Nature

15/9/2014
NATURAL
We use the word ‘natural’ by rote possibly correctly, but what it means is tricky to explain. The immediate meaning, ‘of or like nature’ is acceptable, but not explicit.
Often we have in mind that which is creation of man as opposed to nature. Artificial (made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally), contrasts with natural.
Man is a product of nature, steering clear of theology. But, the distinction that creation of man is not the work of nature stems from the idea that the world is creation of a Supermind. Otherwise, man being a part of nature, what he does is secondarily, at least, part of nature too. But, we are used to the prevalent idea that man-made things are artificial.
Sankara calls the state where (human) effort is involved as transient and the one where no effort is exerted as real. In Samskritam, prakriti denotes nature and samskriti denotes culture, human intervention. Culture and civilization, all knowledge including scriptures, are products of human mind. How far are they natural?
‘Natural is the best’ is a view that seems to be gaining momentum, nature cure, for instance. Nature is a huge laboratory where everything seems to settle by trial and error. It has no purpose that humans can discern. Nature is neither kind nor cruel to man. It does not care. The same nature produces delicious stuff that feeds man to be alive as produces poisons like hemlock with which Socrates was condemned to die. The same nature that brings on a zephyr to soothe the body unleashes a storm that destroys life. Nature is not benevolent or malevolent. It is human perception that describes it one way or the other. So, nature is not the best or the worst for human beings. It is just the setting that permits human life as a part of a whole rather than as the servant of man.
Let us take a controversial topic. Is homosexuality natural or not? There are people to whom it is natural! Why was it taboo? Nature likes reproduction and propagation, alongside destruction and renewal. Sex is the instinct that nature developed to aid its purpose. Only heterosexuality can ensure reproduction. Therefore, homosexuality does not appear to be ‘natural’. But, this presentation is human, based on reasoning, whereas the urge for homosexuality has occurred of its own. The very discussion herein may not be natural if human interpretation were not in the scheme of nature.
Would man have been better off living on instinct alone like animals? That may be a useless question to answer. The choice to live by instinct alone is gone. Instinct still acts strongly, but it is far from being trustworthy in the humanly organized world. We have to act by the norms of society and balance often instinct and intervention. For example, should we leave an illness to be sorted out on its own, or get medical help? The choice was not there for the early man. The modern man has to choose.
Nature is vast, its working complex, and my intellect and understanding limited. Naturally, I am unable to arrive at a denouement.

8/8/2016

All the time we try to arrive at some generalisation, a code of behaviour and a pattern of expectation that can be applied as a formula. That perhaps is the basis of human organisation, not necessarily preference of nature. Nature synthesises in interesting permutations and combinations and seems to avoid tedium in so doing. Look at how different we are from one another, with our look, voice, taste, and so on.

Life cannot be led without attention to the nagging differences in details. This truth is conveyed in the saying: ‘You cannot cross a river based on the average depth’.We need to develop knowledge necessary for the purpose on hand.

It is also a healthy habit not to see others from a standard model that has no sanctity.

 June 09, 2016

Reason

Nature does not follow reason. It chooses convenience. Human beings are part of nature and behave like nature does. The only difference is that they invent reason for what they do.

Dec 8, 2018
Nature is ever virgin no matter you molest her.
Nature endures even if you injure her.
Our nature is in Nature and our put-ons will wear away. 
There is only one god and it is nature. The Hindus have given the colour of blue and green to Krishna and Rama. That to me is to show that god is in nature and not in some heaven.

Nature cares for us as we are its child. Nature directs us to variety to sustain our interest and continue life. What disappears appears in another form and what appears feels the need to transform. Each atom of nature throbs with life.

Nature allows its children circumscribed liberty and shows no partiality.

Nature teaches us through curiosity, fear and uncertainty.

Nature is a miracle. It changes and yet changes not. It has shifting horizon and hidden secrets. It reveals its secrets but not all and in no particular hurry. It reveals only to make it still more mysterious.

Nature is a whole pretending to be in parts. No part is apart from it. Nature never lets anything go outside it.

Nature is all that is there and in nature anything and everything is complete.

Nature seems to circumvent obstacles. It does not care for normative rules, grammar or structure. Order in nature is what facilitates existence, not what adds to ornamentation. Art is not part of nature. The world of art is man-made and is for human enjoyment. You won’t see any other species appreciate it. Music is slightly different.

Nature presents gradation. Casteism sprang from gradation. Evolution is as great an illusion as any. It is an interpretation and deduction from gradation.

Astrology

Astrology is not a science, but we do not follow science in life. If someone believes in it, what objection can others have?

As for me, astrology cannot be a guide to life.

Let me present my case in another way.

It is not necessary that something must be a science to be true and valid. I believe in Soul/Brahman and it is not born of science. One may have conviction about astrology from his own point of view. I lack it. But, the conviction has nothing to do with astrology being a science.

