese without thereby coming to understand Chinese.
• Therefore Strong AI is false.

The second premise is supported by the Chinese Room thought experiment. The conclusion of this narrow argument is that running a program cannot create understanding. The wider argument includes the claim that the thought experiment shows more generally that one cannot get semantics (meaning) from syntax (formal symbol manipulation).

Chinese Room Argument was mainly given to show that computation over any kind of representation will lack understanding. Same argument can also be used to show that while human in Chinese room is manipulating symbols, there is no possibility of him experiencing any kind of “Understanding” or “Pain” in the task of manipulating symbols or “there is nobody to feel pain” in the system, so there is no pain.

Simple Explanation of “Chinese Room Argument”

Chinese room argument primarily says that any computational model based on representation is “in principle” incapable of producing any human intentional phenomena or subjective first person experiences.

Searle argues to understand the nature of “computation”. He says that a computation is nothing more than a combination of a “Rule Book” and an “Agent” which is required to manipulate the input on the basis of the “Rule Book”. Pictorially, it can be represented as follows. A computation is nothing more than what is shown in following diagram.

After establishing this analogy of computation, Searle asks the question to the reader, where is the possibility of realization of any human intentional phenomena, subjective experiences like pain, qualia, emotions or any kind of sensation in above setup?

Since there is no possibility of realization of any human intentional phenomena or subjective experiences in above setup, Searle argues that computation over representation, cannot “in principle” realize any human intentional phenomena or subjective experiences.

Video Explanation of “Chinese Room Argument”

First Video.

Second Video

Third Video

Further readings on the same

At this point one may also like read one of my other posts on the same issue, for greater understanding.
Can a robot feel pain? — https://devanshmittal.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/can-a-robot-feel-pain/

One may also like to read the original paper published by John Searle on Chinese Room Argument. Chinese Room Argument. Minds, Brains and Programs by John Searle.

David Chalmers and Hard Problem of Consciousness

When you look at this page, there is a whir of processing: photons strike your retina, electrical signals are passed up your optic nerve and between different areas of your brain, and eventually you might respond with a smile, a perplexed frown or a remark. But there is also a subjective aspect. When you look at the page, you are conscious of it, directly experiencing the images and words as part of your private, mental life. You have vivid impressions of colored flowers and vibrant sky. At the same time, you may be feeling some emotions and forming some thoughts. Together such experiences make up consciousness: the subjective, inner life of the mind.

The Hard Problem

Researchers use the word “consciousness” in many different ways. To clarify the issues, we first have to separate the problems that are often clustered together under the name. For this purpose, I find it useful to distinguish between the “easy problems” and the “hard problem” of consciousness. The easy problems are by no means trivial – they are actually as challenging as most in psychology and biology – but it is with the hard problem that the central mystery lies.

The easy problems of consciousness include the following: How can a human subject discriminate sensory stimuli and react to them appropriately? How does the brain integrate information from many different sources and use this information to control behavior? How is it that subjects can verbalize their internal states? Although all these questions are associated with consciousness, they all concern the objective mechanisms of the cognitive system. Consequently, we have every reason to expect that continued work in cognitive psychology and neuroscience will answer them.

The hard problem, in contrast, is the question of how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experience. This puzzle involves the inner aspect of thought and perception: the way things feel for the subject. When we see, for example, we experience visual sensations, such as that of vivid blue. Or think of the ineffable sound of a distant oboe, the agony of an intense pain, the sparkle of happiness or the meditative quality of a moment lost in thought. All are part of what I am calling consciousness. It is these phenomena that pose the real mystery of the mind.

Knowledge Argument

To illustrate the distinction, consider a thought experiment called “The Knowledge Argument” devised by the Australian philosopher Frank Jackson.

According to the knowledge argument, there are facts about consciousness that are not deducible from physical facts. Someone could know all the physical facts, be a perfect reasoner, and still be unable to know all the facts about consciousness on that basis.

Frank Jackson’s canonical version of the argument provides a vivid illustration. On this version, Mary is a neuroscientist who knows everything there is to know about the physical processes relevant to color vision. But Mary has been brought up in a black-and-white room (on an alter-native version, she is colorblind) and has never experienced red. Despite all her knowledge, it seems that there is something very important about color vision that Mary does not know: she does not know what it is like to see red. Even complete physical knowledge and unrestricted powers of deduction do not enable her to know this. Later, if she comes to experience red for the first time, she will learn a new fact of which she was previously ignorant: she will learn what it is like to see red.

Let me try to explain the argument again in different words.

Suppose that Mary, a neuroscientist in the 23rd century, is the world’s leading expert on the brain processes responsible for color vision. But Mary has lived her whole life in a black-and-white room and has never seen any other colors. She knows everything there is to know about physical processes in the brain – its biology, structure and function. This understanding enables her to grasp everything there is to know about the easy problems: how the brain discriminates stimuli, integrates information and produces verbal reports. From her knowledge of color vision, she knows the way color names correspond with wavelengths on the light spectrum. But there is still something crucial about color vision that Mary does not know: what it is like to experience a color such as red. It follows that there are facts about conscious experience that cannot be deduced from physical facts about the functioning of the brain.

There are following very important implications of “Knowledge Argument”:

1. Human Subjective Experiences as Phenomena are Not some illusionary phenomena. They are as real as anything else.
2. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” cannot be captured in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail.
3. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” can NOT be reduced in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail. This also implies that all the reductionist explanations of Consciousness are False!

One should definitely watch following TED Talk by David Chalmers in order to understand the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

And in order to research further on the topic, following resource by David J Chalmers is a MUST Read. It shows various issues in Mind Problem and concludes how “Hard Problem of Consciousness” is still unsolved and points towards the possibility that probably “Consciousness” may be an ontologically distinct entity.

Consciousness and Its Place in Nature — David J Chalmers

Conclusion

So we see there are certain problems with computational theory of mind, which are,

1. Problem of Meanings/Semantics: Syntax cannot have Semantics. Chinese Room Argument proves it.
2. Problem of Intentionality: How can the syntax be ”about” something. Again reference of Chinese Room Argument can be taken in this also.
3. Problem of Consciousness: As Chalmers says what we can solve from Computational Theory of Mind is the Easy Problem and the Hard Problem still persists.
4. Human Subjective Experiences as Phenomena are Not some illusionary phenomena. They are as real as anything else.
5. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” cannot be captured in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail.
6. Human Subjective Experiences “In Principle” can NOT be reduced in the Structural, Functional, Procedural, Material Information, even if the information is in the highest possible detail. This also implies that all the reductionist explanations of Consciousness are False!

At least in the case of a computational model based on computation being performed over a representation, one can see that Intentional and Feeling related aspects are not possible. Chinese Room and other similar arguments show that Intentionality, Qualia, Feeling related aspects are not realizable in a computational model.

After showing the limitation of computational model I talked about various researches which have happened till now in relation to explaining how intentional and feeling related aspects are explained in a human being. I talked about the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Most efforts in AI (both weak and strong) are trying to solve the “easy problem” of consciousness and “hard problem” as I showed is still untouched or unexplained.

In conclusion I would like to say that, till now there have not been any strong enough researches, arguments, proofs which can prove/show the existence of intentional phenomena or “feeling related” aspects like “pain” in case of machines. Arguments of “computation over representation” have already lost the game; arguments of “structure” (like principle of organizational invariance) are far from being accepted.

References

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/
• Chinese Room Argument. Minds, Brains and Programs by John Searle.
• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
• Consciousness and its place in Nature – David J Chalmers
• Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia – David J Chalmers http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html
• Puzzle of Conscious Experience, David Chalmers.
• Minds, Brains and Sciences — John Searle.
• Can a robot feel pain? — Devansh Mittal
  https://devanshmittal.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/can-a-robot-feel-pain/

Relationships

Q: What makes a Human, Human?
A: The ability to relate!

