Abhijit Naskar's Blog, page 102

Idolatry of Innovation

We live in a world where we have put most of our focus on improving technology and not on improving human well being – not on improving the quality of life. And the argument put forward by the advocates of technology is that, this is the way to improve human well being. Yet, despite all technological advancements, human well being, or to be more specific, human mental well being has only deteriorated with the rise of technology, instead of improving. Because they confuse comfort with quality.

We are manipulating machine intelligence, and in the process we have forgotten to effectively utilize the true potential of our own mind, let alone focus on improving the mind. We are developing artificial intelligence and have forgotten to develop our psyche. We live in a dream state, where we are mostly unaware of our own potential and nature. We confuse luxury to be necessities. We confuse comfort to be peace. The only advancement that we have made in significant proportions is scientific ones, which are hugely limited to technological advancement. Now, do not be hasty and conclude that I am about to criticize technological advancements. I am not. We are neither criticizing nor advocating. Science has helped a lot, way more than any other human endeavor in human history. But my question is – at what cost?

Medicine has prolonged human life, but when you go deep into this matter, you find out something rather ugly. Medicine has indeed improved physiological existence of humankind, but has it truly, actually, genuinely improved the psychological existence – the existence that is more direct than physical. You are your mind, and medicine has done nothing substantial to improve the quality of our mental existence. Popping countless bottles of anti-depressant, mood-stabilizer, anti-anxiety pills relentlessly, is not the sign of a mentally well and advancement species.

On the contrary it is a sign of a mentally deteriorating species. So, yes we have the technological means to bring someone back from the doorstep of death, but then what? Have we truly developed an actual means to liberate the mind and the body from the ever-strengthening death-trap of pills and technology? If not, then I am afraid, such a species which is ridiculously dependent on external stimuli, is not an advanced species, in the truest sense of the term. In this situation one is compelled by circumstances to ask an essential question – what the heck has technology really done, better than our ancestors in the jungle?

Our ancestors in the jungle were fighting against the enemies that were outside, but now, quite interestingly, we have become the enemies of ourselves. We innovate things to make life comfortable, and not to make it truly well. And in the process, we the human society have become meek worshipers of innovation. The humans of this century idolize innovation. It is a disgusting idolatry of innovation. And like in any other form of idolatry, whether it is Hindu idolatry, Christian idolatry of the cross, or the Muslim idolatry of letters, the humans receive a sense of comfort in the idolatry of innovation.

The humans have become so obsessed with innovation that they have completely ignored their own soul. And among these innovation-obsessed humans, the so-called transhumanists are the most deluded bunch, for they don’t have a clue of any kind of order in the human mind, yet they boast about developing more advanced technologies to merge the mind with machine – and the most interesting thing to notice here is that, they don’t even have a clue that they don’t have a clue.

Amidst the fog of technological delusions, the human soul has been ignored for so long that its very independence has been destroyed. Technology has crippled the mind to such an extent that the mind begins to malfunction the moment it senses the absence of the technology, which it is usually surrounded by – and unfortunately, sometimes or perhaps quite often, even the absence is not necessary to disrupt the well being of the mind – the slightest trigger can set the so-called modern humans off.

Here I must be clear about something. I am not condemning technology, rather I am pointing out its actual implications in human existence. Technology was supposed to be the help in life, instead it has become the major driving force behind life. I use technology as well. Right at this very moment, when I am writing this piece, I am doing so, on my computer. But the point is, the computer is not in control here, I am. The devices do not use me. I am the one that uses the devices.

Unfortunately, when I look around, all I see is, a bunch of devices using the humans – a bunch of soulless devices sucking the soul out of humans. The humans have become slaves to their devices and slaves to innovation. They worship innovators as some sort of God, and forget to take into consideration the core values that make a creature human. One can live without innovation, but not without values. And when a society is being formed upon the edifice of innovation, and not on the foundation of core humane principles, it is inadvertently going to become more and more disorderly over time in its internal realm. And this is not a speculation, rather it is a fact.

I am pain-stricken to say, that today’s so-called modern humans are all like the dogs in Pavlov’s experiment. Pavlov used a bell to manipulate the mind of his dogs, and today, social media platforms are using people’s own beloved smartphones to manipulate them. Humans of this modern society are being conditioned without them even being aware of it, through the tone of smartphone notifications. The humans of modern society get a spike of happy hormones, the moment they receive a notification, and when they do not get any notifications in a while, they go crazy due to the rising tides of stress chemicals. Yesterday’s telephone was neutral on this matter, for it did nothing more than just sit there on the desk, until someone rings you to talk. On the contrary, today’s smartphones are so far the most effective tools of manipulating people’s mind at a subconscious level, through the tone of notifications. These notification thingies have made a mess of the human mind, pushing it more and more into the abyss of complications, confusions and disorder, via the psychological process of reward and punishment.

Simplicity of the mind has become scarce in the midst of all the rise of technologies and worthless “media-material” which we call “content”, that keeps the humans ceaselessly asleep, never to see the whole picture. Cat videos attract more attention – breasts acquire more likes – pedophile porn attracts more viewers – and content of real value gets ignored because they do not entertain the viewer. All that the humans want, is to be entertained. They want to forget all the mundane elements of life. And in the process, they forget a basic fact – it is that, life has become mundane because of their own way of thinking. They perceive impracticality to be practical, and practical facts of peace and harmony to be absurd romanticism. They take sexual attraction to be love, and hail unconditioned love to be stupidity.

And since this is the society, one lives in, I am afraid, we are no more advanced in our psychological realm than the baboons in the jungle. If we are to call ourselves humans, we must first be responsible of our actions, of our environment, of our society – and start acting as humans, not as device-obsessed apes and attention-craving insects. And it all begins with the individual – not the individual who thinks of himself or herself as an individual with unique traits while walking on the same deluded and neurotic path as the rest of the humans of the society – but the individual who can see the self outside the walls of labels and recognize the responsibility of that self in its society.

