Happiness revisited
A. The happiness level during the course of every human life integrates to a constant.
B. The Happiness curve of each individual is a complicated function of past deeds (Karma) AND the overall happiness curve of a soul (we're talking transmigration of souls here) across all the diferent bodies it assumes integrates to a constant.
C. The happiess curve is a meaningless concept. It is indeterminate and nothing can be said about the behaviour of the curve or any of its properties.
--
A would immediately imply that a person with a shorter life had massive happiness peaks, and this in turn, coupled with the fact that so many child deaths happen around the world would imply that babies must be most ecstatic when they set foot into the world.. instead they cry. Hence prooved false by contradiction. (Which reminds me to ask, how come crying is a natural preliminary response and not laughter ? Is that what we pass on thru our genetic material ?)
C is for fatalist loosers.
B sounds more attractive to me right now.
B. The Happiness curve of each individual is a complicated function of past deeds (Karma) AND the overall happiness curve of a soul (we're talking transmigration of souls here) across all the diferent bodies it assumes integrates to a constant.
C. The happiess curve is a meaningless concept. It is indeterminate and nothing can be said about the behaviour of the curve or any of its properties.
--
A would immediately imply that a person with a shorter life had massive happiness peaks, and this in turn, coupled with the fact that so many child deaths happen around the world would imply that babies must be most ecstatic when they set foot into the world.. instead they cry. Hence prooved false by contradiction. (Which reminds me to ask, how come crying is a natural preliminary response and not laughter ? Is that what we pass on thru our genetic material ?)
C is for fatalist loosers.
B sounds more attractive to me right now.
6 Comments:
What is this nonsense math modeling? First you define "happiness". If you ever get past that, then you define how you quantify it and what your curve plots. Then you read the Gita (2.12) to find out that our souls are eternal (Nitya) beings, having always existed and will continue to exist for ever. Then think about what kind of curves integrate to a constant over the entire set of reals.
And then reflect upon the magnitude of these questions, and the futility of trying to answer them in short blog posts :-). But it makes good timepass and I urge you onward :-).
C in other words
Well somewhat, but it's not "fatalist". It's just an admission of our *finite* capacity to comprehend.
That is not to say that happiness is a meaningless concept or any such thing. Far from it! All I'm saying is that there is probably TOO much meaning in there for our little minds to completely grasp.
I have often come across contradictory streams of thought within the Hindu system of living. This may partly be because of the fact that there WERE indeed opposing schools of interpretation (dvait & advait ?) and its what gives it a label of being confusing and 'too difficult to understand'. Which is a bad thing.
One such seemingly contradictory thought stream is this: (1) Our feeble brains are just incapable of grasping the 'truth' or the true nature of things (2) things like 'Aham Brahmasmi' - I am Brahma, I am part of the ultimate god, I can reach the ultimate godhead, etc.
And to me it seems a little absurd that we should tell ourselves that our minds are totally incapable of 'grasping the truth'
In the Gita, Krishna says that we are all FRAGMENTED PARTS(Amsha) of Him. Identical in quality, but vastly different in 'quantity' or magnitude.....the difference between infinitesimality and Infinitude! That difference must be understood. We might be able to make the journey back to Godhead, but that does not mean that we are capable of developing an Absolute perspective on the universe. Even our spiritual progress is entirely dependent on Grace - as it is not possible for our infinitesimal beings to cross over the finite (but infinite from our perspective!) separation from Godhead on our own strength.
Anyway, regarding the inability to grasp certain concepts, that is present in many systems of logic - including mathematics. Notions like "Infinity" are purely intuitive. And yet we accept them. In the same way, there are certain postulates - axioms, if you will - that underlie the philosophy in the scriptures. Here I'll copy an excerpt from something I read:
"Therefore, while we can mathematically formulate a cogent theory, that theory MUST have the word "achintya" (inconceivable) in its founding axiom! Hence "achintya bheda-abheda tattva" of Sri Chaitanya. One singular paradox, and no more. Any theory of God that does not have this cannot be describing Godhead, by definition. Other theories (like the mayavadis) certainly have their own sets of "paradoxes", but these are a multiplicity of silly contradictions. Every contradiction canot be dignified by calling it a "singularity" or a "divine paradox". Economy of assumptions is a point of reference in Logic (Occam's Razor)."
Btw, 'Aham Brahmasmi' translates to "I am Brahman"....not the same as the Lord Brahma.
The subject is fascinating, and it is beyond me to comment on these issues....so instead of relying on dubious sources like me, read read read for yourself!
Babies cry because they have not yet learnt any other means of communication. Crying seems to be the most basic means of letting someone know you are around. Children do it when they seek attention for something.
Later in life, we can use it to release ourselves, to return to innocence.
Happiness has nothing to do with past or present. It is to do with doing and being, and is possible anywhere, anytime.
Post a Comment
<< Home