JNANA - Pure Knowledge to Know That You Don't Know Is the Real Knowledge
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
JNANA - Pure Knowledge To know that you don't know is the real knowledge PART I V (Collection of blog articles from 2010 - 2012) Krishna Raj P M Dec2012 This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.5 I ndia Licence You are free ➔ to Share: to copy, distribute and transmit the work ➔ to Remix: to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work) Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes With the understanding that: Waiver: Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder Other Rights: I n no way are any of the following rights affected by the license • Your fair dealing or fair use rights; • The author’s moral rights; • Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights. Notice: For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. defaming the democracy in ramayana when dhasharatha decides that its time to bring rama to throne, he calls a meeting of his ministers and general public. he asks their opinion on this issue and they agree overwhelmingly. just to prove the point that some kind of people participation was present even in those times. but when rama was asked to go to exile, the same people tried to stop him. when the majority of the ministers and almost entire citizenry was behind rama, he did not overturn his father's decision. the wise council of ministers and sages in the court pleaded with kaikeyi but they never overpowered her. the insistence of rama to travel in the path of dharma alone made him take such decisions. but what was appreciable also was the adherence to rules by those in power. though in a heat of moment lakshmana speaks of overthrowing their father from power, he is advised by rama about the need to preserve the dharma. one big message in ramayana is the need to respect the dharma and follow it even in the most testing times. democracy has its way of functioning. we have procedures laid down for making and implementing laws. democracy has the capacity to absorb various viewpoints. diversity requires democracy to thrive. here everyone has the right to make their point. but no one has the right to force others to accept theirs. that too when the issue is the prerogative of the parliament it makes little sense to ignite unnecessary sentiments on this issue. the question here is straightforward. some people want a law in they way they have drafted it. now government is just an organ in this entire machinery. what is the point in targeting ruling party when even the opposition is not ready to agree to all the clauses in the draft? the methods used by the protesters are peaceful but the damage is done elsewhere. general public are made to believe that government can pass any law and is unwilling to cooperate in this case. this view undermines the entire democratic system of this country. upper house, lower house, president, political parties, judiciary, general public - all are stakeholders in democratic process. the government is but a representational body which though has powers is not all powerful by itself. these days government is projected as sole power of authority and is therefore becoming the centre of hatred. two options lay ahead and both do not solve the problem. first one is that the present government can be thrown out. but since opposition itself is not in favour of all conditions, what is the alternative? either the agitators should try to evolve a consensus among various parties on the bill. or as suggested by many they themselves should enter electoral politics. in democracy elections are the best way to decide any issue. the second option is more dangerous. among the section of protesters there is a view emerging that the state is not responding to their pleas. after the initial enthusiasm around the protests die down and tv cameras turn to other stories many may return home. but minority few may take the path of violence to overthrow the state because they might have lost belief in democratic means. how the country tries to avoid people taking this path after this agitation is over is a crucial question. null hypothesis in statistics when there is a need to prove/disprove any phenomenon, a technique called hypothesis testing is used. in its simplest form it can be explained as follows. for any observed event the simplest possible explanation is offered. then the evidence against this is explored. if substantial proof is collected against the first stand only then it is rejected. the initial reasoning which is the simple explanation is called null hypothesis. in the court of law this theory is put to maximum use. people who are accused are treated as innocent. this is the null hypothesis. only if there is strong evidence against this they are pronounced guilty. even if there is an iota of doubt in the evidence, the judge plays safe and sticks to the null hypothesis. for many years before copernicus, kepler and galileo people believed that earth was the centre of universe. it was their null hypothesis which could not be disproved easily. the intuitive simplicity of the earth centric system is hard to break. history records the troubles these people had to go through in disproving that null hypothesis. our culture, individual beliefs, understanding of the world gives us our own set of null hypothesis. often they are not the positions we have adopted after rational analysis. we accept them because they are possibly simplest explanations for the things around us. over the years these positions taken by us become sacrosanct. and any opposition to this will not be tolerated by us. it is not to say that all the null hypothesis that we develop are wrong. it may sometime be that the null hypothesis is indeed true. but what is argued here is simply that the null hypothesis should not accepted without the test. innocence is presumed but trial should be held. only after a fair trial the accused can be finally considered innocent or otherwise. just because the initial position was innocent we cannot continue to hold the same position forever. in everyday behaviour this theory is used abundantly. the null hypothesis here is that our individual position is always right and others are wrong. we always assert our supremacy and forever demand strong evidence to reject this view. the righteousness of our action we consider is beyond scrutiny. any questions regarding our uprightness is not tolerated. we simply believe that our sincerity should be taken for granted. close observation of the behaviour of people spearheading the popular campaign today shows this syndrome. they firmly believe that their version of the draft is superior than others. their inability to go threadbare into the issue is a cause for concern. they are mostly hiding behind popular slogans and public sentiment. rational debate is sorely missing. that they are not ready to put their null hypothesis into test is the biggest worry. it looks they they want everyone to accept their position blindly. to assert the moral supremacy simply by looking at number of street protesters is misleading. these people on streets are not informed protesters. they are there because they connect to the cause at a different level. they have seen the ugly face of corruption. in the present agitation they are trying to find a solution. they too have a null hypothesis. it is to follow the leader who they believe will deliver the result. alas they are mistaken and misled. they are also not ready to put their hypothesis to test. so we have a situation where this group is trying to impose its views without thinking of alternatives. the problem here simply is that though they have the right to have null hypothesis of their own they also have the obligation to put that into test to allow truth to emerge. challenges of information age in the schools they may not play quiz any more. it makes no sense today to know anything. type and hit enter in that small space in the top right corner of the browser and boom, you have more than what you asked for. with hand held devices also accessing internet, the party has just begun. and with an entire generation which has grown with these toys coming to age, it is guaranteed that this is the surest way forward. it is natural for anyone to think that god intended a digital world. that it remained analog was a mistake which is being corrected. text, music, video anything which is digital has to come to internet. and once in internet its permanency is guaranteed and distribution virtually uncontrolled. while information in physical world is strongly associated with its creators, in internet the information gets a life of its own independent of its creators. the information thus landing on internet is hashed and indexed by various search engines and lechers in many different ways. to control the information once uploaded on internet becomes extremely difficult even for its creator. the information thus collected on the numerous locations over the years has today resulted in the gigantic information repository. the implications of this huge information store and its easy access are being felt today.