Escher uvach

I do indeed believe that there is a certain contrast between, say, people in scientific professions and people working in the arts. Often there is even mutual suspicion and irritation, and in some cases one group greatly undervalues the other. Fortunately there is no one who actually has only feeling or only thinking properties. They intermingle like the colors of the rainbow and cannot be sharply divided. Perhaps there is even a transitional group, like the green between the yellow and the blue of the rainbow. This transitional group does not have a particular preference for thinking or feeling, but believes that one cannot do without either the one or the other. At any rate, it is unprejudiced enough to wish for a better understanding between the two parties... It is clear that feeling and understanding are not necessarily opposites but that they complement each other.

To have peace with this peculiar life; to accept what we do not understand; to wait calmly for what awaits us, you have to be wiser than I am.

He who wonders discovers that this in itself is wonder.

I don't use drugs, my dreams are frightening enough.

To tell you the truth, I am rather perplexed about the concept of "art”. What one person considers to be "art" is often not "art" to another. "Beautiful" and "ugly" are old-fashioned concepts that are seldom applied these days; perhaps justifiably, who knows? Something repulsive, which gives you a moral hangover, and hurts your ears or eyes, may well be art. Only "kitsch" is not art - we're all agreed about that. Indeed, but what is "kitsch"? If only I knew!

If I am not mistaken, the words "art" and "artist" did not exist during the Renaissance and before: there were simply architects, sculptors, and painters, practicing a trade.

We adore chaos because we like to restore order.
-Escher

Self-search

Solitude and self-search go hand in hand. There is really no way that someone set to do some self-search won't be solitudinary. You can think of discovering oneself only after you have reduced yourself to just yourself, and not anybody else.

But solitude itself is only a facilitator, not a goal. I find that realization of self itself is an illusion. Its only through emotions and feelings how I might realise myself. Still there is no inherent truth in the realization of self per se. Self is formed of emotions which the mind has little control over. Self is not about truth. Denial of self is where the truth lies.

So, in a nutshell, self-search leads to solitude, solitude leads to introspection, and an honest introspection shall deny the self. This is not a contradiction. Niether the solitude nor the self, converge to cipher. Humans live with a mix of both. One who has completely denied the self, is above all pain and joy.

I am still not there yet, I think i am lonely, yet I feel as one with everyone; I might be in dilemmas within myself, but I am at peace with the world around me; I am lost in my own world, yet I find my way out in the world. I don't feel any sense of contradiction, for I have probably overcome a fundamental one.

a little something about myself

I have a very low self-esteem, and partly because of that, a very high level of tolerance.

Advantages-
1. It doesn't really hurt, if you call me a piece of shit.
2. I am not afraid of being honest, because I always got nothing to lose.
3. I feel like there is always space for development of myself. I can always improve myself, in whatever I do. I am kinda good at a lot of things I do, but not that good (or its my low self-esteem, i guess)

Disadvantages-
1. I feel that there is very little I can do to change the world. I feel weak, miserable, although only very few times.
2. I have no social status, and I really don't want to have one. I think a minimal being that I am, doesn't even deserve one. that actually causes me running away from social gatherings.

Back to square 1 (soliloquy)

After one complete year, I am at the same stage again - not able to decide what to do. I am trying for jobs but I know I am not trying for it whole-heartedly. I know that I won't be staying in a job for long. If I were a computer geek I would have been writing APIs, and seeking pleasure in the newer releases of Linux Kernel.

But I am confused - not knowing what to do, I've become an escapist in every facet of life. When I have to communicate the design to my team-mates, I act like a maverick movie director. When I am watching a movie, I want to make the rest of the people aware of my understanding of the Matrix. I want programmers to appreciate my movie taste, and movie-goers to appreciate my programming skills- I myself, don't know what i am best at.

If I knew, I would have pursued one thing and continued with it. But I don't. I know I love simulations, but I don't want to give my life to it yet; I am half-heartedly writing simulations, taking a sneak peek in the world and saying to myself "I could be getting more money, doing a job at amazon" Why not get out of this place, drive a convertible, party in Hawaii. What am I gonna get from simulations? There is technical work at amazon too...right?

Well, I need to understand that I am not the geek in amazon. I am not gonna make money by developing programs, not because I can't do it, but because I don't really like that job. Like I said, I would escape from it, for I am not in love with it. As much in the professional life as in my social life, I am still seeking the love of my life - the true wine that would be the last one I might like.

