SANKARACHARYA AND ADVAITA.

As per many of the scholars Sankaracharya lived between 788 and 820 AD for a period of just 32 years. His biography isinterlaced with legend and lore and cannot be historically supported. Whatevermay have been the events of his life, he has championed the cause of Advaita and hisbrilliance has few equals amongst the Indian philosophers.  

Sankara was born at Kaladi in Kerala.According to tradition and lore, his parents had been childless for many yearsand prayed in a Shiva temple at Thrissur for a child.

Shiva later appeared to both the husband and wife in their dreams and asked them to choose between a mediocre son with along life and an extraordinary son who would live for a short time. They chose the latter and when the son was born to them whom they named him Sankara.

His father died when Sankara was very young and his Upanayanam was performed by his mother. As a child Sankara showed remarkable scholarship by mastering the 4 Vedas by the age of 8.   

Sankara was attracted towards sanyasa at theage of 8 itself but his mother gave her consent for that only after much persuasion. Legend says that once when he was bathing in the Poorna river, acrocodile caught hold of his leg and it appeared that it would kill him.Sankara then requested his mother to give him consent for sanyasa at least before his death. His mother consented and the crocodile left Sankara and disappeared.

Sankara, then traveled to North India in search of a Guru. On the banks of river Narmada at Omkareswar (MP) he met Govinda Bhagavatpada. When the latter questioned about Sankara’s identity,Sankara came out with a wonderful verse that brought out the Advaita philosophy. Govinda was impressed by Sankara and accepted as his disciple.        

Theguru instructed Sankara to write a commentary on the Brahma Sutras and propagate theAdvaita philosophy. Sankara travelled to Kashi,where a young man named Sanandana,hailing from Chola territory in South India,became his first disciple.

Accordingto legend, while on his way to the Vishwanath Temple atKasi, an untouchable accompanied by fourdogs came in the way of Sankara. When asked to move aside by Sankara'sdisciples, the untouchable replied: "Do you wish that I move my everlasting Ātman or this body made of flesh?"

Realizingthat the untouchable was none other than god Shiva himself, and his dogs the four Vedas,Sankara prostrated himself before him, composing five shlokas.

At Badari he wrote his famous Bhashyas (commentaries).

Oneof the most famous debates of Sankara was with Maṇḍana Miśra. Sankara sought a debate with Kumārila Bhaṭṭa and met him in Prayag where he had buried himself in a slow burning pyre to repent for sins committed against his guru. Kumārila Bhaṭṭa then asked Sankara to proceed to Mahiṣhmati tomeet Maṇḍana Miśra and debate with him instead.

Maṇḍana Miśra held the view that the life of a householder was far superior to that of a monk. This view was widely shared and respected throughout India at that time.

This is totally against what Sankara believed and therefore it is important for Sankara to debate with Mandana.

After debating for over fifteen days, with Maṇḍana Misra'swife Ubhaya Bhāratī acting as referee, Maṇḍana Misra accepted defeat.

Ubhaya Bhāratī then challenged Sankara to have a debate with her in order to'complete' the victory. She asked him questions related to sexual union between man and woman – a subject in which Sankara had no knowledge, since he was a true celibate and sanyasi.

Sankara asked for a "recess" of 15 days. As per legend, he used the art of "para-kaya pravesa" (the spirit leavingone's own body and entering another's) and exited his own body, which he asked his disciples to look after, and psychically entered the dead body of a king and learnt the art of love from the Kings 2 wives. Later, Sankara entered his own body and regained consciousness and he answered all questions put to him by Ubhaya Bhāratī and defeated her.

After this, Sankara began a tour of conquest for thepropagation of the Advaita philosophy by controverting all philosophies opposedto it. He travelled throughout India, from South India to Kashmir and Nepal, preaching to the local populace and debating philosophy with Hindu, Buddhist and other scholars and monks along the way.

This was no mean feat as in those times India is heavily forested and the roads and forests are fully infested with robbers and bandits.Despite this Sankara traveled fearlessly to the 4 corners of India and founded the 4 peethams at Sringeri, Dwaraka, Badrinath and Puri.

He died at the age of 32, a young age but by that time itself, his brilliance has established him as a great philosopher.

Now, what is thephilosophy of Sankara? I try to put it very briefly below.

Ultimate reality according to Sankara is Atman or Brahman which is pure consciousness devoid of all attributes (nirguna) and all categories of the intellect (nirvisesha).

Brahman associated with its potency Maya appears as the qualified Brahman or the lord who is the creator, preserver and destroyer of this world which is his appearance.

Jiva or the individual self is a subject object complex.

Its subject element is pure consciousness and is called Sakhsin.

Its object element is the internal organ called Antahkarana. The source of this internal organ is Avidya which causes individuality.

In liberation Avidya is destroyed by Jnana and Sakshi is realized as the Brahman which it always is.

