The sincere endeavorers behold
what others fail to, even if told
[BG 15.11]
Prologue
This article describes a journey taken up by a professor and a couple of his students. A journey with a car on hilly roads towards the waterfalls for a day trip. And a journey with an intellectual dialogue on the world we experience towards the knowledge for eternity.
Scene
It was early morning. Professor Gopinath and his PhD students, Ravi and Tina, were on a lab day out to nearby falls. Tina was driving the car. It was dawn, and their car was plying through hilly roads. As they crossed a bridge over a wide river, the rising morning sun caught everyone’s attention. Pointing his finger to the river out of the window, the professor asked a question.
Professor: “I see a river” or “this is a river”, what is the difference between these two statements?
Tina: “I see a river” tells about my sense experience, while “this is a river” states a fact.
Professor: Good. Then what is more fundamental? What can you trust more?
Objective Experiences
Tina: My sense perception is subjective and erroneous, while the latter statement carries objective facts. So, the latter must be more fundamental and trustworthy.
Professor: So you are assuming that our perceptions are always subjective, i.e., flawed by one’s personal emotions and opinions. Can’t we have objective experiences that are unbiased and that everyone agrees on?
Tina: Hmm. Certainly, I can have objective experiences too. If I see a river, everyone will agree that it is a river, and hence, it is an objective experience. But then, the reason to make some experience is that we need to perceive something. If we were not sentient beings, there was no need to perceive anything. What I experience is dependent on what I want to see.
Ravi: My experience comes from within. It is based on how I want to see and who I am. So it is based on my belief.
Professor: Does that mean subjectivity?
Ravi: Yes
Professor: Again, we may ask - are all experiences subjective? Can they never be objective?
Ravi: I am confused. But before we discuss this further, I wish to know why it is important to ask these questions.
Professor: This is an important question. We are doing science. Science means finding out what is fundamental. You are doing research in AI. You can’t simply make some technology and say we are doing science. Science digs out fundamental concepts. Physicists are trying to find out the fundamental laws of nature. What is the difference between a mechanical engineer and a mechanic, or an electrical engineer and an electrician? The former knows more fundamental concepts than the latter.
Goal-oriented Experiences
(This encourages Ravi to think deeper)
Ravi: I agree that there can be objective experiences, but there are other issues.
Professor: Good. So, we agree that objectivity is important to determine what is fundamental. If something is fundamental, it should be unbiased by subjective variations. And you brought into the discussion another point, i.e., goal-oriented experience. Could you elaborate on that further and relate it to what is fundamental?
Ravi: OK. Goal-oriented experiences mean that our experiences depend upon what we are trying to have. Some may be interested in seeing the river, while others in the surroundings or the vegetation over it. So everyone sees with a goal.
Professor: But can’t all those be objective? Someone may see the blue water, someone may see the fish, and someone may see the vegetation. A person seeing the vegetation may like the greenery, a person looking at water may be thirsty, and the one looking at the fish may be an ichthyophile. They had different goals, but all were speaking objectively. So, goal-oriented experience does not stop one from being objective. Now, think more.
Tina: I think the objective goals are a result of experiences only. I see a river, and it intrigues me, e.g., why does the water flow in a specific direction, why does it appear blue, etc.?
Professor: Good. Indeed, there is a dynamic relationship between one’s goals and experiences [BG 14.5]. We can discuss that relationship some other time. For now, let us address the original question – what is more fundamental, “I see a river” or “this is a river”?
Illusory Experiences
Ravi: “I see a river” seems more fundamental because it comes from a direct experience.
Tina: I agree. We start with “I see a river” and use this idea to say later, “this is a river”. So, we start with experience and construct a body of knowledge.
Ravi: But it is my belief that I see a river; it may not be a river, actually. Another person may see something else.
Professor: Good point. Similarly, you may consider illusions that lead to wrong conclusions. E.g., while driving, I may see water on the road from a distance; it may not be water but just a mirage.
