Desicritics Category: Culture: Philosophy

Pathanjali's Yogasutras

Blokesablogin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:24:18 EDT

I am currently reading the twelfth volume of Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies on Yoga edited by Gerald Larson and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya and published by Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Given the encyclopedic proportion of the book, I cannot in all truth review this without reading it cover to cover. However, given the two-sound byte lifestyle we live in, it will take me a few months at the very least to read and then review. As to whether I will ever be able to do justice to the treasury of texts carefully catalogued herewith and assimilate it enough to "give my opinion" is unreasonable. I feel honored and blessed that this book came my way.

It so happens that I am watching the commentary on Pathanjali's Yogasutras as given by Sri Sri Ravi Shankar on DVD. Quite serendipitous, I must say. The book came for review after I had committed to showing the DVDs. This past week has been an amazing exploration of the epistemology of Pathanjali.

The first sutra begins: Atha yogaanushaasanam. Herein begins an inquiry into disciplined meditation based upon past tradition (translation provided by Larson). Sri Sri begins his commentary defining shaasanam versus anushaasanam. Shaasanam is a set of rules enforced on an individual by society or a body of law. Anushaasanam is a set of self-imposed discipline in this case, it being in the field of Yoga that Sri Sri defines as living with skill.

The choice of words and the brevity of Pathanjali is simply brilliant. It is interesting that so many people have given their commentary on Pathanjali for centuries, interpreting his simple aphorisms with their temporal realities and the text holds well.

Verses 2 through 16 deal with chitta or "Ordinary Awareness". The definition of observation and cognition of this world through perception, inference and testimony is juxtaposed with the experience of sleep and memory to define chitta only for the later verses to teach how you can move beyond it through cultivating dispassion as a cognitive realization.

The next set of verses from 17-51 deals with Samadhi, translated by Larson as Concentration while some commentators define it as a state of consciousness that is achieved where identities are dropped. I do not agree with some of Larson's choice of English words like the word depression for daurmanas. I would have preferred "embittered mind" or "darkened or misfortunate mind".

As a student of literature trained to analyze texts, I am constantly amazed by the sharpness and clarity of Pathanjali. I thank my Indian education system that forced me to learn Samskritam that I am able to read the original text and cross refer it with the translation. Who knew that I would acquire a taste for reading Pathanjali some day when I wanted to read racy novels in English as a child?

I find the study of Yoga and Pathanjali very useful in today's world of consumerism. Knowing the nature of my mind, its attributes, its afflictions and strengths gives me the "inside track" on how to live a life devoid of feverishness and suffused with enthusiasm. A focussed mind makes me more centered and unperturbed by sudden changes in my immediate surroundings while it gives me creative skills to deal with such.

I once thought that I had to go to the Adyar Library and sit in its cool, musty interiors to access some of these texts. This encyclopedia in a sizable 14 point font makes for easy reading and the structure of the articles followed by the actual texts make it easy to navigate. One drawback: I wish the text was printed in Devanagri followed by an English transliteration and translation. It felt unnatural to read the English transliteration without the Devanagri script.

There are several texts, the names of which I have never heard, that are catalogued here. The paandithyam (intellectual brilliance) displayed here by way of articles by several contributors makes me realize even more just how much I don't know. As a child, I loved the quote of Avvai that said "Katradhu kai mann alavu, kallaadadu ulagalavu"- What I have learned is but a fistful of sand, what I haven't, is the rest of the world. That is certainly the case with this Encyclopedia. Certainly a great value for research and general reading. A must for all university and college libraries.

This encyclopedic volume has left me salivating for more. I did some research to discover that the fifth volume in this series deals with the Philosophy of the Grammarians. It includes Panini, Brthhari and others who have fascinated me since I did my classes in Linguistic theory as part of my Masters. My next trip to India will include this volume on my shopping list. It is tragic just how modern books on linguistics, psychology and education have no mention of these all-time greats.