Maya or Avidya is not pure illusion. It is not only absence of knowledge but also positive wrong knowledge. It is a cross of the real and the unreal. In fact, it is indescribable. It is neither existent, nor nonexistence nor both.

Sankara emphasizes that from the phenomenal point of view,the world is quite real. It is not an illusion. It is the creation of Ishwara. Jiva is ignorant of the essential unity and takes only diversity as true and wrongly regards himself as the agent and the enjoyer. Avidya conceals the unity and projects names and forms. When Jiva realizes this Avidya, Moksha is attained and the final release is attained after death.  

BOKO HARAM

Despite all the development in the world, there are some people who refuse to believe what is proven and hang on to things which they feel are correct. They are entitled to believe whatever they want, but when they take the gun to prove to others that they are correct, they would be going against humanity. Boko Haram is one such outfit. I read about its recent kidnapping of the girls and thought I should know a little more about it. I went to Wikipedia and also some other reports on the net for the purpose. Such outfits are against world peace and should be fought by all the countries together.  

The terror group has kidnapped 276 Schoolgirls from Chibok Government Girls Secondary School and The groups.Present leader Abu Bakar Shekau threatens to sell them in the market as slaves.They have already murdered 59 schoolboys in February this year. 

Like all schools in Borno state of Nigeria, Chibok, an elite academy of both Muslim and Christian girls, had been closed because of increasingly deadly attacks by Boko Haram. It had reopened to allow final-year students to take exams. That is when the kidnappings took place.

Boko Haram took to violence in the year 2009. Violence linked to the Boko Haram insurgency has resulted in an estimated 10,000 deaths between 2002 and 2013, most of them between 2009 and 2013. Boko Haram has killed more than 1500 people in 2013.

Boko Haram  is an Islamic group and militant and terrorist organization based inNigeria, North Cameroon and Niger and it is founded by Mohammed Yusuf.

Boko means Western Education in the local Hausa language and Haram means sinful. This translates to Western Education is sinful. Boko Haram proposes that the contact with Western civilization be forbidden and opposes both the Muslim establishment and the Government of Nigeria.

 The members of the group do not interact with the local Muslim population and have carried out assassinations in the past of anyone who criticizes it, including Muslim clerics.

The Sultan of Sokoto, a spiritual leader of Nigerian Muslims, has called the sect "anti-Islamic" and, "an embarrassment to Islam".

The Coalition of Muslim Clerics in Nigeria (CMCN) have called on the Boko Haram to disarm and embrace peace.

 Founded by Mohammed Yusuf in 2002, the organization seeks to establish a "pure" Islamic state ruled by sharia, putting a stop to what it deems"Westernization".

The group is known for attacking Christians and government targets, bombing churches, schools and police stations, and kidnapping western tourists, but it has also assassinated members of the Islamic establishment.

In a 2009 BBC interview, Mohammed Yusuf, stated his belief that the fact of a spherical Earth is contrary to Islamic teaching and should be rejected, along with Darwinian evolution and the fact of rain originating from water evaporated by thesun. Despite his antagonism to everything in the west Yusuf lived lavishly and drove in a Mercedes Benz.

Before his death, Yusuf reiterated the group's objective of changing the current education system and rejecting democracy.

WHY DO I WANT MODI TO BE THE PRIME MINISTER?

I have a liking for Modi as the PM’s candidate. So I thought I should sum up his weaknesses and strengths as I see and should write why I want to vote for him.

WEAKNESSES:

           1. He has the blemish of Post Godhra riots of 2002 on him.

           2. He is a person from the RSS which is perceived as a religious outf

           3. He is very acerbic in his speeches

           4. He is dictatorial in the party and does not let dissidence flourish.              

           5. He helps big business houses like Ambanis and Adanis.

STRENGTHS:

1. He has been a great administrator and Gujarat flourished during his term at the helm.
2. Gujarat’s people have elected him 3 consecutive times without any loss of vote.  This has never happened in Gujarat’s history. No Chief Minster has ruled Gujarat 2 consecutive times ever except for Modi.  Although Chimanbhai Patel was CM of Gujarat twice (both times in 1990), that was with the help of Congress legislators after he split the coalition with BJP and not by re election.  This means that Modi has delivered to the Guajarati people something that no other CM of Gujarat ever could. His re election time and again proves that he has the complete confidence of the Gujarati people.
3. Despite the many allegations of post Godhra, he never appealed to either religion or caste in any of his speeches. When he won in Gujarat he said he would help the people of Gujarat and not any community or religion as Congress always does. He now promises that he would deliver development to India as a whole and not just to some communities or castes.
4. He does not buy peoples vote by promises of free doles as many other politicians do. His slogan is empowerment of the people and not to make them into beggars and be dependent on state doles.
5. He is the only politician who says that development is his main agenda.
6. He is tough and does have tendencies of firmness and ability to suppress opposition in his party successfully.  People think that this is against democracy, but I personally feel that with the type of politicians we have in India who are self cantered and think nothing about the country, this attitude is a big plus to him. What we need is an effective and firm leadership and not a leadership that debates every issue and finally gets blocked and does nothing.
7. Since independence Gujarat was a highly sensitive state and there were a number of communal riots that have taken place. However, from the time of post Godhra in 2002, it is to Modi’s credit that not a single communal riot has taken place in Gujarat. People say that he is an RSS man, but after 2002, there is not a single incident where he has been partisan to a particular community or caste.
8. Development would naturally help the business houses, yes but one should not forget it helps each and every individual in the country and is not exclusive of anyone.
9. As against him the politicians we have on offer for PM are utterly no match for him.