Tina: I can not see a mirage on the road yet because it is early morning, but I can relate to that experience I often have while driving on the motorway at midday. This is why I was a bit skeptical about accepting the experience as fundamental. Because what we see may not be what actually is.
Professor: We concluded earlier that experience is more fundamental because knowledge is built on experience only. Now, we are questioning the experience itself, as it could be faulty. What do we do now?
Ravi: OK. I may believe it is water, but when I move forward, I will see the water disappearing.
Tina: We may not rely on one person’s experience but on multiple persons’ experiences. From that, we may know for sure that it is water or mirage.
Professor: Good. Let me summarise. I see water, and multiple people see it as water. Moreover, when I see from different positions, I still see water. Then, I may conclude confidently that it is water, not mirage. So, we build the body of knowledge from multiple experiences.
Ravi: Based on this, when we study scientifically, we can conclude that it is not water but sunlight that is reflected from the hot air close to the surface. Because of the difference in the refractive indices of hot and cold air, we get total internal reflection (TIR).
Professor: Good understanding. So the body of knowledge helps us conclude confidently whether it is TIR or water. This body of knowledge was built on multiple experiences. A person ignorant of Physics this may conclude the experience to be caused by water, but a person with knowledge can see it as TIR.
Resolving Illusion with Invariance
Professor: Now I bring to your attention another point from this discussion. To be able to conclusively arrive at some knowledge, we need language. Without language, we can’t collate the experiences of multiple persons and arrive at knowledge. Animals don’t do science because they don’t have that sophisticated language to discuss the concepts such as truth, fundamental and objective. Hence, the faculty of language is so essential. We need multiple observations and they should all be harmonious. There should be an “invariance” in our understanding. Truth must be invariant across subjects (observers), time and situations. For instance, if hot air near the road surface reflects sunlight in India, it should be the same in Africa, the USA, and other places. This principle should be invariant to be fundamental.
Ravi: What if there is a disagreement between two observers?
Tina: Bring in more observers and study more observations. If you see water on the road, go closer and see, or ask another person closer to tell if it is water or TIR. Proper understanding should be invariant.
Ravi: What if these other people are also far? They see an illusion and conclude that it is water.
Professor: This is our limitation. We have a limited number of samples from which we have to arrive at a conclusion. My experiences are limited and my resources to experience are limited. If these samples don’t cover the picture in its entirety, we will come to a faulty understanding. By relying on incomplete sources we can’t come to knowledge. For instance, if everyone sees only one side of the moon, how can we know about the other side? Someone has to go and see the other side. However, I don’t have the resources to build a sputnik to go and see the other side of the moon, so we may interpolate our current understanding to hypothesise something. But remember it is a hypothesis.
Deceptive Experiencers
Ravi: What if the other people are deliberately saying something incorrectly? I have experienced some people who deliberately say something wrong about person X. I may not have access to the person X. Should I believe them? How can I know if what they are saying is true or not?
Professor: This is another bias which hinders correct understanding. People tend to cheat. This is very dangerous. The question arises that why are they trying to cheat. The reason is that they have some other motive. They don’t want to know the truth but want something else. Such people are not of our interest. If we are interested in truth, we want to trust people with the same goal without any ulterior motive. For instance, when you approach a shopkeeper selling cheap yellow powder in the name of turmeric, his motive is to make money, not to give turmeric. This cheating tendency could be there in us too. We should try to get rid of this tendency and associate with people who do not have this tendency. This is more important.
In this world, finding people interested in fundamental truth is difficult. Mostly we have other motives, and this is our weakness. We may start doing science, but we may be tempted by easy publications or more money to distort the truth or not spend time in knowing the fundamental truth. A medical professional may alter his/her report about the effectiveness of an injection if the pharmaceutical company offers him/her a hefty sum. A physicist may alter his/her plots to make the paper more acceptable to the reviewers. Cheating may come as a natural tendency. But honesty is very important for genuine scientific research.
So, strive towards becoming unbiased and associate with unbiased people, i.e., someone whose knowledge is based on more complete observations and someone without a cheating tendency.