What do I do? Follow the same Geetha-jnana, try my best and be happy with what I get. Well, I know I can console myself with a few cigarettes and a few hours of chat. But I that can't be the end-goal - thats not what I want.

Notes on Classical History

The spread of Christianity in no way harmed the flourishing of pagan literature. Instruction in the universities (Rome, Milan, Carthage, Bordeaux, Athens, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) was still based on rhetoric, and literature received the support of senatorial circles, especially in Rome (for example those of the Symmachi and the Nicomachi Flaviani). Latin literature was represented by Symmachus and the poet Ausonius. The last great historian of Rome was Ammianus Marcellinus, a Greek who wrote in Latin for the Roman aristocracy; of his Res gestae, the most completely preserved part describes the period from 353 to 378. The works of Sextus Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, who ably abridged earlier historical works, are fairly accurate and more reliable than the Scriptores historiae Augustae, a collection of imperial biographies of unequal value, undoubtedly composed under Theodosius but for an unknown purpose. Erudition was greatly prized in aristocratic circles, which, enamoured of the past, studied and commented on the classic authors (Virgil) or the ancestral rites (the Saturnalia of Macrobius). Greek literature is represented by the works of philosophers or sophists: Themistius, a political theoretician who advocated absolutism; Himerius of Prusias; and above all Libanius of Antioch, whose correspondence and political discourses from the Theodosian period bear witness to his perspicacity and, often, to his courage.

Script kiddos...

Once, I had a long discussion with some people on this topic. I was arguing that all Indian scripts must be written in one script- Roman, devanagari, Malayalam, Bengali or whatever, you make one up, if you find choosing one of 'em to be favoring a culture.

I don't really mind anyone being selected because except Tamil, most of these Indian scripts are very recent. Hence, the whole argument of preserving the age-old tradition with a script doesn't hold too strong.

Not only that these scripts are recent - the linguistic identity (which gives birth to strong regionalism in Indian states) is a very post-colonial influence. Those who had the chance to know about more than a language (and here, for example, I don't mean the ability to buy cigarettes from a bhaiya panwallah or comprehension of bollywood trash to be counted as knowledge of Hindi; I mean those have explored literature of two or more languages) would really appreciate this fact. There was Western style literature (novels, essays, articles) written before we came into the contact with West. It was all about poetry-religion, with the common people having no concern with the habit of reading/writing. Even writing letters was something that only high-class people did. Back then, not surprisingly, the choice of scripts wasn't too big a deal. A bunch of Brahmins or Buddhist monks, would start compiling some new stuff, and transfer that to their generations - and Voila! we got a new script launched. Even those people were not too picky about the scripts, not as half as the regionalists are in India these days.

Its just ridiculous to see that most Indian languages, write the same ka, kha, ga, gha in umpteen no. of ways, each with their own regional nationalistic justification "don't write in devanagari, we would loose our identity" As if our ancestors wanted 'ka' to be written only this particular twisted way. Yet another hypocrisy, I must say; yet another way how Indians only sanctify the culture instead of contributing to it, just the way British wanted them to be in 19th century. Do people have any idea how easy it becomes to learn other languages, if the script is common. On top of that does it not complicate matters for two languages to have different scripts, despite being very very similar? why disable people of reading other languages even if they know those langauges are so much the same?

Pakistan (like other Islamic nations except the turkey kinds) would write all their languages in Nastaliq. All European languages would be written in Roman (without anyone worrying how ) East Europeans are switching to Roman instead of Cyrillic- They all know that scripts are meant to spread knowledge- to make sure that it reaches more people. It really helps if everyone writes in the same script for the reasons a script is meant for.

Pardon my rants- i must admit that all this comes after someone like me knows to read > 10 scripts, but would always fail at achieving the same reading speed with all of them. It would help "big time" if bongs, Pakistanis, marathis, gujjus, punjabis(whatever little they write [;)]), bhaiyas(whatever trash they write) all write in one script.

On a lighter note, some scripts are "evil"- their characters are so pointed that its likely for most westerners to associate it with devil. Not that its a reason, but if you can go all English for globalization, why not just imbibe this little thing. Its natural...right? Why create a whole confusion? Imposition of a script on an evolving language is tantamount to bigotry- causing language enthusiasts like myself to suffer.

