(A)theism, God, and Soul

TL;DR: The theism vs. atheism debate isn’t very important; the concept of soul is. To better understand soul, one has to turn to the issues pertaining to the divine. The divine is an adjective, not a noun; it is a modality of perception (of reality, by a soul); it is a special but natural modality that in principle is accessible to anyone. The faithful destroy the objectivity of the divine by seizing the concept and embedding it into the fold of religious mysticism; the materialists and skpetics help them in this enterprise by asserting, using another form of mysticism, that the divine does not even exist in the first place (because, to them, soul itself doesn’t).  Not all points are explicated fully, and further, the writing also is very much blogsome (more or less just on-the-fly).

Also see an important announcement at the end of this post.

This post has its origins in a comment which I tried to make at Anoop Verma’s blog, here: [^]. Since his blog accepts only comments that are smaller than 4KB, and since my writing had grown too long (almost 12 KB), I then tried sending that comment by email to him. Then, rather than putting him through the bother of splitting it up into chunks of 4KB each, I decided to run this comment at my own blog, as a post here.

After a rapid reading of Varma’s above-mentioned post [^], I was immediately filled with so many smallish seeds of thoughts, rushing in to me in such a random order, that I immediately found myself trapped in a state of an n-lemma (which word is defined as a quantitative generalization of “dilemma”). After idly nursing this n-lemma together with a cup of coffee for a while, both with a bit of fondness, I eventually found me saying to myself:

“Ah! And I don’t even know where to begin writing my comment!”.

Soon enough thereafter, I realized that the n-lemma persists precisely because I don’t know where to begin. … Begin. … Begin. … It’s Begin. … It’s the beginning! … Which realization then immediately got me recognizing that what is involved here belongs to the level of the basic of the basics—i.e., at the level of philosophic axioms.

Let me deal with the issue at that level, at the level of axiomatics, even though this way, my comment will not be as relevant to Varma’s specific post as it could possibly have been. But, yes, if I could spell out where to begin, then the entire problem would have been at least half-conquered. That’s because, this way, at least an indication of (i) the nature of the problem, and (ii) of its context, would have been given. As they say, a problem well defined is a problem half solved.

My main rhetorical point here is: It isn’t really necessary for one to try to get to know what precisely the term “god” means. By itself, it even looks like a non-issue. Mankind has wasted too much time on the issue of god. (Here, by “god,” I also include the God of Christianity, and of any other monotheistic/other religion.)

I mean to say: you could have a logically complete philosophy, and therefore could live a logically complete (i.e. “fullest” etc.) life, even if you never do come across the specific word: “god.”

(BTW, you could have completeness of life in this way only if you weren’t to carry even an iota of faith anywhere in your actual working epistemology. … Realize, faith is primarily an issue from epistemology, not metaphysics; the consequences of faith-vs-reason in morality, religion, society, organized religion, and politics are just that—only consequences.)

So, it isn’t really necessary to know what god means or therefore even to search for one—or to spend time proving its presence or absence. That’s what I think. Including “wasting” time debating about theism vs. atheism.

But it is absolutely necessary, for the aforementioned logical completeness to be had, to know what the term “soul” means—and what all it presupposes, entails, and implies.

Soul is important.

When it comes to soul, you metaphysically have one anyway, and further, theoretical questions pertaining to its existence and identity (or a research pertaining to them) logically just does not arise. The concept is a fundamental self-evident primary—i.e. a philosophic axiom. (Of course, there have been people like David Hume, but I am focusing here mainly on establishing a positive, not on polemics.)

As I said in the past [^][^], soul, to me, is an axiomatic concept.

Now, like in any other field of knowledge and endeavor, the greater the extent and refinement of your knowledge (of something), the better is your efficacy (in that regard). In other words, the better off you are.

Ditto, with regard to this concept too.

A case in point: Suppose you yourself were capable of originally and independently reaching that philosophical identification which is contained in Ayn Rand’s axiom “existence exists,” and suppose that you held it in a truly in-depth manner, i.e. qua axiom. Just assume that. Just assume, for the sake of argument, that you were the one who reached that universal truth which is encapsulated by this axiom, for the first time in the world! But an axiom by itself is nothing if it isn’t tied-in non-contradictorily with all its prior cognitive preparation and logical implications. Suppose that you did that too—to match whatever extent of knowledge you did have. Now consider the extent and richness of the (philosophic) knowledge which you would have thus reached, and compare it to that which Ayn Rand did. (For instance, see Dr. Harry Binswanger’s latest post here [^] with a PDF of his 1982 writings here [^], which is a sort of like an obit-piece devoted to Ayn Rand.) … What do you get as a result of that comparison?

“What’s the point,” you ask?

The point is this: The better the integrations, the better the knowledge. The non-contradictorily woven-in relations, explanations, implications, qualifications, applications, etc. is what truly makes an axiom “move” a body of knowledge—or a man. And on this count, you would find Rand beating you by “miles and miles”—or at least I presume Varma would agree to that.

Realize, by the grace of the nature of man (including the nature of knowledge), something similar holds also for the concept of soul.

And here, in enriching the meaning, applications, etc. of this concept, you would find that most (or all) of the best material available to you has come to you from houses of spirituality, or for that matter, even of religion (by which, I emphatically mean, first and foremost (though not exclusively), the Indian religions)—not from Ayn Rand.

