Saturday, December 31, 2005

A Pleasant New Year's Eve

Got a job today. With the Server Technologies group at Oracle. The work is up my alley, distributed computing and online algorithms, Linux and Java. One worry less. Oracle. Vodka with tandoori murgh tonight. Happy New Year!

Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Atman, brahman and action

If ALL IS brahman, (not part of brahman, but brahman itself), then ultimately it doesn't matter whether mAyA is real or unreal, because either way, it is brahman (just like "I am" or "you are").

Remember that brahman already exists. it doesn't "come into being" upon the attainment of enlightenment. so in the absolute sense, it doesn't matter whether one attains enlightenment or not, because one already IS brahman. but it is worthy to note that enlightenment is NOT the attainment of brahmanhood, but is the realization of the fact of universal (and thus self), eternal brahmanhood. enlightenment, along with understanding, also gives the gut feeling which elludes us in our "current state".

In the real sense, all these actions mean nothing. asking why we are deluded in the first place is asking for a cause (which is mAyA since causality itself is mAyA) of mAyA within mAyA. mAyA doesn't "cease to exist" upon enlightenment. if such was the case we would all have been enlightened the moment the first being became enlightened. mAyA remains as it is even for the enlightened one. it is just that now the mukta knows and feels oneness that is brahman and mAyA and him/her.

Seeking enlightenment is an action which is pure mAyA. but it is considered the highest action (comparatives can only be used within mAyA) because it leads to a complete understanding (and experiencing) of the ultimate Truth, the nonduality of Atman and brahman.

Monday, December 19, 2005

Access 2k5, Modern School

I usually take care of the programming events at Modern School's (my alma mater) ACCESS, the computer symposium. The event was held in November. about 45 schools from Delhi participated. I always feel nice going back to Access. Organizing it when I was in school gave me the confidence I have.This year's event saw some quality participation. Due to a minor goof-up, the junior level questions were harder than those for the senior level. But no harm done, in the end the best programmers won. Visit the school website


Yet more Wows for Google. It is amazing to see the kind of innovation they are into. Just installed their bloggers' comments plugin for firefox. This is what I call context building! This is evolution happening right under our noses. Google gives me wet dreams.

If you like this blog, do visit my web at and link to it ;)

Sunday, December 18, 2005

Publishing Via E-mail

Blogger has this cool feature that lets you publish content to your blog by sending an e-mail to a specific address. This post is to test that.

Today I also installed MagpieRSS on my website, it fetches and shows this blog on my website.

Rain Rain Go Away

Chennai is going crazy. It's been raining continuously for three days again now. Close to 40 people died in a stampede at a flood relief camp in the city. I tried writing my first OS yesterday. Made my computer do some really weird stuff. Hopefully today I'll get "HelloWorld OS" right.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Objectivism on Charity

In objectivism there is no place for charity, but there is a place for Symbiosis. There is no obligation to help, but one can (and usually would) help if it is an investment. Such is the society that Galt and his worthy contemporaries create in Atlas Shrugged. There is the supremeness of the Self, but it is supported by a firm fairness.

Charity is an opium that benifits only those suffering from the painful guilt of mooching, cheating. It does not help anyone in the medium or long runs for sure.

A practising objectivist has no guilt to wash, and thus does not need to give charity. An objectivist will live by his sweat or die in "honor".

Although it may not be the street dwellers' fault to be living on the streets, their existence does not obligate the better-to-do to give them charity. the key word is obligation.

An objectivist might try this much (if he/she sees potential): ask the begger/demander of charity if he wants work (people can usually always find something worthwile for someone to do for them) The reaction to this offer is a clear indicator of the worthiness of a person to survive as a human being on earth.

There is also recognition for biological limitations. If a being has the potential to excel in ANYTHING, an objectivist would have the keen eye to see this potential, and there is always a place for excellence.

A man without limbs can use his brains. A man without a healthy brain would fall at the fringes of Rand's philosophy. But I do not believe this example breaks her no-charity postulate. Such a "mentally special" person can (with "help" from his kin) contribute to the development of neural/cognitive sciences.

Every entity has a positive purpose from which it derives the right to exist. This purpose is determined by a combination of physical and attitudinal factors. begging ofcourse, is not a positive "purpose", as it is parasitic in nature, not symbiotic.

Would an objectivist give a morsel to save someone's life? the answer depends on the objectivist's perspective of the receiver of this gift: will the receiver, having taken my gift, exist on as a worthy contributor to me and himself? becoming self sufficient AND rewarding me for my "kindness"? if so, then my giving is not charity at all, it is investment.

If not, even if I do give charity, it is going to be useless, a waste of my resources, and the gain of no one. A purposeless being can acquire purpose by being converted to ashes/soil. then it provides the nutrients for plants, supporting the food cycle.

the Unknowable Self

I look up and discover my seeming insignificance. I look up long enough and the doubt creeps back in. The mind is the ultimate sponge. its capacity to absorb and enlarge is tremendous. I am limited only by my inability to grasp my own limits.