Book Review: Ramana Maharishi's Philosophy of Existence and Modern Science

Blokesablogin — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 05:36:18 EDT

I know, it is a long title. It has a sub title too- The Convergence in their Vision of Reality. However, the title should tell you what the book deals with. Speaking of the title, I would have preferred it to have been simply Convergence of Modern Science and Maharishi's Vision or some such.

Coming to the book itself, Dr. Sithambaranthan, a scientist, correlates the principles of quantum physics with the Advaitic philosophy as expressed by Ramana Maharishi. He clearly explains in his Preface why he chose Ramana over other Saints and Mystics of India owing to his recent existence on the planet with his teachings being authentic without distortions or dilutions over time.

The entire text reads lucidly as behooves a scientist, trained in reason and logic. Unfortunately, his great love for the Saint Ramana may just prevent people who place no faith in "Rishis" and 'Gurus" from picking up the book and reading it. And that, I believe, is tragic as this book can appeal to an entirely secular, scientifically minded and trained readership that would otherwise never pick up a book on Indian Advaita.

I wonder aloud just whom the author was trying to reach with his oevre. Ramana devotees will grab it and there will be nothing "new" as they already are well established in the Philosophy of Ramana. Of course, the congruence with quantum mechanics and theories would make for a delightful intellectual exercise for them. It is hoped that all 12th grade students in India at least get to read this wonderful book that puts in perspective all of their 12th grade Physics syllabus into one neat chapter and as an added bonus give them an insight into how they can look at life experiences through the wisdom of the Mystic's vision. What a great way to start their adult life that could be rife with anxiety and worries!

I have always admired Ramana as he spoke very little. When his devotees kept insisting that he give them some "knowledge", he gave the Upadesa Saram (Essence of Teaching), a set of 40 verses in Tamil first and later in Sanskrit. They of course collated several of his talks and compiled them into a few texts.

Dr. Sithambaranathan uses these frugal texts in plenty all across the book juxtaposing them with scientific principles to show the convergence glaringly. His love for Ramana and science is self evident. The passion overflows making us read at a slower pace. The 180 pages of actual text makes for reflective reading. It is certainly not a breezy summer read.

Quantum Physics has proved the dual nature of light and sub atomic particles that can express a particle and wave nature. This throws out all possible use of Newtonian Physics out of the window that relies on absolute space and absolute time in the macro and micro universes. The 4th dimension of Space-time as a continuum rather than individual events has shaken the understanding of phenomena, cause and effect and material reality itself.

This shift from absolutes to possibility or probability of existence jives well with what the mystics have always proclaimed about the nature of the universe, the mind and the physical world as experienced by the sense organs. The dyad of the observer, the observed when collapsed into the substratum (the field, here, the Brahman consciousness) corresponds to the relative "observation" in time and space that need to be overcome to cognize the truth of the field theory.

The "unbroken wholeness" is but an integrated whole made of particular contingent forms based on their relative existence in the space-time continuum. This is simply called Brahman in Advaitic lingo. The vedic verse Poornamadaha Poornamidam... comes to mind.

The author broadens his field of philosophy by using the term "Eastern philosophy or mysticism", I would recommend he boldly proclaim, Vedantic or Advaitic philosophy. There is no need to soft pedal for "wider" consumption or acceptance. The simple truth is, this is the best repository of Human Experience of Reality recorded and passed on in the annals of human history. If certain egoists wish to deny it or denigrate it, "My bad!" My compliments to Motilal Banarsidass Publishers who continue to take up publishing such works that further the preservation of this amazing world view for future generations which is finding confirmation from modern science.

Some chapters are completely filled with Ramana's sayings, that it appears to be an anthology of them. I would rather, the author was light handed in using his quotes. They become recursive and therefore tedious. After all, Ramana was a man of few words!

I would recommend this book if you love Physics or are just plain interested in looking at the world we inhabit from a different dimension. This should make you a believer- in science and therefore spirituality!

How Do You Judge Morals?

Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 03:00:22 EDT

Now this (hat tip Hamish Marshall here) made me go hmm, very interesting formulation of how you judge issues relating to morality?

Harm: whether someone is harmed or harm is reduced.
Reciprocity: whether something is fair and treats people fairly and justly.
In-group: whether something betrays the group.
Hierarchy: whether something is respectful of authority and superiors.
Purity: whether or not something is disgusting.

Liberal minded people only look at the first two while conservatives look at all five of them. My first impression was, why on earth would you even consider the bottom three when dealing with morals? Surely, they do not apply? But then, on reflection, the other three also make sense.

Professor's Haidt's book is still not out yet, but it made sense. There is no debate about the first two, I would guess, but lets take the next three. The in-group one is quite powerful if a bit alien in today's western societies. This is the group relating from the family to the neighbourhood to the locality to the city to the society to the nation. And morals do apply from the family up to the nation. I mean, you would not do anything that will betray the family, would you? That is based upon a moral judgement.

Then comes the Hierarchy bit. Do we need to be respectful of authority and superiors? Generally yes, there are there for a reason, one can challenge it, but the default position is that that position has to be respected. Otherwise what about parental control over children? or teachers over children? or lecturers over children? or policemen over criminals or a corporate life? or anywhere there is a ranking? There is a place for challenge and being a maverick but all the time? Hmmm, on the balance, I would have said no.

Here's a great and related story that I read today when hierarchy vanishes or is reduced. What will children grow up to if they have no evidence of or respect for their parents, teachers and the like? Would I judge a child who does not respect his parents? Yes, I would. I rebelled against my parents, teachers, society and the like, but to what extent? You did too. But perhaps taking to the extreme is not good either so morals do apply.

Finally, the purity bit. Could be, could well be. Your personal view on morals can be judged on whether or not something is disgusting. Say short skirts, or long hair. Would that be a symptom of degeneracy? Or utilising SMS speak in your emails or essays? (I was horrified to see this language in emails from a pretty senior lady, gobsmacking) I am a purist in that case, but then my editor gets upset with me for my punctuation mistakes which are huge. Morals? surely yes.

So, yes, I am afraid I am sounding like a conservative, no? but there you go. What do you think?

Technorati Tags: personal

Ibn-e Eusuf - A Modern Fable

Raza Rumi — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 09:22:11 EDT

The tale of Ibn-e Eusuf is an old story but like good stories it never gets old.

So, here it is dressed up for modern times. Only the names are changed to protect the identities of the innocent stork and fox.

Once upon a time there was a yellow saw and a wry wind. They had seen better days but they were always in each other’s way and had been so busy quarreling that they were surprised by the lion that came upon them unawares.

It was not that the lion was very wise. In fact, it wasn’t a lion at all; it was a turkey with abrasive rough wings pretending to be a lion. It was just that the cackling heads of the jungle were so exhausted with the interminable wrangling of the yellow saw and the wry wind that they crowed in glee and went along with the pretence, which made the turkey feel enlightened and gave it a swollen head.

The lion-turkey acted first and thought later. It immediately consigned the yellow saw to the attic and confined the wry wind in a holy shroud. Word spread that the yellow saw was rusted and that the wry wind had turned benign. But these were only appearances.

Given the size of its brain, the lion-turkey with the abrasive rough wings wouldn’t have survived long. But a magic bush in a faraway land was giving it protection. The magic bush sent it a special feed of reinforced rice and sugar; and whenever it was threatened, the bush dispatched a pointed black barb to unnerve the antagonists. When needed, the bush could also tickle into action an exact offspring that had been transplanted into the city of submission that was the abode of the lion-turkey.

Time passed and the lion-turkey lost a few teeth and a few feathers and the bush too began to wither. In all such fables it is at a time like this that a fatal mistake is made and so what had to happen, happened.