As I see from this list, his strengths outnumber his weaknesses and he should certainly be given a chance to be the PM.  No doubt Modi has weaknesses but then which person on this earth is perfect? One cannot be sure if he would certainly be successful, but the policies he has adopted in Gujarat are right and are worth trying.  That is why I prefer him to the other candidates.    

CHANDRABABU NAIDU A PHENOMENA ONCE BUT WHAT IS HE NOW.

Chandrababu Naidu was the Chief Minister of our state from the year 1995 to 2004. In his tenure Chandrababu Naidu had been very efficient and delivered an effective administration to the people. I was a great admirer of his then for his effective deliverance of administration.

The tasks undertaken by Chandarbabu Nidu were numerous and I am giving the important ones below. I did not refer anywhere for these and just went on putting down what came to my mind and what I observed in the state then:

Development of an IT hub in the state: It was he who has developed Hyderabad into an IT hub and it stands today as one of the preferred destinations in India for delivery of IT services. I have seen the unbelievable transformation before my very eyes.

Power Reforms and efficiency: Under the Congress governments before him the power supply position deteriorated and power cuts became rampant. His predecessor and father in law N T Ramarao was more intent on providing social security to the poorer sections of the society but was not a good administrator. When Naidu came in as CM, the electricity board was mired in losses. He split the board into different corporations and improved the administration so that under him not only did the corporations prosper but the power situation improved drastically in the state and the power cuts were forgotten. The state had become number 1 in India in the adoption of power reforms. 

Women Empowerment: To empower women he has aggressively supported DWCRA societies launched by the Central Government  which self employment to women and access to basic services were provided.

Providing vegetables at reasonable prices: He has started what are known as Rythu(farmer) bazaars where the vegetables produced in the farms are directly marketed to the consumer by farmers themselves. These bazaars provided vegetables at a cheaper rate to the consumers and also benefited the farmers to some extent by cutting down on middlemen. 

Improving the level of Government services to people by outsourcing: He has started the E Seva centres in the state where bills of the Government departments etc. can be paid without waiting in long queues. These days they are taking up more and more of the services being provided by the government employees to the public.

Improving the level of public transport: He has drastically improved the position of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and refurbished it with new buses for comfortable travel. 

Improvement of Roads: He has developed the roads system in the state drastically and they were maintained in excellent condition in contrast to the times of the Congress regime.

Disciplining State Govt. Employees: He has disciplined the unruly state government employees and instilled in them the fear that the Government is watching them and it could not be taken for granted.

Empowerment of the people with regard to Government servants: This is a striking reform where the people were given the power to question state government employees publicly in what is known as the Gram Sabha. This has made the government servants accountable to the people and they were being pulled up by the people openly in the public. This made the employees accountable to the people.

Development of Industry: He laid the red carpet for Industry and was very investor friendly. He called himself as the CEO of the state rather than its CM.

After all this development, why did the people not vote for Naidu in 2004? The Government employees were terribly unhappy with him because he made them work and made them answerable to the people. In the 2009 state elections each government employee did his/her best to sabotage his chances.  Another problem was that the farmers felt he was too industry friendly and was neglecting them. Due to these two groups he was defeated in the last elections.

So what does he promise now? He now wants power so much that he has diametrically turned against his own older policy and is wooing the 2 sections that have voted him out in the last elections.

He now says that he will write off all agricultural loans which is impossible as the amount written off would be equal to two thirds GDP of the state.

He said that he would make a 5 day week for the Government employees and has indicated in his statements that he would not touch them now despite whatever they do. After this my admiration to him has evaporated.

Now I am in a dilemma as to whom to vote because Jagan would be worse and he has so many economic offences against him. Even the Congress is better compared to Jagan. The choice for me is now between the devil and the deep sea.    

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU--- A MAN MUCH MISUNDERSTOOD BY MANY.

Nehru’s time is far away from the present and many people from the present generation tend to dismiss Nehru as either incompetent or as BJP claims today to be inferior to Patel. But is that really true? Let us examine it in detail.

It is said that Nehru’s desire to be the PM when Jinnah coveted that position is the one that led the way to partition. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The two nation theory was circulating since the 1930’s and was completely rejected by the Congress all the time as communal.

The Muslim League demanded at least one-third representation in the legislature and sizeable autonomy for the Muslim provinces. Congress stood firmly against these ideas right through and did not budge an inch to fulfill the unrealistic demands. Jinnah parted ways after his requests of an amended proposal for the same was rejected.