Relationships are the integral part of our life. We are born in relationships. The ability to relate with others around us separates us from animals and makes us humans. Does that mean that animals do not have the capability to relate? Animals do relate with other animals around them but they do not have to make a “conscious” effort for it. Relationships in animals are more or less regulated by nature. Their relationships are “naturally” breed-centric. Though, with some human interventions they can be “conditioned” to exhibit certain characteristics which otherwise they wouldn’t. The scope of conditioning and deviation from their natural conduct, in case of animals is very limited, in comparison to humans. In fact, we currently find it quite debatable, what is “natural” for a human being! Relationships in a particular breed of animals are almost consistent, it means all the animals of a particular breed are found to relate in almost the similar fashion and their relationships can be studied with external observations. We can talk with a lot of certainty about the nature of relationships in a particular breed of animals. Question which comes here is — are we able to talk about human-human relationships in the similar manner? The answer is a big NO.

In case of human beings, every human being seems to be fulfilling relationships in his/her own ways. If we consider entire human race as one breed then our relationships cannot be studied in the ways we study animals. Every human being seems to have a different understanding of human relationships. Our understanding and fulfilment of relationships is highly influenced by our gender, language, environment, education, experiences, culture, economical and political conditions and all the things we are exposed to in our entire upbringing. For example, if I am brought up in an environment in which I am made to believe that people of a particular religion/ sect/race/ideology are not good then I will not be able to relate with people of that religion/sect/race/ideology. Those who “fit” in such acquired notions of ours are generally the people we like and are able to relate to. Those people who do not “fit” into these notions, generally we do not like them and we are not able to relate to them. Our notions of liking and disliking are major contributors to our relationships.

However, even our notions of liking and disliking are also not consistent. They keep on changing with time. Today we may like somebody, but tomorrow we may not. Similarly today we may be appreciated by somebody for certain qualities, but tomorrow we may not be. Relationships based on liking and disliking are not consistent and we generally expect consistency in relationships. There are a few questions which come at this juncture:

1. What relationships really are?
2. What are the expectations and feelings involved in relationships?
3. How do we have consistently fulfilling relationships with others? And
4. How mutually fulfilling relationships influences our happiness, evolution, society and nature?

Discussion on all these aspects is the subject matter of this book.

With whatever understanding of human relationships we have, all of us can observe one thing in common that we wish for good, fulfilling and satisfying relationships. When relationships are going good, we feel happy and when they are going bad, we feel sad. We want our relationships to go well, but most often they don’t, and that becomes the cause of our sorrow. There are several reasons for relationships to not go the way we expect them, like wrong basis of relationships, relationships being given less priority than what they deserve, several conditionings which we have accumulated in our entire upbringing interfering in them, lack of understanding of expectations and feelings in relationships and several others. This is one of the major hypotheses of the book that we wish to have good relationships with others around us, but we are not able to build them due to “our own” lack of understanding of ourselves and the nature of human relationships. If this understanding of human nature and relationships is set right, then our relationships can be set right.

To understand human relationships, there is a need to understand human nature. Without understanding human nature, human relations cannot be understood. It is the nature of a human being to relate with others. To have good, healthy and warm relationships with others around, is a natural desire in a human being. Whether we are able to fulfil this desire or not, is a different issue, but we wish and hope for good relationships with others around us. The key to good relationships is “Acceptance”. We want acceptance in relationships. To have good and mutually fulfilling relationships with people:

1. We want other person to accept us,
2. We want acceptance in ourselves for other person and
3. We also want acceptance of ourselves in ourselves.

All the three kinds of acceptances are necessary to have mutually fulfilling relations with people. Acceptance of the third kind is the most important one. Accepting oneself is at the base of accepting the other person. Without accepting oneself, one cannot accept others. The more one is able to accept oneself and others, the need to gain acceptance from others keeps decreasing, and one keeps becoming more and more unconditional in relationships. “Unconditional Acceptance” for oneself and for other person is the demand and also the basis of any consistently fulfilling relationship.

Acceptance is a heavily loaded word with several ideas. Understanding “acceptance” requires understanding of several more ideas like Trust, Respect, Mutual Understanding, Affection, Care, Guidance, Gratitude and Love. All these terms are closely connected to each other. For example – without trust, mutual understanding and respect, there cannot be any acceptance and/or a relationship. Trust and respect are the foundation values in a relationship. The unfortunate thing is, we want to be trusted, we want to be respected, we want to be understood, we want to be accepted unconditionally, but we ourselves lack the capability to trust, respect, understand and accept others. We do not want others to put any condition on us, but we ourselves put thousands of conditions on others in a relationship. This is the root cause of all the relationships related problems we see. This idea of “Unconditional Acceptance” is elaborated in great detail in the book.

There are several feelings in relationships. Not all are dominating in all the relationships. Some feelings are dominating in some and others are dominating in others. For example, feeling of gratitude is dominating in Teacher-Student relationship; Feelings of care and guidance are dominating in Parent-Child relationship. Different kinds of relationships have same base feelings but different dominating feelings and different dignities. Inter-gender relationship is also one of the important kinds. There are two chapters in the book, dedicated to inter-gender relationships. They cover the aspects related to Male-Female relationships and Sexuality. Male-Female relationships and Sexuality have certain issues which generally do not arise in other relationships. All these issues related to inter-gender relations and sexuality are discussed in these two chapters.

Relationships are not only limited to feelings, emotions and fulfilment. They have a very important role in our other dimensions of life as well. They are not only important in our personal life, but also play a very important role in our professional life, in the society we live in, the way we interact with nature and also in our spiritual growth. All the dimensions of our living are closely connected with each other; they interact and impact each other. There is an intricate and fragile relation between all the dimensions of our living. Failure at one dimension leads to disaster at others.

Relationships are very important for building a harmonious society. A society cannot be conceptualized without the feeling of “Mutuality and Relatedness” among the individuals who constitute it. Without mutuality and relatedness, a set of individuals will be called a crowd with contracts but not a society. A society is an institution which provides following three things to the constituting individuals:

1. Security of livelihood and respect,
2. Environment for building better relationships among themselves and
3. Sufficient time, space and opportunities for the evolution of all the faculties of all the individuals.

A human being is also related to Nature. Relationship with Nature is not much focused on, in our mainstream books, but is very important to be understood in order to understand human nature and human relationships. The way we see Nature, it impacts Nature and also us. It is seen that those who are closely connected with Nature, have better human-human relationships as well. Nature has a lot to teach in all the aspects of our living.

A human being is an evolving being. One grows materially, emotionally, socially and also spiritually. Spiritual growth is also closely connected with human relationships. Relationships have the power to de-condition us, challenge our pre-conceived notions, challenge our egos and make us realize the things which otherwise may be very difficult to understand. Every relationship is like a mirror which helps one seeing one’s True Self. If one has the zeal to see oneself and grow spiritually, then relationships could act like great mirrors. To fulfil a single relationship consistently with mutual fulfilment is more difficult than climbing the Mount Everest. All these aspects of relationships are discussed in the later part of the book.

Finally the conclusion is, “Relationships are Just There!” in all the dimensions of our living. They are indispensable. We cannot do away with them. They are our need, our basic characteristic, and our basic identity. As we shall see in the coming chapters, we cannot make or break the relationships; we can only recognize their ever active presence.

(I had written this article as an introduction to the book, I was requested to write by Hay House Publishers (http://www.hayhouse.com/) on topic “Relationships”. I couldn’t find time to write it, but here is what I had written earlier.)

In a mother’s womb were two babies. One asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”

The other replies, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”

“Nonsense,” says the other. “There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?”

“I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths.”

The other says “This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short.”

“I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here.”

The other replies, “No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere.”

“Well, I don’t know,” says the other, “but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us.”

“Mother??” You believe in mother? Where is she now?”

“She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world.”

“I don’t see her, so it’s only logical that she doesn’t exist.”

To which the other replied, “Sometimes when you’re in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her. I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality.”

