The Gurus and the Internet

There were gurus then, there are gurus now, there will be in the future. Gurus long past have been seen as godheads and faultless personifications of goodness and benevolence. Gurus in the twentieth century, less so. Gurus of the future will have a very hard time.

As for the gurus of the last century, their larger than life persona didn't assume wondrous proportions and didn't endure for long because they were exposed to audiences of various countries, various western and eastern seekers wrote about them and their original writings and reminiscences have been preserved, and in general, human thought has evolved in the last few centuries to be sceptical and scientific.

How many truly revolutionary, blemish-free gurus can one name in the last century? Maybe a couple, if assisted with a liberal dose of faith. The personal lives of them all are known and known to be less than stellar. Krishnamurti, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Osho, Mahesh Yogi, Sai Baba, Ramana, Meher Baba et cetera.

How many truly revolutionary or radical, truly serious and sincere, non-follower-seeking (even reasonably so) gurus can one name in the present time? I can think of none, actually. Sri Sri? Asaram? Jaggi Vasudev?

There is a reason for this welcome trend.

In the last few decades, advances in audio and video technology have enabled archival footage of the gurus to be viewed by anyone curious enough to know how they were in person, how they talked, answered questions, how they lived, walked and talked, ...

Advances in computing technology and search engines have enabled instant investigation of gurus' claims and teachings. This worldwide sharing of evolutionary or transcendental thinking is, to me, the greatest thing which will speed up human evolution.

Gurus can no longer hide. What one disciple knows will soon be known to the rest of the world. Their pseudo-rational claptrap, their charlatanism and "magic tricks", their miracles are now subject to instant and wide scrutiny due to the impeccable digital reproduction and communication technology.

One can discuss one's faith, beliefs, the teachings of one's guru with people from around the world as easily as with people in one's neighborhood.

Yes, gurus are also using the media to attract the followers. But the gullibility of such followers is now capable of being dispelled more easily due to the wider media scrutiny of these very gurus, and the easier ways in which the disciples can communicate with each other and with other groups.

Miracle tales, claims of flying and levitation, claims of healing and incision-less-surgery are fast going into oblivion because people expect recorded performances in this age of effortless video recordings and transmission. The writings and talks of gurus are easily available for anyone to see their rationality and logic (or lack of it). No longer have we to depend upon second-hand accounts and interpretative texts.

The horse's mouth was never so close!

Websites such as The Rick Ross Institute collect information on cult groups and gurus from around the world to be made available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection.

Internet is the antidote to superstition, of blind belief in anything, and is the greatest aid to human intellectual evolution.

If you have been in touch with any technique of evolution, if you have been in contact with any guru or religious or spiritual group, if you have a tale to tell about your seeking happiness, put it on the internet. It's free, and really easy.

Start a blog, write a paper, an essay, an anecdote, a description of your experience, start sharing!

For the benefit of all mankind.

What a great time we are living in! What a stupendous phenomenon that any event immediately gets a billion inspecting eyes and ears and minds! What an opportunity for collating the immense volume of human thought, for trying out new things that one would never come across otherwise, for evolving, for going where ...no ... man ... has ... gone ... before.

On "Cheating"

One often comes across the word "cheating" when reading about monogamy, adultery and extra-marital affairs.

Marriage is a union of two people. What kind of union is it?

Economic: They will pool their financial resources in the pursuit of common goals, including the care of their joint offspring.

Social: They will form a unit of hospitality and of social visits. They will engage together in social rituals.

Sexual: They can have sex with each other without anybody objecting or threatening that the intercourse is illegal, anti-social, not allowed, not possible etc. They can produce offspring which are considered first class citizens (i.e., having full rights) of the society.

Emotional: They provide companionship and living together to each other.

Legal: They are a legal entity for purposes of housing, parenting, immigration, taxation etc.

What are the biological and historical roots of this union?

The fundamental reason for this union is to pool the physical resources for taking care of the children who, in the human species, need care for an extended period. An average single parent can ill-afford to both gather resources for the household and to provide constant care for the dependants.

Sex is the vehicle for genetic propagation. It is a means, not an end. It can have psychological and sensual significance as an act in itself but this significance is nothing but a sophisticated incentive for genetic propagation. Humans can, however, disregard completely the procreative aspect and focus on the recreative aspect of sex.

Males of the human species have evolved in such a way that their goal is to attract as many females as possible and have multiple sexual encounters in order to ensure the maximal propagation possibility of their genes.

Females of the human species have evolved in such a way that they want to attract as many males as possible and to persuade the resource-rich males to provide for them and their offspring after the congress is over in order to ensure the maximal survival rate for their genes (in the form of their offspring).