In the constituent assembly elections of 1946 the League won 425 out of the 496 seats reserved for Muslims and 89% of their votes on a policy of separate state of Pakistan. Jinnah stood steadfast in his demand for Pakistan and this had nothing to do with the so called desire of Nehru to become the PM. Whatever may be the reason, Indian Muslims felt discriminated against which led to the demand.

How is Nehru as a man? Motilal Nehru had a lucrative practice and the family was very rich. Nehru had the best possible education and is an avid reader. When one reads his Discovery of India and the Glimpses of World History, the extent of his knowledge as well as his idealism can be clearly seen albeit with a bias towards India.

He had a great regard for democratic values and nothing can be stronger evidence to this than the composition of his first cabinet after Independence. Despite the Congress having an absolute majority in the Parliament, his cabinet clearly shows the greatness of the man. Apart from the PM, there were 14 ministers in the cabinet. Of these 5 were non congressmen and included B.R.Ambedkar, Shanmukham Chettiar and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who were known adversaries of Congress.

Nehru above all else was a great democrat and never interfered in the party affairs. Unlike during the time of Indira Gandhi, not a single Chief Minister was thrust upon the states and the person who had the backing of the majority of the Congress MLA’s was accepted as the CM. Even at the central level the MP candidates were chosen not by Nehru but by the party in which there were a galaxy of leaders. Nehru was secular to the core and never entertained any law based on religion. For him religion was a personal thing and it should never interfere with the matters of state.

During his time even the Congress MP’s themselves had the freedom to question the government on the floor of the parliament on issues and their opinion was never suppressed.

On the issue of corruption Nehru was very strict but there were two instances where he did turn a blind eye to it.

One was the scandal regarding purchase of jeeps for the army which took place in 1948. There were allegations against the then High Commissioner of India at London V.K.Krishna Menon but no action was taken and on top of that he was inducted into the cabinet by Nehru in 1956.

The second were the allegations of corruption that surfaced on Pratap Singh Kairon the then Chief Minister of Punjab in the early 60’s,. Nehru did not take cognizance of the allegations but when the Supreme Court indicted Kairon in the allegations and a judicial enquiry was held, the committee submitted its report only after Nehru’s death and Kairon had to resign. It is pertinent to note that Kairon was the architect of Modern Punjab and was instrumental in its rapid development.

There were more instances where Nehru stood firmly against corruption. In 1951 there were some charges of corruption against a Congress MP H.G.Mudgal. Surprisingly enough the charges were not brought about by the media as it happens today but by Nehru himself against an MP of his own party. A public hearing was held on Mudgal and he was found guilty.

In the Haridas Mundhra scandal of 1958 it was found that Mundhra has influenced the investing body of the LIC of India and made them invest in the shares of his own loss making companies which included Richardson and Cruddas, Jessops and Osler Lamps.This scandal was exposed by none other than Feroze Gandhi himself. Again a public hearing was undertaken and a report was submitted by the investigating committee in just 24 days and the Defence Minsiter T.T. Krishnamachari had to resign from his office.

K.D.Malaviya was a minister in charge of ministry of Mines and Fuel. There were allegations that the minister has received a mere Rs 10,000 from a company from Orissa with which his ministry had dealings. Malaviya was a leftist in the congress party and was known to be ideologically close to Nehru. Despite that when the allegations surfaced Nehru did not hesitate in ordering an inquiry. The commission found Malaviya guilty and he had to resign from his office. His resignation was readily accepted by Nehru.

Contrast Nehrus behavior with those that came after him (Excluding Shahstri who had a brief tenure in office).Would we ever be able to get leaders like him again? Many people have contempt for Nehru without actually reading much about him. Nothing can be a better eye opener than the book written by MO Mathai, his special assistant from 1946 to 1959. Mathai was not partisan and also describes Nehrus weaknesses, but he also says that he has not seen any greater nationalist than Nehru. His admiration for Nehru comes through in his book despite its critical nature in some aspects.

Nehru miscalculated in Kashmir by appealing to the United Nations immediately after sending in the army to push out the Pashtoon invaders. He should have done so after the Indian army pushed out the invaders which it could have done with ease in maybe 10 days time. The UN immediately called for a ceasefire. As a result more than 50% of Kashmiri territory remained in the hands of the tribal invaders and the Pakistani army.

He has grossly miscalculated the position in the 1962 war with China. He never expected China to attack India and so India was not at all prepared for warfare in the mountains then, yet Nehru believed that the Indian army can push the Chinese invaders out.

Nehru had to build from scratch in science and technology and he proved himself capable on that account. He is the person who has strongly installed democratic values in India. If Indian democracy has stood steadfast while Pakistan and Bangladesh gyrated between dictatorship and democracy, it is only because of Nehru.

Nehru overworked himself. He would get up at 4 in the morning and went on till late in the night. Of course his weakness was that he always wrote his speeches himself. For a Prime Minster of the country that much time is simply not available and it put a lot of pressure on him.