Author:

Pablo J.Luis Molinero, http://pablomolinero.com/

A human being is a multidimensional being. A human being lives in multiple dimensions. He has several faculties working in him. He is a sensory being, an emotional being, an intellectual being, a creative being, an aesthetic being and also a spiritual being. Human being utilizes and expresses his different faculties within himself, with his relationships, with larger society and also with rest of the nature.

Animals on the contrary, do not have all these faculties awakened. For an animal the scope of exercise of faculties is fixed by nature. An animal knows what to eat, what not to, when to sleep, how much to sleep, when to mate, what to fear, how to relate with other animals and rest of the nature. They are hardcoded with this knowledge by the nature.

Human beings on the other hand are not hardcoded with this knowledge. They are supposed to explore and know whatever is. When they “know” how to live, they live well, when they do not know it, their living go haywire. Human beings have free-will which animals do not. The idea of free-will comes from the constitution of a human being that a human being has capability or freedom to believe something about himself, to believe something about other human beings, to believe something about society and rest of the nature. Not only this, a human being also has the capability to act according to his beliefs. To believe and to act according to those believes are unique properties of a human being, which are not seen in animals.

If we notice then the effort of entire formal or information education, religion, spirituality is to set the beliefs right. When beliefs are human beings are “wrong” then it creates several problems at the level of individual, inter-personal relationships, society and rest of the nature. When they are “right” then those problems seem to be getting solved. I will touch upon the ideas of “right” and “wrong” believe later. Following are various problems which we see at different levels of our living currently.

While the compartmentalization of above problems could suggest as they are disjoint, though it is important to realize that all these ‘types’ of problems are inter-affecting, interacting, and inter-related. One often leads to the other and vicious cycles manifest.

If we notice then almost all of the above problems are human created problems. Animals and rest of the nature have no role in creating them. If we try to understand the root cause of all the above problems then it will turn out that they are the manifestations of lack of understanding at the individual level. What an individual believes reflects in his own conduct and in his relationships. What people together in a group believe reflect itself in the larger society and rest of the nature. Thus, we can safely conclude that lack of understanding at the level of individual is the root cause of all the problems which human being has created for himself, others and rest of the nature. Lack of understanding itself manifests itself in the form of “wrong” beliefs at the level of individuals.

Following flow chart further elaborates how lack of understanding or “wrong” beliefs at the level of individuals is the root cause of all the problems which we see in the world.

Each human being by design has this innate need for lasting happiness. All our desires, thoughts, behaviors and works are directed towards ensuring lasting happiness, whether we know it or not. We may not get happiness as an outcome of our endeavors but our intention is always for lasting happiness. To ensure lasting happiness for ourselves we have certain belief system. We believe that by intending, thinking, desiring, behaving, and working in a certain manner we will be able to ensure lasting happiness for us. Our beliefs about ourselves and life in general are the basis of our aspirations, pursuits, goals and purpose of life. Our beliefs and our conceptualized goals, aspirations in union shape our behavior at various levels of living i.e. with ourselves, in our inter-personal relationships and family, in the society and with rest of the nature. We obtain certain results as outcome of our behavior at various levels. These outcomes may match or may not match with our conceptualization of expected/desired outcome. If the results are in coherence with our conceptualization of expected outcome then we reinforce our beliefs and conceptualizations and if the results are not in coherence with our conceptualizations of expected outcome then we alter our beliefs and conceptualizations. This is how we keep living. Make beliefs, act, if the result is desired then reinforce belief otherwise alter the belief and again act.

If one tries to understand the flow chart above then once can easily see that the root cause of all the problems as per the flowchart above lies in Box #2. Since the beliefs are “wrong” so the outcomes are undesired and unexpected. One can also easily see that the intention of all the individuals is always good, that is to ensure lasting happiness for themselves as well as for others, since disorder at other levels also affects one’s happiness. Problem lies in the lack of understanding of how order or happiness can be ensured at all the levels of our living.

My proposal is, in order to ensure right beliefs, there is a need for right kind of education, which involves understanding the Self, Relationships, Society, Nature and the entire Existence in the connected and Holistic manner.

See also:

• On Education: A View on Human and Nature Centric Education
• Knowledge is an Obstacle to Knowledge!

When Jiddu Krishnamurti died, Osho expressed his thoughts on him as a being and his work.  Its relevance, its longevity and its usefulness.  It is worth reading.  The discussion has been called “Death of the mystic, J. Krishnamurti”.

J. Krishnamurti died last Monday, In Ojai, California. In the past you have spoken of him as another enlightened being. Would you please comment on his death?

The death of an enlightened being like J. Krishnamurti is nothing to be sad about, it is something to be celebrated with songs and dances. It is a moment of rejoicing.

His death is not a death. He knows his immortality. His death is only the death of the body. But J. Krishnamurti will go on living in the universal consciousness, forever and forever.

Just three days before J. Krishnamurti died, one of my friends was with him; and he reported to me that his words to him were very strange. Krishnamurti was very sad and he simply said one thing: “I have wasted my life. People were listening to me as if I am an entertainment.”

The mystic is a revolution; he is not entertainment.

If you hear him, if you allow him, if you open your doors to him, he is pure fire. He will burn all that is rubbish in you, all that is old in you, and he will purify you into a new human being. It is risky to allow fire into your being—rather than opening the doors, you immediately close all the doors.

But entertainment is another thing. It does not change you. It does not make you more conscious; on the contrary, it helps you to remain unconscious for two, three hours, so that you can forget all your worries, concerns, anxieties—so that you can get lost in the entertainment. You can note it: as man has passed through the centuries, he has managed to create more and more entertainments, because he needs more and more to be unconscious. He is afraid of being conscious, because being conscious means to go through a metamorphosis.

I was more shocked by the news than by the death. A man like J. Krishnamurti dies, and the papers don’t have space to devote to that man who for ninety years continuously has been helping humanity to be more intelligent, to be more mature. Nobody has worked so hard and so long. Just a small news article, unnoticeable—and if a politician sneezes it makes headlines.

What is your connection with Krishnamurti?

It is a real mystery. I have loved him since I have known him, and he has been very loving towards me. But we have never met; hence the relationship, the connection is something beyond words. We have not seen each other ever, but yet…perhaps we have been the two persons closest to each other in the whole world. We had a tremendous communion that needs no language, that need not be of physical presence….

You are asking me about my connection with him. It was the deepest possible connection—which needs no physical contact, which needs no linguistic communication. Not only that, once in a while I used to criticize him, he used to criticize me, and we enjoyed each other’s criticism—knowing perfectly well that the other does not mean it. Now that he is dead, I will miss him because I will not be able to criticize him; it won’t be right. It was such a joy to criticize him. He was the most intelligent man of this century, but he was not understood by people.

He has died, and it seems the world goes on its way without even looking back for a single moment that the most intelligent man is no longer there. It will be difficult to find that sharpness and that intelligence again in centuries. But people are such sleep walkers, they have not taken much note. In newspapers, just in small corners where nobody reads, his death is declared. And it seems that a ninety-year-old man who has been continuously speaking for almost seventy years, moving around the world, trying to help people to get unconditioned, trying to help people to become free—nobody seems even to pay a tribute to the man who has worked the hardest in the whole of history for man’s freedom, for man’s dignity.

I don’t feel sorry for his death. His death is beautiful; he has attained all that life is capable to give. But I certainly feel sorry for the whole world. It goes on missing its greatest flights of consciousnesses, its highest peaks, its brightest stars. It is too much concerned with trivia.

I feel such a deep affinity with Krishnamurti that even to talk of connection is not right; connection is possible only between two things which are separate. I feel almost a oneness with him. In spite of all his criticisms, in spite of all my criticisms—which were just joking with the old man, provoking the old man…and he was very easily provoked….

Krishnamurti’s teaching is beautiful, but too serious. And my experience and feeling is that his seventy years went to waste because he was serious. So only people who were long-faced and miserable and serious types collected around him; he was a collector of corpses, and as he became older, those corpses also became older.

