Your views

Thanks to those who have emailed me since mid-2008 and those who looked at early versions. You can continue to email me your comments directly at sabhlok AT yahoo DOT com, or post your views and questions here (the original place to post comments was here (on blogspot), or on Facebook, but I'd prefer to receive comments here, now. I look forward to your feedback.

12 Comments so far

  1. victor bose on August 11, 2010 8:40 pm

    well if india is so considerate about their economy then why are they making seats for all the meritless sc st people who are not bearing any fruit in their later life? they are just a hindrance to the social image of india

  2. umesh rashmi rohatgi on August 12, 2010 3:00 am

    two tier system of election local police no trasfer and less public closed holidays and three mistakes and out and early justice and all top position are to be contract for as long as the party is i power. are very few things comes to mind and elected officials should make rules and administration follow it and if any variance the judiciary be independent and more likely be elected for a term after retirement no public office of profit. care few things comes to mind but before that public opinion and recaall mechanisim had to be adopted in constitution.

  3. Sanjeev Sabhlok on August 12, 2010 3:21 am

    @Victor. I have argued against reservations of any sort (which amounts to mixing of the state with religion) in BFN (http://bfn.sabhlokcity.com/) and DOF. Please read and comment.

    @Umesh: Your ideas are interesting. I have suggested in BFN that we can achieve wonders with a few relatively minor tweaks to our existing system. Please read and comment.

  4. Rajesh on August 12, 2010 12:28 pm

    I believe that a lot depends on the politicians of our country and for that reason there must be strict norms to ensure that a retirement age is forced upon and I feel 65 yrs should be idle. It is a pity that politicians aged 80 and above are also in parties and want to become PM or other important portfolio.
    Similarly no politicians should be allowed to change parties as and when they need. The constitution should be amended and changes should be incorporated to ensure that whoever tries to change parties because of the personal gains should be banned for life.

  5. Kartiki N.Shukla on August 15, 2010 2:51 pm

    On the grand occassion of I-Day, i would like 2 share my opinion regarding the reservation policies of Government.Indian Govt. is a bit fair regarding its reservation acts for women & SC & ST….I'll insist that it should also look into the matters of Naxalities who have occupied almost every tribal parts of India.
    The problem of Naxalites is clearly associated with Corruption in India.The lands of Tribals were grabbed by Govt.Officials and middlemens ,depriving them from their Basic Civil Rights.It was their weaknesses that forced them into the world of Terror & Naxality….

  6. Kartiki N.Shukla on August 15, 2010 3:01 pm

    Looking into the situations of J &Kashmir,its likely for India that it will loose the whole province of J&K….Its like a revolution broke out accompanied with anger of local public …..Our Govt should soon take steps for the benefit of country. 
    1)the Naxalites practising Maoist STRATEGY &
    2)Questn of Kashmir.
    Indian govt. Wake Up!!!!

  7. Kartiki N.Shukla on August 15, 2010 3:05 pm

    Still not able to implement plans & programmes regarding Agricultural sector,Plans like Garibi Hatao Yojanas,,,etc.
    The undue advantage is enjoyed by the corrupt officials. 

  8. sabhlok on September 14, 2010 3:47 pm

    From Ramesh:

     

    Dear Sabhok,
     
    I regret I got disheartened after a glimpse of ‘Discovery of freedom’ wherein I noticed few misinterpretations/misunderstanding about some issues of Indian philosophy and in this sense alone as ‘adharmic’ in nature. To start with I herein touch only one of the very very basic and fundamental secrete (?) to which you have referred to in the chapter ‘Creation, stardust and carbon’. It relates to the ultimate secret of the universe, its origin and its scientific revelation.
     
    If I am not mistaken you ended with the hope on present day materialistic science to solve the ultimate secret of ‘Energy’ or ‘Universe’.
     
    You also referred to ‘Advaita’, however ended with saying that such things raise more questions than they address without mentioning even a single question about the same.
     
                “The comment here onwards is my own original version or interpretation and I do not pass the responsibility to any other even if I quote others”
     
    Now find herewith the ultimate secrete of the universe which is so implicit throughout the work of ‘Maharshi Veda Vyasa’ which the modern world is yet failing to understand for want of pure scientific and unending curiosity ironically for which it is so well known. I apologies for this principle (law) when revealed half (one of the two as mentioned in the following table) may cause havoc as well, as it is just like double edged sword. Hope you understand it to its core. It runs like this..
     