Yes Nehru committed many mistakes and had his weaknesses, but after all he is only human. The task that was set for him was gargantuan and he certainly proved himself worthy of it despite faltering in some areas.

I personally rate him as the best PM India had.

BISHOP GEORGE BERKELY AND EMPIRICISM

In my earlier note I have written about the first of the troika of British Empiricism John Locke. Next comes a man who perplexes an ordinary mind by a complex theory that defies imagination. When I read the philosophy of George Berkely for the first time, it did not make any sense to me. Only after re and re reading it did it make any sense. When I understood it I enjoyed it. I tried to make this write up simple with the help of a wonderful Telugu book on philosophy I have. It may still be a bit confusing but I could not make it any simpler.

BISHOP GEORGE BERKELEY.

Earth, sky, stars, sun, moon, nature, men and animals all are part of the physical world. Materialism says only the physical world is real and nothing else. As opposed to this Empiricism says that knowledge only comes from the senses and experiences.

Berkeley was born in the year 1685 (about 50 years after Locke) in Ireland. He is a scholastic philosopher who vowed to tear apart materialism and prove the existence of God.

Berkeley says that there is no physical world, there is no matter and all that exists is in our mental states alone. Our world, our mind and its mental states alone are real. 

This reminds us of the Mayawada of our own Sankaracharya. Like the Mayawada of Sankara, it is difficult to refute but also equally difficult to accept.

Descartes says, I think therefore I am. Berkeley says” To be is to be perceived”. As per this a thing has an existence when it is perceived by someone and if it there is no one to perceive a thing, then it has no existence.

Berkeley was born in Ireland in the year 1685 and studied at Trinity College. He learnt Greek, Latin, Maths and Philosophy. He worked at Trinity College for some time after completing his education.

He had a brilliant mind and he published “ An Essay towards new theory of vision” in his 24th year itself. Then in his 25th year has written a treatise explaining his philosophy named “ Treatise concerning the principles of Human Understanding”. 3 years later at the age of 28 he wrote another book to explain his theories in the treatise. So by the age of 28 itself he has written the books that have brought him name in the world of Philosophy.

The writer Jonathan Swift was his close friend. One of Swift’s lovers had a fight with Swift and willed Berkeley with half her property before she died. So Berkley became wealthy and toured Italy.

Berkeley was an idealist. He felt that contemporary society was becoming corrupt and it is impossible to correct it. He felt it is better to pick up a tribal community and educate it to be idealistic. With this in mind he proposed to establish a Jesuit college in Bermuda. There he proposed to train Christian missionaries and make them train American Indians into an ideal society.

Despite obtaining the Kings approval for this venture it did not take off because the Parliament refused the 20,000 pounds assistance promised. Berkley later became the Bishop of a place called Cloin.

He felt that contemporary society is becoming corrupt and ethics and faith are on the decline on account of the advancement in science which led people to doubt everything. He felt it is his life’s aim to bring back society to the age of faith. He has built his philosophy with this aim in mind.

The philosophy of Locke and his empiricism have influenced Berkeley strongly. Berkeley is also an empiricist. However, he felt that the empiricism of Locke leads people to materialism, skepticism and thence to Atheism.

He felt that if one believes that the material world exists independently and it automatically acts as per certain rules, then what is the necessity of God for man? That is wrong, the world exists only because God exists and without God nothing is. Berkeley used all his intellect towards proving this.

Locke said that all the knowledge we acquire comes through sensory perception and reasoning. The reason for sensory perception is the material things in the external world. Although we perceive the external things through our senses, there is no guarantee that what we perceive is the actual thing that exists. The reality of a thing is beyond our senses and all we know is that a thing exists because it causes sensations in us. So as per Locke there are three entities…..there is a mind that perceives, there are perceptions and also a thing that causes the perceptions.

Berkeley took the gauntlet from here. He too believed that all our knowledge is gained from perception and what comes into our perception are only perceptions caused and not the actual thing. He accepted only these ideas from Locke and rejected the rest. 

Berkeley wrote two philosophical treatises to set forth his theory. His second book is in the style of Platos dialogues. They are between a materialist called Hilas and Philonus a non materialist. In these dialogues Berkley himself was Philonus.

What is heat? We perceive heat as our hand burns if we keep it on an object or near an object. It is felt only through mind. Therefore heat is just an idea in our mind but is not actually there in the things. Similarly with cold and all other ideas. Sweet taste makes you happy while bitter taste makes you unhappy. These are but perceptions and are dependent on your mind and they do not belong to the external things. 

Therefore everything depends on your perception and your mind. With this theory Berkeley refuted the absolute space and time of Newton. The speed of an object depends on the person perceiving it and not in the object itself. Whatever quality we perceive to be of the substance is not actually in the substance but is in our mind.