The society is neurotic – it is a fact – no conscientious creature can deny it. But my question to you is – what are you doing to obliterate this neuroticism for good? Remember, you are insignificant, as long as you think of yourself as insignificant. The moment you find significance – real, actual, genuine significance within yourself, then that significance will automatically radiate into the society you live in. It all begins with you. A bunch of people known as politicians are not going to change anything, for they themselves are second-hand humans, living second-hand lives, like most humans on earth. They live conditioned lives with their mind being in disorder, and yet, you want them to bring order in this world. It’s like asking a blind man to show the path. Mind you, the whole world is our family, and our family is our responsibility – not of a bunch of so-called specialists. And this is not a glorified hypothetical ideal, rather it is an actuality.

To refer to this kind of actual and not hypothetical statements with potential for inspiring others, I hereby propose the term “neuro-cookie”. A neuro-cookie is not simply an inspiring quotation, rather for a quotation to be a true neuro-cookie, it must be based on actuality. The world has already plenty of inspiring statements, but when you go deeper into those statements, you find out that most of them have no basis in reality whatsoever. Most of these statements are products of mere romanticism and imagination. And since we are talking about reality, we must also keep in mind that, it is not necessary for a neuro-cookie to be fully empirical, but it must have some empirical basis. The contention of a neuro-cookie is to not simply inspire the human, but to do so with the most effective fusion of rational and compassionate elements. You probably have seen some of those neuro-cookies in my recent talks. Now, let’s get back to the real issue of change.

Peace on earth can only reign when each human recognizes this basic responsibility and begin manifesting order within the self. And this can happen only if each human becomes conscientious enough to live with technology instead of living through technology. Keep in mind, technology has no conscience of its own. Therefore, it is neither good nor bad. It is us the humans who have to be responsible of the implications of technology in human existence, and use it at our disposal, not callously, but responsibly. Without this basic sense of responsibility, technology would only bring more and more destruction upon the world, quite like what irresponsible, fundamentalist usage of organized religions has been doing through ages.



Further Reading

A Push in Perception

Only you can save yourself

I am Lord the savior - I am the God of all gods - I am the messiah that the humans have been desperately waiting to come - I am the messiah, the prophet, the Son and the Holy Father. And through me you shall find salvation in life. Your life will never be holy and religious unless you submit to my all-pervading radiance of divine supremacy. Submit o petty little sinner, for you have sinned, and it is I who can save you from your sins. Only I am pure and absolute, and you are a born sinner.
.
.
.
.
You heard everything I just said. Now I have a question of real significance. Do all these statements make you question my psychological sanity! Do they? If yes, then we can proceed with this brief piece, otherwise, there is no use of this entire article filled with a bunch of words. So, I am assuming, the statements that I just made, make you doubt my mental lucidity.

Wonderful - they should. That's exactly what I intend them to induce in your mind - a sense of skepticism about me and about everything I have previously said and written. Are you skeptic of me? Good that you are. Good for both you and me. Now here is the second question. If these statements make you doubt my sanity, then why aren't you bothered with those countless other statements made by various religious institutions that are exactly similar in their narcissistic nature.

Why don't you question the church, the bible, the vedas, the quran, when they relentlessly boast about the indisputable, supreme authority of their own prophet, messiah, image of god over all humanity! How dare an institution claim authority over the humans! Why aren't you shaken at this? How can you sleep so sound, when the whole world, or at least most of it, is basically obsessed with the divine supremacy of these self-glorified institutions and organizations.

Also, there are other organizations that talk relentlessly about religious harmony, tolerance and freedom, and yet they never really address the real reasons of all the harms caused in the name of religion. They never pick up a bible or a quran and point out the verses and instructions that are basically sign of megalomania, xenophobia, misogyny and many other barbarian evils. Yet these organizations call themselves progressive and free from prejudices.

Harmony shall never be installed in the world, especially in the domain of religion, as long as, the people radically attached to those religions are unwilling to recognize and eliminate the evils in their own organized structure of so-called religion. I am saying so-called religion, because, organized religion is an immature attempt to understand religion and be religious. Real religion lies in freedom from all organizations - be it religious, spiritual, or non-religious.

Ask yourself this my friend? Are you free? Are you free from labels? Are you free from conformities? Or even if you are not completely free in all these aspects, are you at least aware of the fact that you are not free? If yes, then only there is hope for you. Only then there is hope for real religion, peace and harmony manifesting in the human world.

I am not the hope, neither is any other historical, imaginary or mythical savior. What am I! Nothing. As far as your life is concerned, I am no more valuable and holy than the particles of dust under your feet. So, I have nothing to give you. Only you my friend, can define, understand and manifest religion within yourself. Only you can save your self.

To quote from my new book 'A Push in Perception'

"Ultimately, beyond the primordial, brutish labels of man-made institutions, true practical religion of the civilized society must bring oneness. This very process of unification without bigotry is what makes religion, religion, for the word religion comes from the latin "religare", which means "to bind", that is to unify humanity."


Further Reading

A Push in Perception

Rowdy Buddha: The First Sapiens

Right to Religion is Human Right, but on one condition

Right to religion, is an actual basic existential right of humankind, at least, at its present evolutionary condition. I am beginning this piece, with this, perhaps a bit radical statement, because it would reveal to you your own deep stance on religion without any ambiguity. It would either enrage you fueled by your illustrious atheistic superiority, or it will soothe you, fueled by your innate closeness to your own religion. But to go deeper into this piece, neither of these two extremes would do.

You would have to take off your glasses before you begin – the glasses of theism as well as the glasses of atheism. And when I say “have to”, I do not mean it as an obligation, rather I mean it as a necessity. Because broken souls cannot perceive wholeness. And both the theist and the atheist have obvious perceptual limitations because of their innate brokenness – because of their innate loyalty to a label. Labels may help you feel comfortable in a certain domain, but to see the whole picture, these tiny internal domains must be destroyed first. If, and only if, you are willing to do that, then we can proceed with utmost naivety, with no thesis or antithesis in mind.