    The ultimate principle:
     

    Sl no

    First half

     Second half

    Remarks

    1

    Advaita

    Dvaita

    Work of (?) Maharshi Veda Vyasa.

    2

    Purusha (~male)

    Prakriti (~female)

    Similar sage or –do-

    3

    Shiva

    Shakti

    ,,

    4

    Brahman

    Maya

    ,,

    5
    .
    .

     

     

     

    7

    Energy can never be created

    Nor it can ever be destroyed.

    The fundamental law of science.

    8

    Electric loop

    Magnetic field

    -do-; These are never separable, and one is the cause of the other. One is meaningless without the other.

    Both these halfs together form a complete and give the universe its present form. The secret unveiled. These are two sides of the same coin which are never separable. . …

     
    Explanation: (In the reverse order.)
     

    When it is well known that energy can never be created it is utterly nonsense and meaningless even to make effort to account for the existing one. This proposition is very simple but very difficult to grasp and digest. It is purely scientific.

     
    Because there can never be any explanation for the existing energy. To make simple – the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist.
     
    As such is it ever possible for the science to account for the existing universe according to its own law? It is never.
     
    The first fall out of the above principle is that the time and space, the two basic concepts exist relatively and are meaningless when talked absolutely. (If I am not mistaken Einsteins theory of relativity states the same. If not I apologies the same for mentioning his name and theory)
     

    Similar reasoning holds good for the electric loop and magnetic field for it’s futile to find the origin of each in themselves. (my knowledge about these is limited. If contrary is true this example may be struck, it won’t make any difference upon the above principle)

     

    Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth. And Dvaita states that Maya is truth. The secret is that one is non-existent without the other. Tragedy is that both failed to understand the same independently except the work of ‘Maharshi Veda Vyasa’ who took both into account at a time in all his work including the Vedas- (He was not a writer of it only in the sense that existing energy can never be accounted for and hence its existence even before the existence of the universe— be careful likely to get confused horribly. I can’t write everything for it may run to long)

     
    Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings. However you put up the theory of creation all hold equally good. It needs only to satisfy the common sense of the common man. Its purpose can’t be more than that.
     
    Dvaita states that the common is a common. The principles of advaita are out of the scope of the commons. For theirs sake there must be origin or else only havoc will ensue. Hence the need to accept the Maya or the Existing Energy as the ultimate truth (purely for the sake of Human beings.)
     
    Thus both schools are true at their individual level but by this time you may have understood that they are just two halves of the basic principle ‘ Energy can never be created nor it can ever be destroyed.’ And as such two sides of the same coin each being meaningless without the other.
     

    Shiv-Parvati (Shakti) etc ( and it may include the entire Hindu tradition) are just two sides of the above depicted coin. Similar reasoning holds good for Prakriti-Purush and Brahman- Maya etc…….. Only in this sense worth sustaining.

     
    Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings. You know only the scientist or technologist alone holds the authority to design the machine. None other is eligible to do the same. Others do by virtue of their knowledge can become a scientist or technologist, the thing is different. If this rule is broken only the distortion is outcome.
     
    Therefore the Dharma is one which Gnani defines who takes into account the entire gamut of truth into account. And the other only follow it.
     
    This comment is incomplete and will be resumed after your considered questions that may follow this. I am eager to know your doubts………at least, in the process, I may get rectified.

  9. sabhlok on September 18, 2010 2:44 pm

    Dear Ramesh, thanks for the detailed note you sent. Just a few points (I'll also send by email).

    Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created

    True, in a closed system energy can’t be created. However, as Rajaji notes in one of his books, “Out of nothing, nothing can come. The causeless beginning was Sat, being with consciousness”. Anyway, this is the whole point. I have no answer on this. Your assumption is yours. I don’t comment on it.

    Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist.

    Clearly, I’m lost. Just because energy (according to you) could not have been created, it doesn’t make it non-real.

    Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth. And Dvaita states that Maya is truth. The secret is that one is non-existent without the other. 