Escalating the discussion, probably, there is some correlation between the planetary conjunctions at the time of conception, a definitive moment that fixes the identity of an individual, not the time of delivery. Scientifically, a large part of an individual’s make-up (colour, predispositions, etc.) are determined at conception. Delivery is not as significant an event except that it takes place normally about 270 days since conception. Where C-section is done, it becomes arbitrary. A relative of mine fixed the C-section on a star of his choice. Even, going by conception, the characteristics of twins differ and their fortunes. That has not been satisfactorily accounted for. I am mentioning this to bring out the point that I have been thinking of it. I tried a bit to understand astrology from the traditional point of view amateurishly. I did not persevere.

It is simply that I do not regard astrology relevant to life – and I have, if anything, right to my life only. Others will decide for themselves.

On the basic point, that astrology is not a science. I would like to hear counter-arguments how it is a science. Anecdotes are not an argument. Comparison with meteorology is ill-conceived. Metereology has explanation for the prediction. Failure of a prediction does not make it unscientific. Such a correlation is unavailable for astrology.

Astrology
In a discourse on Harischandra, Rajaji was present. The Pauranika praised him and said, 'His horoscope indicated that he would become a great person.' He invited Rajaji to speak a few words. Rajaji said, 'What the Pauranika said about my horoscope is against the grain of the story. When I was to be admitted in school, my parents did not know my exact date of birth. The question of my horoscope or any prediction based on it does not arise.'
Rajaji was against astrology as useless any which way you look at it.
The acid test is whether there is a reasonable basis for astrology to be taken seriously and there is none. We may believe and follow our belief. That is our privilege. That cannot add to or detract from truth.
Astrology to be science must meet two criteria. One is that it should be possible to form a theory from fundamentals that will hold good reasonably. Why Rahu, Ketu etc. are malefic? How does a distant planet exert influence on an individual? No plausible answers are there for this and many other basic issues. (General justification like moon's influence in mind etc. has been overdone). Second is there should be replicability. Not only should the observations uphold the conclusions arrived at, but similar conditions should produce like results. It fails on this count also. The one common dig at astrology is about the divergent fortunes of two born at the same time. (Lack of accuracy is an issue in science also particularly in micro world. That does not hold water for astrology's poor performance). The only factor in its favour is that a number of observations as per the chart are borne out in actual life. But, that does not make it a science any more than a positive correlation between two unrelated variables make them related. It is interesting, just as mythology is. No harm if it is not a science. It should never come into reckoning in the affairs of the state or science by some popular demand.

Mala Chandrashekhar Do you believe that ebbs & tides are caused by the positions of Sun & Moon? Is this fact Scientific or Unscientific in your view? Do you believe that mothers on family way, if exposed to the rays of Sun & Moon at the time of Solar & Lunar Eclipse, have invariably deformed children born to them? My husband Shekhar, who is a medical man and a man of very scientific thinking, says that most operating surgeons in hospitals always avoid the day of POURNAMI ( Full Moon Day ) for surgeries as there is tremendous bleeding on these days and all sorts of complications arise. They perhaps want to be on the safer side and don't want to risk their professional reputation.

Kv Chellappa No. 1 is explainable by gravitation. No. 2 is a myth. Even if true, it may be due to some radiation, it has nothing to do with extra-scientific factors. About operation on Pournami, I do not know. Several doctors in India believe in astrology and have superstitions (I too have loads of them). Someone should put up cogent arguments why astrology is a science. If there is some material somewhere, tell me. I will read and change my opinion (not that it matters to anyone or astrology) if there is convincing argument.  

Astrology and me

My horoscope was cast in the village by an amateur astrologer (an absentee landlord who was working in Madras and was on a visit during harvest). He did a few hours of strenuous calculation (no calculators in the fifties) and finished the chart and handed over to my father with a fair comment that it was an average horoscope. I came to know later only that he has placed Sani in the eighth house in the horoscope. (In the actual world we had only one old village house). It was not clear how we offended him.
I was used to hearing people use ashtama sani in scolding also. So, that kept me in mental knots.
In Bombay, Raghurajan, a close friend from Madurai days, whom I consulted, said, ‘You won’t die even if you are thrown in the sea with a crowbar tied to you’. Luckily no one did it. He however took pity on me, took the details of my birth, time and place, went to Asiatic (a store opposite Churchgate station) and got a new horoscope. He was so powerful he could shift Sani from the eighth to the seventh house. I felt triumphant.
But, it was short-lived. The next quack of an astrologer was not really pleased with Sani in the seventh house and predicted dire things. He was not a friend and was not well disposed to me and refused to shift Sani further. I changed houses many times since, but Sani has not. How cruel!
Horscopes and astrology are good fun like watching movies or comics.
My views are shaped in a way by Rajaji. Rajaji was dead against astrology.
In one upanyasam on Harischandra, Anantarama Dikshitar sighted Rajaji and praised him saying, ‘Rajaji’s horoscope is divine. A great life was predicted for him on seeing the horoscope.’ Little knowing what he was in for, he invited Rajaji to speak a few words. Rajaji said, ‘Dikshitar said about my horoscope. His father-in-law is a famous astrologer. So he goes gaga over astrology. But what he said about my horoscope runs counter to the spirit of the story he is discoursing on. Even my exact date of birth is not known so much so that when I had to be put in school they had to scratch their heads.’