What is a right – is there any such thing? The term “right” only exists in a society where people don’t have something that’s necessary for sustaining existence. If this were the animal kingdom instead of a human society, we would not need the term “right”, instead we would simply fight and acquire what’s necessary or die fighting. We use the term “right” in a so-called civilized society, because we want to acquire it with as little fight as possible. In a truly civilized society, we would not need the term “right”. Think about it. You breath in air all the time for its content oxygen, which is necessary for existence. But what would happen, if clean air becomes scarce, like it has become in China, and slowly becoming in India! Then clean air would be manufactured, like some companies are already doing. Hence it becomes a product, which you may or may not have access to. In the extreme case that you do not have access to it for free, clean air which clearly is an existential necessity for humans, would become a matter of right. But it would ultimately depend on the companies whether or not to give their product of clean air away for free – or to be more specific, you would be at their mercy. You may feel access to clean air is your right, but in reality, you no longer have that luxury. Because the companies manufacturing the product, have the ultimate right to that product.

Religion is not much different from clean air, for religion is basically the psychological counterpart of clean air. Clean air is a physiological necessity, whereas religion is a psychological necessity. Here you may think of the term “religion” to be a very simply term with very specific common meaning to all humanity, but in reality, no other term could have as diverse array of meanings as the term “religion” has in the psyche of the humans. But when I say “meanings”, I am not talking about etymology – etymology does not say anything about the place of a term in the human mind. Here I am talking about the wide range of human perceptions of the very term religion. What is this whole religion phenomenon – is it a kind of shampoo – is it a kind of smartphone – is it a kind of computer – or is it a kind of ideals! I don’t think anybody would see it as a shampoo, or a smartphone or a computer even, but perhaps some or perhaps most humans would see it as a kind of ideals and beliefs. Let’s be a bit articulate here. Most humans see religion as a set of beliefs, sustained through rituals. This is what you know as organized religion, that is, an organized structure where an institution of fake superiority determines the lifestyle of a group of people. These institutions say – “give your life to us, to our savior, or to our prophet, and you will have peace.” And they call it religion, by it, I mean this blind obedience to a fake authority, in the hope of psychological security and well-being. Most people are too entangled at a deep subconscious level with this sense of illusory security, hence they shall do everything in their power to defend their beliefs, which to them are synonymous with “religiousness”, if confronted with refutal.

Now the real question is – if this is the global idea of religion and religiousness, can it be hailed as a basic human right! Hard as it may be, a civilized human being would have to be willing to recognize the basic need for this so-called organized religiousness of the humans as a basic human right. But – yes, there is a “but” involved – not the double t one, you dirty fella! This little “but” is involved because, this very religion that we are talking about here, is a messed up form of religion, and has a lot of negative implications on the human society as a whole – here I am referring to the global human society, not a specific group of people. The problem with organized religion is that, because it involves, its own customized god, its own messiah, its own prophet, its own scripture – it inadvertently induces its followers to foster a kind of implicit hatred or simply a sense of conflict towards people of other organized religions. So, though right to practise one’s own religion, may be a basic human right, by all means, it must be watched over by the very humans practising those religions, so that they do no let hatred creep into their heart, no matter how many verses in their beloved scripture proclaim people of other religions to be infidels.

If the humans are able to keep hatred out of their religious practise, then and then only it’s a religious practise – and then only organized religion as it is, can be hailed as a basic human right. But any religion that endorses such hatred, instead of trying to eliminate them, has no right itself to be a part of a civilized human society. Anybody who says – my religion is the only true religion, all others are fake or inferior, has no right to any religion whatsoever, for this creature is not a human – it’s ancient animal living in a modern society under the skin of a human. Religion is for humans, not animals. And any religion that advocates its own supremacy over all other religions, is not religion, rather it’s merely a sophisticated form of tribalism, which belongs in the jungle, not in the human society. So in short, a human can have right to religion, only and only if, that human, as well as the religion he or she wants right to, do not endorse any kind of conflict, either explicit or implicit. Which means, a human has a right to religion, not an animal with self-imposed superiority. Bear in mind, religion must bring oneness, otherwise it’s not religion, but merely a cheap parody of religion. And that’s the religion, every single human being of pure soul has the existential right to – or to simplify even further, without the religion of oneness, there shall be no human life in human body, but only animal life in human body.

Keep in mind, my friend – “We are not divine beings in mortal bodies, We are mortal bodies in pursuit of constructing divine perfection within us.” (quote from Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human)




Further Reading
Illusion of Religion: A Treatise on Religious Fundamentalism
Lord is My Sheep: Gospel of Human

Love is water to the soul

“All I want for Christmas is you” – this is the phrase that’s popping in my mind, like popcorn in the microwave oven as I sit down to write this piece on love. But I wonder, what can I tell you via this piece that has not been said or written before! Yes, tons and tons of words have been born throughout the world surrounding the word “love”, yet what I intend to point out to you is that most of those words have been born to address not love rather only the early stages of love, which are more connected to the temporary mental state of euphoria, crush and infatuation than the actual experience of lasting invincible love which does not wear off in time.

The cynics would say, there is no such thing as “lasting invincible love” – they would say it’s all mere impractical romanticism, whereas the people who have fallen in love quite recently would say “of course there is, and that’s exactly how I feel”. Yet, the truth is, both of these people are speculating based on their current subjective biases either towards the lack of love in their life, or towards the pleasure of the honeymoon phase. They are both speculating based on their internal chemical states. But we are now going to go beyond both these opposite extremes, and look at the big picture.

If you truly look you’d find out that love is rarely, or perhaps, not at all, floating around you – what’s really floating is the element of either subconscious or conscious anticipation of instant gratification masquerading quite gloriously as love. And that’s the reason, why all the love in the world, or at least most of it, wears off or becomes tiresome and boring after the individual gets used to the gratification of romantic, emotional and sexual significance. It’s not love my friend – it’s a business deal that ends at a certain moment in the future.

So, what is true love – not the illusory love everybody is obsessed with for centuries – but actual love – the love of immense psychological potential – the love that liberates the mind, and not binds it with shackles of insecurity and fear! Unfortunately the only available form of this liberating love can only be seen, not among romantic partners, but between a mother and her child – this is a love less conditioned, or at least, comparatively less conditioned than other forms of love available in the society.