    All this is a philosophical viewpoint. I have no comment since this doesn’t interest me.

    Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings. However you put up the theory of creation all hold equally good. It needs only to satisfy the common sense of the common man. Its purpose can’t be more than that.

    I talk for the benefit only of common men and women. I don’t care for uncommon men and women. If these theories can feed them, please use them. Else this information is irrelevant. 

    Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings. 

    I disagree. I need to ask many, many questions! Who is this Gnani? You? Then please write a book explaining how to create a wealthy and healthy India using your principles.

    Regards

    Sanjeev

     

     

     

  10. ramesh on September 24, 2010 10:27 am

    Dear Sabhlok,
    Please proceed to read the following only if you think the ‘Creation, Stardust and Carbon’ is an essential and serious enough chapter of your DoF. Or else I suggest you to acknowledge in DoF itself that this chapter is not of that substantial nature and the discussion on this may be avoided.
    I regret my last comment failed miserably to kindle and arouse the much expected curiosity and get the same quenched adequately about the very basic question of scientific creation of universe which, in your view, however, turned out to be a pure personal matter which bothered you the least.
    Before I post my future comments on this blog I expect a healthy, deep and sincere attitude as the same has come under doubt for the reasons detailed below and since these may have a lasting effect on both your books.
    1.      Re: When it is well known that energy can never be created…….You replied ending that it is my personal assumption and that you have no comments and that further you did not elaborate on ‘sat and consciousness’. May I request you to read the same once again and see whether it is scientific or personal one? Just because it is beyond your personal comprehension doesn’t make it necessarily a personal thing and devoid of the pure science and which at the same time is so relevant to your concerned chapter. Don’t you think you are insincere in accepting your inability to comprehend the same? Don’t you think this attitude of yours make this chapter of yours less serious and devoid of adequate responsibility?
    2.      Re:  the things which do not have origin, they don’t actually exist…..You replied that it doesn’t make the universe a non real. Note that ‘Things do not exist’ is a result of the above science (the principle – which you should either understand or be unable to do so but could never call it personal) and that ‘universe is not unreal’ is what we see and perceive. The secret of universe and also the success of science lies in reconciling these seemingly contradictions which are a result of the same scientific approach. You have poorly failed to realise this implication of the comment and comment on it accordingly.
    3.      Advaita School of philosophy states that Brahman is the ultimate truth and…….you ended saying these are philosophical views. Here you have safely ignored the scientific answer provided to the above contradiction by the Advaita and Dvaita. Here you failed to draw a proper line of difference between philosophy and science. It is a result of you strong pre-conviction that these (Advaita etc) are only philosophy- a personal and private things! Do you have any right to call a thing a philosophy when it is in consonance with the science simply because of your pre-conceived ideas and your inability to see the pure science in so called philosophy?
    4.      Re: Advaita states that Universe never existed as such hence the theory of creation as illustrated in various shastras is for the sake of ‘Common’ human beings… You replied that you care only for commons….and that my comment is to feed those who feed on it. Is not your theory of Capitalism and Freedom for the commons ones? Then why does not it find instant acceptance by the common Indians/and elsewhere? The answer is- to begin with, every common thing is an uncommon thing till the common understands it. Thus you failed badly to understand that ‘it is a matter of understanding by the common one’ and not a matter of ‘commons and uncommons’ itself. You also indirectly meant (by ‘all are common’) that all men are equal in intelligence and wisdom and in similar respects. They why this different opinions and debates in real life? And why one should listen to Swami Vivekanand and similars? Why not leave all our efforts to set the things right, right now if all are equal? Being all equal there won’t be any cause to fight for!!!. My essence is that all men are not equal, but some are more equal and among these again some are more equal and so on. Thus it forms the pyramid and not a flat in r/o ability, intelligence, qualifications, skills (and also in r/o of governance to be discussed separately) etc. You took the things entirely wayward!!!
    5.      Re: Gnani is a one who identifies himself with the above principle, the only truth. And as such he alone holds the authority to interpret or to establish the laws for the rest of the Human beings……… here you decried the Gnani as defined by me (or rather by the principle) and instead exhorted to me to use the above principles to create wealthy and healthy India.  Do you means that in this blog and other similar things we are trying to play against each other and making a time-pass? You fail to see that seating somewhere on the scale of knowledge, wisdom, understanding etc we are not only writing a book but also trying to create a great wealth and health and much more for the Indians through this blog and my comments (ultimate principle – outcome of your chapters insufficient approach) are part of that effort and thus discharging our duty as a Gnani (at least to some extent- till it finds total acceptance)
    Thus don’t you think such a sort of understanding on your part is something unmaking of you? My last comment (The ultimate principle as a pure science- and never as a personal thing even though it is my version) is likely to have a lasting effect on your approach (and not in r/o the goal of eradication of all the ills which human is suffering from- with which I myself have identified long ago) and everything in the world. However I do don’t expect this sort of the attitude and superficial level of depth of understanding on your part as detailed above since it will make our effort more tedious and exhaust us unproductively.
    In case you find anything in the above comment anything such as a personal (remarks) or private things, then you or me or anybody else will have to forfeit his right to think about the others since the life itself is a thing of personal/private concern (whether it affect the other or not~ treating human unsocial)! I hope you will never agree to this!
    I will be grateful to you if you let me know how I misunderstood you or lack the sufficient knowledge in the above reasoning if any (except a sort like yours as above!)