As per Locke if we are getting the perceptions in the mind it means that there has to be an object that is causing these sensations. But Berkeley rejected this theory. He said when all our mind can perceive are perceptions, when we are getting ideas only through perceptions how can we assume that there is something beyond them which we cannot perceive.

Therefore, nothing exists independently of the mind. The object exists because we perceive it. Only whatever we perceive exists and nothing else. It does not have any other existence apart from that. As per Berkeley “to be is to be perceived.” Then the question arises suppose I do not perceive does the world cease to exist? I am in a room and go out of it briefly; does the room cease to exist then? Even though I am not in the room as someone else perceives it so it continues to exist. Even if no one is looking at the room because God is looking at it, it will continue to exist.

So we can condense Berekely’s thought thus. Any material thing exists only as long as it is an idea in the mind but it does not have any independence existence. It can be me or another or even God who perceives it that would make it continue to exist.

Therefore if God does not exist then there is no world either because there is no one perceiving it continuously. So Berkeley asserted that God has to compulsorily exist in order for the world to exist. Berkeley felt happy that he finally proved the existence of God by this theory. Of course this has been the main aim of his philosophy.

One of Berkeley’s famous sentences is 

“All the choir of heaven and furniture of the earth, in a word , all those bodies which compose the mighty frame of the world have not any substance without the mind.” 

But we may ask, if we say that all the mind knows about are perceptions, then are we eating and drinking ideas? Berkeley says that those things exist for the mind but they do not have any existence beyond that.

We have a Buddhist philosophy known as Vijnanavada propounded by Asanga and Vasubandhu. It is also known as Yogachara and is similar to this philosophy. Vijnanavada does not believe in the independent existence of the external world.

JOHN LOCKE-EMPIRICISM

Empiricism like Materialism is a major field in Philosophy and it has flowered under the great John Locke the English philosopher, Bishop Berkeley the Irish genius and David Hume the Scottish intellectual. These 3 together form the triumvirate of British empiricism. This trend culminated in the philosophy of Hume which is very difficult to accept and equally difficult to refute. I am just giving the philosophy of Locke here in simple terms and hope to come out later with those of Berkeley and Hume.

JOHN LOCKE.

John Locke can be taken as the founder of empiricism in Western Philosophy. 

Materialism says that all the knowledge we acquire comes from the mind and reasoning whereas empiricism says that knowledge only comes from senses and experiences.

Locke was born in the year 1632 at a place called Rington near Bristol and was a philosopher for the Bourgeoisie that was rising fast then.

When the American constitution draft was prepared by Thomas Jefferson, he was strongly influenced by the theories of Locke. The declaration stating “……that all men are created equal, and they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” is but a reflection of Locke’s views.

Locke studied at Oxford but the medieval philosophy that was being taught there did not satisfy him and slowly he came under the influence of Rene Descartes. He studied Physics, Chemistry and Medicine and became a fellow of the British Royal Society in 1668.

Locke became friendly with Lord Ashley who later became the Earl of Shaftsbury. The Earl was dead against King Charles II of England, and is close to the Parliament. During that time the Parliament got split into the Tories that are loyal to the King and the Whigs who are the representatives of Liberal Bourgeois. Earl Shaftsbury was the leader of the Whigs. The Earl was imprisoned by the King and ultimately ran away to Poland and died a year later. Locke’s career followed that of the Earl. He too ran away and when William became the King of England Locke returned back and settled in his home country. He was an advisor to the Whigs and became famous. The book that brought him fame was his “Essay concerning Human Understanding”. This is a key book for empiricism.

Locke says that when man is born his mind is like a clean slate( tabula rasa) without any ideas. He says that even ethics are not absolute and there is no universal morality. Qualities like good and bad change from country to country and even from time to time. Good for one is bad for another. For example if Bhagat Singh is a hero for us, he is a terrorist for the British. Therefore there are no universal values. Even the concept of God is not uniform with different communities.

If there are no universal truths then where are we getting the knowledge from? Locke says only through experience. We get all our ideas only through sensory experience. We get knowledge through sensations and reflection.

We tend to generalize things. For example beauty. One thing makes us happy and we like it and we define it as something beautiful. Therefore beauty depends on our perception which is generalized and there is no absolute beauty. Similar is the case for all other ideas too.

One thing is absolutely sure. We get many different sensory perceptions and there has to be something that is creating these perceptions. Locke calls it ‘Substance”. We perceive the substance only through the sensations we experience but it is only appearances and not the reality. What we experience is not the reality but what our sense organs present to us. Locke says that when we hear a song we feel that it is nice to hear. But this is only a creation of our mind and a deaf man hears nothing. The fragrance of a flower is recognized only by our mind. It is dependent only on the mind.

Thus Locke says that there are limits to such knowledge and this opinion is the foundation to his Liberalism.

Locke supports liberal democracy. His political views are set forth in two books on Civil Government. In the first book he proved that Kings did not have any divine rights. It is amazing that a book had to be written to prove this then. In his second book Locke described the crux of governance and its qualities.