I know people who have been listening to him for almost their whole lives; they are as old as he himself was. They are still alive. I know one woman who is ninety-five, and I know many other people. One thing I have seen in all of them, which is common, is that they are too serious.

Life needs a little playfulness, a little humor, a little laughter.

Only on that point am I in absolute disagreement with him; otherwise, he was a genius. He has penetrated as deeply as possible into every dimension of man’s spirituality, but it is all like a desert, tiring. I would like you back in the garden of Eden, innocent, not serious, but like small children playing. This whole existence is playful. This whole existence is full of humor; you just need the sense of humor and you will be surprised….
Existence is hilarious. Everything is in a dancing mood, you just have to be in the same mood to understand it.

I am not sorry that J. Krishnamurti is dead; there was nothing more for him to attain. I am sorry that his teaching did not reach the human heart because it was too dry, juiceless, with no humor, no laughter.
But you will be surprised to know—whatever he was saying was against religions, was against politics, was against the status quo, was against the whole past, yet nobody was condemning him for the simple reason that he was ineffective. There was no reason to take note of him….

Krishnamurti failed because he could not touch the human heart; he could only reach the human head. The heart needs some different approaches. This is where I have differed with him all my life: unless the human heart is reached, you can go on repeating parrot-like, beautiful words—they don’t mean anything. Whatever Krishnamurti was saying is true, but he could not manage to relate it to your heart. In other words, what I am saying is that J. Krishnamurti was a great philosopher but he could not become a master. He could not help people, prepare people for a new life, a new orientation.

But still I love him, because amongst the philosophers he comes the closest to the mystic way of life. He himself avoided the mystic way, bypassed it, and that is the reason for his failure. But he is the only one amongst the modern contemporary thinkers who comes very close, almost on the boundary line of mysticism, and stops there. Perhaps he’s afraid that if he talks about mysticism people will start falling into old patterns, old traditions, old philosophies of mysticism. That fear prevents him from entering. But that fear also prevents other people from entering into the mysteries of life….

I have met thousands of Krishnamurti people—because anybody who has been interested in Krishnamurti sooner or later is bound to find his way towards me, because where Krishnamurti leaves them, I can take their hand and lead them into the innermost shrine of truth. You can say my connection with Krishnamurti is that Krishnamurti has prepared the ground for me. He has prepared people intellectually for me; now it is my work to take those people deeper than intellect, to the heart; and deeper than the heart, to the being.

Our work is one. Krishnamurti is dead, but his work will not be dead until I am dead. His work will continue.

References:
What Osho said about J Krishnamurti and his work on his death.

Shri. Ravindra Sharma

One early morning Rishi Bhardwaj saw that Rishi Durwasa had camped on the other side of river Ganga. Rishi Bhardwaj, who had 100 sons called his wife and said “Look, the great sage Durwasa has camped across the Ganga. From now on you must cook for him too and bring him food”. His wife with a puzzled look replied “I can prepare the food, but how am I to cross the swollen Ganga and take the food to rishi”. To this, Bhardwaj suggests “You tell Ganga maiya, that you have come with the permission of a Sada-Brahmachari and you wish to cross”. The wife, after preparing the meal, goes to the bank of the river and repeats the words of Bhardwaj. The river makes a narrow path for her to cross over. Reaching the other side, she greets rishi Durwasa and offers him food. The rishi, eats to his satisfaction and thanks the lady. The woman poses the same question to rishi Durwasa on how to cross back the river. Durwasa suggests “Tell Ganga maiya that you have come with the permission of Sada-Upavaasi and you wish to cross the river”. The lady repeats the same in front of Ganga, and a narrow path is made for her to cross over.

This story of the Puranas was first told to me by Shri Ravindra Sharma (Guru ji). He was narrating it as if he himself was present at the scene. It seemed as if the characters are his friends. This style of narration was new to me. I had not until then seen this seamless stitching of speaking and singing. Sometimes it felt as if he is actually singing the story and not merely stating it.

Guru ji as he is fondly called from his wrestling days, while narrating this pauranic katha concludes “Bhardwaj who has 100 sons is calling himself sada Bhramhachari (one who has practiced celibacy all his life) and Durwasa who has had a full meal is calling himself a sada upavasi (one who has been on eternal fast). Nirlipta is such a virtue where one engages with the world, yet is in no way attached to it. To engage without attachment is being Nirlipt. Rishi Bhardwaj lived like a Brahmachari though he fathered 100 sons, and similarly Durwasa was fresh like a Upavasi even after a fulfilling meal. This is not hypocrisy. The story is not about lying. The story is about a distinction between being vairagya (renunciation from the world) and being nirlipt”.

Guru ji would narrate many mythological stories in similar manner. These stories would no longer remain mythical but became real and relevant. Perhaps the traditional way is such, where Truth is revealed through myths!

I met Ravindra Sharma ji for the first time in 2009, while visiting Kala Ashram. We were a bunch of Humanities students. Our professor, Navjyoti Singh ji was keen that we all visit Kala Ashram and meet Guru ji. Looking back, I can now imagine the reasons for his keenness. He perhaps wanted to challenge our way of looking. He perhaps wanted to shake the way we listen, contemplate and reflect. He perhaps wanted to give a glimpse of a teacher, whose style is so unfamiliar to our colonially urbanized mind. I decided then to come back and stay with Guru ji for few months. I was keen to be with a teacher of such kind.

I asked him once, how and when did he think of doing this work (I was not even sure what exactly is the nature of his work- was he a social reformer, was he an artist or was he simply a story teller). To this he narrated another story.

Once many many years ago, all the rishis realized that pralay  is inevitable. And so, before the dooms day arrives it is important to gather seeds of everything. The rishis went around and carefully gathered all the seeds. Pralay came, and the whole Earth got submerged. The rishis along with the seeds survived on a boat. After many years when the water receded, the rishis recreated a new world with the help of the seeds saved.

Guru ji went on to say “I also one day realized that a pralay is round the corner. This time itis in the form of modern science and modern civilization. Everything will be swept away in this wave. And so I decided to collect seeds of our past, our samaaj, our ways of living before all of it becomes extinct. And that is just what I do.

My friends ask me who is Guru ji and what does he do. I find this story appropriate to describe his effort. He is a seed collector.

Environmentalist, Dr. Vandana Shiva, who calls herself an eco-feminist, once during a talk called seed as the modern day charkha. According to her, the seed has the potential to upturn the apple cart of modern agriculture. Farmers’ sovereignty lies in control over seeds. Guru ji’s work in this light gains enormous importance. His seed collection is of civilizational order.

Saundarya Drishti

Kanwarjit Nagi, an architect by profession and a close friend, once asked Guru ji of which seed he considers most important, the one seed which is probably most essential. Aesthetic sense or in his words saundarya drishti is that seed. We seem to have lost a sense of what is beautiful and what is not. Saundarya drishti demonstrates our sense of self belief. Saudarya drishti  is what makes a family achieve prosperity. Saundarya drishti  is what turns a crowd into a samaaj.

Since then I am grappling with this seed. I for one has lost all aesthetic sense. What looks beautiful to me is often colored by ideology, emotions, utilitarian value etc. I have observed Guru ji, sometimes from a distance and sometimes very closely. There seems to be a laya (rhythm) in almost all aspects of his life. He would often describe how laya was incorporated in living by people of all professions. He would describe how utility and aesthetics were inter-twined in a grameen life.

His image of a village is in sharp contrast to the ‘Mother India’ image of the village, we urban youth have grown up with- a cursed, desolate and exploitative place. Such beautiful is Guru ji’s description and imagination of a village, that a gentleman once called it a parikatha (a fairly tale). To us it looks like that, but to him it was a lived reality. His elders, would attest that. Renowned Telugu literary figure Late Shri Sadashiv Rao ji, would quietly nod when listening to Guru ji. For him Guru ji’s description was nostalgic, and not a fairytale.