When King Parikshit had to decide what was the most important thing to do in his limited life duration, he approached renounced sages who were free from any ulterior motive to hear about the fundamental truth from them [SB 1.19.13].
Why to Deceive?
(They stopped their car near a vendor stall to get some fresh coconut water. After refreshing themselves, they resumed their journey.)
Professor: The question now is “why do I cheat”?
Ravi: Cheating is the easy way.
Tina: Maybe there is some compulsion. A person may not have a job, and his family situation may make him cheat. The condition justifies.
Ravi: India’s motto is satyameva jayate. The truth will ultimately succeed. A truthful shopkeeper will ultimately make more money.
Professor: There is widespread propaganda to stop people from corruption and academic misconduct. But still, people cheat.
Tina: Can’t it be stopped through awareness that cheating will only give me temporary benefits?
Professor: But then innumerable people have become successful by cheating. It is a sufficient temptation to cheat. We should question - what is impelling them? One factor impelling everyone to cheat is fear. I may fear that if I don’t cheat, I may end up in a loss. Hence, fearlessness is very important for scientific endeavours.
Tina: But fear is a very basic instinct that drives us. One reason why many of today's companies are so anxious to do AI research is that they have the fear that tomorrow some competitor may make a better product and throw them out of business. So, what is driving such research is fear.
Professor: Good perspective. But fear keeps us from asking more fundamental questions. That is why very, very few people endeavour to know the fundamental. What is speak of knowing or appreciating, generally people are not even interested in asking fundamental questions. They are happy with their shallow lives.
Why Pursue the Fundamental?
Tina: Ignorance is bliss.
Ravi: I have heard a story. Once a saintly person was sitting on a river bank contemplating fundamental questions. One of his acquaintances saw him and came nearby. He said, “why don’t you enjoy life?” He pointed to a lady filling a pitcher of water in the river. “Look at her, she is so happy.” The saintly person gave him an indifferent look and said, “I don’t want that kind of happiness”.
Professor: Yes, such shallow happiness is not fundamental, so it won’t last. Gaining fundamental knowledge is challenging but gives us fundamental happiness, which lasts.
Tina: That is the difference between animals and humans. Animals can’t ask fundamental questions and do not have refined intelligence, and also language, to study the fundamental.
Professor: Indeed, Mahabharata says that eating, sleeping, defending, and mating are common among animals and humans, and it is only the ability to inquire into fundamental nature that distinguishes the two. So, we humans must endeavour fearlessly on the quest of fundamental knowledge.
Ravi: I can appreciate that the quest to know fundamental truth is essential. But how do we come over the hindrances such as fear and biases that we discussed?
Professor: That is why we need to practice these traits. True researchers take up such practices that can help them become purified of biases. Gandhiji practised not speaking a lie throughout his life. Sir J. C. Bose abstained from patenting his works and dedicated them for public good. Many scientists decline high-paying engineering jobs. Spiritualists get up early morning, chant their prayers and abstain from sensual pleasures to purify their intelligence [SB 5.5.1]. These practices help them become immune to biases.
Ravi: And how do we become fearless?
Gaining Fearlessness
Professor: I can help with an analogy. If you go to the Tower Bridge in London, you can walk from one tower to another but in the middle there seems to be no walkway. Would you dare step further?
Tina: No
Professor: But the moment you come to know the walkway is made of glass, could you step further now? Yes. Because you understand that this is glass and you won’t fall. Then you can walk fearlessly.
Tina: I can share a similar experience. It was my first wall-climbing adventure. I started climbing the wall with excitement but somewhere in the middle, I looked back. I was so afraid that I lost my grip and fell. But, to my surprise, I found myself hanging in the air. The moment I understood there was a rope holding me, all my fear dissipated on its own. I could then confidently climb further, and it was all fun. (with a cheeky smile) Of course, until I was too tired to climb anymore.