Love your partner like you love your mother, and that love will never lose its fragrance. I am aware that this very statement might sound weird to some. But let’s think over it and go deeper into it. But for that you’d need to first put aside all your pre-conceived notions about love. If your cup is full with conformities, then it can no longer acquire true insight into a certain phenomenon. So, for the time being, let’s put the conformities aside, shall we! And let’s look at love, as if you and me both are newborn babies with no understanding of love whatsoever.

You love your mother not because she gives you any kind of instant sexual gratification but because you either consciously or subconsciously are biologically aware of the fact that she is the person who’s never going to leave you no matter what. It is imprinted in your genetics – your bond with your mother – a bond that is beyond the conformities of love, sexuality, beauty, attachment, trust and everything else. It is a bond beyond labels. And a bond which is beyond labels cannot be ruined by sociological conformities comprised of those labels. The love for your mother is the most natural form of love, whereas the love for your partner is hugely acquired through external stimuli. And a love that is fundamentally dependent on external stimuli is a love, which is more a kind of business deal than real love.

So, ask yourself this – in all the relationships that you have ever been in, have you ever truly loved the other person, or were you loving the person because you were receiving something from that person – don’t condemn yourself or judge your actions – simply ask. And if one loves another in anticipation of something in return, then that’s not love, it’s a radical business deal. And in today’s so-called civilized world, this business deal called “love”, greatly begins with the revealing of genitals to each other. Genital euphoria and gratification have hugely become the measure for love and romance.

But the point is, showing your vagina or penis is easy, but showing your soul is not. And your soul is really all you have. And you don’t really live with another person’s body, rather you live with his or her soul, for the physical attraction to the body wears off after a while in a relationship, but the attraction to the soul is permanent. And this permanence defines the quality and content of your life with another person. So be picky with revealing your soul to another, not because of a subtle consideration for separation, no matter how subtle, but because you want to have something solid and permanent, not lousy and shaky. Also, be picky, but not too picky, that your bond with the other person never begins in the first place.

So the bottom line is, focus on what’s within, not without, and within as in, not within the pants, but within the mind – within the soul. And just to be clear, the mind is the soul – but in some cases I prefer the term “soul” over “mind” because of its superior impact upon the human psyche. Make the content of the mind your measure for a relationship, and you shall find solace. And don’t just take my word for it, rather go out there and figure it out yourself – if you are really serious about it. Nevertheless, all I see around in the name of relationships, are some superficial ships of lust, euphoria and instant gratification, and not genuine vessels of strong, pure, internalized love.

In a society where physicality takes preference over the content of the psyche, relationships can only be pleasurable for merely a few years, or alas, months. And that’s why the countless “I do”s of the world have become merely a matter of valueless words of over-glorified principles, without the foundation of purity and awareness to begin with. Hence, before anyone could foresee and comprehend, the “I do”s become “I do not”s. So, be aware of the outside, but focus on the inside. And here I am not condemning physical attraction, rather I am saying be aware of the outside, but be more watchful of the inside than the outside.

On the inside, we are all indeed chemical beings, but if you see it strictly that way, you can never think, feel and behave beyond chemistry. In order to have a pure loving relationship with another person, you need to take a step beyond chemical satisfaction, then only, those chemicals will behave according to your will, thus giving you the power to build something truly original, something with an unshakable foundation. If you ask the Neuroscientist in me, what love is, then that image which you have imposed on me, would tell you that – love is all about chemical activity and ultimately reproduction. But if you ask me the human who uses science as his tool to unify humanity and to make them take a step forward in the path of collective psychological evolution, then I shall tell you – love is born of chemicals, but if it stays that way strictly, then humanity is soon bound to die internally due to dehydration, for love is water to the soul. Open your heart and let the water flow – don’t condemn it, don’t anticipate it – simply let it flow.



Further Reading

Wise Mating: A Treatise on Monogamy

Meditation is a method-less act

I want you to do something today. I want you to get rid of all the things that you have heard about meditation so far - everything - all those things about focus, attention, sitting upright, closing your eyes, focusing on breathing, sound, this and that - everything - even the things that you have heard from me. Let's try it shall we! Let's start afresh. Let's take a fresh look at meditation. What is Meditation? Forget everything you know about meditation and simply think. Meditation simply means - thinking over - to think over something - to put your whole attention on something without pressure - anything. That is the simplest explanation for meditation. Meditation is simply thinking over.

Today meditation has become a kind of hectic practice where you sit upright and do a lot of breathing exercises, this and that - and they call it Raja Yoga, Vipassana or something else. They need to call it that way, because this way they can keep it mystical. And the more they can keep it mystical, the more they can gain from it. Simplifying it doesn't make the whole business of yoga, meditation and all that, profitable, does it!

So let's simplify it, shall we! Meditation has been proposed as a means to psychological well being - and that means usually comes along with specific methodologies. The Buddhists have their Vipassana technique - the Hindus have their Kundalini nonsense. I am calling it nonsense because of all the mysticism it brings along. The mystical advocates of all that kundalini stuff, truly believe that there are actual energy centers throughout the human spine, and by unlocking them one could attain glorious spiritual potential. The Hindus also call this method of unlocking the kundalini centers of chakras, Raja Yoga, as if its something supreme, and not an ordinary mental state to be attained by an ordinary human. So, when the very practice of Raja Yoga proposes the notion, that it is something not ordinary, and basically unattainable without a teacher - that it is something higher than normal human practice, you naturally feel like you are supposed to go to an expert. This makes it profitable. Hence rises countless spiritual institutions upon the edifice of the primitive elements of human mysticism.