The extant materials pertaining to soul come from houses of spirituality and religion (or rarely, e.g. in the Upanishads, of ancient Indian philosophy). Given the nature of their sources—ancient, scattered, disparate, often mere notings without context, and most importantly, only in the religious or mystical context—it is very easy to see that they must have been written via an exercise of faith. This is an act of faith on the writer’s part—and sometimes, he has been nothing more than a mere scribe to what appears to be some inestimably better Guru, who probably wouldn’t have himself espoused faith or mysticism. But, yes, the extant materials on the philosophy of mind are like that. (Make sure to distinguish between epistemology and philosophy of mind. Ayn Rand had the former, but virtually nothing on the latter.) Further, the live sources about this topic also most often do involve encouragement to faith on the listener’s/reader’s part. They often are very great practitioners but absolutely third-class intellectualizers. Given such a preponderance of faith surrounding these matters, there easily arises a tendency to (wrongly) label the good with the poison that is faith—and as the seemingly “logical” next step, to dismiss the whole thing as a poison.

Which is an error. An error that occurs at a deep philosophic level—and if you ask me, at the axiomatic level.

In other words, there exists a “maayaa” (or a veil) of faith, which you have to penetrate before you can get to the rich, very rich, insights on the phenomenon of soul, on the philosophy of the mind.

Of those who declare themselves to be religious or faithful, some are better than others; they sometimes (implicitly) grasp the good part concerning the nature of the issue, at least partly. Some of these people therefore can be found even trying to defend religion and its notions—such as faith—via a mostly misguided exercise of reason! (If you want to meet some of them: People like Varma, being in India, would be fortunate in this regard. Just spend a week-end in a “waari,” or in an “aashram” in the Himalya, or at a random “ghaaTa” on a random river, or in a random smallish assembly under some random banyan or peepul tree…. You get the idea.)

Thus to make out (i.e. distinguish) the better ones from the rotten ones (i.e. the actually faithful among those who declare themselves to believe in faith), you yourself have to know (or at least continue keeping an unwavering focus on) the idea of  the“soul” (not to mention rational philosophic ideas such as reason). You have to keep your focus not on organized religion primarily, not even on religion … and not even, for that matter, even on spirituality. Your underlying and unwavering focus has to be on the idea of “soul,” and the phenomena pertaining to it.

You do that, and you soon enough find that issues such as atheism vs. theism more or less evaporate away. At least, they no longer remain all that interesting. At least, not as interesting as they used to be when you were a school-boy or a teenager.

The word “atheism” is derived from the word “theism,” via a negation (or at least logical complimentation) thereof. “Atheism” is not a word that can exist independently of “theism.”

Etymologically, “theism” is a corrupt form (both in spelling and meaning) of the original (historical) Western term “dei-ism,” which came from something like “dieu”, which came from a certain ancient Sanskrit root involving “d”.  The Sanskrit root “d” is involved in the stems that mean: to give, and by implication and in appropriate context, also to receive. It is a root involved in a range of words: (i) “daan,” meaning giving; (ii) “datta,” meaning, the directly presented (in the perceptual field)—also the given—and then, also the giver (man), in particular, the (bliss)-giving son of the sage “atri” and his wife “anasuya” (an_ + a + su + y + aa, i.e., one without ill-will (or jealousy or envy)), and (iii) “divya”, meaning, divine (the same “div” root!).

The absence in the Western etymologies of the derivation of the English word “divine” from the ancient “d,” “diue,” “div-,” etc. is not only interesting psychologically but also amply illuminating morally.

The oft-quoted meaning of “divya” as “shining, or glimmering” appears to be secondary; it seems to be rather by association. The primary meaning is: the directly given in the perception—but here the perception is to be taken to be of a very special kind. The reason why “shimmering” gets associated with the word is because of the very nature of the “divya-druShTi” (divine vision). Gleening from the sources, divine vision (i) seems to be so aetherial and evanescent, flickering in the way it appears and disappears, and (ii) seems to include the perceived objects as if they were superimposed on the ordinary perceptual field of the usual material objects “out there,” say in a semi-transparent sort of a manner, and only for a fleeting moment or two. The “shimmering” involved, it would seem, is analogous to the mirage in the desert, i.e. the “mrigajaLa” illusion. Since a similar phenomenon also occurs due to patterns of cold-and-dense and hot-and-rarefied air near and above an oil lamp, and since the lamp is bright, the “di”-whatever root also gets associated with “shining.” However, this meaning is rather by association; it’s a secondary meaning. The primary meaning of “divya” is as in the “specially perceived,” with the emphasis being on specially, and with the meaning of course referring to the process of perception, not to this perceived object vs. that.

Thus, “divya” is an adjective, not a noun; it applies to a quality of a perception, not to that which has thus been perceived. It refers to a form or modality of perception (of (some definite aspect of) reality). This adjective completely modifies whatever that comes after it. For instance, what is perceptible to a “divya”-“druShTi” (divine vision) cannot be captured on camera—the camera has no soul. The object which is perceived by the ordinary faculty of vision can be captured on camera, but not the object which is perceptible via “divya-druShTi.” The camera would register merely the background field, not the content of the divine vision.