An optimally evolved male will indulge in promiscuity only to an extent. Impregnating a large number of women without ensuring the survival of the resulting offspring is genetically futile.

This striving for maximal self-propagation is built into the very nature of genes. This instinct for maximal propagation results in the widely-observed promiscuous nature of human males. And since nature has clubbed together the psychological, genetic and the sensual in the sexual act, any one of these avenues getting satisfied in the act can fulfill the male's desire for promiscuity.

This promiscuity of the male makes insecure the female(s) with whom the impregnation has already happened. The implicit agreement, formalized in legal contracts in the modern age, is that in exchange for a female's childbearing capacity and other value-additions, the male will continue to provide for her. After all, the genetic propagation is of benefit to both of them.

But males will not stop being promiscuous, they are not made to be monogamous. They will seek to satisfy their promiscuous instincts with as many women as possible (within the social, legal, economic and emotional restraints).

The irony is that having a lot of sex with many women while ensuring that no impregnation happens (as is ubiquitous in this age) is a harmless perversion of nature's aims. It is to value the side effects of the act (the psychological, emotional or sensual payoff) over its main function (procreation). The sensible man will: (a) ensure the survival and wellbeing of current offspring, and (b) not engage in dangerous sexual encounters (comprising health risks or risks of emotional misery or social ostracism).

Coming to our main topic, what is "cheating"?

The charge of "cheating" is the charge of not upholding one's end of the contract after a sexual union is agreed upon. After all, the complicating factor is that propagation of genes in humans requires the cooperation of the male as well as the female. Not just in the sexual act, but also in the sharing of responsibilities of providing and caring for the offspring.

In case there is no contract (e.g. in a one-night stand), there is no notion of cheating as well.

The contract is (simplistically) as follows:

(Given by the male to the female)

Thank you for allowing me to impregnate you and to use you as a vehicle for the propagation of my genes. I promise to provide for you and for the offspring the resources and continued support necessary for your and their survival and well-being. I promise not to impregnate other women and share my resources with them. They will be used for us and our joint offspring only.

Signed, Male.

(Given by the female to the male)

Thank you for choosing me as a vehicle for the propagation for your genes as I will benefit from this impregnation too. My genes will also propagate through this offspring, who will be generously provided for by you for years to come. I promise to nurture and care for this offspring and enhance his/her chances of survival and well-being. I promise you that I will not get impregnated by other men and deviously ask you to care for their offspring through me.

Signed, Female.

...

Hence, what is the charge of "cheating" in a sexual union?

According to a female, the male is cheating if he impregnates other women and shares his resources amongst them, which "rightfully" only belonged to her. Since even a partial taking away of the resources might mean a lowering of the well-being of their joint offspring, and she cannot leave the male due to a breach of contract since she will be risking the offspring's well-being even more, she is understandably upset.

This cheating can be to the male's own detriment, if he does not have enough resources and his various offspring suffer due to too wide a distribution of his limited resources.

According to a male, the female is cheating if she is not caring enough for his offspring and is risking impregnation from other men while still holding this male as the primary provider for her current and possibly future offspring. (The male sees no value in providing for offspring of other males, which do zilch for his own genetic propagation. The only reason he might agree to provide for such offspring is if their mother is an outstanding genetic partner.)

If the female is thus cheating, the male cannot easily desert the female without risking the well-being of their joint offspring. Being thus trapped, he is understandably upset.

This cheating can be to the female's own detriment, if she produces too many offspring which she can possibly care well for, and if she alienates her loyal male provider(s).

I believe polygamy should not be illegal or socially taboo for males who can afford to provide for multiple women and their offspring, and for females who can afford to hire enough nannies. Even in developed countries, presidents and billionaires have to contend with having only one legal sexual partner at any time. They therefore have mistresses and indulge in socially-frowned-upon sexual encounters (e.g. the Monica Lewinsky affair). Their non-marital sexual partners have no legal rights. I find this unfair.

Now comes the interesting part.

If the "cheating" (as is common in today's times) is to engage in sexual encounters without any aim of impregnation or consequent resource-sharing, and with enough precautions taken to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, what exactly is wrong with it, again? How exactly is it "cheating"?

It is not cheating yet, but there is the risk, see.

The female can be hyper-sensitive to the risk that while being harmlessly promiscuous (so to speak), the male may actually impregnate his new partner, or get otherwise entangled, and stop providing for herself and their joint offspring. One of the valid criteria by which women judge this risk is the male's emotional bonding with them. If the emotional bond weakens, there is the very real risk that "their man" is now loving someone else.

In any case, it is a risk, and what is the best way to avoid this risk altogether? To control the promiscuous instincts of one's male partner in the first place, to keep an eye on him (so to speak).