Nobody can say how it happened. Some say the bush simply forgot to warn the lion-turkey because it did forget a lot. Some say the rice and sugar were laced with rum that emboldened the lion-turkey. Some blame the guards it had chosen for itself. One was a deer prone to shortcuts; the others were mostly retarded fowls but some were more retarded than others. The eagle (it was a fowl too but for some reason the chief of the cackling heads, half lion-half cow, called it an eagle) could not tell the difference between treated and untreated effluent and gorged itself on the latter till it became quite beside itself.

It so happened that there were four rugs that were sacred and in safekeeping in the hall of justice. The lion-turkey was protected as long as it kept away from the four rugs. But shortcut deer and raw-effluent eagle egged it on and the lion-turkey was not used to thinking before it acted. It had the four rugs brought to its palace to be aired in public and beaten so that the ancient dust could be removed before it put its foot on them.

No sooner were the four rugs beaten the magic began to wane. The rusty yellow saw came flashing out of the attic and the benign wry wind escaped its holy shroud and began to swirl and scream.

Now all they had to do was to make up and corner the lion-turkey with the abrasive rough wings in its lair. The bush too was distracted and could hear the bugle in the barracks that was the sign of its imminent withering.

But like the scorpion and the tortoise in another fable, the yellow saw and the wry wind were also creatures of habit. It was not in them to change their ways.

The yellow saw invited the wry wind for consultations and proceeded to cut the support on which the latter was resting. The wry wind, in turn, invited the yellow saw to its abode and proceeded to whip sand onto its blades.

They did this and they did that but they could not shake off their old habits. They signed an accord in the brown forest and buried it. They kind of agreed to encircle the lion-turkey’s lair led by their chief warrior, the rising sun, mounted on the four rugs that had now been reclaimed by the rightful owners.

But as the rising sun rose into the sky, the yellow saw could not help undercutting everything that was in the way. And the wry wind huffed first one way and then the other. All this confused the rising sun to such an extent that he quite forgot what he was supposed to do when he finally arrived in the city of submission. The sacred four rugs lay forlorn, lacerated by the yellow saw and seared by the wry wind.

And so the yellow saw and the wry wind got their just deserts. The toothless lion-turkey with the abrasive rough wings had got the better of them.

Meanwhile, the jungle fell dark and the denizens began to starve. The cackling heads continued to cackle quoting Cicero in the gathering gloom.

This is a puzzle that needs to be decoded. The clues are embedded in the text and become progressively more difficult. The reader who decodes the most clues will win a prize of US$100 equivalent. The contest will close on July 30, 2008 and the winner will be announced the next day. Readers can submit solutions here

Poetry: Grains - of Truth, Sand and Biofuel

temporal — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:57:17 EDT

Photograph: Charlie Neibergall/AP

in our wakeful moments
we're legends, walking time
but when mother time wins
we'd be grains of sand
on the spacious shoreline
of the sea of history

with six billion plus
demanding more and more
the planet's patience
not inexhaustible
the poor feel the pinch
with increasing pain

oil, non renewable
we look for alternatives
and bio-fuel lures
grains get diverted
making a few relieved
but the plenty
go hungry and riot

unprepared, unable
to solve their leaders
entrench and buy more arms
the hungry millions
up in arms, without
can only whimper, die

the gleeful arms merchants
seeing profits in grain
smile obliviously
less is more, they think

***

biofuel
secret report

The God Question

Deepa Krishnan — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:20:09 EDT

In this deeply religious country, it is hard to be an atheist.

Try declaring, to an uncle or an aunt, that you do not believe in God. Worse still, ask them *why* they believe in a blue-skinned being flying around on a giant eagle saving the world. The initial response is a startled silence, followed by a quick look around to see if anyone else overheard it. This is then followed by much tsking and shaking of the head - "Shhhh...you shouldn't talk like that!", they say.

I have a problem with this attitude. What do they mean by "shouldn't talk like that"? Why they believe is an honest question, for crying out loud. I get especially upset when people say this to children. If a child asks you a question about God, you owe that child a sensible answer. It may or may not be the right answer, but it is better than giving the child the impression that even *asking* such a question is criminal.