(Since all mental phenomena and events have bio-electro-chemo-etc-physical correlates, it is conceivable that advancement in science could possibly be able to capture the content of the “divya-druShTi” on a material medium. Realize that its primary referent still would belong to the mental referents. A soul-less apparatus such as a camera would still not be able to capture it in the absence of a soul experiencing it.)

Notice how the adjective ”divya”, once applied to “druShTi”, completely changs the referent from a perception of something which is directly given to the ordinary vision in the inanimate material reality (or the inanimate material aspects of a living being), to the content of consciousness of an animate, soulful, human being.

This does not mean that this content does not refer to reality. If the “divya-druShTi” is without illusions or delusions, what is perceived in this modality of perception necessarily refers to reality. Illusions and delusions are possible with the ordinary perception too. It is a fallacy to brand all occurrences of “divya-druShTi” as just “voices” and “hallucinations/delusions/illusions” just because: (i) that mode of perception too is fallible, and (ii) you don’t have it anyway. (Here, the “it” needs some elaboration. What you don’t have (or haven’t yet had) is: a well-isolated instance of a “divya” perception, as a part of your past experience. That doesn’t mean that other people don’t or cannot have it. Remember, the only direct awareness you (a soul) have is of your own consciousness—not someone else’s.)

“deva” or “god” (with a small `g’) is that which becomes accessible (i.e. perceivable) to you when your perception has (temporarily) acquired the quality of the “divya.”

Contrary to a very widespread popular misconception, the word “divya” does not come from a more primary“dev”; it does not mean that which is given by “dev” (i.e. a god). In other words, in principle, you are not at the mercy of a god to attain the “divya” modality.

The primacy, if there is any at all, is the other way around: the idea of “dev” basically arises with that kind of a spiritual (i.e. soul-related) phenomenon which can be grasped in your direct perception when the modality of that direct perception carries the quality of the “divya.” (The “d” is the primary root, and as far as my guess-work goes, a likely possibility is that both the “di” (from which comes“divya”) and the “de” (from which comes the“dev”) are off-shoots.) T

This special modality of perception is apparently not at all constant in time—not to most people who begin to have it anyway. It comes and goes. People usually don’t seem to be reaching a level of mastery of this modality to the extent that they can bring it completely under their control. That is what you can glean from the extant materials as well as from (the better ones among) the living people who claim such abilities.

Yet, in any case, you don’t have to have any notion of god, not even thereby just meaning “dev,” in order to reach the “divya.” That is my basic point.

Of course, I realize that those whose actual working epistemology is faith and mysticism, have long, long ago seized the idea of “dev” (i.e. god), and endowed it with all sorts of mystical and irrational attributes. One consequence of such a mystification is the idea that the “divya” is not in the metaphysical nature of man but a mystical gift from god(s). … An erroneous idea, that one is.

A “divya” mode of perception is accessible to anyone, but only after developing it with proper discipline and practice. Not only that, it can also be taught and learnt, though, gleening from literature, it would be something like a life-time of a dedication to only that one pursuit. (In other words, forget computational modeling, engineering, quantum physics, blogging… why, even maths and biology!)

In the ancient Indian wisdom, the “divya,” “dev,” and the related matters also involve a code of morality pertaining to how this art (i.e. skill) is to be isolated and grasped, learnt, mastered, used, and taught.

Misuse is possible, and ultimately, is perilous to the abuser’s own soul—that’s what the ancient Indian wisdom explicitly teaches, time and again. That is a very, very important lesson which is lost on the psychic attackers. … BTW, “veda”s mention also of this form of evil. (Take a moment to realize how it can only be irrationality—mysticism and faith in particular—which would allow the wrongful practitioner to attempt to get away with it—the evil.)

The “divya” mode is complementary to the conceptual mode of perception. (Here, I use the term “perception” in the broadest possible sense, as meaning an individual’s consciousness of reality via any modality, whether purely sensory-perceptual, perceptual, or conceptual—or, now, “divya”-involving).

Talking of the ordinary perceptual and the “divya” modalities, neither is a substitute for the other. Mankind isn’t asked to make a choice between seeing and listening (or listening and tasting, etc.). Why is then a choice brought in only for the “divya”, by setting up an artificial choice between the “divya” and the ordinary perceptual?

Answer: In principle, only because of faith.

To an educated man living in our times, denying the existence of the divine (remember, it’s an adjective, not a noun) most often is a consequence of blindly accepting for its nature whatever assertion is put forth by the (actually) faithful, the (actually) mystic, to him. It’s an error. It may be an innocent error, yet, by the law of identity, it’s an error. Indeed, it can be a grave error.

The attempt to introduce a choice between the ordinary perceptual and the “divya”-related perceptual is not at all modern; from time immemorial, people (including the cultured people of the ancient India) have again and again introduced this bad choice, with the learned ones (Brahmins, priests) typically elevating the “divya” over the ordinary perceptual. Often times, they would go a step even further and accord primacy to the “divya.” For instance, in India, ask yourself: How often have you not heard the assertion that“divya-dnyaana” (the divine knowledge, i.e., the conceptual knowledge obtained via the divine modality of perception) is superior to the “material” knowledge (i.e. the one obtained via the ordinary modalities of perception)? This is a grave error, an active bad.

The supposed “gyaanee”s (i.e. a corrupt form of “dnyaani”, the latter meaning: the knowledgeable or the wise) of ancient India have not failed committing this error either. They, too, did not always practice the good. They, too, would often both (i) mystify the process of operating in the “divya” mode, and (ii) elevate it above the ordinary perceptual mode.