The male can also be hyper-sensitive to the risk that in being harmlessly promiscuous (so to speak), the female may actually get impregnated, or get otherwise entangled, with the new sexual partner and stop providing value to himself and their joint offspring. One of the valid criteria by which men judge this risk is the female's flirtatiousness. If the flirtatiousness is alarming, so is the risk of impregnation.

In any case, it is a risk, and what is the best way to avoid this risk altogether? To keep an eye on her (so to speak) and to forbid her flirtatious behaviour.

Varied sensual pleasures, sexual encounters and flirtatious acts are therefore avoided or prohibited because of these fears. This leads to conscious resentment (it may be repressed or sublimated in the morally fastidious, "brainwashed with monogamy", puritanical or conventional amongst us). But the amusing thing is that these fears, prohibitions and resentments are the supposedly best way humans think they have of optimizing their genetic propagation.

Genetic propagation and its optimization is without a doubt important, but is living in suspicion and resentment a fair price for it? Nature seems to think so.

Do you?

Radical Honesty?

Well..., it's an interesting idea that stands "social" communication on its head.

http://www.esquire.com/features/honesty0707

Taare Zameen Par by Aamir Khan

Taare Zameen Par, Aamir Khan’s directorial debut, is about a challenged, misunderstood child, and how empathy and care finally redeem him.


Ishan (Darsheel Safary) is a mildly dyslexic child who is unable to perform well at school. His parents and teachers berate him without even a whiff of compassion (though the mother does shed a few tears). When Ishan bunks school one day and roams around the city, heedless of the danger and enjoying the sights and sounds, it proves to be too much for everybody. He is packed off to a boarding school. The boarding school looks like a juvenile institution out of The 400 Blows, where maladjusted kids are sent to be disciplined. Lonely, misunderstood and feeling let down by his family, Ishan slips into depression.

Then suddenly, the arrival of a new teacher, Ram Shankar (Aamir Khan), changes everything.

Ram immediately perceives the problem in the alienated and depressed Ishan. And with a friendly zeal, he brings Ishan back to his smiling, expressive self.

Films about compassion are difficult to dislike, or one is in danger of being politically incorrect. The recent films starring Aamir Khan have mostly been "message movies": Lagaan, Mangal Pandey, Fanaa, Rang de Basanti, and now Taare Zameen Par. Coupled with his known sympathy for the socially disadvantaged, his films showcase his persona as a caring, aware individual, having few faults. He is someone who confidently proclaims what is right and wrong, an angel of understanding and heart-warming sensitivity. Such roles in successive films, especially in TZP which is produced and directed by himself, are therefore open to the criticism of being expressions of a hardly subtle moral narcissism.

Sentimentality is a dish best served soppy. There are quite a few sequences in the film which make one’s eyes well up. One of the better ones comes in the ending, when Ishan is spectacularly redeemed. But one can’t fail to notice the flatness of the characters, and the too easy way in which Ram Kishan overcomes all obstacles.

Everyone in the film is shown so callous and cruel (except perhaps the mother) that the friendly bonhomie and the almost angelic understanding shown by Ram Shankar is a contrast which is too stark to be comfortable and realistic. The contrast doesn’t end there, however. While other teachers are crude, crass and dressed like bus drivers, Ram Shankar is shown wearing trendy, smart casuals, living in an amazingly chic home, having an ultra-high-maintenance haircut and having a comely partner in his evangelical pursuit to save the lost souls. One wonders if his ilk would be able to find fulfilment in the absence of suffering people around them.

The message of the film is probably fine, though simplistic. Isn’t it also true that care and individual attention in Indian schools is a luxury affordable only to the well-heeled? There are the KFI Schools, for example, but almost invariably the teachers in these schools are prosperous and highly literate and are there by choice (as Ram Shankar is in this film). Most teachers in Indian schools are paid a pittance. They are generally frustrated and hostile, burdened with the additional responsibilities of mid-day meals and election duties. One also wonders whether the film should have at least made a passing reference to wilfully precocious children. To its credit, the film is vocal about the appalling student-teacher ratios prevailing in Indian schools.

The editing in the film could definitely be better as some of the cuts seem too abrupt. There are too many songs, only a few of which are good. The performance of Darsheel is indeed noteworthy, though his tears and crying look artificial. Of others, the mother’s acting is perhaps the most natural.

I wondered whether the film was made for kids or for adults. It has elements for both, but is ultimately a moral tale for harsh parents.

The saga of getting a new mobile phone

I have had a Samsung C230 for around 30 months now. Its battery was becoming less and less reliable, so I decided to go in for a new mobile phone. Not an easy chore. Too many choices, too few good ones.