The script used for Urdu (nastaliq) is alright for most Hindi work. Its extended alphabet includes many of the letters which are not there in Arabic or Persian. The very basic sounds of Ta (as in tomato) and kha (as in khel, khana) - Its perfectly alright to invent new symbols in the target script (extend its alphabet to the source language) That is how Urdu evolved, not among the bigots and grammarians, but among the common people; it opened the locked doors in the people of North India; it made foreigners appreciate the beauty of the local languages, and the natives acquire a common language for a unified and uniform culture.

Where are we now? Why can't one further step be taken? Why is one script not extended to other languages. Instead, what folks are busy doing is to associate Urdu with Muslims... make them even more untouchable than it has increasingly become.

People need to inculcate love and feel for languages amongst themselves. I know that its really very antagonistic. One one hand, when everything is going English (and most Indian don't know crap about their own languages) the issues of linguistic identity become more important. You need not have read the great stuff in your local language, but you feel like extolling its marvel...its easier to that now, because you don't even happen to read it anymore, being busy with the English reading list. So, you would easily spot a bong, who never read a short story by Rabindranath, but would go ahead telling you how great he really was! Or even worse is this -you might know premchand was a great writer- but because you read his stories translated in English.


For this neo-rich metropolite class, I have no suggestions anyways. I think the real problem is that - the space for local languages in our lives is shrinking day by day. In that case, it really doesn't become feasible to think of a common language seeking base in local languages. What we have right now, instead, is some made-up crap to bolster our regional identity- which doesn't have to be necessarily meaningful. No wonder all local arts- literature in India is declining. At this rate, there would be no local languages 50 years from now.

What we could probably do is try to understand what Indian culture really means to us, and let it grow instead of containing it in our colonial prejudices.

end-game

My only contention with Ambedkarism is because Budhhism should not be interpreted as just a hindu-hating recalcitration. The pantheistic idea of gods among hindus (being illusory as Hindus themselves would agree) is more friendly to budhhism than assertion of a supreme God that rules us all. And when I say friendly, I don't mean that it is just a feeling of harmony. Instead, it is so that a Hindu doesn't have to face a social obstruction for moving to truth or the path Buddha took. His duties are not imposed by the Supreme, but are only dynamics of his society; he doesn't think that things go bad because of the devil's designs. Ideally, he knows that realization individual self is false, he knows that soul is a non-entity. Theoretically, the Hindu gods are not the instances of God either. There is a big difference between praying God and worshipping a god (mark the difference between pantheism and monotheism). It is for those reasons that I say Hinduism is not too much antagonistic to Buddhism. (and I am talking philosophy here)

I know that one can easily come up with instances in Chinese buddhism which contradict some of the things that modern Hindus have incorporated, but again Hindu is a medieval term, it is always incorrect to say that Buddhism came out of Hinduism, in the literal sense. On the top of that, I agree that practically we see things a lot different among hindus (than it should be according to Vedanta) but thats more because of political reasons in general than any proposed 'brahmin conspiracy' (or should we not be more just by putting brahmin conspiracy under political reasons rather than the essence of Hinduism) ?

Frankly, I have problems with the whole 19th century way of classifying Eastern religion as such, and trust me, I am not the only one. There are umpteen reasons why eastern religion (or eastern philosophy) should not be approached just by finding equivalents of a central scripture (bible/quran), a religious head (pope/ulema) – which I (like many others) think, would be inherently erroneous. Such an error is evident not just in the differences that a 19th century indologist would cite between buddhism or hinduism, but also in the classification of various 'sects' withing buddhism itself in the buddhist countries (comparing thailand or sri Lanka for instance)

Intrestingly, Jainism has enough reasons to curse Brahmins as much as anyone else. They have been assimilated manipulatively too. Jains would not submit to Vedanta (They never were adherent to Vedanta historically) but still the evil brahmin mind could gel them in. You would seldom find a Jain who would refuse to accompany a Hindu to a temple. After a few 19th century revivals, you would easily find Jains marrying so called Vedantists (or mainstream Hindus, might I say) too.

Honestly, with demise of Hinduism and buddhism in India and the onslaught of some chauvinistic confused revivals, I see more days of intellectual bankrupcy in India.