Now let's throw all that mysticism away and look without judgement and preconceived mystical illusions of intellect. Meditation simply means focusing on something, thinking over something. Now the question is, do we need to sit upright and practise meditation the conventional way - closing our eyes, focusing on breathing or chanting or say Aum and going through a million other rituals! Is it necessary? Well, if it suits your taste then of course it's okay - nobody is condemning it. It will bring you obvious health benefits, surely. But it's only the way of the novice, also the most robotic way. Meditation means thinking over. But think over what? Do you have something to think over - something that you'd just think over, simply to take the pleasure from it - to simply be yourself in it - anything - a practice, a habit, a hobby, an idea, anything - something you can think over without any pressure of technicality, ritual or norms - that you can pay your whole attention to, simply because you love it, not because some great so-called guru tells you to practise it or some great scientist tells you to practise it! Do you have something like that - do you - anything - painting, writing, going out for a walk of contemplation, filmmaking, photography - any human activity that you can engage yourself in, without all the pressure that comes along with the very term "method"!

When you love doing something, there is no method, there is no risk, there is no fear, there is no insecurity of failure, there is just doing it. You just love it and do it. Often we also use the term "passion", but I think, the word "passion" is a petty human attempt to justify the activity in front of the society. Why do you need to justify it! You simply love it and you do it. When you love it and do it, you are basically meditating upon it. And when the humans have something they love to do, and they do it, which means meditate upon it, they give a certain amount of time from their daily schedule to that activity, not out of pressure, not out of the insecurity of psychological obscurity, not out of a revolting attitude against the social norms, but simply to be themselves in that activity. When you do that on a daily basis, or find time to do that every now and then, every week, you are basically engaging your brain almost in the same manner as anybody else does in practising the conventional way of meditation - sitting upright, closing their eyes and focusing within. The brain functionings in both cases are basically similar - and they bring the same kind of inner emotional stability, same kind of inner content more importantly - basically the same kind of internal well being, which is sustained in the long run, if you can simply do what you love to do on a regular basis. This way your brain goes through a kind of unique refreshment - that basically is the product of meditation - the simplest meditation - meditation upon the activity that allows you to be you.

Meditation is a method-less act - an act of contemplation - an act of being. And this contemplation or this being is not a buddhist thing, a hindu thing or a jewish thing - it is simply a human thing. No pranayama, vipassana or kabala has any kind of exclusive authority over meditation whatsoever. All these ways are merely the means of the novice to begin the journey. But the means is not the real act itself. Seeing the method of meditation as meditation itself, is like confusing the menu for the meal. The real journey takes place when there is no means whatsoever - when the self does not need to make efforts to be the self - that's real meditation - the meditation where you simply are who you are and do not seek methods to attain a superficial state of mind.

If you find something you love and make that your profession, then you'll never need to practise the conventional meditation in your life, in order to be psychologically well, because your very profession would be the best meditation for you. If you don't exactly have that dream profession, then simply taking time out from your daily schedule to do what you love to do, would still be a better meditation for you than the conventional one. And if none of these is an option for you, then you can resort to the conventional form of methodical meditation. The final call on this matter, would be made by nobody else but you. But bear in mind, kids meditate on things, the adults meditate on the self. Meditation on the self is the highest form of true method-less meditation, for it brings self-awareness - which is beyond the everyday joy and sorrow. True meditation does not put you in control of your sorrow, rather it takes your mind beyond that very sorrow, as well as joy, into the kingdom of contentment - a kingdom without ideology - without cognitive extremes, such as radical rationalism, radical romanticism or radical emotionalism. In that kingdom, you simply are a human, with no name, no nationality, no tradition, no culture, no religion, no gender and no social image - simply a human.

Further Reading
In Search of Divinity: Journey to the Kingdom of Conscience

What is Wisdom in 21st Century?

The name is Sapiens – Homo Sapiens. That’s what we are called in the scientific circle – in the intellectual circle. Homo Sapiens – the name given by humans to the humans – a name, that by the look of it, exudes a hint of wisdom, because the term sapiens means wise. So here’s the question – are we wise? Are you wise? Is humanity wise? And how do you know that you are being wise at a certain? What kind of behavior would be true measure for wisdom? Perhaps I am asking the wrong questions here.

It is easier to tell when you are not being wise, than to tell what the measures for wisdom are. For example, a fundamentalist who argues about his religious supremacy with a fellow religious person from a different religion, based on simply his own scripture, is as dumb in terms of wisdom, as a scientist who arrogantly boasts about the supremacy of reasoning over all kinds of sentiments and beliefs, both good and bad.

I am a scientist, and an educator of science and reasoning, yet, I do not advocate for the supremacy of reasoning. I advocate for conscience – and conscience is part reasoning and part compassion. To quote from my treatise on parenting, entitled “Human Making is our Mission” :

“Modern society is modern because of its mental cocktail of reasoning and compassion. Turn the compassion network in the brain off, and it will be a society of heartless robots. On the other hand, turn the reasoning network off, and it will be a society of dumb sentimental apes.”

So, being wise means, not talking about what you think is true, whether you are a scientist, a plumber, a trucker, or any kind of professional. A layperson can be a hundred times wiser than a young doctorate at times, because wisdom has less to do with information, and more to do with the ability to see through the information and look at the big picture. A layperson is more likely to be wrong about factual things than a scientist, but a scientist on the other hand, also runs the risk of becoming cognitively more blind than a layperson to the significance of human sentiments in human existence driven by his radically rational mind. Hence, wisdom is not an exclusive possession of the intellectual parts of the society. Being articulate is not the same as being wise. Truth devoid of conscience, is worthless in human existence.

A smart person speaks out the truth. A wise person doesn’t care about speaking it out, as much as he or she cares about utilizing that truth in the society, in a way that brings most progress – in a way that brings most human development. And that’s what wisdom is about. Wisdom is not simply about progress – it is about collective humane progress.

Now the question is – do the definition and characteristics of wisdom itself keep changing through time! Like all other cognitive processes, the mental process of wisdom goes through change as well. And this change is relentless. For example, more than a century ago, a wise man would be the one who would give his wife at home taking care of the household chores and children, the same amount of respect as he’d give himself. But, the norm of that time was that men were superior to women. So at that time even thinking about a housewife to have the same amount of basic dignity as the husband who was the guardian of the family, was a sign of wisdom. But today, we have crossed that boundary of wisdom, and taken wisdom a few steps ahead, by constructing or at least attempting to construct a society of gender equality, where women are equal of men in all aspects of not just private life but also social life.