When I was 10, I attended a discussion session organised by a Hindu religious group. In a mixed gathering of children and older people, a middle-aged woman was talking to us about God. When she said "Any questions?", I stood up and asked "But how do you know God exists?" It was a genuine question, I wasn't being cheeky. The speaker smiled at me very condescendingly, and said I was too young to understand, and that when I grew up, it would all become clear. Meanwhile, it would be better for everyone if I just sat down and joined in the prayer.

I sat down, feeling snubbed. I was seething inside. Did my question not deserve an answer, even a small one? It was my first brush with religious tradition, and I remember thinking how closed and narrow it was!

Later, I asked my father the same question. "Appa, why do you believe God exists?" He smiled and said, "Well, I don't really have any proof. But several wise and good men in whom I believe think they have seen and experienced the truth. And because I believe in them, there's a good chance God exists." I was happy with the answer - it gave me something to think about. "Who are these men?", I asked, and it led us into a discussion of Indian philosophers.

The point is not whether my father was right or wrong. The real point is that he gave me a logical answer to his beliefs. It is when people brush aside questions, or spout dogma instead of answers, that I see red.

As I grew older, I made my own observations and deductions. I now believe that we still don't know the real answer to whether God exists, but I've also come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. All I want from religion - if anything - is a set of rules to live my life with a clear conscience. And since I have already made up my set of very satisfactory rules, it is not particularly important to me to figure out whether God is for real.

This is not a particularly radical line of thought. Several Indian schools of religion have similar views. Buddhism, for example, is most definitely an agnostic religion. It believes that the eight-fold path of living will lead to salvation, and does not require any belief in a divine being. Mahavira, who founded Jainism, said quite clearly that he didn't believe in a Creator God - he chose instead to believe that the universe has always existed, will always exist and is governed by natural laws.

The Mimamsa school of Hinduism believed that there is a natural Karmic law, where cause and effect apply, with no need of an all-powerful God to enforce the law.

Carvaka, who founded a stongly atheistic sect in around 300 BC called the vedas the ramblings of rascals, and said:

While life is yours, live joyously;
None can escape Death’s searching eye;
When once this frame of ours they burn,
How shall it ever again return?

The Rig Veda itself, which modern-day "Vedic" fundamentalists revere as the one authentic source of Hindu religion, says of the creation of the universe:

Who really knows, and who can swear,
How creation came, when or where!
Even gods came after creation's day,
Who really knows, who can truly say
When and how did creation start?
Did He do it? Or did He not?
Only He, up there, knows, maybe;
Or perhaps, not even He.

When you read books of Indian philosophers, it is obvious that we have a great and ancient tradition of religious questioning, of frank open thought. Tragically, the tradition is no longer alive. In its place, we have dogma, backed by political and economical lobbying. The rot has set in, and I fear it is irreversible.

What is Prejudice?

Kiran Dhanwada — Thu, 29 May 2008 01:25:39 EDT

Waves of optimism and pessimism might make a man disbelieve in time-tested principles but no matter what happens, he would never waver from his prejudiced thought process - Benjamin Graham

Prejudice - The word itself leads me to two different conclusions: one, that this is the right way of looking and interpreting things and two, it is a wrong way of looking at things. Various words have originated out of this one base word of Prejudice - Feminism, Sexism, Racism, Religious intolerance etc. How do we actually define prejudice? Is it some judgement we come to by means of an experience in the past? If so, then, why would we call Experience as our Best teacher! Is prejudice something learnt in childhood or do we get prejudiced every day? Is manipulation by gross commercialists and politicians by way of slogans and advertisements contributing to our way of looking at things?

What does the dictionary have to say about the word ‘prejudice’? Prejudice is defined as: an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts. Simply stated, it is a preconceived judgement, in a negative fashion. Going by the definition, is it right for me to say that various religious views thrust upon me since childhood which have held the test of time prejudiced me the way I look at the world? This particular word, usually used to accuse someone else - saying, so and so was prejudiced against me. By uttering that mere statement, aren’t you prejudicing your conclusion?