  11. ramesh on September 26, 2010 11:49 am

    Recently I came across one of your basic thought vide http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/. And
    undoubtedly your DOF, BFN and the other forthcoming books and all that is seen in
    your blogs including the ideology (at least to some extent) of FTI  are the
    functions of this knowledge/thought of yours. As such this thought even though
    dealt in at your personal blog doesn’t make it personal but a social one as all
    these contribute to the social cause. In this sense alone, I post this comment
    here rather than at the above link. You may remove it from here to there only
    to harm feedback to DOF.

     

    You wrote-

    1.  Re: My main message to
    everyone is simple: Find the truth YOURSELF. That means everything you think
    you know (and I think I know) is subject to question. Our lives are therefore
    only a preliminary essay in the truth; a feeble attempt to seek answers. Any
    ambition beyond that is, that we may actually know something, is delusional.

    In this connection, do you
    think everybody is capable of finding a truth himself/herself on their own?

     a.  If
    your answer is yes, then there will be as many truths as the number of persons
    in the world. It’s entirely absurd since truth can be only one. i.e. defining
    the same thing as many ways as the number of persons will only mess up the
    things.

     

    Example: It is just like asking everybody
    to define his own unit of length (say for example), then one will measure in
    cm, other in inches and so on. This system will run smoothly as long as
    everybody is isolated i.e. unsocial and when these all will be required to live
    socially there will only be a conflict since each will pursue his own unit
    assuming that his alone is truth. And this is what exactly is happening in
    present age. Different religions [assuming to be a unit (~of measurement) or
    set of conventions originally invented to streamline the life of social human
    beings] are pressing for their own ways assuming them alone to be truth. I am
    afraid if your theory of freedom also promotes the same! Because the
    responsibility and accountability along with such other things which you propose
    to impose on this freedom are themselves likely to be the results of these
    individual conventions (truths i.e. as many definitions of responsibility,
    accountability etc as the no of individuals) which you seem to be promoting!

     

      b.      If
    answer is no, then everybody has to follow the same set of units or conventions
    {to be called as TRUTH} and everybody has to obey it. It amounts to saying that
    the rest of the people should believe in the interpretations of these
    conventions/units by a specialist, expert, scientist (to be called as Gnani in
    Indian tradition).

     

    Here note that the Gnani (Don’t feel taboo since he is just
    a specialist like you) is a one who alone knows the usefulness of the
    conventions/units to be defined just like a technician. Everybody cannot be
    made to understand why it is so defined as such or what it means [i.e. they are
    supposed to test only the final product like TV or mobile without going into
    intricacies of how it works since every individual cannot afford it] because
    that convention/unit (Truth~Gnan) would be the result of convenience and
    usefulness which takes into account all the facets of human being over a period
    of time and is judged in every possible way by such an expert. (How it is to be
    done is a different thing altogether e.g.approach of FTI.)