Eventually, Plato would grab this bit from some place influenced by the ancient Indian culture, go back to Greece, and expound this thing as an entire system of a very influential philosophy in the West. And, of course, Western scholars have been retards enough in according originality of the invention to Plato. But the Western scholars are not alone. There are those modern Indian retards (esp. the NRIs (esp. Californians), Brahminism-espousers, etc.) too, who clamor for the credit for this invention to be restored back to the Indian tradition, but who themselves are such thorough retards that they cannot even notice in the passing how enormously bad that philosophy is—including, e.g., how bad this kind of a view of the term “divya” itself represents. (Or, may be, they get attracted to the Platonic view precisely because they grasp that it resonates with their kinds of inner motives of subjugating the rest of us under their “intellectual” control.)

Finally, though I won’t explicate on it, let me revisit the fact that the “divya” mode also is every bit as natural as is the ordinary mode. Nothing supernatural here—except when the faithful enter the picture.

In particular, speaking of the “divya” (or the original meaning of the term “divine”) in terms of the never-approachable and mystical something—something described as “transcendental,” belonging to the “higher dimensions,” something literally supposed to be “the one and the only, beyond all of us,” etc.—is ridiculous.

However, inasmuch as the “divya” modality is hard to execute, as with any skill that requires hard-work to master,  the attainment of the “divya” too calls for appropriate forms of respect, admiration, and even exaltation and worship for some (provided the notion is not corrupted via mysticism or faith). … This looks gobbledygook, so let me concretize it a bit. Just because I regard such things natural, I do not consider them pedestrian. One does not normally think of greeting a saintly man with a casual “hey dude, whatssup, buddy?” That is the common sense most everyone has, and I guess, it is sufficient.

Already too long a comment… More, may be later (but don’t press me for it).

An Important Announcement:

I had decided not to blog any more until the time that I land a job—a Mechanical Engineering Professor’s job in Pune. That’s why, even as continuing to make quite a few comments at other people’s blogs, I did not post anything new here. I wanted the readers’ eyes to register the SPPU Mechanical Engineering Professors’ genius once again. And then, again. And again.

And again.

Now that I have updated this blog (even if I have not landed a job this academic hiring season), does it mean that I have given in to the plan of their genius?

Answer: No. I have not. I have just decided to change my blogging strategy. (I can’t control their motives and their plans. But I can control my blogging.)

With this post, I am resuming my blogging, which will be, as usual, on various topics. However, a big change is this: Whenever I feel like the topic of my last post isn’t getting the due attention which it deserves, I will simply copy-paste my last post, and re-post it as a brand new post once again, so that the topic not only gets re-publicised in the process but also reclaims back the honor of being the first post visible here on this blog.

Genius needs to be recognized. Including the SPPU Mechanical Engineering Professors’ (and SPPU authorities’) genius.

I will give them that.

A Song I Like:

(Old Rajasthani Hindi) “nand-nandan diThu paDiyaa, maaee, saavaro…”
Singer: Lata Mangeshkar
Lyrics: (Traditionally asserted as being an original composition by) Saint Meera
Music: Hridaynath Mangeshkar


[I have streamlined this post a bit since its publication right today. I may come back and streamline it further a bit, may be after a day or two. Finished streamlining on 2016.09.09 morning; I will let the remaining typos and even errors remain intact as they are, for these would be beyond mere editing and streamlining—these would take a separate unit of thinking for explanation or even to get them straightened out better.]


One More (But Milder) Psychic Attack

Just a brief note that I again received yet another psychic attack today… May be the thousandth in my life, from the same sources, but, with the new “Zero Tolerance” policy that I have come to recently adopt in my life, it was important that this came out in the open.

I believe that it originated not from an avowedly Muslim country such as Pakistan, or an avowedly socialist country such as The Peoples’ Republic of China, but from the United States of America.

The precision was unmistakable.

The degree was about 40 to 50 % of the last attack;  see my post dated March 1, 2010.

The attacks began in 1998, under the white (Democratic) Bill Clinton administration; continued through the white (Republican) G. W. Bush (Junior)’s administration; had a lull immediately after the time of the signing of the Civil Nuclear Deal; and seem to resume under the black (Democratic) Barack Obama administration.

I wish the same to you, Barack. And I know, unlike most Americans since the times of Colonel George Washington, you do not like to be called by your first name. That’s all for today, but…

. . . . .

If these attacks continue, I will get worse. Publicly. That’s a promise.

On other lines, I believe it’s nearing time that I expose folks who, through police complaints and all in the USA, have helped these American dogs (of the abovementioned kind)—provided them the leverage.

Caution: Some of them are–at least were–avowedly Objectivist.

. . . . .

I did have a few things to say before these things began about after the mid night of last night. These are the following.

The good thing: Indian editors coming together against mixing news with… [whatever]. An article in news media by a COEP alumnus. Comments on blogs and the recent happenings….

Some other time, folks!… Unlike Barack, I have already had a bypass—and the origin, I believe, largely belongs to the Americans.

[Yes, they—today’s Americans, esp. their government servants and politicians, esp. their psi forces— are worth spitting at… But I want to spit at them later—in a manner than the spit sticks to their faces—white or black—in a manner fitting to their deeds.]