Lots of questions! Further food for thought - People are prejudiced because they lack sufficient experience, is a common argument we hear. However my question is, how much experience do you need to satisfactorily say that his point of view is not prejudiced? If no amount of experience entitles a person to a point of view, then the word ‘objectivity’ loses its meaning and charm. Fallacious extensions of one’s own experiences will lead to a horribly colored view of the scenario. We had had innumerable number of such examples - Anti-Semitism, Nazism, Racism to name a few, which have led to destruction of human life.

Taking the discussion a bit further, I take pride in the fact that the decisions I make or the suggestions I give to others are entirely objective - based on proper analytical facts, weighing pros and cons. But isn’t the analysis itself flawed if the basis of my assumptions is itself prejudiced? Analytical that I am, I wanted to have an answer to this complex conundrum. The answer being - There is a continuum between decisions based on prejudice and decisions based on experience. Most of our decisions fall under this continuum - at least that is what I think.

Albert Einstein on God

Sujai — Tue, 20 May 2008 11:51:45 EDT

For many years, many theists and religious people have used some of the statements from Albert Einstein to demonstrate that he was a religious man, or that he believed in a personal God, or that he was ambivalent about belief in God, or that he was agnostic, and so on.

The religious people fought a long battle, citing many of his remarks, sometimes giving quite childish interpretations and conclusions to prove that Einstein believed in a religious God.

“God does not play dice with the universe”

For example, his famous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe” is wrongly interpreted as confession of his belief in God. One just cannot make such a direct conclusion. Many atheists refer to 'God' in their day-to-day speech. That does NOT necessarily mean they believe in a personal or religious God. The figure of speech using ‘God’ could mean differently in different contexts for different people, including atheists. But to conclude that Einstein was a believer from the above quotation is quite far fetched.

To understand why he said what he said, one has to know the context.

For eons, many cultures believed that God worked the laws of nature. (Biblical God has even created the nature with his hands, not necessarily abiding with laws of nature.) When Newton proposed Universal Theory of Gravitation thus setting the stage for Classical Physics, it was understood that the entire Universe was based on few well-understood laws of Physics making the universe and its workings deterministic.

That means, if you knew the position of a planet at this moment, and know its interactions with the environment, we can predict its position at any time in future. If there is an error in calculation, it’s only because all the factors in the environment that influence its behavior are not clearly stated. So, the problem is with the guy calculating the position of this planet, not with the universal laws of nature.

So, if we are not able to predict future, it’s only because we don’t have the complete knowledge of all the factors affecting that future. But theoretically, if we knew all the factors, we can predict the future absolutely without any error. That was the understanding under Classical Physics.

Then came Quantum Physics!

It told us that nature was NOT deterministic. That it was not possible to predict the future. That unpredictability and probability are inherent part of this Universe. That even if you knew all the factors in the environment absolutely, you would still NOT be able to predict the future. That the outcome of events is probabilistic! That the God played dice with universe!

Even Einstein, the greatest thinker of our time, could not reconcile himself to this reality. When he got to know how Quantum Physics worked, he could not believe it and uttered the now famous quote – ‘God does not play dice with Universe’.

Later on, with more understanding of this new and revolutionary physics, he has accepted Quantum Physics, and became a champion of it. He went onto accept that God does indeed play dice with the universe.

For him and everyone who knows the context, using God was a figure of speech. It does not speak of religion or belief in supernatural being who watches over us.

”Science without religion is lame”

Another famous quote which is often cited to say that Einstein approved of religion is – “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Many people used this quotation to say that religion was equally important to Einstein as much as Science. This philosophical and sociological statement only promotes harmony between the factions, but does not tell much about Einstein’s religious attitudes.

However, many religious people have used this quotation to prove that Einstein believed in God and that he approved of mainstream religion.