Likewise, a century ago another wise movement was afoot – the movement of religious toleration, hugely carried out by the Parliament of World Religions. But in this case as well, toleration was the wisdom of the past. Acceptance is the wisdom of today. Nevertheless, “acceptance does not mean accepting those who disregard humans on the basis of race, religion and sexual orientation” (quote from Either Civilized or Phobic: A Treatise on Homosexuality).

So the point is, wisdom evolves, but one core principle in it does not. It is the principle of becoming better, by demolishing the shortcomings of today and building the benefits of tomorrow. And that’s what makes us a wise species. And as long as we are ready to recognize the shortcomings in ourselves, in our culture, in our traditions and in our ancestral heritages, we shall keep on deserving the title of “Sapiens” or “A Wise Species”.




Further Reading

Either Civilized or Phobic: A Treatise on Homosexuality

Human Making is Our Mission: A Treatise on Parenting

Neurochemical Origin of Afterlife

Today I'll be taking you in the afterlife. Don't worry, nobody needs to die to do that. Basically if you die, there is nothing more to experience for your soul. Because the moment your brain stops functioning, your soul ceases to exist. And it is so, because the soul is the expression of a functional brain.

A lot of people apparently have visited heaven, as in afterlife, and apparently they have come back. That's the claim made by many people. And the quantity of such claims is just too much to simply ignore. So, let's not ignore, and try to unravel the truth underneath such claims.

The very first thing that you need to know is that putting aside the small portion of the claims made simply to draw attention, most of these claims are actually made based on actual experiences. Which means as far as the subject who's making the claim is concerned, his or her encounter of heaven did indeed take place. So, to him or her, it is a real experience, as real as your experience of me talking to you right at this moment. And in fact, in most cases, that afterlife reality actually seems more real to the person than usual reality.

Now first lets look at the origin of this idea of afterlife - the idea of heaven or hell. The idea of an afterlife was created by the imagination of our ancient ancestors who lived in tribes and had way little intellectual capacity. And further this idea fueled in people's actual encounter of an afterlife. Our ancestors simply could not comprehend the sudden immobility of a walking and talking human being. They had to come up with some sort explanation for the so-called death, which they could not comprehend whatsoever. So, their brain concocted the belief, that there is apparently a soul that runs the body - a life-force, and when the body becomes aged and unsuitable for the soul to function, it simply pops out of the body and goes to either a better place, such as heaven or a horrible place such as hell, based on the person's deeds.

These ancient ideas have been passed on through generations, and in the process the minds of these people have been conditioned to believe genuinely that when they die, they'd go to another realm, unlike earth. So, one way or another, their minds expect it to actually happen to them when the time comes. They anticipate it, either consciously or subconsciously. Hence, there are people who claim that during a life threatening situation they actually have gone to haven and come back. And over time these claims have increased exponentially. And that's because of the amazing advancement that we have made in modern medicine. Before when people used to face death, they didn't come back so much to life, because we were yet to develop techniques to bring them back.

Let me give you an example, a simple one but a revolutionary one. It is the revolution brought by the development of what we the people in medical profession call a Defibrillator. It is a simple device, but often times, the availability of this simple device can determine whether a human being will live again or stay dead forever. If somebody's heart stops beating for whatever reason, electrical impulses from the a defibrillator can jolt the heart back to life. The same can be done with an Epi-Pen. In this kind of situations where a person apparently faces death, after coming back to life, that person reports that he or she went to heaven while his or her body had been lying dead.

So what's really happening here? Do these person really go to heaven? Well, in their subjective reality, the experience manifests as more real than the usual reality. And that is why it is almost impossible for them to defy it as anything but the truth. Which means, even though they did not actually budge even a little from their mortal body, the experience of visiting heaven did manifest in their mind as an actual lively experience.

These experiences occur often when a person faces a life and death situation - a situation that has to do with a peerless amount of stress. I have discussed this matter in detail in my book "Autobiography of God: Biopsy of A Cognitive Reality". When people face death, in that extreme stress the brain releases a special neurochemical which happens to be more powerful in terms of its hallucinogenic properties than LSD. This chemical is called DMT or Dimethyltryptamine.

When your brain releases substantial amounts of DMT in times of utter distress such as a near death event, your mind goes into an altered state - a state of profound hallucinations where your deepest desires or darkest fears manifest as reality. And this reality seems so damn real that it does not matter whether you are an academic, a medical doctor, a scientist, or a lay person. It is so damn real that anybody would easily hail it as a real experience in heaven or in some cases hell, depending on the person's internal knacks and desires.

Consciousness is the product of electrochemical signalling in the neurons of your brain. So when the brain stops functioning fully, your consciousness, or to a broader aspect, your mind ceases to exist with its unique individualistic qualities. It's like the soothing flow of water. It is only water as long as its internal realm of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen, remains intact. If you break that structure which we call H20, it ceases to be water. Likewise a soul remains a soul, as longs as its neural structures remain intact. If you mess with those structures, then the entire personality of the soul may get radically altered. So, to think even further, if those neural structures inside your head stop working, then the soul ceases to exist forever. So, as long as you have a functional brain, you exist, and the moment that brain dies you die.

So, hard as it may sound to some, there is no heaven, or hell. And that is more reason that we need to pay attention to this life. Because one life is all you've got. Make the most out of it. Live that one life with your friends, family and neighbors. After all, the true value of life lies in living with our fellow human beings, while caring about each other, nourishing each other, growing with each other. And that's called being human.


Further Reading

Autobiography of God: Biopsy of A Cognitive Reality

Rise of Neurotheology: The Science that studies God and religion

What happens when science and religion meet? Well – for starters you get a Scientist named Abhijit Naskar, that’s me. But jokes apart – when science and religion meet we get a field of human understanding that belongs to the domain of science as much as it belongs to the domain of religion. And that field is called “Neurotheology” – which is a communion of science and religion. It is the only field of science that actually has to do with religion as much as it has to do with science.