Ravi: I can appreciate this point that the right knowledge gives fearlessness. I can relate to one of my experiences here. I was attending a conference in London. While I was onboard a bus on the motorway, sitting near the left window. As I cursorily glanced out of the window, I saw a car speeding into the left lane to overtake our bus. To my astonishment, I saw there was no driver in the car. Self-driving cars were not a thing then, so it appeared like ghost-driven car. In a moment, fear gripped me. But as the car plied further, I saw from the car’s back window that it was a European car with a driver on the left side. The fear disappeared instantly.
Professor: We can safely say that right knowledge makes us fearless. Knowledge about who I am, the experiencer, and what my fundamental happiness is makes me fearless. Let us understand this with the help of an analogy. From the car, I can see an unused piece of land outside. If I see someone with a shovel digging up a hole there, will my happiness be affected? No. Because this is a change in the experience, not in the experiencer. The experiencer is safe and unaffected. So, there is no fear. In summary, my ignorance of myself is the cause of the fear [SB 11.2.37].
Ravi: This sounds a little theoretical. When there is a recession, many people lose money. The trauma is so intense that some even commit suicide. How can my knowledge of myself help here? Losing money does affect me. So I have a fear.
Professor: That is why we invest money wisely. But now imagine what was feared has already happened. Can one remain unaffected?
Tina: That will affect me, indeed.
Professor: If I am deriving my happiness from money, losing it will affect me; but if I do not derive happiness from money, it won’t. Who do I depend on for my happiness? A knowledge that the happiness derived from money is not fundamental can help. If I hold on to the fundamental thing, then whatever happens on the surface does not affect me.
Tina: Oh, I see. Fundamental again. The happiness derived from money did not exist before I had the money. Hence, it is not my fundamental nature. And so the loss of that happiness should not affect me.
Ravi: I agree that many people get transformed after losing money. I remember the story “The Bet” by Anton Chekhov. It isn't easy, but needs practice, as we discussed earlier. So, if things change on the surface, but my fundamental identity does not change, then I won’t be affected. But I wonder what fundamental happiness is then?
Professor: We will discuss that in a while. Also, you brought the concept of identity to the discussion. We will take that up, too, a bit later. Let us now return to the original question – “I see a river” vs “This is a river” – which is more fundamental?
Tina: I think “I see a river” is more fundamental. But a lone experience is not sufficient for knowledge. It has to be supported by a dynamic body of knowledge. Just like seeing water on the road on a hot sunny day and knowing TIR helps us conclude that it is a mirage. Observation plus knowledge leads to a good understanding. Our experiences are limited; with added knowledge, we can make good decisions.
Experience vs Condensed Knowledge
Ravi: Can we consider “this is a river” to be condensed knowledge? It can be seen as a condensed form of prior knowledge and a single observation.
Professor: This is a good perspective. Let us discuss the advantages and limitations of saying, “this is a river”.
Ravi: It is condensed knowledge. Given our limited experiences, it allows us to conclude quickly. This is an advantage. But then this could be biased too. E.g., a vendor sold me a duplicate cell phone battery as the original. I trusted it as original but after one month it died. Hence, experience plus biased knowledge leads us to a biased understanding.
Tina: In mathematics, too, making a small calculation mistake leads to a wrong answer. The effect cascades.
Ravi: In computer coding, a minor bug also makes your program go haywire.
Professor: (laughing) So we can now appreciate the difficulty in doing research. Many things we have to learn. PhD is not about publishing papers but becoming unbiased at every stage so that whatever condenses out is unbiased. This is a herculean task because there are biases. There are known biases and unknown biases. We discussed known biases, but unknown biases are those that even I am unaware of. Time reveals those biases. For example, I may not realise if I have envy until I become powerful enough to see my competitors. Shakespeare’s Macbeth is a vivid example of how the spark of greed within was unknown to Macbeth until fanned by the prophecies and his wife. In the research world, Newton did not know his laws were biased as he based them on a biased premise of absolute length. Later Einstein, in his special theory of relativity, relinquished the absolute nature of length to a relative one and gave relativistic laws. The lust within the greatly learned king Ravana led to the destruction of his dynasty.