Locke believed that in the ancient times man was in the natural state. In this natural state everything was perfect. Although there was no Government there is a law of nature amongst the people. All men are equal and all had equal liberties, but this liberty is not unbridled. Whatever they did towards their own benefit, they did not impinge on the others rights nor caused harm to others. But at the same time some of them violated the law of nature and tried to grab others property and harm others. For stopping such violators everyone had a right to punish them and everyone is their own judge. But in such a situation certain problems arose. Everyone is King; he is the accuser, judge and the enforcer of the punishment as well. This led to indiscriminate use of such powers which led to strife and disturbance. For solving this problem men forsook some rights and gave those rights to the Government which they established. They came together and formed a society and a Kingdom. This is the social contract of Locke. However, the government does not have the right to take the fundamental rights of the people. It only has the powers to protect those inalienable rights. In fact the Government has been formed only to protect those rights. Locke felt that the primary responsibility of the Government is to protect the properties of the people. If a Government does not perform that duty well, the people have a right to rebel against the Government and elect another.

Power should never be concentrated in a single person or a single institution. The people who make laws and those who enforce them should not be the same or else it would deteriorate into a dictatorship. Therefore a Government has to abide by some written rules (constitution). If any Government violates the written law the people have every right to remove it.

His theory points out that there are limitations to knowledge and it is very relative. Therefore each has their own right to believe whatever they want and is entitled to it. Therefore one should never affirm that he is in the right and then try to force it on the others. So people should respect each others views and religious and freedom of thought is essential. Good is something that is greatest good of the greatest number.

As can be seen Locke's philosophy is exactly reflecting the democratic governments of the present day.

SRINIVASA RAMANUJAN.

This man is most amazing. Look at his background which did not aid him any way to take the course he did. With hardly any input he came out with mathematical theorems and propositions that even top mathematicians found difficult to understand. And just like Sankaracharya he too died at the age of 32. Both men were geniuses in their own fields. Who knows what he would have achieved had he lived longer. One of my acquaintances mentioned his name to me today and I could not resist reading more about him and I thank Wikipedia for the information which I had abridged and rewritten.

Srinivasa Ramanujan was born at Erode Tamilnadu in 1887. His father Srinivasa Iyengar worked as a clerk in a saree shop and his mother was a housewife and also sang in the local temple in the town of Kumbakonam. He moved with his mother to her parents house at Kanchipuram later. After that the family moved back to Kumbakonam and from there again to Madras. Ramanujan did not like the school in Madras. And he tried avoiding it. In 6 months he was back in Kumbakonam. In 1897 at the age of 10 Ramanujan entered the town higher secondary school where he learnt formal mathematics for the first time.

From that time onwards Ramanujan's mathematical genius flowered. By the age of 11 he completely learnt everything in mathematics from the two students who were lodgers at his home. By the age of 13 he completely mastered the advanced trigonometry of S.L.Loney and also discovered sophisticated theorems on his own. He completed the mathematical examinations in half the allotted time for the examinations. Ramanujan was solving cubic equations when he was just 15 years old and went on to solve the quartic equations.

When Ramanujan was just 16 he borrowed a copy of the book on mathematics by G.S.Carr. This book is generally acknowledged as the key element in awakening the genius of Ramanujan. Next year when he was just 17 he had independently developed and investigated the Bernoulli Numbers and calculated the Euler Mascheroni constant up to 15 decimal places. Ramanujan passed out from the school in 1904 when he was 17 years old. He won a scholarship for his brilliance in school for studying at Govt. Arts College, Kumbakonam. Ramanujan was so interested on mathematics that he ignored all other subjects and failed in most of them. 

In 1905 Ramanujan ran away from home towards Visakhapatnam and stayed at Rajahmundry for a month’s time. He then went back to Madras and enrolled at Pachiyappas college. He again excelled in mathematics but failed in other subjects for 2 consecutive years. He left the college without a degree and pursued an independent research on mathematics. At this time, he lived in extreme poverty and was on the brink of starvation.

In 1909 Ramanujan was married to a 10 year old girl Janakiammal. After marriage he developed a serious swelling of the testicles that could be easily corrected by surgery but neither he nor his family had the money required for the operation. Luckily for him a doctor volunteered to do the operation for free. After the surgery Ramanujan went around Madras door to door to obtain a clerical position. He tutored some students who were giving their FA exam in the Presidency College for living.

In 1910 Ramanujan met Deputy Collector V.Ramaswamy Iyer seeking a job in the revenue department. This man had founded the Indian Mathematical society. Iyer was struck by the value of the genius of Ramanujan and did not want to smother his talent by giving him a job. Instead he gave him a letter of introduction to his mathematician friends in Madras. The friends referred him to R.Ramachandra Rao the Collector of Nellore and the secretary of the Indian Mathematical Society. Ramachandra rao was impressed by the research but doubted if the work was actually done by Ramanujan himself. Ramanujan’s friend persuaded Ramachandra Rao who gave another audience to Ramanujan. Here Rmanujan discussed with Rao his various mathematical theories which converted Rao into believing the genius of Ramanujan. Rao then granted financial assistance to Ramanujan to take care of his daily needs while he continued his mathematical research.

