Mother Teresa And Mohan Bhagwat.

Is there anything wrong in serving and trying to convert people from other folds into your own? Does it matter if the motive of Mother Teresa in serving people was to convert them into Christianity? She was merely following her religion faithfully, can you fault with that? Christianity and also Islam exhort their followers to bring faith to those who are not in their fold so a good Christian necessarily tries to convert others.  Mohan Bhagwat wants Christians to abandon their faith just because Hindus don't believe in conversion. It is not the fault of Christianity that Hindus don’t believe in conversion. Jews don’t believe in conversion so do Zoroastrians and they are in much less numbers than Hindus but they don’t feel insecure about it and have no issue with conversion!

In any case how does her lifetime’s work of serving less privileged is discounted merely because it was packaged with a dose of Conversion. We all act with some purpose, it is our driving force else we would be sitting idle in our place and waste away. Mohan Bhagwat is also acting with some purpose; it is his insecurity driving him about a false sense of a glorious and ancient religion in imminent peril. He is a like a delusional man clapping hard at a busy crossing when asked why he is doing it, says,

”I am driving away wild elephants”.

“But there aren’t any elephants in hundred miles!”

“See, how effective I am!”   

   Mother Teresa may have many faults, following her religion faithfully was certainly not one of them. When insecure pigmies are provided centre stage and are confused with great leaders, fascism couldn’t be far away.  

Let Mohan Bhagwat work with destitutes and lepers, tend sick and invalids over sustained periods then may be utter some nonsense about what it means to serve..    

May be occult is not all that fanciful ......

Science works sensibly only in the middle ground; at the extremes it is as irrational as occult and spiritualism.  At microscopic level the classical laws of science break down, the laws are less intuitive and reality is like concept of Maya. At atomic size level particles behaves as if they have a mind of their own. A particle can exist at several places at the same time until you pin it down by observing it this is because it behaves like a wave when not observed and particle when observed. Bizarre as it may seem but it is found to be true. Also a particle can go back in time to fit into observed reality as confirmed in double slit experiment; in addition it can borrow energy from future to cross impossible wall like barrier called quantum tunnelling and then there is particle entanglement where apparently disconnected particle separated by any amount of space behave as if they are connected.  Why this amazingly bizarre behavior of subatomic particles does not translate into macroscopic level? it is because we don’t deal with single particles but trillions of them collectively and trillions of them collectively behave sensibly  because they average out the quirkiness.

At astronomical scale too science becomes bizarre where laws of classical physics don’t work. There is warping of space, wormholes, Black-holes, Dark matter and Dark energy which like quantum mechanics are still in the realm mystery. Seems like empty space is really not empty but brimming with dark energy, the more the empty space the more dark energy it contains and this energy is  repulsive kind unlike gravitational glue it pushes galaxies away from each other. So expansion of Universe is not slowing down but acceleration because expansion creates more empty space therefore more dark energy.

So what is reality? If the sense of hard matter is an illusion then concept of Maya and all ervading consciousness of Brahman appears a good idea.

Is consciousness creation of our mind?

When we think we hear our thoughts, the sequence of logic and the confabulation that goes on in our head similarly when we read we hear ourselves reading. Without language complex thinking is not possible therefore hearing our thoughts is logical consequence of thinking. I think our wise ancestors (Now this is pure speculation) created concept of “Atman” or soul, something abstract quite not us but residing within the body due to this off shoot of thinking.

But often we make choices in split seconds for example if someone asks us to give opinion on some issue we come up with a point of view without going through visible sequence of logic to arrive at that choice or opinion; our mind merely hands down a decision to us thereafter we spend all energy to defend that choice. Not just that when we defend that opinion (called rationalization) we readily throw up arguments in favour of that choice or opinion obviously the choice made by our mind was not randomly picked but a lot of parallel processing went into making that choice without the knowledge of our conscious self therefore we are able to pick up arguments in that opinion’s favour. This entire game of thinking has no visibility where as leisured thinking is clearly visible to our conscious self. So what do we make of this?

Is consciousness a creation of our mind or does it transcend our Mind, brain and body!

I think when we will have machines with artificial intelligence capable of emulating human mind we will know if the these machines become self aware if they do, consciousness is a product of thinking process else it is transcends lives ..............

May be Buddha really was right.