But why? Why do we need Neurotheology? We need Neurotheology because it is the only field of rational thinking that attempts to understand the roots of religion, religiousness and god without a predominate urge to refute and undermine religion all together. And we do it based on empiricism, not mere optimism, even though optimism is there in us, aiding in out research.

The first criterion for doing research into the tangible earthly roots of religion, is that you need to be free from obvious religious biases – you cannot do such study with a predominant detestation of religion or a radical obedience to faith. For example, if you are to study the neuropsychology of racial biases then you cannot expect to do so with a predominately explicit attitude of racism. So to study racism you need to be not a racist. And to study religion at a molecular level you need to be neutral in terms of religious biases.

In Neurotheology we scientists study the roots of God and its associated religious sentiments in the human mind. And here by God, I mean the God or the Gods that humans worship. We are not trying to understand whether there is an actual Supreme Divine force out there that’s running the universe. Even if that God does exist, it has nothing to do with life on earth. The Gods that humans worship, like Jehovah, Allah, Krishna, Rama and all others, are creation of the human mind itself. And we Neuroscientists in the field of Neurotheology attempt to understand the roots of these Gods of the human world, and as for the Supreme Divine Entity running the universe, I’d rather leave that to the Physicists to find out. That’s their expertise. Which means that if the majority of the physicists come to me and tell me – “Hey Naskar, you know what, we just discovered that the universe is not run by a Supreme Divine Entity”. I would most graciously accept their consensus, because I know that they must have done their research on the issue quite rigorously and then they have come to the conclusion that there is no actual God. That’s called trusting the expert in the field.

If you truly want to know about the universe you need to seek answer from a physicist, not from a biologist or a celebrity. Likewise if you want to know about life you need to seek answer from a biologist, not from a physicist or a celebrity. Also if you want to know whether Global Warming is real, you need to ask a climatologist, not a president or any of his white supremacist pals. Ask the expert, if you seek real answer, not just an answer you feel comfortable with. Although in today’s society we see a behavior quite contrary to this. We see anti-intellectualism. And that may not be dangerous, but it surely is unprogressive.

I am Neuroscientist, which means, I can tell you about your mind, your emotions, your thoughts and your behaviors, but I may not be able to fix your water supply at home, when it’s not working. For that you’d need a plumber. The plumber is the expert in fixing your water supply. The electrician is the expert in fixing the electrical wiring of your home. A Neuroscientist, a psychologist, or a psychiatrist is the expert in fixing the wiring of your mind. Every work needs expertise. One expert cannot boast about being an expert in various fields. It is possible, but in rare occasions.

So the work that we Neuroscientists do in Neurotheology is to study the gods of the society. And we have come a long way in this path. We have discovered facts that would appear to the radical believer as nothing but blasphemy. But the point is, we are civilized beings today. We no longer are medieval idiots who used burn and slaughter innocent lives for holding different belief system. So I am sorry to say, the idea of blasphemy has no place in today’s society – no wait, actually, I am not sorry at all. It’s them who should feel sorry, for being barbarians still while endorsing primitive ideas of blasphemy, apostasy and all sorts of evil. These terms can no longer hold any value to the civilized conscientious human.

Now to get back to the topic at hand, which is Neurotheology – it is quite gloriously a newly emerged field of scientific endeavor. In this context, let me bring up an excerpt from my book In Search of Divinity: Journey to The Kingdom of Conscience.

“Through the newly emerged field of Neurotheology, Scientists such as Andrew Newberg, Michael Persinger, myself and a few others have already taken the first step from the side of Science, to diminish the gap between Science and Religion. Now it is time for Religion to do the same. And the moment any religion does that, the eternal battle between Science and Religion would slowly start to disperse.”

In the brief journey so far in this field, we have understood a lot about the neurological roots of religious and spiritual sentiments of the human mind. We have even analyzed closely the transcendental experiences of the past that gave rise to the religions of the world. And as we keep moving forward in this field with an unbiased look at religion and God, we will discover various new elements of the human mind that may contribute to the sentiment of religiousness and spirituality. And they will allow us to understand the human mind in a better way. And when we understand the mind better, we can develop techniques to deal with its issues in more effective ways.


Further Reading:

What is Mind?
In Search of Divinity: Journey to the kingdom of conscience

It's about religious acceptance, it's no longer about religious tolerance

There is a question in today's society that has got quite a grip over people's psyche - rational and not so rational alike - whether religion is basically good or basically evil. Here my question to you is, how do you define a religion as either good or bad? How do you define good religion and bad religion? Do you define based on the books, like scriptures, or do you define based on humans? What's more important - humans or scriptures? And if you still define religion based on the elements that come from some ancient books, then what's the difference between you and the fundamentalists who actually cause all the violence in the name of religion? If you still think that religion is violent because its scripture has some violent instructions then what's the difference between you and others - others being the fundamentalists? There is no difference.

You are a rational being. You have your own mind. You have your cognitive capacities to think for yourself - to give humans more attention than books, than doctrines, than dogmas. Then how do you define a whole religion - an entire population of people - your own kind as terrorists! Are they! Are you! Say your culture has a scripture that says, "if somebody does not obey every word in this scripture, then that person must be demolished from earth by the chosen few to whom this scripture has been given by the Lord Almighty himself". Whether you follow it or not, doesn't matter. Whether you accept it literally or not, doesn't matter. Just because it is a part of your culture, does that make you a terrorist - a religious terrorist, since it is the book of your people. Being a part of your culture, that book instructs you to kill people for holding different belief system. And without even knowing whether you follow it directly, indirectly, consciously, subconsciously, if somebody simply assumes that because it is a highly venerated book in your culture, you must be absolutely obedient to it and would be willing to kill the infidels, is that person making a rational assumption, or simply a lousy mistake!