Ramanujan first had his work published in the Indian Mathematical Journal and then continued to write in the journal. He then applied and got selected as a Grade III clerk in the Madras port trust at a salary of Rs 30 per month.

With the help of friends Ramanujan drafted letters to leading mathematicians at Cambridge University. The first two professors to whom the letters were sent returned the papers without any comment. Ramanujan then wrote to G.H.Hardy who initially suspected that it might be a fraud. But later he commented that he had never seen anything like them before. He thought that to invent such theorems is impossibility and therefore Ramanujan must be genuine. Hardy asked a colleague to look after the papers who was amazed at the mathematical genius of Ramanujan. After discussing the papers with his colleague Hardy concluded that Ramanujan is a man of exceptional originality and power.

Hardy invited Ramanujan to Cambridge but the latter refused saying that it is against his upbringing to leave the country and go to a foreign land over the sea. Another associate of Hardy, a mathematics Lecturer from Trinity College Cambridge examined Ramanujan's work and called it amazing and again invited him to spend some time at Cambridge. As a result of this endorsement Ramanujan got a research scholarship of Rs 75 per month from the Board of the Madras University.

Finally Ramanujan left for England in 1914. Ramanujan worked in collaboration with Hardy and his colleague Littlewood for 5 years. Ramanujan was awarded a PhD.(then called BA) in 1916 for his work on highly composite numbers. He was elected as a fellow of the Royal society in 1918 at the age of 31 and was one of the youngest fellows of the Royal Society. Then in 1918 again he became the first India to get elected as the fellow of the Trinity College, Cambridge.

Ramanujan's health worsened in England and he returned back to Kumbakonam in 1919 and died in the same year at the age of 32.

BLACK MONEY IN SWISS BANKS.

I think the quantum of black money in Swiss banks is unduly magnified by the media in India. Everyone has their own estimate but absolutely without any logical foundation. 

First of all why does a citizen need black money and how does he get it into Swiss banks? There are many ways of generating black money but the most important are:

1. Out of book transactions:

2. Manipulation of books of account:

3. Manipulation of sales/receipts/expenditure:

4. Corruption:

5. Manipulation by Way of International Transactions:

Out of the 5 major methods, only the 5th point generates foreign currency that could be stashed away in Swiss Banks.

Logically there is no reason for any Indian citizen to stash away money in Swiss banks when an area like the real estate in India gives them tremendous opportunity to invest the black money clandestinely avoiding all attention. Moreover the real estate sector delivers returns to them which no Swiss bank can match.

Therefore it appears that the money stashed away in Swiss banks is generated exclusively through international trade that cannot be channelized back to India easily. It may also include commissions on international contracts, specifically in areas like Defence.

Let us now examine as to what may be the quantum of black money in India. A.Schneider estimates, using economic variables arrived that the size of India's black money economy is between 23 to 26% of its GDP which is less than the average for Asian countries. The GDP of India is around 5,50,000 crores in 2012-13 at 2004-05 constant prices. If we take Schneiders estimates and consider the black money quantum to be 25%, then the black money in our economy is likely to be Rs 1,37,500 crores.

In early 2011, several reports in Indian media alleged Swiss Bankers Association officials to have said that the largest depositors of illegal foreign money in Switzerland are Indian. These allegations were later denied by Swiss Bankers Association as well as the central bank of Switzerland.

James Nason of Swiss Bankers Association alleged that the black money figures were rapidly picked up in the Indian media and in Indian opposition circles, and circulated as gospel truth. He stated that this story was a complete fabrication. The Swiss Bankers Association never said or published such a report. Anyone claiming to have such figures (for India) should be forced to identify their source and explain the methodology used to produce them.

Government has passed resolution for a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Switzerland to provide means for investigations of black money in Swiss banks. This revision, will allow the government to make inquiries of Swiss banks in cases where they have specific information about possible black money being stored in Switzerland.

In 2011, the Indian government received the names of 782 Indians who had accounts with HSBC. As of December, 2011, the Finance Ministry has refused to reveal the names, for privacy reasons, though they did confirm that no current Members of Parliament are on the list. In response to demands from the BJP release of the information, the government announced on that it would publish a white paper about the HSBC information.

According to White Paper on Black Money in India report, published in May 2012, the Swiss National Bank estimates that the total amount of deposits in all Swiss banks, at the end of 2010, by citizens of India were INR 9,295 crore or US$ 2.1 billion. The Swiss Ministry of External Affairs has confirmed these figures upon request for information by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs. Therefore the statement that Swiss banks accounts contain lakhs of crores of black money cannot be substantiated.

P.S.A lot of matter from the above write up has been taken from Wikipedia. It also contains information from other sites. The information is mixed with my own input for arriving at this. .