Description of gram arth vyvastha; definition of a village

One day Navjyoti ji said, there is no imagination of village life in the future of India. In all the plannings for future, the image is of a more urbanized India- better roads, taller buildings, electricity for all, percolation of electronic technology, high bandwidth, faster cars, factory schools etc. There is no imagination of rural life. There is no imagination of ‘rurality’- a term he coined. At first I thought rurality is an actual word, just like urbanity. I now wonder why not. There needs to be an image of rurality.

When I posed this to Guru ji later, he said, it is important to have a definition of a village. The image of a village life can be built on that. A village is commonly called Gram. The word comes from the sankrit root gru, from which also comes the word gruha- meaning a home. A gram is like a home. It has the same unity as of a family. In north India, another word popularly used is Dehaat, which comes from the word deh meaning body. Dehaat has the same unity as that of a body. A village is therefore to be seen as a home or as one body.

Guru ji then went on to describe two fundamental requirements for an entity to be called a village- a place where there is aahar ki suraksha and kaam ka gaurav for all its inhabitants. Aahar ki suraksha when explained by him can be understood as secured livelihood, and kaam ka gaurav would indicate to respect given to means of livelihood. Thus a village is an entity which provides a secured and respectful livelihood to all its inhabitants. These two requirements would form the base on which a village can have unity of a home.

In Guru ji’s description of village life, one gets a glimpse of this. Guru ji would describe how the Kumhaars (potters) would divide the rest of the village amongst themselves into market territories. Say, if there are four potter families residing in a village, they divide the rest of the village in four market territories, with an estimation of near equal earnings from each. This division is not eternal but usually for a period- one season or one year. This division is a prerogative of the four families. After the end of the year, the territories are again shuffled or rotated amongst them. Once the division is made, no potter can encroach other potter’s territory. All the pot related requirements of that particular territory would be met by the particular family, and in return all the remuneration would be theirs. This Guru ji calls as bandha hua bazaar or fixed market. In addition to this there is also a Khula bazaar or open market. These are usually the occasions of mela (village fair), haats, yatras etc. On these special occassions anyone was free to transact with anyone. While the bandha hua bazaar provides a secured livelihood, the khula bazaar provides the opportunity for extra earning. Such segregation of market territories and their timely rotation was done by community of every jaati.

Inside a bandha bazaar arrangement, the relation of the service provider with the families in that market territory is that of kaam wala and jajman. Jajman means on whose behalf a yagya is done. All work is a Yagya, and is done on behalf of a Jajman (and not for oneself). A weaver  in Chirala (Andhrapradesh) once told Gandhi ji, that the best of the produce is for the other. If one starts consuming the best of one’s effort, it is the beginning of death of the profession.

The production/service is customized for each Jajman family according to their needs and tradition. A potter would not provide uniform pots, but pot production would be customized for each family (a Lohar would need long and flat earthen pots for his long tools, a charmkaar’s needs would be for immersing skin of dead animals, a purohit would need it for performing pooja etc). For the potter, they are all his Jajmans. The quantity of pots required, the design of the pots, occasions of delivery would be different for different Jajman family.

Just as the service provided to the Jajman is highly customized, so it the remuneration. There existed multiple forms of remuneration through multiple currencies. A majority of the service provided would be in the form of debt, as the remuneration would not be immediate. Usually the remuneration waits for the end of the season, when the grains are harvested in the fields. All the Kaam walas would be present in the field at the time of harvest. The harvested crop would first be distributed amongst the kaam walas. Everybody’s share would be pre negotiated. Once all the Kaamwalas have taken their share, the remainder of the harvest is that of the farmer’s family. This is  an instance, when the farming family is playing the role of kaamwala, while the Jajmans are the various artisanal families of the village. In other words, just like the artisans, even the farmer does not grow for himself, but on behalf of others. The role of Jajman-kaamwala keeps reversing. No one is only a Jajman and no one is only a kaamwala. Each one is Jajman to many and Kaamwala to many.

Remunerations

Remunerations are usually through multiple currencies, and not only one. Dhan (money) is only one kind of remuneration. In addition to it, dhaanya (grains), cloth, cattle, goats, knowledge and return service (or product) are other forms of remunerating. One can remunerate through what he produces or does. There is a time deferment in remuneration. A service provided is not immediately remunerated, but is deferred for some time. This deferment can be for a season, or an appropriate moment in future. This time deferred remuneration, forms the bonding amongst village families. Each one is indebted to each one, and therefore there is a strong feeling of krutagyata for each other. Unlike in the modern economic system, where every need is seem to be met by the supermarket and there is no visibility between the producer and consumer, in a village market, there exists a strong bonding between the two.

Some of the remunerations are private, while some are public in nature. There is a protocol associated with each remuneration. Public remunerations are to publically acknowledge the need and role of each profession (jaati) in the village. Each Jaati has 12 such occasions, called barah maan. From purohit to chandaal (morgue keeper), all enjoy barah maan. Festivals in the village, are occasions of public acknowledgement. Each festival involves greater and greater participation of various jaatis. In one of my witnessing of Pola (festival of bull), I counted presence of 18 jaatis, each one being acknowledged. Festivals when seen in this light, can now be better understood.

This multiplicity of remuneration, in form of debts, is an extremely complex process, but nevertheless was handled with ease in a village. As an outsider, one is usually tempted to see if the exchanges have been equal or not. And in order to co-measure, one usually tries to place each form of exchange, on some uniform scale. I believe this is exactly where one crosses the line from rurality to urbanity. This is where death of diversity begins. This is where commoditization starts.

It’s a Samaaj and Not a Community

A village should not be seen as a community. The central concern in a commune is equality. And an over emphasis on it, leads to uniformity. A village is a samaaj, where unequal rise together. People can live together and rise together while being unequal. Or in other words, equality is seen in rising together. The rise is towards, as Guru ji would put it, an adhyatmik jeevan (a spiritual life). Equality is in terms of opportunity for everyone to move towards more and more adhyatmik way of living. Equality if to be seen, can only be seen in that realm, and not in material realm. A grameen arthvyavastha (village economy) needs to be such, which ensures a secured and respectful livelihood for all, so that each one is nishchinta (assured) towards fulfilment of their material needs. According to Guruji only when one is nishchinta, does one gets samajik. And only when one is samajik, can one get adhyatmik. The principal characteristic of samaaj is that it provides all the necessary conditions for one to move from bhautik (material) realm to adhyatmik (spiritual)realm.

Technology, the power of producing One

Technology can be crucial in functioning of samaaj. It has the potential to help a samaaj blossom one hand or to subjugate it altogether. The blossoming of samaaj is in the form of diversity, while its subjugation is in the form of uniformity and standardization. Cultures, languages, customs, beliefs, relations, education thrive in diversity.

Traditional technology played a big role in allowing a high level of customization for the Jajman. This is where Guru ji, I will say brilliantly critiques the modern technology or what he calls Karkhane wali takniki. Machine based technology (factory model) has the capacity for mass production, but its limitation is in its uniformity. Modern technology can produce one thing in millions, but it cannot produce many in ones. On the other hand, tool based technology has the capacity to produce every singular product, with a unique design. The potter’s wheel can make a unique pot for every household, the carpenter’s tools can build a unique chaukhat (entrance door) for each house, a lohar’s furnace can cast a variety of tools for each artisan, a charmkaar can manufacture chappals for every pair of feet uniquely, a darzi can stitch clothes for every individual uniquely. Guru ji would aptly put it “traditional technology has the capacity to produce One. Modern technology is viable only in mass production”.

A young photographer from Europe was on his trip to India, when he met Guru ji in Baroda (at the time Guru ji was a student in M S University). The young man was interested in exploring India, and in Guru ji he found a perfect companion (they were of similar age group). It somehow happened, that one small screw of his camera went missing, and as a result the camera became dysfunctional. So on a Sunday, they decided to explore the local market of sunars (goldsmiths) in search of a screw that would fit. A sunar looked at the camera and said though he doesn’t have a screw of that particular kind, but if they want he can make one for them. They agreed, and the sunar made that singular screw of the exact size and fit. The camera worked again. The young European was surprised. He had never seen somebody make just one of a kind. This was an instance of a technology which has the capacity to produce one and yet be viable both economically and socially. The camera was saved from being discarded. They thanked the sunar and went back home.