Then came the final quote to put an end to all this debate.

“God is nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness”

In a letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, Einstein wrote: “The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”

And about Bible, he said: “[it is] a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”

About Judaism, he said: “For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

About Jews, he said: “I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them.”

Conclusion

Einstein grew up in an environment where religion was extremely important. Though Einstein confessed that he ‘lost his religion’ at the age of 12, calling religion ‘a lie’, he remained slightly ambivalent when it came to the role of religion in society. His ideas on his personal god were closer to atheists, though he maintained respect for the necessity of religion.

His religion, if one can use that terminology, is captured more by his awe of the universe than the anthropomorphic God of the West or the human interventionist God of the East. To this effect, he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensibility.”

But in no way he was a religious man as people describe their religions, and no way he was a believer in personal god as people define their gods.

At the same time, Einstein did not think he was an atheist. Some people categorize him as a deist - someone who does not believe in a personal god, or a religious god, but who believes that there is something more to this universe which is beyond human comprehension - but there is no room for miracles, prophecies or 'chosen people'.

The 'U' Factor

Suresh Naig — Sun, 18 May 2008 12:43:15 EDT

Every branch of Hindu philosophy propagates selflessness, as the panacea for human maladies. Once a person kills self-centeredness, he or she is on the road towards eternal bliss. It stems from the fact that 'I' factor euphemised as ego, from where all problems sprout. Even Bhagavat Geeta suggests, 'do your duty and don't expect the fruits of it'. Because when one expects the rewards for the labour the 'I' factor comes into play such as' I did, so I need it'. Every one knows it is easier said than done.

In the present day, the 'I' factor is replaced by the 'U' factor. Any business letter starts with a 'you appeal'. You deserve this or you were right in pointing out etc., and the letter continues. Some do-it-yourself guides on letter writing, under their heading business letter drafting, suggests the letter should have a strong 'You appeal' in the opening, moving on to 'We appeal' and then end with 'I appeal'. In advertising a product or service, one can feel the strong 'You' appeal as if the product is designed exclusively for the individual buying it. The famous hoarding of a nationalised general insurance company shouts, "With us U always comes before I". United India Assurance.

We Indians are always at a disadvantage, in either learning our age-old philosophy or imbibing the modern one from our Western counterparts. By misunderstanding the U before I, We have put the interest of 'U' in U.K before the 'I' in India during pre independence.

Immediately after independence, the interest of "U" in U.S.S.R. preceded the interest of "I" in India. Presently all our activities are oriented towards the interest of "U" in U.S.A., than the interest of "I" in India.

Poetry: I Am Just a Little Confused

Naveen Kumar — Sat, 3 May 2008 07:15:49 EDT

I am just a little confused

Should I not play?
Because I may lose.
Should I wait?
Or I may choose.

I am just a little confused.

Should I be patient?
Or give it a try?
Should I be man enough?
Or I may cry.

Do hearts melt?
Or only ice.
Is this my life?
Or just, a face of a dice

I am just a little confused.

Can negative and negative, ever be positive?
Should I be calm, composed or reactive?
Should I strike back, when I have been hurt?
Or forgive and act like a nerd.

Should I love?
When I am not loved?
Am I human?
Or a rose, waiting to be plucked

I am just a little confused.

Is God one or millions?
Am I feeling dizzy?
Or, I am just too busy.

Is arrogant the hurt part of me?
Or where I am, the ugly me.

Should I wish?
When I know I have to compromise,
Sleep, just close my eyes.

Should I be satisfied?
Or crave for more?
Should I judge?
Or say, "Hmm, I am not so sure."

Should I keep my back always straight?
Or sometimes bending?
Should I conclude my poem?
Or leave an open ending.

I am just a little confused.

(The greatest battle of our life lies within ourselves)

The repeated use of the title is to emphasize on the confused state of the speaker. The structure of the poem also corresponds to the confused feel in the poem.