No songs this time. Not because I can’t think of one of these (I happen to believe that I could easily think of at least one if I were to ever face a firing squad) but because this cybercafe is already closing…

More, later.

And, yes, this is not a matter of April-fooling around.

–Dr. Ajit R. Jadhav

Pune, India

PS: Pronab (or whatever distorted way you Bengalis spell out the simple name: Pranav), when you put on that weird funny gown and cap tomorrow, ask Patangrao/Vishwajit/Dr. Bhalerao (who attended, I have been told, RSS, in his childhood): Why did these Indira Congress folks fail to hire me as a Professor.

PPS: Has Rahul Gandhi/Priyanka’s husband come to develop a heart trouble out of psychic attacks of this nature? … How I would love it if they were to!!


To be updated/edited later on

Psychic Attacks on Me—Once Again, Right Today!

I have mentioned oftentimes before, here and elsewhere, that I have been “followed up” in media and have been subject to psychic attacks (yes, specifically those!)

While I had been sensing a bit of psychic follow-ups over the past few days, I ignored it. As is usual, these were accompanied by weird emails and Web-site notifications, esp. from the Times of India group. For example…. Umm… Let me give you the background first. I had created an account with the Times of India venture “SimplyMarry.com,” some time ago. Then, fed up with the weird messages generated by the Times of India management, I had chosen to close the account. However, despite my requests to do so, they never actually closed the account, and kept on sending messages to me. They choose their own wording and timing… After a lull of several months, it was within past two weeks that they once again woke up and sent, given their history, what essentially couldn’t have been anything but, a harassing email reminder.

Anyway, to come back to psychic attacks and all… Today, I received a major psychic attack. … If you are conversant with these things, the areas targeted were: the left side of chest, esp. the heart region, and also, to a certain extent, the stomach region. In the language of “chakra”s and all (which I have read a lot about but find to be far too sloppy and romanticized a description), the attack occurred right on my solar plexus chakra and heart chakra.

If I can suffer such attacks, can I figure out who attacked me? Unfortunately, not.

Who do I think could be behind this attack (as usual, cowardly and dark)? I am afraid I do not know.

Do I have a guesswork? I think not. But let me tell you the possibilities—i.e. my unwillingness to believe and saythat such and such a party simply could not have been the attacker. I believe that the attack could easily have originated from anyone beginning from a “maantrik” employed by some Indian page-3 occupant who, by some turn of “gears,” found himself in an inconvenient spot, to someone from Pakistan, to, also, someone from the USA.

In any case, with my changed policy, I had decided to immediately identify the attack as soon as it occurred…. I have done so using my signature on iMechanica.org in the past…. Since I no longer blog there, I decided to state it here.

Needless to add, I would resume my blogging once I find that the attack has subsided. … I have been subjected to these since (at least) July 1998, when I was in the USA, and they have taken a physical toll on me, too…. More on that, some other time… For the time being, I am just going to take rest and not blog—which could very well be the outcome the attackers had desired.

Given its nature, this post won’t have the “Songs I Like” section. And, yes, I think I would revise the contents too, sometime later.

Just one more note: If I don’t know who the attacker(s) is (are), it obviously means that I do not give anyone permission to similarly attack anyone else—that would be at random, and I won’t have any of it.


–Dr. Ajit R. Jadhav

Employers Who Don’t Give Me a Job + Some Topical Notings + Something about Psychic Attacks on Me

(1) Employers Who Don’t Give Me a Job—A Partial List:

One obvious advantage that employers in Pune have in remembering Yeshwantrao Chavan is that what the latter had said once: “Look in even a minor bylane of Pune, and you would find world-class intellectuals by dozens.” Chavan’s comment did carry a bit of a humourously oblique reference to how Pune people view themselves, but it also did carry an honest appraisal and more: an actual admiration that Chavan did feel about intellectuals; an admiration which was so authentic that it almost looks romantic in comparison to what today’s politicians display towards intellectuals. Indeed, if anything, there is an inversion of sorts: If you are intellectual from Pune, you have to be so nondistinct that you need not be taken seriously in any sense.

But then, politicians are not alone. Evidently, editors of Pune newspapers, and also employers in Pune, including educationists, derive their views about employability of a man on more or less exactly the same lines. If you are a world-class engineer, you would know how to survive taking in wind alone—that is their working view of the merits of a case. Consider the potential employers who evidently have taken such a view (and the list is in random order):

— Padmashree Maharashtrabhushan Mr. Vijay Bhatkar. (No call for interview at I^2IT despite my being from the first batch of C-DAC’s flagship educational product: DAC)

— UGC Committee Member Ms. Vidya Yerawadekar. (No acknowledgement of application, so that nothing further can at all arise.)

— Potential Lokasabha Candidate for Congress (I), Vishwajit Kadam. (Promise of a job made in person to me verbally. Broken without any letter, call, or explanation. Perhaps KD Jadhav’s comment that “anybody who is “inconvenient” to Balasaheb gets thrown out of Bharati Vidyapeeth” was telling; was it, Jadhav?)

— PTC’s Blue-Eyed Boy Ashutosh Parasnis. (Yes, he probably made more than Rs. 50 lakhs the last time I wrote about him. Also his communist assistant in HR, Shejwalkar’s student Taposh.)