It will be a mistake to think that large scale manufacturing is not possible from tool based traditional technology. As Guru ji describes, he once saw a single dari (carpet) covering almost the entire playground. It was all but one sheet, and not many stitched together. Several handlooms had been cascaded together, and the weavers worked in tandem to weave the dari of that size. Another example of large scale manufacturing is that of the large canon atop Daulatabad fort. It is one of the few forts which remained inaccessible by the enemy, and the large canon has played a crucial role in its defence through innumerable wars. The canon was not fabricated in some workshop and then pulled up the high fort wall, but the artisans casted it there itself. A number of furnaces were cascaded together atop the fort and smelters worked in tandem. As Guru ji would put it, the technology was simple enough that an artisan could carry his workshop in his bag. And yet flexible enough to scale up the size of production.

Guru ji would often say “when technology is small, the samaaj has a control over it. Large scale technology has the capacity to control and mould the samaaj”. This one statement if seen carefully, is actually a critique of why Marxism failed. Large scale technology and heavy industry would not allow establishment of small communes. Politics of communes, would need to incorporate tool based technology. Large scale technology will inevitably lead to resource and power concentration. Somehow the socialist model missed this simple point.

Gandhi ji in his imagination of swarajya was sure about incorporating swadeshi. Small technology, forms an important aspect of it. Swadeshi is not about producing everything in one’s own country, as unfortunately interpreted by many. Swadeshi is about lessening the distance between the producer and the consumer. The technology empowers the producer and not disempowers it. In modern factory model of production, the producer is one cog in the wheel (the wheel being a giant machine or a system).

Coomaraswamy once said, a machine is designed to replace human effort, while a tool is designed to enhance human faculties. For an artisan, his work is not merely means to produce, but is more importantly means to grow (physically, socially, spiritually). Guru ji would often say, each artisan would mould his body as per his profession, so much so, that for each their medicine would come from their tools and raw materials. A lohar when wounded by the hammer, would pour water drops trickling down from his hot axe, while a kumhar would put a clay pack on his wound. A traditional vaidya while prescribing and preparing a medicine, would always keep in mind his patient’s profession (jaati). He is not discriminating on the basis of caste, but knows that each patient has moulded his body according to his profession.

Jaati and Vritti

A profession in itself should also be seen as a knowledge system. A kumhaar is not merely a producer of pots. A charmkaar is not merely a manufacturer of leather products. A farmer is not merely a grower of food. Each profession comes with a complete knowledge system. Kumhaars are also known to cure many diseases (probably Gandhi ji borrowed mud-pack method of treatment from them), charmakaars are experts in treating boils and other skin related problems etc. Each professional is well aware of medicinal use of the raw material they use. They are also were aware to how best to utilize the waste emanating from their production cycle (modern production systems are struggling with waste management, leading to environmental crisis).

Therefore a jaati is not merely a profession. A jaati should be seen as a knowledge system in itself, just as linguists see language. One of the mistakes of modern Indian outlook has been to translate jaati as caste. A jaati vyavastha is not merely division of labour. A village is not one big factory, where different jaatis are just playing a cog.

Traditionally there have been three categories of work, called Kaaru Vritti, Varta Vritti and Bhiksha Vritti. In the first kind, a person puts his effort on inanimate objects like wood, mud, metal to manufacture an artefact. All the artisans like kumhaar, lohar, sunar, charmkaar etc would constitute this group. Varta vritti people are those who put their effort in managing and exchanging somebody else’s labour e.g. a baniya is one who trades the output of others labour. Shepherds, grazers and other people in animal husbandry are also in this category. Their effort is to manage and exchange the output of the animal’s labour. Interestingly, even the farmers come in this category, who manage the labour of plants.

Both Kaaru Vritti and Varta Vritti people have something tangible to offer to their Jajman. And therefore their remuneration is well negotiated till a mutual agreement is reached. On the other hand, Bhiksha vritti people offer nothing tangible (which can be measured, weighed, packed, compared and co-measured). Story tellers, teachers, medicine men, singers, artists (performing as well as non-performing), dispute resolvers etc constitute this category. Since their contribution is intangible in nature, their remuneration is in the form of Bhiksha. Social activist Sandeep Pandey while addressing young computer engineerssaid that service sector should actually made service sector, where people engaged with it are supported by the society. Guru ji would say that bhiksha vritti people are our traditional sociologists, historians, linguists, doctors, gymnasts, artists, singers etc.

In modern system of governance, bhiksha has been standardized as salaries. This is probably because there is a gradual decline and disintegration of samaaj. We are slowly moving to a stage where there is individual and then there is state. In between, the samaaj is now disintegrated and the family is also heading towards the same fate. A disintegrated form of samaaj in Guru ji’s words is sanchari in nature. A sanchari samaaj is what present day society looks like, where one’s livelihood is not ensured in his family and in his village. This is probably the first time in the history of India (since the ancient times), that people on such a scale are migrating in search of a (better) livelihood. Guru ji would say, society in such a state of flux does not need music, art, stories etc. There needs to be a nishchinta about material needs, only after that a society aspires for higher needs.

Krishna’s kranti

Typical of his style of explaining things, Guru ji one day said, it is important that we re-look at the Mahabharata again and understand Krishna’s revolution. Krishna as a child was no less than a revolutionary. He ensured three things in his village- he liberated the water of the village from the control of an external agency, he stopped milk being drained out of the village and by the help of this little finger he established goverdhan parvat, the principle source to the village, as their primary god. This mythical story of Krishna if scrutinized and understood is extremely relevant in today’s times.

As water is turned into a commodity, the danger of ‘thirst deaths’ (in words of Sandeep Pandey) can be a grim reality in future. People have for some time being claiming that if at all there is a third world war, it will be on water. Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh in April this year said that water is a scared commodity and therefore there is an urgent need to ‘optimally price’ it. For the first time the government described farmers as ‘private irrigators’ and expressed concern towards ‘private irrigation’. The case of Plachimada in Kerala and Mehdiganj near Benaras, where the cola companies drained out underground water, resulting in steep fall in water table is not an isolated case. The motto of many activists have been a village’s sovereignty over jal, jangal, jameen (water, forest and land). In such a scenario, Krishna’s first revolution of regaining right over one’s water should be understood.

An old tribal woman once explained to Guru ji, why selling milk is considered a sin while selling ghee is not. Milk is the basic raw material which a family gets. People drink milk, they have curd, kheer, butter milk and butter. Milk is used in every possible way (milk and its products form essential part of a vegetarian diet). The last product left is ghee, which is not really needed to those who have already had the above. And so ghee is sold. Ghee is bought by families who do not have access to milk and its products (ghee compensates for it). The old lady was making a very simple economic argument. It is not wise to sell of the raw material itself. A raw material needs to be fully used in a family or a village, before being given out. This explains Krishna’s second kranti. Mining and exporting of raw ore, if looked from this view seems a gross miscalculation.

Krishna’s third kranti is about protecting and nurturing the source of livelihood. If the source is destroyed, the livelihood goes with it too. Economist E F Schumacher’s critique of industrial way of production was that they have mistook the source (capital) as income, therefore rendering it expendable. Kumarappa’s description of a Parasitic economy is exactly the same.

Who is responsible for the murder?

Guru ji’s narration is through innumerable instances and stories. Dohe of Kabir and Rahim and chaupaiya from Ramayan are probably his favourite medium of putting across a point. However, I think he saves his favourite story for the last.