Professor: So, “this is a river” is derived and not more fundamental than “I see a river”. Now, you may apply this understanding to happiness derived from money or sensual experiences. Why do I need money?
Ravi: To eat.
Professor: But you can eat in a temple too. Anyway, generally, no one in this world is so poor that s/he can’t eat.
Ravi: I agree. During my stay as a student in the UK, I used to go to a Gurudwara where they not only fed me but also packed food for later days.
Professor: So this condensed knowledge that “this sensual experience will give me happiness” is a biased one. I don’t experience it, but I believe it. I should understand my nature that “I want to be happy”. Now, “What will give me happiness?” is the question we should ask. “Where is my happiness?” this is the beginning of the spiritual journey. What is my fundamental happiness that is unaffected by time and external factors [SB 11.23.42].
Fundamental Happiness
Tina: I can relate it to getting a new hairstyle. If my friends praise it, I become happy, but if they don’t, I feel sad. I assume this hairstyle will give me happiness. I think this is an illusory association that I create between my happiness and my hairstyle; rather, others’ approval of my hairstyle.
Ravi: It is like giving the key to my happiness to others.
(laughter)
Ravi: But think of a more grim situation. What if someone loses a young child? If that person has his affection and his true happiness lies with the child, that person will surely be affected.
Professor: You said the word true. We already discussed that true or fundamental must be invariant to time. Is the affection for the child invariant to time? It exists temporarily. It is situational. If one has a child, it is there, but when the child was not there, i.e., before its birth, that affection was not there. Then how can it be fundamental? Affection and proper care for the child are essential, but my happiness should not depend on the child. Tomorrow, the child may grow up and leave me to study abroad. But if I am attached to seeing him/her as a child, I am bound to suffer.
Tina: So, true happiness should be unshaken by any external situation. Today, I may say, “I love the iPhone 6”. With a great effort, my father may get me one, but next year, I may find myself in love with the iPhone 7. I can keep hovering from one experience to another and will never be satisfied.
Professor: Hence, I should know my fundamental nature and associate with it; that will give me fundamental happiness.
Ravi: How do I understand what is my fundamental happiness?
Professor: Distinguishing fundamental from non-fundamental is not easy [BG 2.29]. To understand fundamental happiness, I must understand what is fundamental. First, I, the experiencer, am fundamental. Because if I am not fundamental, there is no point in me discussing about fundamental. Experiences change, but not the experiencer. (Pointing outside the window towards a field being plowed) I see the earth being dug up, but I am not affected. This is the starting point – “I am fundamental” [BG 2.30]. Then, the one who is sustaining me, whom Gita calls Krishna, is fundamental [BG 4.6]. Next, where is the fundamental happiness? It is in the relationship between me and Krishna [BG 9.13]. By acting in that relationship, we get our natural, fundamental happiness [BG 10.9], which is unaffected by any external factors. That is where I can safely invest my attachment and derive real happiness [BG 7.1].
Tina: I can appreciate the continuous connection between professional research and personal happiness. The principles we just discussed address both equally well.
Professor: Very well said. Research into fundamental is a way of life. Proper research takes us closer to our fundamental nature and gives us perfect happiness and satisfaction [SB 1.2.19].
Their destination had arrived. Tina parked the car, and all proceeded towards the cliff's edge. The majestic falls welcomed them. While all the tourists were immersed in taking photographs of what nature was making them experience, Tina and Ravi were pondering what they had just discussed on the way, trying to absorb all of its majesties that appeared much more vast than the falls.
References
[BG x.y] Bhaktivedanta, A. C. (1972). Bhagavad-Gita as it is. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Chapter-x, text-y.
https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/x/y/
[SB x.y.z] Bhaktivedanta, A. C. (1974). Śrīmad Bhagavatam: with the original Sanskrit text, its Roman transliteration, synonyms, translations, and elaborate purports. Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. Canto-x, chapter-y, text-z.
https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/x/y/z/