I like simple things with a clean, pure design. How does it reflect in my choice of mobile phones? Let us go through the cell phones that I have owned.

In the beginning I bought mobile phones based on their simplicity and low cost.

My first mobile phone was a Samsung R210.


It had very basic features, a monochrome screen, monophonic ringtones, a jutting antenna, a log having last 10 calls, it stored 10 SMS messages and had a 100 entry phone book. It worked well, its screen was very legible and a pleasure to look at.

For my second phone, I wanted a device which could act as a modem. All phones below Rs 5000 were either GPRS class 4 or their data cable slot was the same as their power slot. That wouldn't do as I wanted to do overnight downloads. My choice finally was a class 10 GPRS Benq device, the tiny M550, which cost me Rs 3500 or so.


It had all the features but it had a terrible interface. One had to pass through hoops to be able to send a simple text message. It had polyphonic ring tones, one could connect it to the computer using a cable and it worked well as a GSM modem. It had a really ugly screen and a menu system from some other planet, had mushy keys, but it did the job and I derived a perverse pleasure from owning such an unknown and arcanely small phone.

For my third phone I wanted a tri-band device. The simplest tri-band I was able to find at that time (June 2005) was the Samsung C230.


Unfortunately it had FM radio too, which I have never used. But there was no phone on the market which was tri-band, had computer connectivity and nothing else. I bought it. It had infrared connectivity which never worked, and by never I mean never. I could never connect it to any other device. It had a lot of latency, and it took almost 3-4 seconds to unlock its keyboard.

I used it for a while, and I had gotten used to it. It did have multi-entry phone book (used to store the many phone numbers for a single person) but had no group SMS (only rarely useful). But what was becoming increasingly unacceptable, I couldn't backup my information to a computer.

Then my firm gave me a Blackberry 6230, as I needed to have access to email at all times (or so they thought). It had very small keys and was very ugly to look at.


I soon exchanged it for a Blackberry 7100g, which had a clunky interface and I never grew used to it. It used to hang and require frequent reboots. But it did have email, a web browser, a large screen and the works. It was very hard to use it as a simple phone, to retrieve the call log etc...


I gave it up in May 2007, and continued using my Samsung C230. As I said, its battery was becoming weak, so I looked around the market for something which would catch my finicky eye.

Out were the Blackberrys with their clunkiness, Nokia N Series with their heavy design and overpriced featurism, the HTC Touch'es, the iPhones which are illegal, and other such show-offs, which do anything but act as a phone.

A phone should act like a phone, and should have features designed to make the messaging (voice and text) easier. I don't want to use a phone to send emails or to edit word documents because the keyboards are small and it takes a long time to type a long message. I don't want to use a phone to click 3-megapixel impromptu pictures of my friends. If I need a camera, I will use a device explicitly made for that purpose. If I need to listen to music, or to watch a film, I can wait till I get home to my projector and my surround sound system.

My requirements were simple: A no-frills candybar phone with good speed (nice keyboard, no latency in operation), good voice (good reception, handsfree), SMS (group sms, delivery reports) and phonebook (multi-entry phonebook, computer sync) functionality. I didn't want anything extravagant like an FM radio, a camera, an MP3 player, WLAN connectivity, etc. If it was to be a flip phone, it should display the calling party on the outside. It shouldn't cost more than Rs 5000.

You will be happy to know that there is no phone on the market which satisfies the above requirements.

Sony Ericsson candybar phones don't look good to me, they are too small.

Motorola phones have funky keyboard styles and have no delivery reports. Their new phone, W180, is good but it has neither PC-sync nor a multi-entry address book.


Motorola W375 also has a clean look, but it doesn't show the caller ID on the outside.


Samsung C180 is sleek and clean but it doesn't have a multi-entry phonebook, nor group SMS.



One of Nokia's higher-end models, 6300, has a very clean design but has too many features and is overpriced for my needs.


Nokia's entry level model, 1200, has one of the best looks: a very clean, minimalist design, but doesn't offer even a handsfree cable and has a real paucity of some much-needed features.


So after looking at umpteen models and rejecting them on one ground or another, my wife finally made me buy the Nokia 2630, which has everything I want (and also, unfortunately, FM radio and a low-res camera) and which costs Rs 4000.


It is a thin, sleek phone and I am actually quite happy with it, despite it having a few designer curves. It is one of the very few phones in this range to have Bluetooth connectivity, and it is very easy to transfer data to/from it. It has a very good keyboard, has a clean interface and has good battery life. It has multi-entry phonebook, group SMS, delivery reports, handsfree cable, etc.

The moral of the story is: It is getting tougher and tougher to find things in the market which are simple, do what they are supposed to do, and don't have features which you don't need and are not forced to pay for.