One day an eagle caught hold of a crawling snake in its claws and flew in the sky. The helpless snake not knowing how to save himself started spitting poison in the air. Below on the ground a woman was walking, carrying a pot full of milk on her head. Unfortunately the pot was uncovered, and so some poison drops fell in it. The woman obviously was unaware of it. She delivered the milk to a housewife in the village nearby. The lady made a delicious kheer of the milk and served it to her husband during lunch. The husband ate the kheer and died.

Up at the doors of heaven Chitragupt stood puzzled with his bahikhata, the book where he maintains an account of everyone’s sins. He did not know in whose account he should register this sin of murder. It is after all a murder as the man has not died a natural death. It was not the eagle’s fault as it was only hunting its food. It wasn’t the snakes fault as he was desperately trying to save himself. It wasn’t the milk woman’s fault who was unaware of the poison falling in the milk. It was not the housewife’s fault and nor was it the man’s fault as they too were unaware. Chitragupt went to Yamaraja, the god of death with the dilemma. Yamaraja after giving some thought, asked Chitragupt “when the man died, people must have got assembled there. What was their concern”? Chitragupt replied “they did not seem concerned. Somebody was blaming the man’s wife, somebody blamed the milk woman, while somebody blamed the man himself”. Hearing this Yamaraja gave the verdict “put this sin in the account of all these bystanders”.

The story ends and Guru ji laughs. Then slowly he would say “our gram vyavastha has been killed and we are just bystanders to this murder. At best we blame. The sin will go into our accounts”. It was a brutal reminder to me (and probably many others like me) that mere trumpeting the past and critiquing the modernity will not do. Something more needs to be done. This story a wakeup call the one who got lost in the fairytale. This story shakes up the one who is content with critiquing the modern way of development. This story reminds one to act.

Author:

1. Harsh Satya. (2012). p173-186. Smriti Jagaran Ke Harkaare: Shri Ravindra Sharma (Guruji). SIDH Publications.

See Also:

1. Shri. Ravindra Sharma on Indian Traditional Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-pMQeKe8GI

   Vidyadan Foundation for Education in collaboration with Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas(SIDH) organized a seminar on Indian Perspectives of Education from 20.9.2012 to 23.9.2012 at MRA, Panchgani, Maharashtra, India.

   Vidyadan Foundation for Education: http://vidyadan.com/
   Society for Integrated Development of Himalayas(SIDH): http://www.sidhsri.info

2. Shri. Ravindra Sharma on Indian Traditional Society. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kbZ0OyJVV8

The different levels are broken down as follows: 

Financial Elite – The global financial elite – including members or representatives of the Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Morgan families – hold secret meetings and make important decisions in closed groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations.  These plans are then implemented throughout the world, further consolidating material wealth and control.

Bank for International Settlements – The BIS is the central bank of central banks based out of Basel, Switzerland that is controlled by the financial elite. It has 55 member central banks but is mainly run by bankers from the United States, England, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, and Japan. It operates with little transparency and is not accountable to national governments even though it has significant control over the global financial system by setting reserve requirements, the amount of money in banks around the world must have on reserve.

International Central Banks – Central bankers use the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make more money while exploiting the resources of countries they lend to – bankrupting them in the process. For every dollar the US contributes to these banks, US Corporations – such as Halliburton, Exxon Mobil, and Bechtel (controlled by the economic elite) – receive more than double that amount in contracts from these international banks.[1]

National Central Banks – Almost all countries have a central bank (see the list here), of which commercial banks are members. Central banks set interest rates and determine the amount of money in circulation. They also lend to governments at interest, putting them above the lower four levels of the pyramid.

Big Banks – Big banks offer corporations loans at special rates, allowing them to do business. This puts banks in a powerful position, above corporations and the rest of us, because funding is what allows the corporations to go forward with their projects.

Corporatocracy – Corporations fund political campaigns and influence politicians through lobbying. Many are now bigger than entire national economies, putting corporations above government.

Government – Government is largely funded through taxpayer money, putting it above the people.  If it wants to borrow extra money it must go to a Central Bank.

People, The Planet, and All Living Things – At the bottom level of the pyramid is the majority of people on this planet and all other life.  As of 2010, one in every seven people on the planet did not have enough to eat and most ecosystems were suffering.

Watch following movies to explore more into the topic:

1. Confessions of an Economic Hitman — John Perkins

2. Thrive: What on Earth will it take?

References:

1. www.corpwatch.org/downloads/cgfacts.pdf
2. Thrive Movement: http://www.thrivemovement.com/
3. Economic Hitmen : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Fzm1hEiDQ
4. Confessions of an Economic Hitman — John Perkins (http://www.economichitman.com/)

There are oysters that live at the bottom of the ocean. A little bit of the light we enjoy up here is able to reach down there somehow. But the oysters have no chance to see the blue ocean; for them the blue ocean doesn’t exist. We human beings are walking on the planet. When we look up we see the constellations, the stars, the moon, the blue sky, and when we look down we see the blue ocean. We consider ourselves to be much superior to the oysters, and we have the impression that we see everything and hear everything. But in fact, we are a kind of oyster. We have access only to a very limited zone of suchness.

Our perception of something tends to be based on the ground of our precious experiences. We have experienced something in the past and we compare it with what we encounter in the present moment and we feel that we recognize it. We paint the information with the colors we already have inside us. That’s why most of the time we don’t have the direct access to the reality.

Often it is our own knowledge that is the biggest obstacle to us touching suchness. That is why its very important to learn how to release our own views. Knowledge is the obstacle to knowledge. If you are dogmatic in your way of thinking it is very difficult to receive new insights, to conceive of new theories and understanding about the world. The Buddha said, “Please consider my teaching to be a raft helping you to the other shore”. What you need is a raft to cross the river in order to go to the other shore. You don’t need a raft to worship, to carry on your shoulders and to be proud that you are possessing the truth.

The Buddha said, “Even the Dharma has to be thrown away, not to mention the non-Dharma”. Sometimes he went further. He said that, “My teaching is like a snake. It is dangerous. If you don’t know how to handle it, you will get bitten by it.”

One day in a meeting, a Zen master said this: “Dear friends, I am allergic to the word ‘Buddha.’ You know, he is a Zen master, and he talks about the Buddha like that. “Every time I am forced to utter the word ‘Buddha’ I have to go to the river and rinse my mouth three times.” And many people were confused, because he was a Buddhist teacher. He was supposed to praise the Buddha. Fortunately there was one person who understood in the crowd. She stood up and said, “Dear teacher, every time I hear you pronouncing the word ‘Buddha’, I have to go to the river and wash my ears three times.” This is a Buddhist example of a good teacher and a good student!

References:

• Buddha Mind, Buddha Body — Thich Nhat Hanh (Book)

See Also:

• The Master Is a Must — Devansh
• Assumption of Knowledge! — Devansh
• Limitations of Logic and Imagination — Devansh.
• Resolution and Scope of Logic and Imagination — Devansh.

There is evolution in nature. Evolution is something which is accepted in science as well. The evolution which we see in nature progresses from Material Order to Plant Order to Animal Order and then finally comes the Human Order. The question which comes here is, what is the basic difference between Human Beings and rest of the species in nature? or more specifically, what is the difference between human beings and animals?

If we try to explore the above questions in depth then we find that there are several differences between animals and humans. Some of these differences are as follows:

1. Evolution in human beings happens in relation to Evolution in their Consciousness.
2. Human beings have the capability to reflect over things. The object of reflection may be internal and/or external.
3. Human beings have Free Will.
4. Human beings have the capability to “consciously interfere” into their own process of evolution and the evolution process in rest of the nature. This interference may be negative or positive. This is what is the definition and manifestation of free will in human beings.
5. In case of animals and other orders in nature, the evolution happens by the law of Natural Selection. As per the process of natural selection the evolution in animals and other species in nature, happens by natural laws and they cannot “consciously interfere” in their own or rest of the nature’s process of evolution. As per this, there is no free will in case of animals.
6. Living of an animal is mostly limited to four aspects: hunger, sleep, fear and reproduction. Needs of a human being transcend these four aspects. A human being needs something more than just the satisfaction of food, sleep, fear and reproduction.