— Shejwalkar’s Blue-Eyed Boy Mr. Deepak Shikarpur. (No acknowledgement of the emails sent and no phone calls returned including the message left at his home, with his son. (No, I wasn’t being more pushy than needs be the case.))

— Ratan Tata’s Blue-Eyed IIT Boys at the Computational Research Laboratories. (No acknowledgement of the job application made in response to their Web-based advertisement. If they are made of the soil they are, probably, they will use their influence to publicly wonder aloud why one of the ministries managed by Sharad Pawar isn’t buying their computer. Right, ex-IIT Bombay professors and students?)

— IIT Bombay’s SINE’s Blue-Eyed Boys at Zeus Numerix. (More details given on more than one occasion on my blog and elsewhere… I wonder if Irshad Khaan was under pressure from Taliban to dismiss me. What do you say Irshaad? Do you have either the guts or the arguments to face my question? Note, either or both will do. … BTW, they find the same roof as provided by Padmashree Maharashtrabhushan Mr. Vijay Bhatkar, Warkari.)

— I will revise and expand this list as it strikes me… If the employers aren’t bound by any sense of shame as to who is to employed and who not, why should I be bound by any such a thing as keeping a timetable of convenience to them concerning when and how I update the list and who all do I include? As I said, “hamaam mein sab ke sab hain nange”…

(2) Some Topical Notings:

M J Akbar’s column in today’s ToI made for a greatly interesting reading. Also similarly interesting have been the many recent writings on the new “American” President at CapMag.com, though I don’t always find the time to catch it all (no matter how much I may like to do so).

Anyway, returning to Akbar’s piece, one was struck at the remarkable similarities between the views of Taliban held by Obama, the occupants of seats of power in Pakistan, and, far more interesting to me, Californian businessmen. Also, American “scientists” managing the order in which articles get published at arxiv.org, and the “scientist” reporting about them at the TechnologyReview.com’s arxiv-related blog. This last B+ (it’s a regular expression) can especially be singled out. He “digs” at me shamelessly but doesn’t want to give me even this of a credit that it is me who he digs.

I mean, if you work in the IT industry, esp. in California (or, increasinly, work in anything to do with the Americans managed scientific establishment) you will always get subjected to power-maneouvers at least indirectly cajoling you to shun all forms of extremism (bad, as well as good), as well as to shun any form of judgment (a considered judgement i.e. an act of deliberation, or a blind emotionalism) on any form of extremism. This goes on all the time…

…. You can’t judge anything … None is too better than anyone else … You are not better than us (and if you try to show that you are, here’re our Internet warriors and/or psychics to bring you “in line”) … I don’t understand what you are saying …

It all goes on all the time, full-steam, in USA, esp. in California, and in every business dependent on California… It suits perfectly the judgment-avoiding spineless pseudo intellectuals from India too—whether working here in Pune in IT sector or in Washington state under Bill Gates, or in California…

(It’s no accident that soon after I began exposing the Hindu Brahmin connection of TiE.org, their Pune chapter awoke from slumber and organized an event involving an actually innocent guy, Raja Vaidya. …. Kanwal, don’t try to fool me. You might be a BTech from IIT Bombay and I might not have passed JEE. Yet, by now, I know, to paraphrase a recent Hindi film song, that “XXXX QM nahin kar saktaa saalaa,” where, Kanwal, do feel free to insert your own name in place of XXXX, too (LOL!) )

Returning to nonjdugment as the principle guiding all human action—the present-day hallmark of Californians—consider its practical outfall…
Consider the fraction of revenue of Indian IT industry directly or indirectly dependent on such whims (as of, e.g., of men supplied with Kanwal’s money, or the whims expressly issuing forth off Barbara Boxer’s consciousness) and you can plainly see why there cannot be an appreciation of Akbar’s writings from Pune simply because it has not been laced with the BJP bromides… Also, why I cannot get a job in s/w development for CAE field in Pune.

Do you have any other ideas on the matter Rajiv Gandhi SangaNak Sarathis Shikarpur, Barhate (whose “social” events are reportedly attended by only his board of directors!), or Padmashree Maharashtrabhushan (Warkari) BI hahatkar?

(3) Something about Psychic Attacks on Me:

I have been psychically attacked since at least July of 1998—the time when I was working in the San Francisco Bay Area. It continues, on a DAILY BASIS, till date.

The spectrum of trouble currently in force includes: bad dreams, inducement of a “zing” like physically felt sound and feel (which, I have been careful enough to isolate, is not of direct physiological origin such as high BP, aspirin-induced or otherwise ringing voice in ears, etc.), pain in the three or four typical points, etc. (The “zing” or “ssssak” like thing is, to an extent, associated with visits to my blogs. I emphasize the word: “to an extent.” But first continue reading in a general way about it all… ) The “zing-thing” mostly occurs just before waking, but is noticeable at other times of the night,  and recently, even at daytime. [The only morning in the recent months on which the “zing-thing” did not occur and thus I could have a peaceful sleep was the night following the day when I had publicly mentioned on this very blog how my grand-father and a few ancestors knew the  Pawar family. That night, all “zings” were somewhat less virulent or mild, and they occurred up to around 11:00 PM. Later on, they had abruptly stopped so that I had a nice sleep all through up to waking up the next morning.]