Being religious does not make a person terrorist, even if his or her scripture has fundamental elements of terrorism. Religious people are just as peace loving as anybody else. Not all the people who call themselves religious, actually follow every single word of the scripture. They don't feel the urge for it, without even being aware of it in most cases, they just don't. When a brain is healthy, it has the capacity to filter information and distinguish between good and evil. In most cases, this process of filtering happens quite subconsciously, and in some other cases not so much. That's what you know as the human sense of morality which is a magnificent construction of the brain circuits, especially the frontal lobes. In case of one's religiousness this morality comes into action as well.

A good human being will never accept things like beating a wife for not having sex with the husband or killing people for holding different belief system, even if his or her scripture says thus. So it doesn't matter what the scripture says - a healthy human brain has the capacity to filter those instructions. An atheist brain does this quite consciously, whereas the peace-loving religious population does it in most cases quite subconsciously. Their brain does that for them, because they are conscientious civilized beings. And unless you are a mental retard - unless you are suffering from delusional disorder, like the fundamentalists, you still can judge for yourself, so do the religious people. That's why all religious people are not terrorists.

Those who are terrorists, they only hold on to the few instructions of certain scriptures, that fuel their predominant rage against some parts of the world, some people, and that rage becomes the driving force behind those acts of terrorism. Those instructions in those books fuel that rage. So they feel like they are doing it for a greater purpose, because their brain lacks healthy and civilized functioning of the frontal lobes, but this is not true for religious people. Religious people are just as peace-loving as anybody else. And not all religious people say - their religion is the best and everybody else's is false - their god is the only god and everybody else who follows different gods are all doomed to burn in hell for eternity.

They are simply happy with their religion, and what's wrong with that! Of course it would be wrong if they say - you hold a different belief system so you are a lesser human, you are doomed, you are possessed by Satan. But they are not saying that. They are happy, they are talking to people from different religious backgrounds, because that's what makes us humans. That's what makes us civilized humans. We accept each other, we love each other, we embrace each other. It's about religious acceptance, it's no longer about religious tolerance. Toleration may make you decent, but it's acceptance that makes you civilized. Toleration was a matter of the previous centuries - through this idea of toleration, thinking humans took the early steps towards a society free from religious sectarianism. The parliament of religions was and still remains a glorious emblem of this endeavor of religious toleration. However, time has changed and so has its needs. The need of this century is acceptance. Every generation must think several steps ahead of their previous generations. That's the way to progress and that's the way to become more and more civilized human beings.

We are the most civilized species on earth, because we grow every single day - we grow - and we will keep on growing with each other. We will keep on growing with our brothers, sisters and friends, whether they are from different religions, different race, different languages, colors, sexual orientation, gender - it doesn't matter. We are all humans and we have to grow together. It's not enough to be diverse. For a species to evolve, for a species to survive, you need to accept that diversity. Because if you don't, then that diversity has no value. Accept the diversity and the growth of us humans - the progress of us humans, will be much faster and smoother.



Further Reading

In Search of Divinity: Journey to the Kingdom of Conscience

Illusion of Religion: A Treatise on Religious Fundamentalism

Why I am not Atheist

I say things – things that would most gloriously make me appear as an atheist to people, such as – “God is a human creation” – “scriptures come from humans” – “forget the gods and pay attention to humans”. However I never hail myself as atheist, and you never hear me saying out loud that I am an atheist. And it is because one simple reason, I hate discrimination, I hate bigotry and I hate creating walls. I don’t wanna create an wall between me and all the peace loving people in the world who are just happy with their religiousness and they are not trying to impose on anybody’s else’s beliefs. Now, these are the people are I work for, just like I work for all other humans who want progress, who want the world to be a better place, if not for us, at least for our children. That’s why I don’t call myself an atheist.

Because when you put a label on yourself, that label comes along with a log of psychological baggage. And in most cases you may not be aware of these correlated psychological elements, but those who listen to you may do. So in their brain they would draw an image of your personality. And they will give that image qualities based on their subjective understanding of the label that you imposed on yourself. Like when you say you are an atheist, usually the religious population of the planet would very easily deem you to be against all of their religiousness – religiousness that is a part of their identity. And you cannot take away that identity – if you try, then there would be no difference between you and the religious fundamentalism.

And though I am not anti-religion, I am anti-fundamentalism. Fundamentalists do not make up the whole religious population on earth. As a scientist, as an educator, of course I am against indoctrinating children, I am against teaching them biblical stories as factual truth, I am against prayer given more attention than actual human contribution in the society. Still I am not against religion, because of those people who identify themselves as religious but do not take their scriptures literally and have the brain capacity to think which part of those books are good and which are not. And this process of taking the good things from the scriptures and ignoring the primitive ones, happens in most of the religious psyches of the world quite unconsciously.

I am not an atheist, because of these peace-loving religious people who are simply good people and they accept people from different religious orientation as equal. And no, not all religious people go around their neighborhood screaming the exclusive superiority of their religion and God over all others. They love their religion, but they don’t make a fuss over it, like the fundamentalists do. Religion is simply a part of their cultural identity, nothing more – it is fostered as a supremacist ideology only in the head of the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists are the enemy because they are driven by the elementary primitive notion of their religion being superior to all others, and hence other people are lesser humans. Fundamentalism is the enemy, not religion. In fact, fundamentalism is an enemy of religion itself, because in a progressive civilized society religion means realization of your inner divinity, not meek obedience to books of the dead people.

I am a scientist, and as such one of my core purposes is to understand the truth behind various phenomena of the universe with as much accuracy as possible And one of those phenomena is religion. And in order to understand it with as less subjective biases as possible, I must refrain from being called either “religious” or “atheist”. Now that’s the scientific reason for me to not hail myself as either atheist or religious. And as for the humane reason, which is more appealing to me as a human being, it is that the only label I go with is “human” – because that’s the label I received from Mother Nature. And that’s the label that makes me a part of human lives in human society, regardless of religion, regardless of race, regardless of gender and regardless of sexual orientation. The label of human is beyond race, beyond religion, beyond gender and beyond sexual orientation.



Further Reading

Principia Humanitas

Illusion of Religion: A Treatise on Religious Fundamentalism