The question which comes here is what more a human being needs?

Again on deeper reflection we can find out that a human being needs following things in addition to what an animal needs:

1. Knowledge.
2. Happiness.
3. Material Prosperity.
4. Assuring and Fulfilling Relationships.
5. Fearlessness in Society.
6. Co-existence with rest of the nature.
7. Continuity of above all!

Knowledge

There is a need in human beings of Knowledge. A human being wants to understand every law and every detail related to his living at all the levels he lives. There is a need and also a possibility in a human being to gain this knowledge. In case of animals there is neither the need nor the possibility to gain such knowledge.

Happiness

There is a need in a human being of Happiness. The idea of happiness in case of a human being is different than an animal. An animal’s happiness is limited to the well being of its bodily existence, but a human being’s happiness transcends just the well being of the body.  A human being is also concerned about his Identity. The lack of clarity of notion of identity is a major factor in a human being’s unhappiness. The knowledge of identity contributes to a human being’s happiness and thus there is a linkage of knowledge with human happiness.

Material Prosperity

There is a need in a human being of Material Prosperity. A human being wants sufficient material resources for his bodily well being. A human being also needs the assurance that he will be materially well off in the future also. Such kind of need for assurance is not seen in case of animals. Animals need material resources for their bodily survival but they do not need the assurance that they will keep getting resources in future too. Whenever an animal is hungry it starts searching for the food and when it gets it and eats it, it’s done till the time it feels hungry again. This is why animals do not seem to accumulate material resources as human beings do. One may argue for the case of ants that they do accumulate, but even in their case it is by design that they do, not by intention or the feeling of insecurity/accumulation/assurance. To plan for the future and being tormented with the past are human phenomenon. Animals seem to be living in the present :). When a human being is not able to plan well how much material resources are needed for him to survive due to any reason, he feels deprived and he is inclined to accumulate more. This constant struggle in man to accumulate more and more also becomes a cause of his unhappiness and exploitation and war in society. One major reason for accumulation in human beings is also the lack of clarity in and distinction between the psychological needs and material needs. Thus there is a linkage of feeling of material prosperity with knowledge.

Assuring and Fulfilling Relationships

Human beings need assuring and fulfilling Relationships. A human being cannot live alone. Human relations are embedded in every aspect of one’s life. Human relations play role in fulfilling physical, material and psychological and also spiritual needs in a human being. For continuity of human race we need relationships, without relations there is no possibility of reproduction and upbringing. A child is born in relation with his parents and without assuring and fulfilling relationship he cannot survive and grow. For fulfilling our material needs we need relationships since not everything can be done by a single person alone? For fulfilling our psychological needs we need relationships. Lack of knowledge of relationships and thus lack of assurance in relationships leads to fear, which is not acceptable to any human being, so assurance in relationships is a basic requirement for a human being. A human being needs feeling of Trust, Respect, and Affection etc. in relationships. These are basic psychological requirements of a human being. Relationships are the basis of every society, social order and social system.

It must be noted that the requirement of relationships in human being is far different than requirement of relationships in animals. In case of animals the relationships are mainly motivated by and limit themselves to the extent of bodily well being and protection. Relationships in case of animals are mainly governed by natural laws. There is no conscious involvement of the entities involved in relationship. In case of human beings there is conscious involvement and they can interfere in having enriching or depriving relations. With knowledge of relationships a human being can have fulfilling relationships with other human being.

Fearlessness in Society

A society is a larger extension of human-human relations. A human being needs fearlessness in relations and also assurance, trust and thus fearlessness with the systems which work and are also required for smooth working of the society. The relationship between an individual and society or any social system has to be of Mutually Enriching in nature. The society or any social system should try to fulfill the basic needs (both material and psychological) of a human being and a human being should try to make such a society or social system in which there is provision of fulfilling the basic needs of every human being. This is what is being meant with mutual enrichment. Foundation of such a society or system will be empowered individual rather than few powerful decision makers. Individuals with holistic vision are required to make such a social order. Without holistic knowledge such a system would be impossible.

Co-existence with rest of the nature

Needless to mention without sustainable co-existence with rest of the nature, human race cannot survive. This also calls the need for holistic vision which is inclusive of nature and doesn’t exclude it for the development or progress of human race. Human development has to be complimentary with the development of rest of the nature, not in conflict. Animals are already complimentary to rest of the nature. Currently human beings are not complimentary, but with the holistic vision and understanding, such complementarities are possible.

Continuity of above all!

Human beings need continuity of all above mentioned aspects as well. In fact need for continuity is a very important aspect in case of human beings which makes them distinct from animals. This need for continuity only reflects itself in the form of need for planning for future and carrying the burdens of past in human beings. There is no need for continuity of anything in case of animals. If an animal gets sufficient food when it is hungry, good shelter to protect its body and no predator around then that is all for it. There is no planning for future; there are no burdens of the past. This need for continuity in human beings is also responsible for them having the need for knowledge.

It is clear from above discussion what the major differences between human beings and animals are. The purpose of highlighting these differences is to identify exactly what are the basic human desires. Unless or until we identify what a human being needs, we cannot identity the needs of  society or any kind of social system, since the purpose of any society or social system is to help a human being to fulfill his basic desire. In this article I am mainly concerned with the Education System.

It is clear from above discussion that knowledge is the basic desire of a human being and how knowledge is needed by a human being in order to fulfill his other basic desires as well. To fulfill this basic desire of knowledge in a human being should be the purpose of any education system.

There are two questions which now any kind of education system would have:

1. What should be the Content of education?
2. What should be the Process of education?

Content of Education

Content of education should be the content of knowledge a human being needs.

So what a human being needs as a content of knowledge?
A human being wants to understand all the laws and details in his living at all the levels he lives.

Next question which comes here is at what all levels a human being lives?
A human being lives at following levels:

1. With the Self.
2. Within Relationships. In a family.
3. In a Society and with various Social Systems.
4. With rest of the Nature and Existence.

A human being lives at these four levels. A human being wants to understand all the laws and details at these four levels. Hence, the content of knowledge thus turns out to be following.

Content of Knowledge

1. Knowledge of the Self.
   What is the purpose of my life? And How do I fulfill it?
2. Knowledge of Relationships.
   What are the basic feelings involves in relationships? And how do I ensure them within myself and for others?
3. Knowledge of Society.
   What is a society?
   What constitutes a society?
   What should be the purpose of society?
   What are the various social systems required in the society?
   What should be the purpose of all those systems? And many more questions.
4. Knowledge of Nature.
   Knowledge of four orders in nature and their interconnectedness.
5. Knowledge of Rest of the Existence.

Next question is about process of knowledge. Following section highlights some salient features which should be incorporated in process of imparting knowledge.

Process of Knowledge

Process of imparting education should be such that it facilitates the understanding of the content of education to a human being better. It becomes necessary to understand at this how a human being can understand better. Following are some features of process of education which when are incorporated in education helps facilitate the understanding of students better.

1. Learning by Observation.
2. Learning by Experimentation and Doing.
3. Going from Meaning to Word.
4. Connecting with reality and environment around.
5. Going from Known to Unknown. Starting the content of teaching from what students know and then taking them towards the concept which they do not know.
6. Considering the Receptivity (Patrata) of the student.
7. Making a distinction between Value and Skill.
8. Understanding should be given more priority over theories and authors.
9. Making a distinction between Experimental and Experiential education and incorporating associated process.
10. Localization of Education. It means education should be in alignment with local conditions, local belief systems, local needs, local economy etc. When this is not the case then students begin to assume something else “non-local” as more superior than theirs. This affects local life, local relations, local communications, local systems.
11. Trust between Teacher and Student. Trust is must essential especially in experiential education.
12. Inquisitiveness to learn in both Teacher and the Student.
13. Education should not be the means to achieve some other end. It should be an end in itself.