     

    Example: All the people within a same religion obey the
    beliefs (conventions/units) and hence fewer conflicts compared to the situation
    in case 1 as above. Of course, even in this case problems arise not because of
    the beliefs (conventions/units) themselves but because these are not interpreted
    (change meanings) accordingly as per the time and space by taking into account physical
    (scientific) advances etc by an expert (Gnani). Thus it is not a question of
    beliefs but question of interpretation of the same by experts.

     

     c.       May I know which
    answer do you prefer to your very very basic proposition either 1, 2 or
    something else?  

     

    d.      Key to my intention in
    asking above is that NOTHING IN THE UNIVERSE (INCLUDING ITSELF) IS ABSOLUTE AND
    THE UNIVERSE TAKES THE FORM WE THINK IT TO BE MOST CONVENIENT  (e.g. at
    present as an energy)- A COROLLARY OF ‘THE ULTIMATE PRINCIPLE’.

     

       Hence a basic question of finding a truth by
    individual doesn’t arise at all!

     

    !   2.      Re:
    "Who exactly am I?" This question will need a response more subtle
    and complex than the mere routine description about my career or life journey.
    But unfortunately, I’m not quite sure at the moment who, or more precisely,
    what I am. Does my consciousness, also found equally among all human beings,
    exist outside space and time – or does it have properties like any other form
    of energy? I’m going to explore this issue in one of my future books, but it
    currently appears unlikely to me that I’ll make any major breakthrough. Let me
    park this question for now, anyway, and revert to more mundane, material things
    that we are more comfortable talking about.

     

       a.       This question
    should have formed the part of “Creation, stardust and carbon”. Without above
    question soul of this chapter is missing. In this sense this comment is
    relevant here.

     

    style=’mso-ansi-language:EN-IN’>b.     
    It is an answer to this question that breaks the barrier of an individual from
    the social one since an answer can only be a unique and then there remains
    nothing such as a personal except some mundane things! It is a question which
    sowed the seeds of all the religions and they evolved as an answer to this
    question. Answers were different hence the different religions. However their
    answers they were able to carry the people with them, the reason being not the
    absolute truth of the answers but the existence of the answers itself. What we
    need today is a unique answer consistent with the science [which I tried at “The
    Ultimate Principle” –which you have taken for as a personal one.] which alone may
    show us a way to carry the people with us for the sake of better society
    like FTI is promoting
     and not for the sake of people
    itself
     for gaining popularity alone.

     

    c.       When
    you parked that question, was not that a death? Here death means living without
    eyes. Without an answer however we proceed that will all be only blindfolded! 
    Its aftermath say DOF etc will ever be an eye opener then? People (except few
    intelligentsias) will never follow you because you expect the majority to
    understand on themselves which has happened never in the past nor will ever
    happen in the future. Not all the People (by their limitation in the genes
    itself) possess the power to identify the truths by themselves which you
    expect. Majority understands the language of sentiments, emotions, sympathy and
    asimilar languageIt is this language consistent with the final
    truth that we need to specialize in order to establish the ideal society by way
    of FTI.
     We need this majority to bring a change for once and all.

     

       3. If you think anything
    above as personal
     then rest assured that FTI will also be a personal
    approach of yours   or a group of few which majority will hardly side
    with for their inherent weakness!    Is it likely to make any basic impact
    on BOF or BFN or FTI?  I think yes in r/o style of approach and not the
    goal itself.

     

       N.B.  I don’t have literary
    skills. Apologies if such omissions occur inadvertently.

  12. sabhlok on September 26, 2010 4:56 pm

    Dear Ramesh

    Thanks for taking the time to write (there were some formatting issues I’ve fixed, but not very well).

    Given time constraints let me suggest that I’ll consider your views at during further revisions of my work. Let me say, though, that I’m not likely to form views on things I haven’t clear evidence for (e.g. ‘ultimate principle’).

    I’m more interested in ensuring that the material part of India is appropriately fixed. That is all I can contribute towards. Other matters are important, but only to the extent that they indidicate to me the diversity of human thinking, and the lack of true knowledge in these areas: a lot of speculation.

    I’d suggest you let me now consider your views. You could, if you wish, write more about your views on a blog that you create for yourself. I’d be happy to read more details when you write.

    Regards
    Sanjeev

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Speak your mind