After carefully applying Mill’s method (of induction), I have distilled the essential fact that these attacks originate from Americans, but not from Russians, Pakistanis, or for that matter, even Indians, though let me hasten to add that such things could easily have been outsourced to any of these… I mean, the man actually doing the attack could very easily be an Indian citizen or come from any other country. But the nerve center—the direction, the *thought*—it originates in the USA.

Now, it could very well also be the case that such an American origin actually can be traced back to China or Pakistan’s power-centers. Possible. Namely, that it’s only a contract PR agency based in Washington DC that does this with Islamabad or Beijing-based clients, ultimately. Possible.

But what I mean to say is that my analysis thus far isn’t accurate enough to point this out necessarily. (No matter how inconvenient it is to the analysts on the payroll of DoD of Government of India, or to the children of ex defence personnel now settled in USA, or others of their ilk.)

I mean to say, I have informally, but very very carefully, monitored my own acute physical pains, on a daily basis, for more than the decade since June/July of 1998. (The pains are sometimes extremely acute—acute enough that my mother, when she too receives such pains, is actually found crying for hours, even though I, for some unknown reasons, do not find myself crying as such, as if it were not biologically possible, even if my own pain too is acute enough when it occurs.) I have monitored my pain through the ups and downs of Bill Clinton’s high-profile Monikagate, Kargil war, the Internet bubble bust, the election controversy over counting of votes and George W. Bush’s becoming of the President, my returning to India (in Aug. 2001), the 9/11, the aftermath of 9/11, my physical beating in Pune (by unidentified Muslim youth), the Parliament attacks, the American wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, BJP’s decision to deploy Indian troops at Indo-Pak border for years, my visits to ToI Pune office asking why they cover my personal life so incessantly, the removal of the BJP government, the communist’s power-sharing in India, the movement to and the signing off of the nuclear deal, Musharraf’s removal, the election of Barack Obama, the kicking out of the communists, and the announcement of the current Loksabha…

So, the span of my careful monitoring has encompassed: the power-switch from the Democrats to the Republicans and back; the initial stage of BJP’s power-grab through their rise and fall; an Indo-Pak War; two major wars of the United States; a power-switch in the UK and a Pakistan; apart from of course, assasinations, coups, etc. etc. etc. Even a streak of largely undeserved Oscars “won” by the Bollywood.

All through such times, I have experienced highs and lows in the psychic attacks that I suffered. But, without any major relief. The first noticeable relief in my daily psychic attacks began in the initial stages of the nuclear deal; the most acute of my pains still do occur whenever America considers any major or minor decision w.r.t. Islamabad and/or Delhi. (There have been times when I have predicted to my family that though it is not as yet reported in the media, someone from the USA Department of State must be visiting New Delhi and/or Islamabad today, with the meeting actually going on in the afternoon, simply because that was the time when I was feeling the most acute pain… Every time, the correlation has come out right.)

There have been differences, though. Prior to nuclear deal, whenever the Ayn Rand Institute published anything, I would scream in pain here in Pune. Today, exactly opposite happens. I am experiencing a basic level of pain which is helped eased whenever some Objectivist publishes something at AynRand.org or CapMag.com or so.

Similar correlations I have experienced with respect to blogging activities elsewhere too (to a minor extent, also at iMechanica—my pain would depend on whether someone was *apparently* criticizing me or not.)

Naturally, I do *not* charge my fellow iMechanicians with any conspiracy against me. None. I have chosen to bear my pain through the years because, right from the beginning, the pain also was accompanied by subtle messages, all to the effect that I give up Ayn Rand’s Objectivism as my philosophy, and, given the fact that Objectivism is politically still a non-entity, it all made me even more curious about the *origins* of all these attacks—in whose consciousness did they originate specifically in my case (and even more strongly to support Ayn Rand, up to a level that I doubt she herself could have managed it on her own were to she be alive today). At other times, the messages were to the effect that I should not continue with the Reiki meditation (I have done two levels), etc. (No, Mill’s method does not indicate Reiki as the cause. I had been doing Reiki meditation for more than a year before the pains began.)

Here, I am, indeed, reminded of a curious invention by Japanese. You know robotics. They all try to make robots having appearance of man. But since kinematics of the human form is so tough to get right (including walking, going upstairs, etc.), that the progress has been slow… But one guy (I suppose he was a prof. at a Jap. univ.) really thought of a completely new approch. Instead of a standalone robot that is programmed to do some simple task, why not “armor” a man with robot-like arms and legs? That is the idea. So, basically, you have “motorized” steel arms-like cover or sleeves which are worne by a *normal* human being. Not someone with physical disability or amputated arms, but a normal man. These steel arm-sleeves carry motion sensors with them. Whenever you naturally lift your arm, the sensors sense your motion and direct the powerful but lightweight motors attached on the sleeves, to lift the mechanical arm too. Ok. That looks complicated, but here’s the advantage. Suppose you want to lift a 500 kg steel casting lying on the factory floor. You can’t do it with your natural strength. But wear these robotic arms, and now, it is the arms and the electric motor which will take the load. You will, of course, also wear a mechanical torso like shield and a mechanical pair of legs, which, actually, will take the load and transmit it to the ground support. Thus, the design includes the complexity and the naturalness of the thought of an actual human being, and a mechanical robot’s capacity to take great loads like 500 kg. Obviously, such a robot will easily outdo every other robot on the combination of brains and brawns.

In a sense, such a robot is nothing but an amplifier of your mechanical power.

That, precisely, is what I have thought about these psychic attacks. Their mechanism is the following. They follow a few role-model like people to the hilt. Employ detectives and unearth as much information about their personal life, history, sextual history, class-mates, lovers, books, music, foods, political involvements, crime history, and whatnot. Everything. I guess some dedicated team must be required to do so… Then, they also employ psychics. And then, whenever someone—say your offshore development team member in California, Colorado, Cambridge UK, or from India—expresses something, they amplify it… They often have a smashing success of it. (Pun, sadly, is intended.)

Exactly the same, they tried to replicate at iMechanica. But, so far, they have had only success. A few things came in the way… (i) iMechanica is Harvard’s baby, and there is that Harvard’s famous sense of tradition, plus the historical accident that both Harvard and USA happen to have had a better tradition than what they have in the present, with the result that better things seem to prevail at Harvard (even today); (ii) The sense of professional courtesey and integrity, again traditional virtues in the area of science; (iii) Prof. Mr. Zhigang Suo’s own sense of better values that has saved a few virulent attempts to induce a more powerful streak of communalism to develop at iMechanica (read the honesty of his thoughts as expressed on issues like book burning, his experience of living under the more direct form of the Chinese communist dictatorship, etc.), plus, probably, his earlier Engg. Dean Venky’s sense of values too; (iv) The fact that the intended victim happened to be Ajit R. Jadhav. I won’t comment more on this, but enough to state that when the reason I got attracted to Ayn Rand was not The Fountainhead The Objectivist Epistemology, which I first read when I was still in my teens. Yes, today even I find it amazing that I had understood almost 70% of that book right on the first few readings, and certainly within the first year; 70% was all that I had read in the first year. BTW, coming from a Marathi medium school, I was so less exposed to the English writers and Western names that at least for the first month I did not at all know that Ayn was a woman’s name. If Ian (of Ian Fleming) was a man, Ayn must be so, it must be a different spelling—that’s what I had actually guessed. (I still remember how awestruck my friend had become once he heard my explanation. He later said that he had fallen silent not because I mistook the name but because I was raising questions that he had not thought of… Oh yes, did I tell you that I had *not* become an Objectivist for a full one year or so—the time when I was still evaluating it? Again, it’s a remarkably unlike any other Objectivist I have known of….)

Anyway, I have had enough of a post here…

More on the nature of the pains, how they are distinguishable from the other pains of more mundane nature, how they can nevertheless lead to real physical after-effects (to what extent, with what seriousness, and how do I determine such things), etc., some other time…

For the time being, I know that the psychic attacks originate in the USA. Even if the controllers could be some organization sympathetic to Talibanis. Or not. I don’t know it. But I know that USA’s official foreign policy has a direct bearing on the psychic attacks. I have distilled this last statement using Mill’s method of inductive generalization.
And, I mean it.

This is neither a mystery novel, nor a sci-fi fiction, nor an attempt at cheap publicity—which I, with my scientific engineering achievements, certainly don’t need—nor a political ploy against USA who, anyway, have repeatedly failed to appreciate me whether in giving me a green card or earlier giving me a PhD… None of that sort. It’s an objective fact.

(And yes, if anyone—Objectivists included—cannot handle it, go to hell: the pain is real when it happens.)

I will also mention the positives: The only places/times that I have found relief from pain (notably, in temples, and with some men of authentic goodwill having an unknown psychic “power” with them); how I have never been able to find anything that *always* works against these psychic attacks (e.g. how even visiting temples don’t always give me the needed relief in full—in other words, why the American psychic attackers must be more powerful than the powers left at the temples, and how all BJP and other religious idiots are plain wrong about it); how (and why) I do not associate religion with any of it… (This last is easy so let me state it right away: Religion, as such, is a theory, and, cognitively and morally, a very poor sort of theory at that, even an evil sort of theory. In any case, it is too poor a theory to approach any unknown—including your own “peace” or pain, your own life or death. This does not mean that saintly men—who themselves often take a very noble view of religion—cannot offer something of value to you… As I have said, I have not only often found my ongoing pain disappear, but, over a period of years, I have even learnt to “detect” a different kind of peace with different saintly individuals/places. Yes, it’s true. That “peace” too, is very individualistic a thing… Ayn Rand’s individualism works right in the realm of spirituality too, and why not? (This last, to those Objectivists who still are shell shocked).)

I will write, but don’t force anything on me… I honestly find science and engineering more interesting… (Or, rather, more interesting more number of times anyway).

I thought I would write about my unemployment. But, everything is inter-related. Including the spiritual fraudulence of a Vijay Bhatkar or others (some of who I listed above (unfortunately, even I don’t remember all of them all of the times)), and of Pune Brahmins (including the by-birth Marathas and low-castes working at Sakal and Indian Express and Times of India), and others’ lowliness to Americans’ exploitation of it to the better Americans’ losing fight against them… (I do not mean political fights—I mean at deeper levels, at *philosophic* levels)

Thanks for reading. And thanks to all my well-wishers over the years… It’s a frightening thought (esp. to me) but it’s entirely possible that I survived to tell the tales only because of the latter…

More, in a more systematic manner and with more details, later. (No, you don’t have to read my blogs.)

[This post, certainly, is to be streamlined/updated/clarified in a little bit greater detail later on. Originally published April 12, 2009, about 2:10 PM IST.]